Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 37

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI United States of America,

i
i
i
JI '-ii- N'j."',, ';,_;:i~/'.J

Plaintiff, v.

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge)

Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge )

Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State )

of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of )

Human Services; and Mississippi Division of )

Youth Services

)

Civil No. 4: I~ ~v /It;t{ H-rw-

COMPLAINT

LfJ)

Defendants.

1

--------------------------------)

INTRODUCTION

1. Collectively, Defendants engage in a pattern or practice of unlawful conduct

through which they routinely and systematically arrest and incarcerate children, including for

minor school rule infractions, without even the most basic procedural safeguards, and in

violation of these children's constitutional rights.

2. Defendant City of Meridian violates children's rights through the Meridian

Police Department. Defendant County of Lauderdale, Mississippi violates children's rights

through the Lauderdale County Youth Court, and Defendant Youth Court Judges Frank

Coleman and Veldore Young violate children's rights in their official capacities as Lauderdale

County Youth Court Judges. Defendant State of Mississippi violates children's rights through

the Department of Human Services, and its sub-agency, Division of Youth Services.

3. Defendants do not afford children in the juvenile justice system even the

minimum procedural safeguards required by the Constitution. As a result, (1) the City of

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 37
Meridian engages in a pattern or practice of arresting children in school without probable cause; (2) Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges engage in a pattern or practice of authorizing the repeated incarceration of children without essentials of fairness and due process such as a timely hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to detain them, and meaningful representation by an attorney; (3) the Mississippi Division of Youth Services, Lauderdale County, and the Youth Court Judges engage in a pattern or practice of placing children on probation and incarcerating children for alleged probation violations without affording children constitutionally required protections such as reasonable opportunities to understand their probation requirements or hearings to challenge alleged probation violations that could result in incarceration; and (4) Defendants collectively engage in a pattern or practice of imposing disproportionate and severe consequences, including incarceration, for technical probation violations such as school suspensions, without any due process whatsoever.
4. Defendants' concerted actions punish children in Meridian, Mississippi so arbitrarily and severely as to shock the conscience, and deprive these children of liberty and educational opportunities on an ongoing basis.
5. The repercussions of the constitutional violations perpetrated by Defendants are severe and far-reaching. Children are regularly and repeatedly handcuffed and arrested in school and incarcerated for days at a time without a probable cause hearing, regardless of the severity-or lack thereof-ofthe alleged offense or probation violation.
6. Research suggests that arrest, detention, and juvenile court appearances have profound negative short-term and long-term consequences for children's mental and physical health, educational success, and future employment opportunities. One study of national data
2

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 37
suggests that arrest doubles the probability of dropout. Even one court appearance during high school increases a child's likelihood of dropping out of school, and court appearances are especially detrimental to children with no or minimal previous history of delinquency. Detention disrupts children's engagement with families, school, and work, and may slow or interrupt the natural process of "aging out" of delinquency. Moreover, children detained pending adjudication are more likely to be committed to a juvenile facility than children who are not detained, regardless of the charges against them. Research links incarceration of juveniles to significantly higher school dropout rates, which translate to higher unemployment, poorer health, shorter lifespan, lower earnings, and increased future contacts with the criminal justice system.
7. In addition to harming children, Defendants' pattern or practice of prolonged and procedurally flawed incarceration of children pending adjudication or as a result of alleged probation violations is not justified by public safety considerations.
8. The effects ofthe constitutional violations effectuated by Defendants in the administration ofjuvenile justice are particularly grievous and pronounced for black children and children with disabilities in the Meridian Public School District.
9. The Department of Justice ("DOJ") notified the City of Meridian and the Lauderdale County Youth Court of its investigation into these practices on December 1, 2011. On June 29,2012, DOJ notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of this investigation to include the Division of Youth Services, in relation to the administration ofjuvenile justice in Lauderdale County.
10. Defendants have denied DOJ access to youth records from the Meridian Police Department, the Lauderdale County Youth Court, and the Mississippi Division of Youth
3

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 37
Services throughout DOJ's investigation, as well as denied DOJ access to observe youth court proceedings and interview youth court and juvenile detention center personnel.
11. On August 10, 2012, DOJ notified all Defendants of its investigatory findings via phone calls to Defendants' attorneys and a letter describing the findings. In this letter, DOJ provided notice of its findings that Defendants are violating the constitutional rights of children in Meridian and Lauderdale County as alleged herein, and notified Defendants that the United States would file a federal lawsuit against Defendants within 60 days, unless Defendants engaged in meaningful negotiations in that time to resolve the alleged violations.
12. Defendants did not offer any indication that they would be willing, either collectively or individually, to engage in meaningful negotiations to resolve the alleged violations. Rather, City and County Defendants issued a letter dated August 23,2012, in which Defendants denied all allegations. State Defendants communicated via a letter dated September 11, 2012 that the Division of Youth Services has made unspecified changes in its general probation policies, but these changes do not appear to resolve the violations in Lauderdale County.
13. DOJ responded to both the City and County's letter and the State's letter with letters reiterating DOJ's findings of constitutional violations and again requesting that Defendants engage in negotiations with DOJ to resolve the violations.
14. In a letter received by DOJ on September 24,2012, City Defendants asserted that they recently changed their policies regarding how police officers respond to District requests
4

---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 5 of 37
for police assistance, and that DOJ's violation findings against the City are therefore moot. 1 In a letter received by DOJ on September 24,2012, County Defendants continued to deny all allegations.
15. Although, subsequent to DOl's opening of its investigation and issuance of findings, City and State Defendants appear to have directed suspension of some of the police and probation practices described herein, these changes do not meaningfully or fully remedy the constitutional violations described herein, nor do the changes appear permanent. Most of the purported changes are very recent, occurring only within the 60-day period following the findings letter in which DOJ said Defendants must engage in meaningful negotiations to remedy violations or face federal court litigation.
16. Defendants continue to deny DOJ access to information necessary to assess the implementation, extent, and impact of any purported changes. The City and County Defendants have repeatedly indicated that DOJ should seek federal court assistance in obtaining youth records.
17. Federal court intervention is warranted because Defendants have engaged and continue to engage in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of children under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and because court intervention is necessary to ensure that unlawful conduct does not recur.
1 The letter received September 24,2012 reports that this policy changed was made on August 23, 2012, but City Defendant's prior correspondence to DOJ dated August 23,2012 made no mention of this change in policy.
5

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 6 of 37

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 18. The United States brings this action against Defendants pursuant to the Violent

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141, which authorizes the

Attorney General to initiate a civil action for appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to

eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or

employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration ofjuvenile

justice or the incarceration ofjuveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or

immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

19. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1345.

20. Venue in the Southern District of Mississippi is proper under 28 U.S.C. §

1391(b) because Defendants are located in this District and the events, actions, or omissions

giving rise to the claims herein occurred in the Southern District of Mississippi.

DEFENDANTS

21.

Defendant City of Meridian ("City" or "Meridian") is a municipality within the

State of Mississippi. The City, through its Mayor, is responsible for supervising the Meridian

Police Department ("MPD"). The Meridian Municipal Code states that "[t]he chief of police

shall, under the general direction and control of the mayor, be the head of the city's police

department including all divisions of such department." Sec. 18-2 (General Duties of Chief;

Supervision by Mayor).

22.

Defendant County of Lauderdale ("County" or "Lauderdale") is a county within

the State of Mississippi that encompasses Meridian, Mississippi. The County operates and

administers the Lauderdale County Juvenile Center ("Juvenile Center") and the Lauderdale

6

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 7 of 37

County Youth Court ("Youth Court"), which have jurisdiction over juveniles in Lauderdale

County, including Meridian.

23.

Defendant Judge Frank Coleman is the senior presiding judge of the Lauderdale

County Youth Court. In his capacity as senior judge, Judge Coleman is also responsible for

overseeing administration of the Youth Court. Judge Coleman is named as a defendant in his

official capacity.

24.

Defendant Judge Veldore Young is a presiding judge of the Lauderdale County

Youth Court. Judge Young is responsible for assisting in the administration of the Youth

Court. Judge Young is named as a defendant in her official capacity.

25.

Defendant State of Mississippi is responsible for the administration ofjuvenile

justice by state agencies, including the Department of Human Services, and its sub-agency,

the Division of Youth Services.

26.

Defendant Mississippi Department of Human Services ("DHS") is a government

agency of the State of Mississippi. DHS has oversight of the Division of Youth Services,

which administers juvenile probation services.

27.

Defendant Mississippi Division of Youth Services ("DYS") is a division ofDHS

and administers probation and aftercare services and institutional programs for juveniles who

have been adjudged delinquent in Mississippi Youth Courts or are at risk of becoming

delinquent. DYS establishes policies and procedures for probation programs statewide, and

employs and supervises the youth probation officers (''youth counselors") who work in the

Lauderdale County juvenile justice system.

7

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 8 of 37

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Background Regarding Population Affected by Practices of Defendants

28.

Approximately 6,069 students are enrolled in the twelve schools in the Meridian

Public School District ("District"), including six elementary schools, three junior high and

middle schools, one high school, one vocational center, and one alternative school, which the

District's Student Handbook describes as a school "for students in grade K-12 who have

exhibited behavior problems in the regular education setting ."

29.

While Meridian's overall population is approximately 62% black, 36% white,

2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian, the District has a student enrollment that is approximately 86%

black, 12% white, 1% Hispanic, and 1% Asian.

30.

Eighty-three percent of District students receive free and reduced lunch,

compared to 71 % of all public school students in Mississippi.

31.

Approximately 13%, or 814, of District students have been identified as eligible

for an Individualized Education Program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education

Act ("IDEA"). The IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"), and the

Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") all entitle school-aged children with disabilities to a

free appropriate public education. Both Section 504 and the ADA protect individuals with

disabilities, including children, from disability-based discrimination.

32.

During the 2006-2007,2007-2008,2008-2009, and first semester of the 2009-

2010 school years, all of the students referred to law enforcement by the District were black,

all of the students expelled were black, and 96 percent of the students suspended were black.

8

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 9 of 37

33.

During the first semester of the 2011-2012 school year, eleven of twelve students

expelled by the District were black, and approximately 97 percent of the students given out of

school suspensions were black.

34.

The District's rate of expulsions and out of school suspensions longer than ten

days is almost seven times the rate for Mississippi generally.

35.

The District's rate of expulsions and out of school suspensions for students with

individualized education programs is also approximately seven times higher than the rate for

Mississippi schools generally.

Defendants in this Case Collectively Help to Operate a School-to-Prison Pipeline

36.

Defendants in this case collectively help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline

whereby, following referral of students by the District, MPD, the Youth Court2, and probation

services (DYS), arrest, adjudicate, and incarcerate children for school infractions without

exercising appropriate discretion and without regard for their obligations under the United

States Constitution.

37.

MPD automatically arrests all students referred to MPD by the District, which

employs a system of severe and arbitrary discipline that disproportionately impacts black

children and children with disabilities.

38.

The children arrested by MPD are then sent to the County juvenile justice

system, where existing due process protections are illusory and inadequate. The Youth Court

2 Defendant Lauderdale County and Defendant Youth Court Judges Coleman and Young violate children's constitutional rights through their roles in administering juvenile justice through the Youth Court. Throughout this Complaint, references to actions, policies, and practices of the Youth Court should be understood to include actions, policies, and practices of the County and the Youth Court Judges.

9

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 10 of 37

places children on probation, and the terms of the probation set by the Youth Court and DYS

require children once on probation to serve any suspensions from school incarcerated in the

juvenile detention center.

39.

Once Defendants-collectively, the administrators of the juvenile justice

system-place a child from the District in this cycle, he or she is repeatedly subjected to

unconstitutional government action and potential incarceration without procedural safeguards.

40.

The Youth Court Judges, who are responsible for ensuring that children are

treated in accord with constitutional and legal guarantees of fairness and neutrality,

acknowledge this cycle, including the over-referral of children from the District to the

Lauderdale County juvenile justice system, but aver that their "hands are tied" and they are

powerless to change the system.

41.

The extreme interconnectedness of Defendants' actions operates to blur the lines

between school infraction and criminal offense; accusation and adjudication; and minor

punishment and secure detention, so completely as to vitiate the protections of due process.

Defendants' Actions Cause Serious Harm to Children in the Juvenile Justice System

42.

Defendants' actions, as alleged herein, have severe and long-lasting

consequences for children in the juvenile justice system. For example, some children are

ultimately incarcerated in the State juvenile prison as a result of accumulating juvenile records

that include repeated probation violations for suspensions from school.

43.

Many children who go through the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system

and are incarcerated for even short periods of time are forced to return repeatedly to the

District alternative school because they are suspended and incarcerated so often that they

10

--- - - - - - - - - - - -
Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 11 of 37

cannot complete the number of days of instruction the alternative school requires in order to

return to their home schools.

44.

The educational opportunities available at the alternative school are not equal to

those provided at the regular schools, and the disciplinary consequences at the alternative

school are harsher.

45.

Children do not receive adequate educational opportunities when they are

incarcerated in the juvenile detention center. As a result, they are likely to fall further behind

in school, which, in tum, can exacerbate any preexisting behavioral difficulties.

46.

Defendants have continued their actions despite continuing complaints from

community members, advocates, and parents calling Defendants' attention to the severe and

harmful effects of their policies and practices.

The Nature of Referrals to the Meridian Police Department by the District

47.

MPD is the law enforcement agency that receives and responds to referrals of

students from the District.

48.

The referrals have included a range of alleged behaviors, from offenses typically

understood to be "criminal," including possession of drugs or weapons, to conduct that would

traditionally be considered to constitute only a school disciplinary infraction, including

disrespect, refusal to follow the directions of a teacher, and profanity.

49.

According to the District code of conduct, disciplinary consequences are more

severe for students enrolled in the Marion Park alternative school, which is the school many

of the children involved in the juvenile justice system attend for at least some period of time.

50.

In recent years, the District adopted increasingly strict disciplinary policies

and/or practices, including, in or around March 2010, issuing a directive that required school

11

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 12 of 37

personnel at the middle and high schools to notify law enforcement when students in sixth

through twelfth grade were involved in a fight, regardless of whether a student was alleged to

be the aggressor or victim.

51.

The City has asserted that, as of August 23,2012, MPD responds to referrals of

students from the District for "incidents related to the commission of a felony, physical

violence, weapons or illegal drugs, or based upon an order from a Youth Court Judge or Judge

of a Court of other competent jurisdiction." MPD' s contemporaneous instructions to its

officers included "fights" in the types of incidents to which officers should respond.

52.

Since the start of the 2012-2013 school year, at least one District student has

been arrested for behavior at school amounting to "defiance" or "disrespect."

53.

It is the policy and/or practice of the District to suspend students for behavior

including dress code violations, profanity, "talking back" or disrespect to teachers, and

"disrupting" the classroom. In Lauderdale County, any suspension from school is a violation

of probation for students who are on probation through the Youth Court and DYS. The

probation contract is considered a court order that authorizes MPD officers to arrest youth.

54.

At least through the 2011-2012 school year, the District routinely referred to

MPD or the Juvenile Center students who were suspended from school and who were known

or suspected by District personnel to be on probation.

55.

In or around December 2011, the District began the process of establishing an

internal "police department" for the District, referred to as the Meridian Public School District

Police Department ("District Police Department"). The District school board officially

established the District Police Department in or around March 2012.

12

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 13 of 37

56.

The District Police Department currently consists of four staff referred to as

"school resource officers," including a Chief and three officers.

57.

The District Police Department does not currently effectuate arrests and other

law enforcement activities typical of sworn law enforcement officers.

58.

As a result, Meridian and the District continue to utilize and depend upon the

services of MPD to effectuate arrests of District students referred to law enforcement.

The Meridian Police Department Automatically Arrests Students Referred By The Meridian

Public School District Without Assessing Probable Cause

59.

Referrals of District students to MPD generally occur in the following ways: (a)

The District makes a referral by contacting MPD directly concerning either a new charge or a

probation violation; (b) District personnel contact the Juvenile Center to inform them a child has been suspended and may have violated probation3; or (c) staff at the Juvenile Center

notify MPD that a child has violated his or her probation and needs to be picked up at a

school.

60.

After receiving a call for service to a District school, MPD then dispatches an

officer to the school to arrest the child.

61.

When the MPD officer arrives at school, the officer generally meets the student

in or near the principal's office. If the student has not already been sent to the principal's

office, the school security officer will usually escort the student to the MPD officer. The

3 The District Superintendent directed District personnel to suspend this practice on January 26, 2012. It is unclear whether this direction resulted in a change in practice.
13

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 14 of 37

school administrator or security officer then informs the MPD officer that the student should

be arrested.

62.

MPD's practice is to arrest all students referred by the District, regardless of

whether information is conveyed regarding the allegation, and the sufficiency of the

allegation. In fact, MPD's August 23,2012 revision of its policy explicitly acknowledges a

practice of officers signing affidavits for charges that officers did not observe, directing

officers to stop this procedure.

63.

MPD officers conduct all in-school arrests in the same manner, regardless of

whether the child is alleged to have violated probation by being suspended from school, or

whether the child is alleged to have committed a new offense.

64.

MPD officers do not exercise discretion in deciding whether to arrest a child

referred by District.

65.

Even when there is an allegation of a new offense, MPD officers do not perform

independent inquiries or investigations regarding the allegations against the child.

66.

There is no minimum threshold of information concerning alleged charges or

probation violations required by MPD officers in order to make an arrest of a child referred by

the District.

67.

When MPD officers arrest students for probation violations, District staff do not

routinely convey any information about the alleged infractions to the MPD officers.

Sometimes the MPD officers do not know the basis for the alleged probation violation.

68.

When MPD officers arrest a child in school, they handcuff the child, regardless

of age, place the child in the back of a police car, and transport the child either to MPD

headquarters or, in the case of a violation of probation, directly to the Juvenile Center.

14

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 15 of 37

69.

Through at least August 23,2012, after arresting a child on a new charge, MPD

transported the child to MPD headquarters from school and held the child at MPD

headquarters pending an initial decision by an intake officer at the Juvenile Center about

whether or not to incarcerate the child pending adjudication.

70.

MPD command staff and officers have characterized the role ofMPD in the

arrest and transport of District students as 'just a taxi service" between the District and the

Juvenile Center.

71.

DOJ interviewed MPD command staff, sworn officers, and other MPD personnel

in February 2012. Immediately following these interviews, DOJ attorneys provided an "exit

interview" to MPD command staff, in which DOJ stated its preliminary findings that MPD

officers do not appropriately assess probable cause when arresting students, in violation of the

Fourth Amendment.

72.

Despite the information provided in this exit meeting, MPD did not change any

policies or procedures concerning arrests of students until August 23, 2012, after receiving

DOJ's August 10, 2012 letter of findings and notice that DOJ would file litigation within 60

days unless MPD participated in meaningful negotiations to resolve the violations.

73.

MPD's August 23,2012 policy revision directed officers to stop transporting

juveniles from school grounds, unless the offense "happened in the view of the officer." It is

unclear how MPD officers will respond to referrals from the District for incidents such as

weapons or drugs charges without transporting students. MPD's contemporaneous direction

to its officers around the time of this policy was to continue to answer calls concerning drugs,

fights, weapons, and felonious incidents at the schools and "take appropriate actions," but not

15

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 16 of 37

to sign affidavits on juveniles or transport a juvenile from school grounds unless directed to

do so by a Youth Court Judge.

74.

MPD's August 23,2012 policy revision does not require or even refer to

probable cause in order to effectuate arrests of students.

The Initial Decision to Incarcerate a Child Pending Adjudication Is Made Without Regard to

Probable Cause and Without Adequate Procedural Protections

75.

An intake officer at the Juvenile Center makes the initial decision about whether

or not to incarcerate a child who has been arrested pending adjudication. In Lauderdale

County, intake officers also serve as designees of the Youth Court Judges.

76.

The intake officer makes the decision about whether or not to incarcerate the

child while the child is detained by MPD. If a child is to be incarcerated, the intake officer

issues a temporary custody order and transmits the order to MPD. MPD then transports the

child to the Juvenile Center.

77.

Mississippi law requires that a child shall not be held in custody for a period

exceeding twenty-four hours, and shall be released to his parent, guardian or custodian unless

the judge or his designee authorizes temporary custody. Temporary custody may be

authorized only if custody is "necessary" and there are no reasonable alternatives. Custody is

deemed "necessary" only "(i) When a child is endangered or any person would be endangered

by the child; or (ii) to insure the child's attendance in court at such time as required; or (iii)

when a parent, guardian or custodian is not available to provide for the care and supervision of

the child." (Miss. Code § 43-21-301(3)(b)).

78.

Although custody order forms used by the intake officers to authorize temporary

custody recite that the relevant Mississippi criteria have been met, on information and belief,

16

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 17 of 37

intake officers do not actually perform any meaningful analysis to determine whether these

criteria are indeed satisfied before removing the child from a guardian's custody and

incarcerating the child.

79.

When the intake officer orders temporary custody of a child, the intake officer

also orders that custody be transferred from the child's guardian to Lauderdale County. At the

time of this decision, no hearing is held and no defense attorney is made available by the

County to the child.

80.

On information and belief, in the process of ordering temporary detention, the

County takes no steps to advise a child of a right to request counselor the criteria used to

determine attorney appointment.

81.

The intake officer does not question the child, the arresting officer, the

complainant, or any witnesses when making a determination regarding incarceration.

82.

On information and belief, the intake officer does not make any determination as

to the sufficiency of the information or evidence underlying the alleged violation in issuing

the custody order.

83.

The custody order does not reflect any documented consideration of probable

cause by the intake officer.

84.

On information and belief, the intake officer does not make a probable cause

determination when issuing a custody order.

85.

The intake officer also decides, in the first instance, whether the charge will be

handled "informally" or "formally," as those terms are used in the Mississippi State Code and

Youth Court documents. When a charge is handled "informally," it is considered a diversion

process and a child may receive a range of "adjustments" from "advice and counseling" to an

17

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 18 of 37

"Informal Adjustment Contract," that can result in the child being on probation for a period of

90 to 120 days.

86.

On information and belief, these adjustments are imposed solely by the intake

officer without supervision or review by a Youth Court Judge and without making a defense

attorney available to the child.

87.

The Informal Adjustment Contract requires a child to waive the right to a formal

hearing, representation by legal counsel, and possible dispositional alternatives.

88.

When a child enters the Juvenile Center with a new charge that will be handled

"formally," the intake officer offers the child the opportunity to sign an "Intake Election"

form, through which the child "advises" the intake officer that the child intends "to make an

admission to the formal charges." The Intake Election form states that the child will consult

with an attorney on a later plea date. If the child then decides to change his or her plea and

request a trial, the form states that the case will be continued and reset on another day.

89.

At the time the child is presented with the "intake election" form by the intake

officer, Lauderdale County does not afford the child representation by an attorney.

90.

At the time the child is presented with the Intake Election form by the intake

officer, the child is not advised of his or her Miranda rights nor does the intake officer obtain

an informed waiver of those rights.

The County Does Not Provide Youth Court Proceedings That Satisfy the Due Process

Requirements of the Constitution

91.

The first opportunity Lauderdale County provides for review of a child's

incarceration is at a detention hearing in front of the Youth Court Judge.

18

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 19 of 37

92.

The Youth Court holds hearings for all juvenile proceedings on Tuesday and

Thursday mornings. The Youth Court may recently have added an additional Monday

morning hearing to its calendar.

93.

These proceedings include "detention hearings," which is the term used by

Lauderdale County to describe the first hearing available to a juvenile who is incarcerated

pending charges, as well as adjudication hearings, and disposition hearings.

94.

Detention hearings are held only on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and now

purportedly Mondays, regardless of when a child is first incarcerated. For example, if a child

is incarcerated on a charge on a Thursday afternoon, the child will not have a hearing in front

of a Youth Court judge until the next Monday or Tuesday, at the earliest. This means that the

child could spend at least four days incarcerated prior to a hearing.

95.

As a result of this practice, children who are incarcerated prior to adjudication in

the Lauderdale County system regularly wait more than 48 hours for a detention hearing, in

violation of federal Constitutional requirements.

96.

The Youth Court holds detention hearings for the purpose of determining

whether the criteria for pre-trial incarceration of a child under Mississippi state law are

satisfied.

97.

The detention hearings do not constitute probable cause hearings, during which a

judicial officer would determine whether probable cause exists to believe that a child has

committed an offense within the jurisdiction of the Youth Court.

98.

Lauderdale County does not consistently afford children representation by an

attorney in preparation for and during detention hearings.

19

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 20 of 37

99.

To the extent to which an attorney is appointed to represent a child at the

detention hearing, the child is not afforded a meaningful opportunity to consult with the

attorney prior to the hearing, nor does the attorney provide meaningful or effective

representation at the hearing.

100. Lauderdale County has held detention hearings without the presence of the child

and/or guardian of the child whose liberty is at stake.

101. Moreover, County staff at the Juvenile Center sometimes advise guardians who

call the Juvenile Center that they should not attend the hearing.

102. The Youth Court regularly holds adjudication and disposition hearings for

juveniles consecutively on the same day.

103. Lauderdale County does not consistently afford children representation by an

attorney in preparation for and during adjudication and disposition hearings.

104. Lauderdale County has held adjudication hearings without the presence of the

child and/or guardian of the child who has been charged.

105. When an attorney is appointed to represent a child for detention, adjudication,

and disposition hearings, the child is afforded only minutes to consult with the attorney prior

to the hearing, and this consultation regularly takes place in a non-confidential setting.

106. Lauderdale County utilizes a single public defender almost exclusively to

represent children in Youth Court proceedings. This public defender is appointed by the

Youth Court, and his contract is subject to approval by the Youth Court.

107. The public defender furnished by Lauderdale County does not provide a means

for children and their guardians to contact him, and has refused to meet with them at any other

time except just prior to court.

20

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 21 of 37
108. The public defender furnished by Lauderdale County regularly meets with children in a hallway directly outside the courtroom, where other youth await hearings and Juvenile Center staff may see and hear what is said during the attorney consultation.
109. The public defender furnished by Lauderdale County does not meaningfully advise children of the possible consequences of admitting to charges or of proceeding to trial.
110. On information and belief, children are not afforded a meaningful opportunity to call witnesses on their own behalf at adjudication and disposition hearings.
111. The public defender furnished by Lauderdale County does not satisfy the County's due process obligation to provide effective representation for children before the Youth Court because he routinely fails to meaningfully: (1) explain the court proceedings to children and their parents~ (2) participate in the court proceedings on their behalf~ or (3) assist children in defending against the charges brought against them by presenting witnesses or evidence on their behalf.
The Probation Contracts Used by Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services Mandate Incarceration as Punishment for School Suspensions and Do Not Adequately Inform
Children about Their Rights 112. The Youth Court regularly imposes supervised probation on children in Lauderdale County as part of the disposition order. 113. The DYS "youth counselors" (probation officers) in Lauderdale County, typically present a recommendation to the Youth Court concerning specific probation requirements for each child. During the disposition hearing, the Youth Court decides which of these requirements to include in the dispositional order. The Youth Court also orders the
21

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 22 of 37
child to comply with all the rules or regulations set forth by the probation contract provided by the youth counselor in Lauderdale County.
114. When a child is placed on probation by the Youth Court as part of the disposition, the youth counselor explains the probation contract to the child and the child's guardian.
115. The standard probation contract used by youth counselors and the Youth Court in Lauderdale County contains a provision that reads: "MANDATORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE WITH NO SUSPENSIONS, UNEXCUSED ABSENCES, OR TARDIES. ALL SUSPENSIONS FROM SCHOOL WILL BE SERVED IN DETENTION." (emphasis in original.) Some probation contracts include a parenthetical adding "(At Counselor's Discretion)" at the end of the paragraph. This provision is the only one out of thirteen provisions in the probation contract that is typed in all capitals and boldfaced font.
116. The term "In Detention" in the probation contract refers to incarceration in the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Center, or, after the recent closure of the Lauderdale County Juvenile Detention Center, the Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center ("RCJDC").
117. Youth counselors in Lauderdale County regularly modify this paragraph to add an additional handwritten clause stating how many days a child will automatically have to serve in detention for each suspension. These additional clauses may mandate up to fifteen days in detention for a school suspension.
118. No clause in the probation contract provides further information about the types of behavior for which a child can be suspended from school, or what type of allegations underlying a suspension will lead to detention.
22

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 23 of 37
119. As a result, the broad phrasing of the probation contract stating that any
suspension from school will be served in detention does not provide sufficient notice to
children about what type of behavior will lead to incarceration in the detention center.
120. The standard probation contract used in Lauderdale County also contains the
following paragraph:
"I hereby certify that I have read or have had read to me the above agreement and understand that I am being placed on probation status by the Court on the condition that I comply with the above rules. I understand if I am accused or charged with violating any of these rules, then I may demand a court hearing. With agreement, I understand that if I violate these rules I can be required to spend between 8 hours to 7 days in detention in the Lauderdale County Juvenile Center and/or be required to work 8 hours to 80 hours community service or both. The amount and scheduling of my detention or community service shall be determined by my Counselor. I have the right to refuse detention or the community service. If I refuse, the court hearing for violation of probation will be granted to me. I fully understand that if found guilty at the court hearing, I may be committed to the training school. My counselor has the absolute right to institute a court hearing for violation of probation or parole and deny me these options.
121. Youth counselors themselves are unable to clearly explain what the language in
the above paragraph means.
122. The language of this paragraph does not make it clear that children can exercise a
right to a hearing on a probation violation without fear of repercussion. Rather, the language
states that if a child requests a hearing, the community service or detention options can be
denied, and the child may be committed to training school. The language implies that training
school may be imposed as a penalty only for children who request a hearing for a revocation
of probation.
123. The language of the probation contracts used in Lauderdale County vests a vast
amount of discretion and authority in the youth counselors to determine what constitutes a
probation violation and what punishment, including incarceration, a child will receive for such
23

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 24 of 37
violation. This authority and discretion is amplified by the lack of procedural safeguards available to children in connection with alleged probation violations.
Lauderdale County and the Division of Youth Services Do Not Provide Appropriate Procedures Related to Probation Violations
124. When a youth counselor interviews a child about an alleged probation violation, the youth counselor does not advise the child of his or her Miranda rights nor obtain an informed waiver of those rights.
125. The Youth Court does not regularly hold revocation hearings on probation violations.
126. Children under the jurisdiction of the Youth Court and their guardians do not understand that they may request revocation hearings on probation violations.
127. The only instances when the Youth Court holds a substantive hearing about a probation violation are when new charges are concurrently brought against a child and heard at an adjudication and disposition hearing.
128. Revocation or substantive hearings on probation violations are effectively unavailable to children under the supervision of the Youth Court.
129. Rather, in the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system, when a child is alleged to have violated probation and is incarcerated as punishment for a probation violation, the maximum procedural protection that child may receive is a "detention hearing" on a Tuesday or a Thursday, and recently, possibly on a Monday. At that point, the child may already have served two to four days in detention.
130. On information and belief, the detention hearing for a child on probation is not a hearing on the substantive violations, but, rather, only a dispositional hearing.
24

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 25 of 37
131. If the youth counselor or the Youth Court deems the time a child has already served incarcerated in the detention center to be sufficient punishment for the probation violation, the child is given "credit for time served" at the detention hearing. Other times, the Youth Court will order the child to serve an additional number of days incarcerated at the detention center to fulfill the requirements of the school suspension.
132. It is the practice of the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system to deem this type of incarceration for a probation violation an "informal" handling of the probation violation or an "informal adjustment."
133. The "informal adjustment" form used by the Youth Court and DYS does not require the review or approval of a Youth Court Judge, but, rather, is signed only by the youth counselor, the child, and the child's guardian.
134. Children are regularly incarcerated for days on probation violations through the "informal adjustment" process without an opportunity to challenge the allegations or the detention.
Children in the Meridian Public School District are Incarcerated by Lauderdale County and the Division of Youth Services for Suspensions from School Regardless of the Reason for
Suspension 135. Under the terms of the probation contract issued by the Lauderdale County juvenile system, including the Youth Court and the youth counselors, any suspension from school constitutes a violation of probation, regardless of the underlying reason for the suspension. Under the terms of the probation contract, these violations must be served incarcerated in the Juvenile Center.
25

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 26 of 37
136. Students in the District who are on probation under the supervision of the Lauderdale County juvenile system have been regularly incarcerated as a result of suspensions, including suspensions for: dress code infractions such as wearing the wrong color socks or undershirt, or having a shirt untucked; tardies; flatulence in class; using vulgar language; yelling at teachers; and going to the bathroom or leaving the classroom without permission.
137. When students in the District who are on probation under the supervision of the Lauderdale County juvenile system are suspended from school, the principal, security officer, or other administrator at the relevant District school has regularly called the Juvenile Center to inform Juvenile Center staff that a student has been suspended and therefore may have a probation violation.
138. After staff at the Juvenile Center receive a call notifying them that a student on probation has been suspended, a Youth Court Judge or Designee issues a custody order for the arrest of the student, and notifies MPD that the student is to be taken into custody and brought to the Juvenile Center.
139. The custody order does not require information about the underlying suspension or the alleged behavior, but instead indicates that a student has violated probation by being suspended and therefore directs the law enforcement officer to transport the child and detain that child at the Juvenile Center.
140. As a result of the policies and procedures described herein, children enrolled in the District who are on probation under the supervision of the Lauderdale County juvenile system serve time incarcerated for probation violations resulting from suspensions for alleged school infractions, without any access to meaningful procedural protections such as legal
26

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 27 of 37
counselor a hearing to determine whether or not the child actually committed the alleged school infraction in the first place. Children are not afforded the opportunity to present witnesses on their behalf.
141. The use of incarceration in the Juvenile Center as a medium for school discipline is intentional on the part of the Defendants.
142. This intention is evidenced by the interdependency of the District, Youth Court, and Juvenile Center in Defendants' policies and the reliance ofthe District on MPD, County, and DYS to effectuate aspects of the District's disciplinary policies.
143. For example, some Behavior Intervention Plans prepared by the District for students with disabilities have listed "Juvenile Detention Center" as a consequence for student misbehavior.
144. The use of incarceration in the juvenile detention center as a consequence for District students with disabilities has serious repercussions, given that the District's rate of expulsions and out of school suspensions for students with disabilities with individualized education programs is approximately seven times higher than the rate for Mississippi schools generally.
145. The Youth Court is aware of the use of incarceration in the detention center as a direct consequence for youth on probation who are suspended by the District. Lauderdale County Presently Incarcerates Children 80 Miles Away From Lauderdale County
in the Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center 146. At the end of February 2012, Lauderdale County closed the detention facility portion of the Juvenile Center, citing longstanding legal battles over the conditions of confinement for children at the Detention Center, including failures to protect children from
27

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --
Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 28 of 37
harm, failures to provide adequate medical and mental health treatment, and unsanitary conditions. Lauderdale County now contracts with Rankin County to incarcerate children from Lauderdale County in RCJDC, approximately 80 miles away from Lauderdale County.
147. Children from Lauderdale County and the District who are incarcerated pending detention and adjudication hearings, as a result of adjudication and disposition in the Youth Court, or as a result of probation violations in Lauderdale County, now serve their incarceration approximately 80 miles away from their homes, families, and schools.
148. Children are now transported 80 miles back to Lauderdale County for Youth Court proceedings. Children do not have access to the appointed attorney or their youth counselors while incarcerated in RCIDC.
149. While awaiting their Youth Court proceedings, children are held in the Juvenile Center. They are held in their cells without education or other programming for the entire time they are in the Juvenile Center, with the exception of their Youth Court proceedings. This means that children may be held in their cell without programming from the early morning through mid-afternoon, except for the duration of their hearings.
Defendants Have Rebuffed Efforts of the Department of Justice to Investigate and Address the Violations
150. Since DOJ notified Meridian and the Youth Court of its investigation into these practices on December 1, 2011, Lauderdale County has consistently denied DOJ access to information about the policies and practices of the Youth Court, including the opportunity to observe the Youth Court, interview Youth Court and Juvenile Center staff, and review Youth Court files.
28

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 29 of 37
151. Additionally, Lauderdale County and Judges Coleman and Young have directed Meridian to deny DOJ access to law enforcement files concerning children referred from the District to MPD.
152. In refusing DOJ access, Lauderdale County and Judges Coleman and Young cited Mississippi Code § 43-21-259 and § 43-21-261, which provide confidentiality protections for juvenile records, including youth court and law enforcement records. However, Mississippi law also permits judges to authorize release of these records when it is in the best interests of the children, the public safety, or the functioning of the Youth Court. Defendants have continued to assert confidentiality concerns despite the authority of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ under federal statute to investigate allegations of constitutional and federal law violations in the administration ofjuvenile justice, DOl's strict obligations regarding sensitive personal information under federal privacy laws, and the Civil Rights Division's long experience protecting the confidentiality of sensitive personal information, including incarcerated juveniles and court records.
153. After an initial period of cooperation with DOl's investigation, Meridian has denied DOJ further access to information about the practices of MPD with respect to children referred by the District, and/or under the supervision of the Youth Court.
154. In their August 23, 2012 letter to DOJ, the City and County Defendants reiterated their refusal to provide DOJ access to youth records and Youth Court proceedings, and indicated that DOJ should seek federal court assistance in obtaining youth records. City and County Defendants repeated this statement in letters received by DOJ on September 24,2012.
29

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 30 of 37
155. Although the State of Mississippi, through DYS, has provided some cooperation with DOl's investigation, the State has denied DO] access to juvenile records, citing the Mississippi State confidentiality provisions discussed above.
156. After being notified of DOl's investigation and findings, Defendants have purportedly suspended or modified some of the police and probation policies or practices described herein.
157. In addition to the August 23,2012 change in MPD policy described above, youth counselors in Lauderdale County reportedly were directed in late spring 2012 not to incarcerate students solely for school suspensions.
158. DYS asserted that it made unspecified changes to some State probation policies and forms on August 29,2012, but these policies and forms continue to leave youth vulnerable to facing incarceration for alleged probation violations associated with the failure to follow school rules, suspension or expulsion, regardless of the underlying circumstances.
159. Defendants have denied DO] access to information related to whether any of the directives described above have resulted in actual and meaningful changes in practice, and whether Defendants have taken sufficient steps to ensure that any unlawful practices actually suspended will not recur.
160. Defendants have not permanently changed their policies and practices to fully address and remedy the constitutional violations described herein.
161. Moreover, Defendants have not made any effort to address the procedural due process violations described in this Complaint, including, inter alia, the failure to make timely probable cause determinations, the failure to provide hearings for alleged probation violations, or the failure to provide meaningful representation by an attorney.
30

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 31 of 37
162. Defendants have not corrected the violations outlined in this Complaint, and it appears unlikelythat they will do so without federal intervention.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation ofFourth Amendment and 42 Us.c. § 14141 against Defendant City of
Meridian 163. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 162 as though fully set forth herein. 164. Defendant City of Meridian, through MPD, violates the constitutional rights of juveniles who are students in the District by arresting them without probable cause. 165. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution permits a police officer to arrest a suspect without a warrant only if there is probable cause to believe the suspect has committed or is committing an offense. The arresting officer must make an individualized assessment based on facts and circumstances particularized to the arrestee and known by the officer at the time of the arrest. 166. MPD engages in a pattern or practice of failing to require or to make individualized assessments of probable cause when arresting juveniles referred to MPD by the District. 167. Defendant City of Meridian's actions constitute a pattern or practice of violating the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 14141. 168. Defendant's actions and/or omissions cause serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to children arrested by MPD, and these children will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.
31

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 32 of 37

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

u.s.c. Violation ofDue Process in Violation ofFourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments and

42

§ 14141 against Defendants Lauderdale County, Judge Coleman, and Judge Young

169. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 168 as though fully set forth herein.
170. Defendant Lauderdale County violates the due process rights of children subject to the jurisdiction of the Youth Court by engaging in a pattern or practice of denying them access to meaningful procedural protections in the juvenile justice process.
171. Under federal law, constitutional due process protections apply to children in the juvenile justice process.
172. The United States Supreme Court has described the minimum contours of these due process protections as including the provision of adequate and timely notice of charges and court proceedings to children and their guardians, representation by an attorney when incarceration is possible, protection against self-incrimination, an opportunity to crossexamine witnesses, and a probable cause determination by a judicial officer within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest.
173. Through the policies, procedures, and practices set forth above, Lauderdale County engages in a pattern and practice of denying children subject to the jurisdiction of the Lauderdale County Youth Court constitutionally required due process protections in the juvenile justice process, including representation by an attorney when incarceration is possible, a timely probable cause determination by a judicial officer when children are incarcerated prior to trial, protection against self-incrimination, and an opportunity to crossexamine witnesses.

32

-- ----- --------------------------------------
Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 33 of 37
174. The actions and/or omissions of Lauderdale County constitute a pattern or practice of violations of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
175. Defendant Lauderdale County's violations of the constitutional rights of children subject to the jurisdiction of the Lauderdale County Youth Court causes serious, irreparable, and lasting harm to these children, and these children will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Violation ofProcedural Due Process in Violation ofFifth and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 Us.c. § 14141 against Defendants Lauderdale County, Judge Coleman, Judge Young, State ofMississippi, Department ofHuman Services, and Division ofYouth Services 176. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 175 as though fully set forth herein. 177. Defendants Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services violate the constitutional due process rights ofjuveniles through their policies, procedures, and practices with respect to probation and probation revocation for children in the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system. 178. The probation contracts authorized, imposed, administered, and enforced by Defendants Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services contain conditions that are not comprehensible to juveniles and cannot effectively inform juveniles of their procedural rights and protections. 179. Defendants Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services do not provide constitutionally required probable cause hearings, or any procedural safeguards whatsoever, to juveniles alleged to have violated probation, even when incarceration and loss of liberty are possible consequences of the probation violation.
33

- ----------------------------
Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 34 of 37
180. Defendants Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services do not provide juveniles with appropriate protection against self-incrimination.
181. The actions and/or omissions of Defendants Lauderdale County and Division of Youth Services constitute a pattern or practice of violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
182. Furthermore, Defendants' actions and/or omissions cause grievous, irreparable, and lasting harm to children subject to their jurisdiction and supervision, and these children will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation ofSubstantiuv.es.Dc.ue§P1r4o1c4e1ssaignaiVnisotlAatliloDn eofefFndoaunrttesenth Amendment and 42
183. Plaintiff repeats and realleges the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 182 as though fully set forth herein.
184. Defendants City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, and Division of Youth Services, working in concert, violate the substantive due process rights ofjuveniles through their policies, procedures, and practices with respect to incarcerating students for probation violations resulting from suspensions for alleged school disciplinary infractions.
185. Defendants' pattern and practice of incarcerating children for alleged school disciplinary infractions, without any procedural safeguards whatsoever, deprives children of their liberty by government action that is so arbitrary and abusive as to shock the conscience.
186. The policies, practices, and procedures employed by Defendants to incarcerate children for suspensions from school, rooted in the written probation contract used in Lauderdale County, are void for vagueness.
34

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 35 of 37
187. The probation contract used by Defendants does not provide children sufficient notice about the behavior which may constitute a probation violation in that it states that any suspension from school will result in incarceration, but does not describe or circumscribe the behavior for which a child may be suspended.
188. The probation contract vests a vast amount of discretion and authority in youth counselors and school staff and administrators to determine what constitutes a suspension and subsequent probation violation and what punishment, including incarceration, a child will receive for such violation. This authority and discretion is amplified by the lack of procedural safeguards available to children in connection with alleged probation violations.
189. Defendants have been put on notice of the severe and harmful effects of their policies and practices on children in the community.
190. The actions and/or omissions of Defendants City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, and Division of Youth Services constitute a pattern or practice of violations of the guarantee of substantive due process of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violate 42 U.S.C. § 14141.
191. Defendants' actions and/or omissions cause grievous, irreparable, and lasting harm to children subject to their jurisdiction and supervision, and these children will continue to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States prays that the Court:
a. Enter a judgment declaring that Defendants' policies, procedures, practices, and patterns of conduct, as alleged herein, violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. § 14141;
35

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 36 of 37 b. Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from subjecting children under their jurisdiction and supervision from the unconstitutional and unlawful policies, procedures, practices, and patterns of conduct described above; c. Enter an order requiring Defendants to promulgate and effectuate policies that protect the constitutional rights of the children under their jurisdiction and supervision as described above; d. Enter an order for equitable relief including, but not limited to, the creation of alternatives to detention and juvenile justice processes for children, and review and expungement of youth records and provision of supports for children who have been harmed by Defendants' pattern or practice of constitutional violations, as alleged herein; e. Retainjurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with all orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and f. Order any such additional relief as the interests ofjustice may require.
36

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 1 Filed 10/24/12 Page 37 of 37

Dated:

GREGORY K. DAVIS

---Umted States Attomey-

.

Southern District of Mississippi

THOMAS E. PEREZ Assistant Attorney General . Civil Rights Division
ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. . Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
JONATHANM. SMITH Chief, Special Litigation Section
SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 548997)
Deputy Chief

LORI RIFKIN (CA Bar No. 39446)
MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343) Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Patrick Henry Building, 5ib Floor washin~ton D.C. 20530 Phone: 202 514-8434 Facsimi e: d02) 514-0212 E-mail: lorLritkin@usdoj.gov

37

 
 Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

PLAINTIFF

V. CASE

NO. 4:12-cv-168-HTW-LRA

CITY OF MERIDIAN; COUNTY OF LAUDERDALE; JUDGE FRANK COLEMAN, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JUDGE VELDORE YOUNG, IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI; MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; AND MISSISSIPPI DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES

DEFENDANTS

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON YOUNGER ABSTENTION
Before the court is the m otion of the defendants, Judge Frank Colem an and Judge Veldore Young to dismiss them from this litig ation based o n Younger abstention [docket no. 10]. The Court is not persuaded that the motion is well-taken and denies the motion.
BACKGROUND Here, championing the constitutional rights of Meridian, Mississippi public school children who have been s ubjected to discipline by various Meridian and Mi ssissippi entities, the United States of Am erica seeks a declaratory judgment that Defendan ts’ alleged policies, procedures, practices, and patterns of conduct violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitu tion and 42 U.S.C. § 14141. The United States asks this court to issue a perm anent injunction forbidding Defendants from subjecting children unde r

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 2 of 4
their jur isdiction and supervisio n f rom alleged uncon stitutional and unlawf ul policie s, procedures, practices, and pattern s of conduct; and to require Defendants to promulgate and effectuate policies that protect the constitutional rights of the children under their jurisdiction and supervision. The United States also pleads for an order for e quitable relief in cluding, but not limited to, the cre ation of altern atives to de tention and juvenile justice processes for children ; review and expungem ent of youth records and a provision supporting children who have been harmed by Defendants’ alleged pattern or practi ce of constitutional viol ations. Additionally, the United States asks th is cour t to r etain jur isdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with all o rders of this Court, and th is court has reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction. The United States’ catch-all request seeks any additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
YOUNGER ABSTENTION Younger abstention is premised on the notion that federal courts should show comity, that is, a proper respect for state functi ons. This doctrine of com ity thus provides that federal courts should withhold judgm ent in litigation, when granting injunctive or declaratory relief would (1) interfere with an ongoin g state jud icial proceeding that (2) implicates an important state interest and (3) the state proceedi ng already provides an opportunity to raise the constitutional or other federal-law issues. See Texas Ass’n of Business v. Earle , 388 F.3d 515, 518 (5th Cir. 2004). Upon applying the above factors to the litigation at hand, this Court finds Younger abstention to be inapposite.

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 3 of 4
The United States ’ allegations here accuse th e defendants of violating th e constitutional rights of m inor school children. This litigation, then, does not threaten ongoing constitu tional state judicial proceedings.
Next, no party con tends that a state judi cial p roceeding is ongoing which is p resently addressing the topics at issue in this lawsuit. Nor has any party suggeste d that such proceedings are contemplated.
The United States’ interest in enforcing § 1414 1 is to elim inate a pa ttern or practice of constitutional violations. This interest is no t necessarily identical to th e interests of individual children facing delinquency procee dings in sta te cou rt, no r is the Un ited S tates’ inte rest so “intertwined” with su ch individuals so as to ju stify barring prospective relief to a person not a party to the challenged state actions. As in U.S. v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, State of Georgia , 656 F.2d 131, 134-46 (5th Cir. 1981), the United States has a separate interest in ensuring ju venile jus tice sys tems are ope rated in a cons titutionally perm issible m anner, an interest and institutional role in upholding that interest that the individual j uveniles do not share. The United States has an interest that transcends that of private state defendants.
Assuredly, the state has an im portant interest in determining how local and state officials administer juvenile justice. Yet, th e presen ce of an im portant sta te inte rest alone is not determinative in the Younger abstention analysis.
The Defendants herein note that ju venile adjudications may be appealed, thus providing these juveniles an opportunity to raise constituti onal or other federal law questions. De fendants here ov erlook the th rust of th e United States’ lawsuit, to addr ess a lleged widespr ead constitutional violations and to craft a soluti on which will apply to tho se presently involved in

Case 4:12-cv-00168-HTW-LRA Document 20 Filed 09/04/13 Page 4 of 4
state court proceedings, as well as to those who on a future date will be principals in similar state court proceedings.
Accordingly, for the reasons above-stated, th is court is persuade d to deny Defendants’ [docket no. 10] motion to dismiss based on Younger abstention.
SO ORDERED, this the 4th day of September, 2013.

s/

HENRY T. WINGATE____________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 18

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

United States of America,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge )

Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge

)

Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State

)

of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of

)

Human Services; and Mississippi Division of

)

Youth Services

)

)

_____D__ef_e_nd_a_n_ts_. ________________))

Civil Action No. 3: 13-CV-978-HTW-LRA

'

.

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
A. This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by the United States of America through the Department of Justice ("United States"), the State of Mississippi; the Mississippi Department of Human Services; and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (collectively, the "Parties") to address youth probation services in the administration ofjuvenile justice for Children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court.
B. On December 1, 2011, the United States opened an investigation into the administration ofjuvenile justice in Lauderdale County, Mississippi pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 C'Section 14141 ").
C. On October 24, 2012, the United States filed a complaint against the City of Meridian, the Lauderdale County Youth Court Judges ("Youth Court Judges"), Lauderdale County, and the State of Mississippi alleging violations of the substantive and procedural due process rights afforded to youth who appear in Lauderdale County Youth Court.
D. The Parties share the same interest in protecting the constitutional rights of Lauderdale County youth and have worked together cooperatively to develop this Settlement Agreement.
E. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. With the exception of the Letter of Findings, no prior contemporaneous communications, oral or

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 18
written, or prior drafts shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in an enforcement proceeding.
F. This Settlement Agreement is executed in connection with the compromise and settlement of disputed claims in the Plaintiffs lawsuit. The Parties understand that by entering into this Settlement Agreement, the State does not admit legal liability of any sort, and it continues to dispute any legal liability in this matter.
II. DEFINITIONS
A. "Child" and "youth" and ')uvenile" are synonymous and refer to all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Lauderdale County Youth Court, as set forth in Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21151, including all persons under the age of 18 taken into custody by a law enforcement officer.
B. "Court" refers to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
C. "DHS" refers to the Mississippi Department of Human Services.
D. "DYS" refers to the Mississippi Division of Youth Services.
E. "DOJ" or "United States" means the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.
F. "Probation Services Independent Auditor" or "Independent Auditor" means an expert jointly
selected by the Parties to assess compliance with this Agreement.
G. "Effective Date" means the date that this Settlement Agreement is approved and entered by the Court.
H. "Include" or "Including" means "include, but not limited to" or "including, but not limited to."
I. "Judge," "Judges," "Youth Court Judge," or "Youth Court Judges" means the Judges of the Lauderdale County Youth Court.
J. "Personally Identifiable" and/or "Confidential Information" means information that can be used to distinguish or trace a Child's identity, either alone or with other personal or identifying information. Covered information may include records maintained by the Youth Court, an educational institution or agency, a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency or a provider of services to youth and their families that contain identifying information, such as the individual's name, social security number, birth date, home or cellular telephone number, home address, parent's name, medical history, educational history, or health status or other information that the Parties agree should be deemed confidential. 2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 18

K. "Policies and Procedures" means the guiding principles or processes that staff are required to follow.

L. "Shall" means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty.

M. "Staff' means all individuals employed by the State who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.

N. "State" refers to the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services.

0. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance:

substantial compliance, partial compliance, beginning compliance, and non-compliance.

"Non-compliance" means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving

compliance on any of the key components of the provision. "Beginning compliance" means

that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than

half, of the key components of the provision. "Partial compliance" indicates that the State has

made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision,

but substantial work remains. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that the State has met or

achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision. The Probation Services

Independent Auditor selected to evaluate the State's compliance may further refine the

definition of compliance with the consent of all Parties.

·

P. "Train" means to instruct in the skills addressed to a level that the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency to implement those skills as, and when, called for in the training. "Trained" means to have achieved such proficiency.

Q. "Youth-appropriate language" means language suitable for children's developmental stage, age, education and cognitive abilities.

R. "Youth Court" means Lauderdale County Youth Court.

S. "Youth Services Counselor" means any person employed by the DYS who is involved in the administration of probation or parole services for juveniles in Youth Court.

3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 18
III. SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES
A. Due Process
1. Protections Against Self-incrimination
a. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth-appropriate language regarding the following: 1. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
n. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
111. an explanation of the probation review and revocation process, including the youth's right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth's right to counsel in revocation hearings.
b. DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths' guardians.
c. The DYS shall inquire into the Child's ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youth-appropriate language.
d. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth's initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth's counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.
2. Probation Review and Revocation
a. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that youths' probation status is adequately reviewed by Youth Services Counselors.
b. The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 18

response to youth conduct.

c. Probation Contracts

i.

Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent

necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to

ensure that conditions of youths' probation are written in simple

terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary

and discriminatory enforcement.

11.

Probation contracts shall:

1. Include a clear explanation of the youth's rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how Children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement while on probation.

111.

Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a

youth for violations of their probation contract that would not

otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other

reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.

3. Review of Policies and Procedures

a. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

b. The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth's constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.

B. Diversion and Treatment Options

I. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 18
C. Training
1. Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.
2. The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including: a. Constitutional due process requirements; b. Disposition planning; c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for Children and families, including evidence-based practices; d. The appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created or revised pursuant to this Agreement.
3. The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.
4. Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIlLA.
IV. COMMUNITY INPUT
A. Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.
B. The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS, may serve as its representative. A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform
6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 18
the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS' progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
C. The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.
V. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
A. Implementation. The DHS/DYS shall begin implementing this Agreement immediately upon the Effective Date. If the DHS/DYS cannot fully implement the reforms required by this Agreement within the allotted time, it shall notify the United States in writing. All training and reform attempts initiated following issuance of the Report of Findings, but before the Effective Date, shall be considered in the Probation Services Independent Auditor's compliance assessments.
B. Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.
C. Protection of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information. The Parties agree to protect any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is obtained in the course of implementing this Agreement. The Parties further agree to use their best efforts to ensure that the Probation Services Independent Auditor protects any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is obtained in the course of implementing this Agreement.
1. All files and documents containing Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, and any other materials containing Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information obtained during implementation of this agreement, shall be automatically treated as "Confidential" in accordance with the terms of this Order. Moreover, a party may choose to designate as "Confidential" any information that it has in good faith determined constitutes or contains Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, and/or information that is subject to protection under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Mississippi Code§ 43-21-259 and § 43-21261, or other applicable federal and/or state law.
2. All Parties agree that any Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information may be made available only to the following:
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 18
a. Counsel for the Parties, as well as counsel's staff, law clerks, partners, associates, paralegals, secretaries, and stenographic personnel;
b. Experts and consultants retained by the Parties;
c. The Probation Services Independent Auditor and his/her staff, partners, associates, secretaries, and stenographic personnel;
d. The Court and its staff, law clerks, secretaries and stenographic personnel; and
e. Any other person upon order of the Court or express agreement of the Parties.
3. Only Parties, counsel for the Parties, the Probation Services Independent Auditor, and individuals they expressly authorize to do so may make copies or create summaries of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information.
4. All Parties and their counsel agree that neither they nor their respective staffs, law clerks, associates, paralegals, secretaries, stenographic and support personnel, or other employees will use or disclose any Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information for any purpose other than for the implementation and enforcement of this and related actions. However, nothing in this Order shall be construed to restrict the Parties' or their counsel's use of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Infonnation in the nonnal course of business, for example or as otherwise permitted pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 or other federal law.
5. In any pleadings, motions, briefs, or exhibits filed with the Court containing Confidential Infonnation, all Confidential Information shall be redacted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Local Civ. R. 5.2. Counsel for a party filing any documents containing redactions shall provide the other Parties with copies of the documents that do not contain redactions.
Any personally identifiable infonnation about any Child in the Probation Services Independent Auditor's reports that is filed with the Court shall be obscured by pseudonym (but the identity of the Child will be known to the Parties and, at its discretion, the Court) or filed under seal.
6. If the Parties expect to use Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential information in an evidentiary hearing or other proceeding open to the public, they will work with the Court to address the use of such infonnation.
7. The Parties will discuss and make their best efforts to reach agreement on how to guard against disclosure of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Infonnation in connection with the Community Input provisions of this Agreement.
8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 18
8. In the event that the Parties receive a subpoena or other process or order to produce Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, the Parties will comply with their standard operating procedures to defend against disclosure of Confidential Information to the fullest extent permitted by law and regulation. In the event that the Confidential Information is sought from the United States under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522 et seq. (FOIA), the United States shall employ good faith efforts to ensure that Confidential Information is, to the fullest extent permitted by law, protected from disclosure under FOIA. If, despite good faith efforts, a party is ordered to disclose Confidential Information and complies with that order, it shall not be deemed in violation of this Agreement.
D. Probation Services Independent Auditor. Compliance with this Agreement shall be assessed by the Probation Services Independent Auditor jointly selected by the Parties.
1. The United States and the DHS/DYS shall agree upon the Probation Services Independent Auditor within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on the Independent Auditor within 60 days, each party may submit to the Court, within 14 days thereafter, the names and curricula vitae of up to two individuals as candidates for this position. The Parties will request that the Court select the Independent Auditor from among those nominated.
2. The DHS/DYS shall bear all reasonable fees and costs related to the Probation Services Independent Auditor.
3. The Probation Services Independent Auditor shall be permitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with all Parties and with the Court.
4. The Probation Services Independent Auditor shall not make any oral or written public statements - including but not limited to statements to the press, conference presentations, lectures, or articles - with regard to: the status of the State's compliance or non-compliance with this Agreement; any act or omission of the State or its agents, representatives or employees; or the terms of his/her employment as the Independent Auditor unless authorized by all Parties.
5. The Probation Services Independent Auditor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to the status of the DHS/DYS' compliance or non-compliance with this Agreement; any act or omission of the State or its agents, representatives or employees; or the terms of his or her employment as the Independent Auditor, unless otherwise lawfully compelled to do so. The Independent Auditor may testify in this litigation concerning the State's compliance or non-compliance with this Agreement.
6. Unless such conflict is waived by the Parties, the Probation Services Independent Auditor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with his or her responsibilities under this Agreement
9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 10 of 18

or

t?e highest ethical standards, including being retained (on a paid or

unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant or such litigant's or

claimant's attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the State or its

departments, officers, agents or employees concerning matters relevant to this

Agreement.

7. No Party, nor any employee or agent of any Party, shall have any supervisory
authority over the Probation Services Independent Auditor's activities, reports, findings, or recommendations.

8. The Probation Services Independent Auditor may be terminated if the Parties agree and upon good cause shown. Good cause shall include any violation of State or federal law which reasonably calls into question his/her fitness to continue serving as Independent Auditor. In the event the Parties do not agree upon the need for termination, the Parties agree to work in good faith to resolve their differences.

9. Within 30 days of the receipt of written questions from the United States or the State regarding the Probation Services Independent Auditor's activities in assessing compliance with this Agreement and/or the State's compliance with this Agreement, the Independent Auditor shall provide the United States or the State with written answers.

10. The Probation Services Independent Auditor, and later the United States should the United States assume the role of Monitor pursuant to Section V.F., shall be solely responsible for assessing compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

E. Probation Services Independent Auditor's compliance reviews and access to the State and records. To assess the DHS/DYS' implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the Probation Services Independent Auditor will regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure the State's implementation of this Agreement.

1. The first compliance review will be conducted within sixty (60) days of the Probation Services Independent Auditor's appointment. Thereafter, routine compliance reviews will be conducted by the Independent Auditor every six months until this Agreement is terminated. Such routine compliance reviews will assess the DHS/DYS' compliance with each of the substantive remedial measures set forth above. The United States and the Independent Auditor shall consult with the DHS/DYS to schedule mutually acceptable dates for the compliance reviews.

2. The United States may determine that additional compliance reviews are necessary due to emergent issues concerning the DHS/DYS. If the United States believes that such additional compliance reviews are necessary, the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor shall consult with the DHS/DYS to schedule mutually acceptable dates for such additional compliance reviews.

10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 11 of 18
3. At each compliance review, the Probation Services Independent Auditor shall have the responsibility and authority to independently observe, assess, review, and report on the DHS/DYS' implementation and compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. To accurately assess the DHS/DYS' progress, the Independent Auditor shall: observe meetings between children and youth services counselors; observe any relevant trainings; individually interview a sample of Children privately; and conduct detailed reviews ofDHS/DYS youth services records, case files, or other pertinent documents. The Independent Auditor shall spend a sufficient amount of time at the Youth Court to accurately assess interactions between youth services counselors and youth. The Independent Auditor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the State regarding progress toward compliance, examining supporting documentation where applicable.
4. The DHS/DYS shall grant the Probation Services Independent Auditor full and complete access to the DYS's documents, records and premises, and its officials, employees, agents and contractors whose responsibilities are affected by this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall also allow the Probation Services Independent Auditor access to Children in any phase of the juvenile probation process, including the ability to meet privately with youth.
a. The Probation Services Independent Auditor shall be permitted to ask questions about the youth's experiences in the probation system.
b. The Probation Services Independent Auditor cannot discuss with the youth the facts or evidence of any pending case or the Independent Auditor's views of the youth's counsel or the youth services counselors.
c. Prior to meeting with youth, the Probation Services Independent Auditor shall advise youth and, if possible, their counsel and parents that: (i) The Independent Auditor will not release the child's identity to the public without the parent and child's permission. (ii) Any information that the parent or the child provides to the Independent Auditor will be used solely for the purpose of assessing compliance with this Settlement and will not be used against the child in any unrelated proceeding. (iii) The Independent Auditor does not have the authority to represent individuals in legal matters and cannot provide legal opinions or legal assistance.
d. The DHS/DYS shall not use any information obtained by the Probation Services Independent Auditor against children in their individual proceedings.
11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 12 of 18
5. The Probation Services Independent Auditor shall file with the Parties a final report which describes the steps taken by the DHS/DYS to implement this Agreement, evaluates the extent to which the DHS/DYS has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement, cites the evidence upon which such evaluation is based, and provides recommendations. The Independent Auditors' reports should indicate whether the DHS/DYS is in "Substantial compliance," "Beginning compliance," "Partial compliance," or "Non-compliance" with each provision of the Agreement. Each report shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment within 30 days after each compliance review, and the Parties shall have 20 days after receipt of the draft report to comment on the report before it is finalized by the Independent Auditor. Neither Party, however, shall have authority over the Independent Auditors' reports, findings, or recommendations. The Reports shall be made publicly available on the DYS website and the website of the United States.
6. Once finalized, the Probation Services Independent Auditor's reports shall be filed with the Court.
F. Annual Parties' Meeting Regarding the Continued Need for External Monitoring. To preserve resources and to promote the efficient implementation of this Agreement, the Parties shall meet on an annual basis regarding the possibility of transferring supervision of provisions of the Agreement from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States with self-reporting by the State.
1. In each meeting, the Parties shall discuss the Probation Services Independent Auditor's views regarding the status of the DHS/DYS' compliance with the provisions of the Agreement, and any additional information brought forth for discussion by the Parties.
2. The Parties' first annual meeting will occur 30 days after the Probation Services Independent Auditor files his/her first report.
3. If the DHS/DYS has made significant progress in achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but is not yet in substantial compliance, the United States shall consider transitioning the State from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States. The transfer from external monitoring shall only occur with the State's consent.
4. Should the DHS/DYS fail to continue making progress in achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement or regress in its overall status of compliance, the United States may require that the State return to external monitoring. If the State has been the subject of a motion to enforce by the United States, it shall be ineligible for monitoring by the United States with self-reporting for a period of two years.
12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 13 of 18

5. Monitoring by either the Probation Services Independent Auditor or the United

St.ates shall

when the DHS/DYS has achieved substantial compliance

wtth all provtstons tn the Settlement Agreement and maintained substantial

compliance with all provisions for a period of one year.

G. Settlement Agreement Coordinator. The DHS/DYS shall appoint an official or employee to serve as the Settlement Agreement Coordinator, whose duties shall include:

1. Developing reports regarding compliance with this Agreement and providing such reports to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor every six months until this Agreement is terminated. The first report shall be provided four months after the Effective Date.

2. Providing to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor the raw data upon which each compliance report is based, any reports prepared by the State's technical consultants regarding compliance with this Agreement, and any other reports routinely submitted to the Settlement Agreement Coordinator regarding compliance with this Agreement.

H. United States' Access to the State and Records. The United States and its staff and agents shall have full and complete access to:

1. The DHS/DYS' documents and records relevant to the implementation of this Agreement;

2. The DHS/DYS' officials, employees, agents, and independent contractors whose responsibilities are affected by this Agreement; and

3. Children in any phase of the juvenile probation process, including the right to meet with Children privately.

Such access shall continue until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with the termination provisions herein.

VI. OUTCOME MEASURES
The DHS/DYS shall maintain a record of the documents necessary to facilitate a review by the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States of the metrics and other information described below. In order to ensure that reforms are conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the Probation Services Independent Auditor and/or the United States shall assess the State's progress in implementing these provisions and the effectiveness of these reforms. In addition to assessing the policies, procedures, practices, and training, the Probation Services Independent Auditor and/or the United States shall undertake an analysis ofmetrics related to due process reforms, as follows:
13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 14 of 18
1. Review the Youth Services Counselors' document explaining the probation process and the number of Children provided with that document.
2. Review the Youth Services Counselors' documentation of whether a Child's attorney was notified about the probation conference, the number of Children who elected to meet with the Youth Services Counselors without their attorney present, and any efforts taken to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.
3. Review the Youth Service Counselors' recommendations to the Youth Court
including recommendations to either detain or not detain a youth following a'
probation violation. 4. Review the Youth Service Counselors' recommendations to the Youth Court
regarding youth who are alleged to have violated probation through failure to attend school or other educational programming, or suspension or expulsion. 5. Review the alternatives to detention that the Youth Services Counselor recommended to the Youth Court prior to recommending detention for each youth. 6. Review the DYS records of youth on informal adjustment who are supervised by the Youth Services Counselors and any recommendations the Youth Services Counselors make to the court regarding those youth.
VII. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION
A. Notice Prior to Judicial Action. With the exception of conditions or practices that pose an immediate and serious threat to the life, health, or safety of a Child, if the United States believes that the State has failed to substantially comply with any obligation under this Agreement, the United States shall give written notice of the failure prior to seeking judicial enforcement of the Agreement.
B. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate in accordance with the following provisions:
1. This Agreement shall terminate when the DHS/DYS has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions of this Agreement and has maintained that substantial compliance for 12 consecutive months.
2. Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure by the DHS/DYS to maintain substantial compliance. However, intermittent compliance during a period of sustained non-compliance shall not constitute substantial compliance.
14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 15 of 18
3. Subsections of this Agreement may be terminated separately and independently from the provisions of the Agreement that have not yet reached substantial compliance, if the State maintains substantial compliance in these areas for a period of one year.
VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Policies and Procedures
1. Policy and Procedure Review. The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.
2. Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor's and the United States' suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.
3. Process for Resolving Disputes About Policies. In the event that the United States asserts that policies, procedures, or other written documents are not in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, or do not adequately address deficiencies identified by the Independent Auditor in the Auditor's report, the Parties will confer on the matter for up to thirty (30) days. If the Parties cannot reach agreement, either party may file a motion requesting that the Court resolve the dispute.
4. Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United
15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 16 of 18
States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.
5. Modification. Should the Parties choose to modify this Agreement, they may do so by mutual agreement. Any such modifications or amendments to this Agreement shall be memorialized in writing and executed by representatives for the Parties.
B. Reporting Requirements
1. Comprehensive Action Plan. Within four months of the Effective Date, the State shall submit to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor a comprehensive action plan specifying the measures it intends to take in order to bring the State into compliance with the substantive requirements of the Agreement, including anticipated timeframes for completion of each measure.
2. Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi-annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the biannual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor's bi-annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi-annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.
3. Records. The DHS/DYS shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the United States at all reasonable times for inspection and copying. These records shall be maintained for three years. In addition, the DHS/DYS shall maintain and submit upon request records or other documents to verify that they have taken such actions as described in the compliance reports (e.g., census summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials and incident reports) and shall also provide all additional documents reasonably requested.
4. Prohibition on Retaliation. No Child, parent, staff, stakeholder, or any other person shall be subjected to retaliation in any manner for information shared with the Probation Services Independent Auditor or the United States in their efforts to determine compliance with this Agreement.
16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 17 of 18

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2015,

ForPlaintiffTHE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Is/ Gregory K. Davis GREGORYK. DAVIS United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

Is/ Vanita Gupta VANITAGUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Is/Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 60I4) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 50 I E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson,MS 39201 Phone: (60 1) 965-4480 Direct: (60 I) 973-2840 Facsimile: (60I) 965-4409 E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

Is/ Mark Kappelhoff MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Is/ Judy C. Preston JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section
Is/ Shelley R. Jackson SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 548997) Deputy Chief RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030) MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 462985) RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 97444I) Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone:(202)305-3373 Facsimile: (202) 5I4-6903 E-mail: shelley.jackson@usdoj.gov

17

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 84 Filed 09/18/15 Page 18 of 18
For Defendants STATE OF M ISSISSIPPI, M ISSISS IPPI DE PARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, and MISS lSSIPPl DIVISION OF YOUTH SERVICES:
/s/ Richard Berrv Richard BerTy Executive Director Mississippi Department of Human Services
/s/ James Y. Maccarone James Y. Maccarone Director Mississippi Di vis ion of Youth Services
/s/ Douglas T. Miracle Douglas T. M iracle (Bar No. 9648) Special Assistant Attomey General Civil Litigat ion Divisio n Office of the Attomey General 550 Hig h Street, Suite II 00 P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS Phone: (60 I ) 359-5654 Fascimile: (60 I) 359-2003 Email: dmira@ ago.state.ms.us
WHEREFORE, for good cause s hown, it is SO ORDERED this

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 4

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


United States of America,

)


)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge )


Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge )


Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State

)


of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of

)


Human Services; and Mississippi Division of

)


Youth Services

)


)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)


 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA 
 
 


 


Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement

The City of Meridian and the United States of America (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 Parties have been engaged in litigation and settlement

negotiations for over two (2) years. The Agreement is reasonable and equitable, and reflects the

Parties’ mutual desire to protect the constitutional rights of Meridian youth while avoiding the burdens

of contested litigation. The Agreement, if approved, will resolve all of the United States’ claims

against City of Meridian and its Police Department.

In support of this motion, the parties submit the accompanying Memorandum in Support

of Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement.

Dated this 19th day of June, 2015.

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 4

Respectfully submitted, Counsel for the United States of America: GREGORY K. DAVIS United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi
/s/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480 Direct: (601) 973-2840 Facsimile: (601) 965-4409 E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov
Counsel for the City of Meridian: /s/ Ronnie Walton
RONNIE L. WALTON (MB #6933) REED C. DARSEY (MB #102960) Glover, Young, Hammack, Walton & Simmons, PLLC 1724-A 23rd Avenue Post Office Box 5514 Meridian, Mississippi 39302-5514

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 548997) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
/s/ Rashida Ogletree
RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
 JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 
 462985)
 RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030)
 MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343) 

Attorneys
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202)305-3712 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov
2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 4 Telephone: 601-693-1301 
 Telecopier: 601-693-1363 
 Ronnie@gloveryoung.com 
 Reed@gloveryoung.com 

3 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 77 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I hereby certify that on June 19th, 2015, I electronically filed a copy of 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:
Charles W. Wright, Jr. Charles W. Wright, Jr., PLLC 1208 22nd Avenue P.O. Box 1677 Meridian, MS 39302 Charlie_wright@comcast.net
Lee Thaggard Robert T. Bailey Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009 thaggard@BarryPalmerLaw.com
Ronnie L. Walton Reed C. Darsey Glover, Young, Walton & Simmons, PLLC P.O. Drawer 5514 Meridian, MS 39302-5514 ronnie@gloveryoung.com
Douglas T. Miracle Harold E. Pizzetta, III Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation Division P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 dmira@ago.state.ms.us hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
/s/ Rashida Ogletree RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
4 


 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 8

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


United States of America,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge ) 


Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge )


Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State )


of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of )


Human Services; and Mississippi Division of )


Youth Services

)


)


)


Defendants.

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA 
 
 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION 
 FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


The City of Meridian and the United States of America (collectively, “the Parties”) 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 the result of two (2) years of litigation and negotiations by the parties, and provides relief that is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Through the Agreement, the Parties seek to resolve the United States’ claims against the City of Meridian and avoid the burdens of contested litigation. The City does not admit legal liability, but has engaged cooperatively in settlement negotiations and the Parties have agreed to enter into the Agreement out of a mutual desire to protect the constitutional rights of youth.

1 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 8
I. Background
On October 24, 2012, following an eight-month investigation, the United States filed a
complaint against the City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, Judge Frank Coleman and Judge
Veldore Young, and the State of Mississippi pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.1 U.S. Compl., ECF No. 1. With respect
specifically to the conduct of the City, the Complaint alleges that the Meridian Police
Department (“MPD”) engages in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of
juveniles.2 Specifically, the United States alleges the City violates the Fourth Amendment rights
of Meridian public school students by arresting them without probable cause for conduct that
should be addressed as a school disciplinary issue. Id. at ¶¶ 164-67. In addition, the United
States alleges that the City violated the Fourteenth Amendment by detaining students for
1 The United States and the State expect to present a separate agreement to the Court in the near future. In November 2014, the United States reached an impasse with the Youth Court Judges and the County and returned to a litigation track with these defendants. See Judges Renewal of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 57; Judges’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 58; Judges’ Mem. of Law, ECF No. 59; County Joinder of Mots. to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 60 and 61. See also Order, ECF No. 75.
2 In 2013, this Court approved a settlement between the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section (“EOS”) and the Meridian Public School District. See Consent Order, ECF 36, Barnhardt v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, et al., No. 4:65-CV-01300 (S.D. Miss 2013). The Barnhardt case was initiated by private plaintiffs and this Court later granted leave for the United States to intervene as a plaintiff. The Agreement in Barnhardt was adopted to ensure that the school district administers student discipline in a fair and non­ discriminatory manner, reduces the disproportionate assignment of exclusionary sanctions to black students, and provides all students with an equal opportunity to learn in a safe, orderly, and supportive environment. Id. at ¶ 27. Among other things, the Barnhardt settlement prohibits school officials from requesting law enforcement officers to respond to behavior that can be safely and appropriately handled under school disciplinary procedures. Id. at ¶ 84. The City of Meridian is not a Party to the Barnhardt agreement, and that agreement does not address the City’s policies or practices regarding school-based arrests. The instant case is not a class action and does not involve private plaintiffs. The attached Agreement only binds the United States and the City.
2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 8
probation violations resulting from suspensions for alleged school disciplinary infractions. Id. at ¶¶ 184-85. The proposed Agreement resolves these claims.
II. Discussion
This Court should enter the proposed Agreement because it resulted from litigation and negotiation by sophisticated parties; it is fair, adequate, and reasonable; and it is the most effective way to implement the reforms needed to address the allegations in the complaint. Moreover, the “strong judicial policy” of the Fifth Circuit “favor[s] the resolution of disputes through settlement.” Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982). Settlement is a particularly effective resolution in this case because the Parties represent two government agencies. By allowing the Parties to “avoid the risks as well as costs of full scale litigation,” a settlement agreement is a “highly useful tool for government agencies, since it maximizes the effectiveness of limited law enforcement resources.” United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d 1147, 1151-52 (5th Cir. 1975). In addition, “[b]ecause of the consensual nature of the decree, voluntary compliance is rendered more likely.” Id. at 1152, n. 9.
The Agreement is the result of two (2) years of litigation and settlement negotiations, including numerous in person and telephonic negotiations mediated by Magistrate Judge Anderson and many conference calls and exchanges of draft agreements between the Parties. The Parties have compromised opposing purposes to reach an agreement “and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve.” United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971) (requiring that, in reviewing negotiated agreements, “the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it.”). In approving the Agreement, this Court must “only assure[] itself that
3 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 8
there has been valid consent by the concerned parties and that the terms of the decree are not unlawful, unreasonable, or inequitable.” City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d at 1151. The attached Agreement meets these requirements.
The Agreement effectively remedies the allegations by the United States in its Complaint and builds upon reforms the City has initiated to address school-based arrests.3 The United States’ complaint alleges that Meridian Police Department officers responded automatically to school requests to pick up youth for often minor misbehavior and transferred youth into the custody of the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system. The Complaint alleges that it was the police department’s practice to arrest all students referred by the school district without assessing whether there was sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest. In August of 2012, the City revised its policy on school-based arrests. The revised policy limited the circumstances under which Meridian Police Department officers can arrest youth on school grounds. However, there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the City’s revisions fully remedied the United States’ allegations.
The Agreement prevents officers from responding to school requests to arrest youth for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including public order offenses and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon. For criminal offenses, an arrest is only permissible if officers make and document independent probable cause determinations. The Agreement also requires the police department to uphold constitutional protections following a youth’s arrest at school. To further the sustainability and transparency of
3 The attached Agreement defines a school-based arrest as “an arrest of a student on property controlled by the Meridian Public School District while the student is attending school. This definition includes the arrest of students at school programs or events and the arrest of juveniles being transported to and from school on buses controlled by the Meridian Public School District. This definition does not include the arrest of juveniles at events that are advertised to the general public or involve students from other school districts.” See Agreement at 3.
4 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 5 of 8
reforms, the Agreement requires MPD to provide officers with training on relevant topics; develop an effective process for tracking community complaints regarding school-based arrests; collect and make public demographic data on school-based arrests; and participate in a community input program to inform the community about the progress of reforms and hear community questions and concerns. The Agreement also requires the City to seek a Memorandum of Understanding between the Meridian Public School District Police Department and the MPD that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effectuating arrests of students while on school grounds.
The Agreement will be monitored by an Independent Auditor who will report publicly to the Court. The monitoring terms that the Parties have agreed to are reasonable. The Agreement will terminate when the City has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions and has maintained that substantial compliance for a year. In addition, subsections of the agreement may be terminated earlier if the City maintains substantial compliance with the relevant subsections for a period of one year. In addition, to preserve resources and to promote the efficient implementation of this Agreement, the Parties will meet on an annual basis regarding the possibility of transferring supervision of provisions of the Agreement from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States.
III. Conclusion
The City of Meridian and the United States share the same interest in protecting the constitutional rights of youth and have worked together cooperatively to develop this Settlement Agreement. The Parties concur that the Agreement resolves all issues related to the United States’ investigation of the City of Meridian Police Department. Therefore, the Parties
5 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 6 of 8

respectfully and jointly request that this Court approve the Agreement in its entirety, and enter it

as an order of the Court. 


Dated this 19th day of June, 2015. 


Respectfully submitted, 


Counsel for the United States of America:


GREGORY K. DAVIS
 United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 548997) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

/s/ Mitzi Dease Paige
MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014)
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480
Direct: (601) 973-2840
Facsimile: (601) 965-4409 E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

/s/ Rashida Ogletree
RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 462985) RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030) MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343)
Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202)305-3712 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov

6 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 7 of 8 Counsel for the City of Meridian:
/s/ Ronnie Walton RONNIE L. WALTON (MB #6933) REED C. DARSEY (MB #102960) Glover, Young, Hammack, Walton & Simmons, PLLC 1724-A 23rd Avenue Post Office Box 5514 Meridian, Mississippi 39302-5514 Telephone: 601-693-1301 Telecopier: 601-693-1363 Ronnie@gloveryoung.com Reed@gloveryoung.com
7 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 78 Filed 06/19/15 Page 8 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 19th, 2015, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of 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:
Charles W. Wright, Jr. Charles W. Wright, Jr., PLLC 1208 22nd Avenue P.O. Box 1677 Meridian, MS 39302 Charlie_wright@comcast.net
Lee Thaggard Robert T. Bailey Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009 thaggard@BarryPalmerLaw.com
Ronnie L. Walton Reed C. Darsey Glover, Young, Hammack, Walton & Simmons, PLLC 1724-A 23rd Avenue Post Office Box 5514 Meridian, MS 39302-5514 ronnie@gloveryoung.com
Douglas T. Miracle Harold E. Pizzetta, III Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation Division P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 dmira@ago.state.ms.us hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
/s/ Rashida Ogletree RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
8 


 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 1 of 17

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

United States of America,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge )

Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge

)

Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State

)

of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of

)

Human Services; and Mississippi Division of

)

Youth Services

)

)

_____D_e_fe_n_d_an_ts_._______________))

Civil Action No. 3: 13-CV-978-HTW-LRA
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

I. INTRODUCTION
A. This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into by the United States of America through the Department of Justice C'United States") and the City of Meridian (collectively, the "Parties") to address the administration ofjuvenile justice for Children arrested in Meridian schooIs.
B. On December 1, 2011, the United States opened an investigation into the administration ofjuvenile justice in Lauderdale County, Mississippi pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141 ").
C. On October 24, 2012, the United States filed a complaint against the City of Meridian, the Lauderdale County Youth Court Judges, Lauderdale County, and the State of Mississippi alleging violations of the substantive and procedural due process rights afforded to youth who appear in Lauderdale County Youth Court.
D. The City of Meridian and the United States share the same interest in protecting the constitutional rights of Lauderdale County youth and have worked together cooperatively to develop this Settlement Agreement.
E. This Agreement shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. With the exception of the Letter of Findings, no prior contemporaneous communications, oral or written, or prior drafts shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions herein in an enforcement proceeding.

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 2 of 17

F. This Settlemen~ Agreement is executed in connection with the compromise and settle.me~t of dl.sputed claims in the Plaintiffs lawsuit. The parties understand that by

ente~ng 1n~o th1s Se~lement Agreement the City does not admit legal liability of any sort

and 1t continues to d1spute any legal liability in this matter.

'

II. DEFINITIONS
A. :'C?il~" .and "youth" and "juvenile" are synonymous and refer to all persons subject to the JUns~Ictlon.ofthe Lauderdale County Youth Court, as set forth in Miss. Code Ann.§ 43-21151, 1nclud1ng all persons under the age of 18 taken into custody by a law enforcement officer.

B. "Court" refers to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi.

C. "DOJ" or "United States" means the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.

D. "Effective Date" means the date that this Settlement Agreement is approved and entered by the Court.

E. "Guardian" refers to a parent, legal guardian or other responsible family member of the youth.

F. "Include" or "Including" means "include, but not limited to" or "including, but not limited
to."

G. "Judge," "Judges," "Youth Court Judge," "Youth Court Judges," or "Youth Court" means the Judges of the Lauderdale County Youth Court.

H. "Miranda rights" means the rights that protect a Child against self-incrimination as guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 ( 1966).
I. "MPSD/EOS Agreement" refers to the Consent Order entered between the United States and the Meridian Municipal Separate School District in the matter Barnhardt et al. v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, eta/., 4:65-cv-01300-HTW-LRA 1300(E) on May 30, 2013 (Dkt. 36).

J. "Personally Identifiable" and/or "Confidential Information" means information that can be used to distinguish or trace a Child's identity, either alone or with other personal or identifying information. Covered information may include records maintained by the Youth Court, an educational institution or agency, a law enforcement agency or other governmental agency or a provider of services to youth and their families that contain identifying information, such as the individual's name, social security number, birth date, home or cellular telephone number, home

2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 3 of 17
~ddress, parent's name, medical history, educational history, or health status or other tnformat10n that the Parties agree should be deemed confidential.
K. "Police Independent Auditor" or "Independent Auditor" means an expert jointly selected by the Parties to assess compliance with this Agreement.
L. "Policies and Procedures" means the guiding principles or processes that staff are required to follow. For the purposes of this Agreement, policies and procedures shall include Lauderdale County Youth Court rules, manuals, and administrative directives.
M. "Referral" shall mean any request for law enforcement action by the Meridian Public School District.
N. "School-Based Arrest" means an arrest of a student on property controlled by the Meridian Public School District while the student is attending school. This definition includes the arrest of students at school programs or events and the arrest ofjuveniles being transported to and from school on buses controlled by the Meridian Public School District. This definition does not include the arrest ofjuveniles at events that are advertised to the general public or involve students from other school districts.
0. "Shall" means that the provision imposes a mandatory duty.
P. "Staff' means all individuals employed by the City who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.
Q. Throughout this Agreement, the following terms are used when discussing compliance: substantial compliance, partial compliance, and non-compliance. "Non compliance" means that the City has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision. "Beginning compliance" means that the City has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision. "Partial compliance" indicates that the City has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains. "Substantial Compliance" indicates that the City has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision. The Police Independent Auditor selected to evaluate the City's compliance may further refine the definition of compliance with the consent of both Parties.
R. "Train" means to instruct in the skills addressed to a level that the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency to implement those skills as, and when, called for in the training. "Trained" means to have achieved such proficiency.
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 4 of 17
III. SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES A. School Arrests and Probable Cause
I. Policy and Practices
a. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Meridian Police Department shall have adopted practices, policies, procedures, and training consistent with the principles below:
(i) Officers shall only conduct school-based arrests ofjuveniles under the following circumstances:
a. Officers have probable cause, to the extent required by law, to believe that a juvenile has committed a felony; or
b. A criminal offense that involves a real and immediate threat to students, teachers, or public safety; or
c. A misdemeanor or other indictable offense occurs in the officer's presence, except for offenses identified in (iii)(a); or
d. A judicial warrant or custody order specifically directs the arrest of a student in a school.
(ii) Officers shall avoid executing a judicial warrant at a school. A felony warrant may be executed at a school when it is not practical to conduct the arrest at alternative locations.
(iii) Officers shall not respond to requests for school-based arrests for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including incidents involving:
a. public order offenses including disorderly conduct, disruption of schools or public assembly, trespass, loitering, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon.
b. Officers must document in sufficient detail the basis for any school-based arrest, including any factors that justify arresting the youth at school and factors that support a determination of probable cause:
(i) Officers must provide a Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where a youth, based on the youth's mental
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 5 of 17
and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are not free to leave.
(ii) Officers must notify the juvenile's guardian of the arrest as soon as practicable, generally no more than three hours after the arrest. If a parent is not notified within three hours, the arresting officer must document, in writing, the reason for the delay.
(iii) Officers shall only interview a detained youth in the presence of the juvenile's guardian or attorney.
2. Training
a. Within six months of the Effective Date, Meridian Police Department shall provide officers with pre-service and annual in-service training regarding interactions with juveniles while on Meridian Public School District premises, including de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and age appropriate responses and bias­ free policing.
b. This training shall be conducted by qualified instructors.
c. MPD shall provide roll call trainings regarding these policies as needed.
d. MPD shall document that all officers have received the required training.
3. Civilian Complaints and Discipline
a. Within six months of the Effective Date, MPD shall ensure that an effective process is in place to consider complaints regarding MPD conduct in the schools, including school-based arrests. MPD shall ensure that community members, including students and parents or guardians, have access to complaint forms to express concerns about MPD. To achieve this outcome, MPD shall ensure that complaint forms are available from the MPD and at City Hall, public libraries, and police stations. MPD shall also make the complaint form available on its website and work with the Meridian Public School District to make forms available at the schools.
b. MPD shall specifically track complaints arising from school-based arrests.
c. MPD shall routinely assess the need for improvements to its training based on these complaints.
5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 6 of 17
d. Officers who violate MPD's juvenile arrest policies shall be held accountable through the department's disciplinary system.
4. Data Collection
a. MPD shall collect statistical data on the number ofjuveniles referred to the MPD by the Meridian Public School District and the number of arrests that arise out of behavior allegedly occurring in the Meridian public schools or at school events, including age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct.
b. This data shall be made public on the City's website on a semi-annual basis.
5. Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department
a. Consistent with ~92 of the MPSD/EOS Agreement, within 90 days of the effective date, the City shall seek a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the Meridian Public School District Police Department and the MPD that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effectuating arrests of students while on school grounds.
IV. COMMUNITY INPUT
A. Within six months of the Effective Date, the City, in consultation with the Police Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms as outlined herein and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this consent decree. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.
B. The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the City shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in place. A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement, the City's progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns related to the implementation of this agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
C. The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The City shall
6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 7 of 17
make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website they create or maintain.
V. IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
A. Implementation. The City shall begin implementing this Agreement immediately upon the Effective Date. If the City cannot fully implement the reforms required by this Agreement within the allotted time, the City shall notify the United States in writing. All training and reform attempts initiated following issuance of the Report of Findings, but before the Effective Date, shall be considered in the Police Independent Auditor's compliance assessment.
B. Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the City shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.
C. Protection of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information. The Parties agree to protect any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is obtained in the course of implementing this Agreement. The Parties further agree to use their best efforts to ensure that the Police Independent Auditor protects any personally identifiable and/or confidential information that is obtained in the course of implementing this agreement.
1. All files and documents containing Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, and any other materials containing Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information obtained during implementation ofthis agreement, shall be automatically treated as "Confidential" in accordance with the terms ofthis Order. Moreover, a party may choose to designate as "Confidential" any information that it has in good faith determined constitutes or contains Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, and/or information that is subject to protection under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, Mississippi Code§ 43-21-259 and § 43-21261, or other applicable federal and/or state law.
2. The Parties agree that any Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information may be made available only to the following:
a. Counsel for the Parties, as well as counsel's staff, law clerks, partners, associates, paralegals, secretaries, and stenographic personnel;
b. Experts and consultants retained by the Parties;
c. The Police Independent Auditor and his or her staff, partners, associates, secretaries, and stenographic personnel;
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 8 of 17

d. The Court and its staff, law clerks, secretaries and stenographic personnel;

e. Any other person upon order ofthe Court or express agreement of the Parties.

3.

?~y.the Parties, counsel for the Parties, the Police Independent Auditor, and

mdtvtduals they expressly authorize to do so may make copies or create summaries

of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information.

4. The Parties and their counsel agree that neither they nor their respective staffs, law clerks, associates, paralegals, secretaries, stenographic and support personnel, or other employees will use or disclose any Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information for any purpose other than for the implementation and enforcement of this and related actions. However, nothing in this Order shall be construed to restrict the Parties' or their counsel's use of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information in the normal course of business, for example or as otherwise permitted pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 or other federal law.

5. In any pleadings, motions, briefs, or exhibits filed with the Court containing Confidential Information, all Confidential Information shall be redacted in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and Local Civ. R. 5.2. Counsel for a party filing any documents containing redactions shall provide the other party with copies of the documents that do not contain redactions.

6. Any personally identifiable information about any Child in the Police Independent Auditor's reports that is filed with the Court shall be obscured by pseudonym (but the identity of the Child will be known to the Parties and, at its discretion, the Court) or filed under seal.

7. If the Parties expect to use Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential information in an evidentiary hearing or other proceeding open to the public, they will work with the Court to address the use of such information.

8. The Parties will discuss and make their best efforts to reach agreement on how to guard against disclosure of Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information in connection with the Community Input provisions of this Agreement.

9. In the event that the Parties receive a subpoena or other process or order to produce Personally Identifiable and/or Confidential Information, the Parties will comply with their standard operating procedures to defend against disclosure of Confidential Information to the fullest extent permitted by law and regulation. In the event that the Confidential Information is sought from the United States under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 522 et seq. (FOIA), the United States shall employ good faith efforts to ensure that Confidential Information is, to the fullest extent permitted by law, protected from disclosure under FOIA. If, despite good faith efforts, a party

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 9 of 17

is ordered to disclose Confidential Infonnation and complies with that order it shall

not be deemed in violation of this Agreement.

'

D. Police Independ~nt ~~ditor. Compliance with this Agreement shall be assessed by an Independent Auditor JOmtly selected by the Parties.

I. The United States and the City shall agree upon the Police Independent Auditor within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date. In the event the Parties are unable to agree on the Independent Auditor within 60 days, each party may submit to the Court, within 14 days thereafter, the names and curricula vitae of up to two individuals as candidates for the Police Independent Auditor position. The Parties will request that the Court select the Independent Auditor from among those nominated.

2. The City shall bear all reasonable fees and costs related to the Police Independent Auditor.

3. The Police Independent Auditor shall be pennitted to initiate and receive ex parte communications with the Parties, the Court, and any other Independent Auditor responsible for monitoring an agreement executed to resolve this case.

4. The Independent Auditor shall not make any oral or written public statements­ including but not limited to statements to the press, conference presentations, lectures, or articles- with regard to: the status of the City's compliance or noncompliance with this Agreement; any act or omission of the City or its agents, representatives or employees; or the tenns of his/her employment as the Independent Auditor unless authorized by the Parties.

5. The Independent Auditor shall not testify in any other litigation or proceeding with regard to the status of the City's compliance or noncompliance with this Agreement; any act or omission of the City's or its agents, representatives or employees; or the tenns of his or her employment as the Independent Auditor, unless otherwise lawfully compelled to do so. The Independent Auditor may testify in this litigation concerning the City's compliance or noncompliance with this Agreement.

6. Unless such conflict is waived by the Parties, the Independent Auditor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with his or her responsibilities under this Agreement or breach the highest ethical standards, including being retained (on a paid or unpaid basis) by any current or future litigant or claimant or such litigant's or claimanfs attorney, in connection with a claim or suit against the City or their departments, officers, agents or employees concerning matters relevant to this Agreement.

9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 10 of 17

7.

Neithe~ Party, nor ~ny employee or agent of either Party, shall have any

supervisory authonty over the Independent Auditor's activities, reports, findings,

or recommendations.

8.

The Independent Auditor may be tenninated if the Parties agree and upon good

cause shown. Good cause shall include any violation of State or Federal law

which reasonably calls into question the Independent Auditor's fitness to continue

serving as Independent Auditor. In the event the Parties do not agree upon the

need for tennination, the Parties agree to work in good faith to resolve their

differences.

9. Within 30 days of the receipt of written questions from the United States or the City regarding the Independent Auditor's activities in assessing compliance with this Agreement and/or the City's compliance with this Agreement, the Independent Auditor shall provide the United States or the City with written answers.

E. Police Independent Auditor's compliance reviews and access to the City and records. To assess the City's implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the Independent Auditor will regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure the City's implementation of this Agreement.

1. The first compliance review will be conducted within sixty (60) days of the Police Independent Auditor's appointment. Thereafter, routine compliance reviews will be conducted by the Independent Auditor every six months until this Agreement is terminated. Such routine compliance reviews will assess the City's compliance with each of the substantive remedial measures set forth above. The United States and the Independent Auditor shall consult with the City to schedule mutually acceptable dates for the compliance reviews.

2. The United States may detennine that additional compliance reviews are necessary due to emergent issues concerning the City. Emergent issues include the following:

a. The Independent Auditor's report, or fact-finding by the United States, indicates a regression in the number of provisions in which the City is in substantial compliance with this Agreement;

b. The data produced pursuant to paragraph III.A.4 indicates a significant increase in the number of school-based arrests;

c. Members of the community express significant concerns about the City's compliance, demonstrated by a significant increase in the number of civilian complaint forms submitted regarding school-based arrests or oral

10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 11 of 17
complaints at community input meetings found credible by the United States.
If the United States believes that such additional compliance reviews are necessary, the United States and the Independent Auditor shall consult with the City to schedule mutually acceptable dates for such additional compliance reviews.
3. At each compliance review, the Independent Auditor shall have the responsibility and authority to independently observe, assess, review, and report on the City's implementation and compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. To accurately assess the City's progress, the Police Independent Auditor shall: interview Meridian Police Department officers and personnel, pertinent administrators, professional staff, direct care staff, children who are in MPD custody, and contractors; and conduct detailed reviews of arrest records, complaint forms and any subsequent disciplinary action, or other pertinent documents. The Independent Auditor shall be responsible for independently verifying representations from the City regarding progress toward compliance, examining supporting documentation where applicable.
4. The City shall grant the Independent Auditor full and complete access to the City's documents, records and premises, and to the City's officials, employees, agents and contractors whose responsibilities are affected by this Agreement. The City shall also allow the Independent Auditor access to Children whose detainment resulted from a school-based arrest, including the ability to meet privately with Children.
5. The Independent Auditor shall file with the Parties a final report which describes the steps taken by the City to implement this Agreement, evaluates the extent to which the City has complied with each substantive provision of the Agreement, cites the evidence upon which such evaluation is based, and provides recommendations. The Independent Auditor's report should indicate whether the City is in "Substantial compliance," "Beginning compliance," "Partial compliance," or "Non-compliance" with each provision of the Agreement. Each report shall be provided to the Parties in draft form for comment within 30 days after each compliance review, and the Parties shall have 20 days after receipt of the draft report to comment on the report before it is finalized by the Independent Auditor. Neither Party, however, shall have authority over the Independent Auditor's report, findings, or recommendations. The Report shall be made publicly available on the City's website and the website of the United States.
6. Once finalized, the Independent Auditor's report shall be filed with the Court.
F. Annual Meeting Regarding the Continued Need for External Monitoring. To preserve resources and to promote the efficient implementation of this Agreement, the
11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 12 of 17
Parties ~~all meet on an annual basis regarding the possibility of transferring supervision of prov1s1ons of the agreement from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States with self-reporting by the City.
1. In each meeting, the Parties shall discuss the Independent Auditor's views regarding the status of the City's compliance with the provisions of the Agreement, and any additional information brought forth for discussion by the Parties.
2. The Parties' first annual meeting will occur 30 days after the Independent Auditor files his or her second report.
3. If the City has made significant progress in achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but is not yet in substantial compliance, the United States shall consider transitioning the City from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States. The transfer from external monitoring shall only occur with the City's consent.
4. Should the City fail to continue making progress in achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement or regress in their overall status of compliance, the United States may require that the City return to external monitoring. If the City has been the subject of a motion to enforce by the United States, it shall be ineligible for monitoring by the United States with self-reporting for a period of two years.
5. Monitoring by either the Independent Auditor or the United States shall terminate when the City has achieved substantial compliance with all provisions in the Settlement Agreement and maintained substantial compliance with all provisions for a period of one year.
G. Settlement Agreement Coordinator. The City shall appoint an official or employee to serve as the Settlement Agreement Coordinator, whose duties shall include:
1. Developing reports regarding compliance with this Agreement and providing such reports to the United States and the Independent Auditor every six months until this Agreement is terminated. The first report shall be provided four months after the Effective Date.
2. Providing to the United States and the Independent Auditor the raw data upon which each compliance report is based, any reports prepared by the City's technical consultants regarding compliance with this Agreement, and any other reports routinely submitted to the Settlement Agreement Coordinator regarding compliance with this Agreement.
H. United States' Access to the City and Records. The United States and its staff and agents shall have full and complete access to:
12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 13 of 17
I. The City's documents and records relevant to the implementation of this Agreement;
2. The City's officials, employees, agents, and independent contractors whose responsibilities are affected by this Agreement; and
3. Children whose detainment resulted from a school-based arrest, including the right to meet with Children privately.
Such access shall continue until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with the termination provisions herein.
VI. OUTCOME MEASURES
The City shall maintain a record of the documents necessary to facilitate a review by the Independent Auditor and the United States of the metrics described below. In order to ensure that reforms are conducted in accordance with the Constitution, the Independent Auditor shall assess the City's progress in implementing these provisions and the effectiveness of these reforms. In addition to assessing the policies, procedures, practices, and training, the Independent Auditor shall undertake an analysis of metrics related to due process reforms, as follows:
1. Examine the data MPD collects on school-based arrests, including age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct;
2. Track the charges, race, gender, age and, disability, if any, of the Children involved in school-based arrests.
VII. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION
A. Notice Prior to Judicial Action. With the exception of conditions or practices that pose an immediate and serious threat to the life, health, or safety of a Child, if the United States believes that the City has failed to substantially comply with any obligation under this Agreement, the United States shall give written notice of the failure prior to seeking judicial enforcement of the Agreement.
B. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate in accordance with the following provisions:
1. This Agreement shall terminate when the City has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions of this Agreement and has maintained that substantial compliance for 12 consecutive months.
13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 14 of 17
2. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure by the City to maintain substantial compliance. However, intermittent compliance during a period of sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance.
3. Subsections of this Agreement may be terminated separately and independently from the provisions of the Agreement that have not yet reached substantial compliance, if the City maintains substantial compliance in these areas for a period of one year.
VIII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Policies and Procedures
1. Policy and Procedure Review. The City shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this agreement. The initial policy and procedures review shall be initiated by the City's officials and shall be subject to approval by the United States and the Independent Auditor.
2. Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the City shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the City shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the City completes its initial revision, the City shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Police Independent Auditor for review and approval. The Independent Auditor shall, as soon as practicable, submit to the City any suggested revisions to the proposed policies. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor's revisions, the City shall revise the policies to incorporate the Independent Auditor's revisions and shall resubmit the procedures to the Independent Auditor for review and approval. This review process shall continue until the Independent Auditor has approved of all policies and procedures.
The City shall provide all such documents to the United States for its review within thirty (30) days of the review and approval by the Independent Auditor. Within forty- five (45) days of its receipt of the policies, procedures, and other written documents, the United States shall provide either written approval of each document, or written concerns or objections it has to the documents that include proposed revisions. Such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event that the United States asserts that policies, procedures, or other written documents are not in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, the Parties will confer on the matter for up to thirty (30) days.
The final policies and procedures shall be subject to further revision if, after review, the Independent Auditor or United States determines that the policies or
14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 15 of 17
procedures are not successfully solving a deficiency identified in the Independent Auditor's report.
3. Policy Implementation. No later than three months after the Independent Auditor's final approval of each policy or procedure, the City shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the City shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and approval. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.
4. Modification. Should the Parties choose to modify this Agreement, they may do so by mutual agreement. Any such modifications or amendments to this Agreement shall be memorialized in writing and executed by representatives for the Parties.
B. Reporting Requirements
1. Comprehensive Action Plan. Within four months of the Effective Date, the City shall submit to the United States and the Police Independent Auditor a comprehensive action plan specifying the measures they intend to take in order to bring the City into compliance with the substantive requirements of the Agreement, including anticipated timeframes for completion of each measure.
2. Compliance Report. The City shall submit a bi-annual compliance report to the United States and the Police Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi-annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor's bi-annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi-annual compliance report submitted by the City shall describe the actions the City has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the City will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.
3. Records. The City shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented and shall make such records available to the United States at all reasonable times for inspection and copying. These records shall be maintained for three years. In addition, the City shall maintain and submit upon request records or other documents to verify
15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 16 of 17

that they have taken such actions as described in the compliance reports (e.g., census summaries, policies, procedures, protocols, training materials and incident reports) and shall also provide all additional documents reasonably requested.
4. Prohibition on Retaliation. No Child, parent, staff, stakeholder, or any other person shall be subjected to retaliation in any manner for information shared with the Independent Auditor or the United States in their efforts to determine compliance with this Agreement.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2015,

For Plaintiff THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

Is/ Gregory Davis GREGORY K. DAVIS United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

Is/ Vanita Gupta VANITAGUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Is/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson,MS 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480 Direct: (601) 973-2840 Facsimile: (601) 965-4409 E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

Is/ Mark Kappe/hoff MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
Is/ Judy C. Preston JUDY C. PRESTON Chief
Is/ Shelley R Jackson SHELLEY R. JACKSON {MA Bar No. 548997) RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441) MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 462985) RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030) Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone:(202)305-3373 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: shelley.jackson@usdoj.gov

16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 83 Filed 09/18/15 Page 17 of 17
. '
For Defendant CITY OF MERIDIAN:
Mayor
WHEREFORE, for good cause shown,
it is SO ORDERED this L.f}ay o~ 2015.
• ~fer~
HONO LE United States District Court Judge

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 1 of 33
First Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:13‐CV‐978‐HTW‐LRA
Draft submitted: February 2, 2016 Final submitted: March 6, 2016 Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301‐602‐1610

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 2 of 33
I. Introduction
This is the first report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). While the State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian have reached settlements with the Justice Department, litigation regarding the Youth Court and its two sitting judges continues.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct an initial compliance review within 60 days of appointment. Compliance reviews thereafter are to occur every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the initial compliance review, which took place from January 5 through 8, 2016.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed accounting of compliance in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the
2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 3 of 33
compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non‐compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review was the first opportunity for me to meet the Youth Services Counselors (YSCs) working in Lauderdale County and their regional supervisor who oversees probation services in 12 counties. Everyone at the agency was welcoming, pleasant and easy to work with, and I appreciated their responsiveness to my questions and requests for documents. The visit also provided an opportunity to observe practices of YSCs, learn about the records kept by the agency, and inquire about training opportunities available to staff. The Youth Services Counselors had not previously been provided a copy of the agreement and were not familiar with all of the provisions of the agreement, so this visit also provided an opportunity for staff to learn more about the settlement provisions and how settlement auditing would occur.
The agency has taken some significant steps to address issues identified in the Justice Department’s investigation and litigation. These include: no longer requesting or recommending detention for youth school‐related
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 4 of 33
behavior that was the subject of school discipline, adopting and training staff on use of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), and adopting policies on graduated responses to youth behavior while on probation. Now that the agency has entered into an agreement to engage in specific activities, the next steps largely involve fine‐tuning policies, communicating with staff about expectations, developing further training, and fully implementing the measures the agency has agreed upon. It will be important for leaders in the agency to communicate with the line staff in Lauderdale County to set the tone for implementation of the agreement: to make clear that the agency endorses the changes; to explain how the settlement agreeement will improve circumstances for youth, families and workers; to establish a shared understanding that implementation of the agreed‐upon terms are a priority for the agency; and to explain how the agency will support and promote prompt implementation. This leadership will be key to laying the groundwork for effective and lasting reforms.
Three significant challenges affected the breadth of my initial review. These challenges are not indicators of the State’s compliance or non‐ compliance with the settlement agreement. I am not describing them to indicate any failing or fault of either party. Rather, I outline them because they limited my ability to assess compliance with the agreement’s provisions in the manner I would have otherwise chosen to approach this assessment.
First, because the County is still in litigation and the auditor’s access to Youth Court personnel and documents could not be negotiated through a settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States, I was not permitted to ask questions of the judges or other County employees in the Youth Court. I was not permitted to observe court on the first day of my visit, as the judge and his counsel had not fully communicated about the scope of my visit. By later in the week once questions had been ironed out, there were no more delinquency matters on the calendar. As a result, I was not able to observe YSCs in their interactions with Youth Court actors, nor could I ask Youth Court employees about the work of the YSCs. I also did not have access to the files on individual youth maintained by the Youth Court.
Second, the State made efforts to accommodate my visit by scheduling several clients for meetings with their YSCs during my visit, which I very much
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 5 of 33
appreciated. Most of the meetings were scheduled during the same two‐hour window between 3:00 and 5:00 on two days, with more than one worker having meetings at the same time. Because the meetings were running at parallel times, I was not able to observe as many meetings or talk with youth and families for as long as I had hoped. This should not be a problem during the summer, when there is a wider window of possible times to schedule meetings without interfering with school.
Third, I asked to make arrangements to interview the two attorneys appointed to represent youth in most delinquency matters in the Youth Court. Because they are County contractors, I was told by the parties that we would need permission from the County’s attorney before making such arrangements. I did not receive permission to conduct those interviews, so I did not have the opportunity to learn from youths’ counsel about their observations regarding the matters that are the subjects of this review. I am hopeful that by the next visit, this will also be resolved.
Despite these challenges, this first visit was a productive opportunity to develop an understanding of the State’s initial extent of compliance with the agreement. During the visit I was able to meet with each YSC, the regional supervisor, the Director of Community Services, and the Youth Services Director. I reviewed 22 youth files maintained by the YSCs (but not the files maintained by the Youth Court). These files included youth on probation and on informal adjustment, and youth the YSCs were able to identify as probation violators. I observed eight meetings between YSCs and youth, six of which included family members, and spoke privately with twelve youth and 6 parents, including youth detained in the Rankin County Detention Center, and youth and families who had just finished in court or YSC meetings. The State provided me with its online policies and appendices and some caseload and scheduling information prior to the visit. During and following the visit, I was able to review the following additional documents:
 Training materials: o Case Management for Counselors (power point slides printed) o Training handout on reinforcements and sanctions
 Youth Court Docket for Tuesday January 5, 2016  List of youth in detention from Lauderdale County on January 5, 2016
5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 6 of 33
 Service Referral Matrix – Lauderdale County  Probation Contract  Informal Adjustment Agreement  SAVRY Case Audit Form  Evaluation Summary/Recommendations from SAVRY review  SAVRY Rating Sheet with Needs – Practice Version  Mississippi State Personnel Board – Performance Development
Assessment (Non‐management form – blank)  State of Mississippi – Class Specification Bulletins:
o Youth Service Counselor Trainee o Youth Service Counselor I, II and III o Youth Service Counselor, Regional Director  Oakley Youth Admission Form Packet, including the risk scoring matrix for all charged offenses  Overview of Institutional Programs and Services  Parole Agreement, Parole Interview and Parent Interview for parole  DYS Policy and Procedures Manual: one‐page addition of notes on Grievances and Appeals, Discipline and Correction Action, and Performance Appraisals  List of documents required for admission to Oakley  List of documents required when paroled from Oakley  Service Criteria: “The Report Card in the Client’s Head”  Training Document: Time Flies — But Remember “You are the Navigator”  Dress Code Policy draft, dated January 17, 2016  Printout of Miss. Code Ann. 43‐14‐1, version current through 2011, re: MAP  MAP Team case referral documents  Document entitled “MAP Teams” ‐ includes case referral and assessment information  Mental Health and Alcohol Drug Abuse Commitment Procedures  One‐page Systems of Care MAP Team outline  101 Ways to Cope with Stress  DHS policy AP‐6 on Administering Flextime  DHS policy AP‐27 – Code of Ethics  DHS policy AP‐5 – Employee Leave  DHS policy AP‐10, Fair Labor Standards Act Requirements
6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 7 of 33
 DHS policy AP‐21 Dress Code  A‐Team referral process  Training document: Demonstrate Effective Telephone Skills  Ethics and Professionalism, training handout  Handling Problem Calls training handout  How to Get Control of Your Time and Your Life, quotations from book by
Alan Lakein  Core 1 Community Services Cover Page and materials from the orientation
training: o File Folder Setup o Staff training Introduction o Key Players in the Juvenile Justice System o Legal Terms that May Be Used in Youth Courts o DYS Core 1 Orientation Syllabus o Syllabus for Core II – Effective Case Work (YASI Training) o Table of Contents for Core Training Module 1 o The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People o The Seven Sins of Service o Unauthorized Activities o Use of Equipment o YASI Manual Cover o Youth Court Accounts
 MS Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management Practice  SAVRY Professional Manual and Rating Form  SAVRY training guide  Attendance records from DYS Conferences, October 2014 and 2015  Agenda, presenter bios and other logistics handouts from DYS Conference
October 2015  DYS Organizational Chart
Table I summarizes my compliance findings. Some of the provisions of the settlement agreement include deadlines in the future. I have not indicated a compliance rating for those provisions, noting that the requirements are not yet applicable. The parties remain in disagreement as to whether the community input provisions found in Section IV of the settlement agreement are subject to compliance review by the Independent Auditor. I have indicated that status in the charts below as well.
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 8 of 33

Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision

Provision number Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c III.A.1.d III.A.2.a
III.A.2.b III.A.2.c.i III.A.2.c.ii III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a III.A.3.b III.B.1

Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youth Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth‐appropriate language Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors
Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations Probation Conditions – Understandable language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities

Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Non‐compliance
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited. Partial compliance
Beginning compliance
Non‐compliance
Partial compliance
Beginning compliance Not yet applicable
Substantial compliance (recommend diversion) and not yet applicable (future funding

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 9 of 33

III.C.1 III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A
IV.B
IV.C
V.B
VIII.A.1 VIII.A.2 VIII.A.4 VIII.B.2

Training – Develop training plans Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S. Community Input – Develop program to keep the community informed about progress of reforms
Community Input – At least one open meeting every six months, widely publicized
Community Input – Summaries of action plan and Compliance Reports available at meetings and on website
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors
Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year Reporting – Biannual compliance report

opportunities) Not yet applicable Not yet applicable
Not yet applicable
Not yet applicable The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review. The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review. The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review. The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review. Beginning compliance
Beginning compliance Not yet applicable
Not yet applicable

9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 10 of 33

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings
III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth‐appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
iii. an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance

Discussion

Conversations with clients and YSCs indicate that YSCs carefully review the probation contract with clients when the youth are initially placed on probation. They explain what is expected of youth both at the initial meeting and at other times during probation supervision. They discuss what will happen on probation and the YSC role. Staff discuss some of the potential sanctions imposed on youth who commit probation violations, but not the range of consequences contemplated by the DYS graduated response policy. They do not currently discuss the revocation process, youths’ right to challenge allegations, and youth’s right to counsel for revocation.

While YSCs are covering some of the topics contemplated in this provision when they talk with youth and families, they are not providing to youth a written document that provides notice of the topics

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.

10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 11 of 33

identified in this provision.
Policies do not currently reflect this requirement, nor do orientation training materials or the Mississippi Desktop Guide To Effective Case Management, the YSCs’ practice manual.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, DYS must ensure that YSCs provide youth with notice of the required topics in youth‐appropriate language, and that this requirement is reflected in policies and procedures.

The State may choose to provide notice solely in writing, just by verbal presentation, or both. If the communication will be handled verbally, DYS must adopt a standard outline for YSCs and train staff about appropriate ways to explain the information to youth and their families. If the communication is to occur in writing, the State must develop a handout of the topics required to be discussed with youth under this agreement, and ensure that it is written in youth‐friendly language.

If this is a requirement the State chooses to implement across the entire state, then it must incorporate this requirement into DYS policy and the Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management. If the state chooses not to incorporate this requirement into state practice, then it will need to issue a local policy and/or addendum to the case management manual to guide this practice in Lauderdale County.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; review of 22 youths’ files kept by YSCs; conversations with 12 youth and 6 parents; observations of 8 YSC meetings with youth (six of which included family members); review of DYS policy on Graduated Responses, MS Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management Practice, and staff orientation training materials.

III.A.1.b

DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 12 of 33

Discussion

Based on conversations with YSCs and observations of their meetings with probationers, it appears that YSCs mostly meet with youth and their parents at the same time. If youth are brought to the meeting by someone else, if a parent is unavailable, or if the youth asks to meet privately with the counselor, then the counselor may meet privately with just the youth. Otherwise, parents and youth are generally scheduled to meet with YSCs at the same time.
As a result, the state’s compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, in order to reach substantial compliance, the State will need to provide notice of the required topics, using appropriate language for youth and their families to understand.

The State may choose to provide notice solely in writing, just by verbal presentation, or both. If the communication will be handled verbally, DYS must adopt a standard outline for YSCs and train staff about appropriate ways to explain the information to youth and their families. If the communication is to occur in writing, the State must develop a handout of the topics required to be discussed with youths’ guardians under this agreement.

The State must decide which policy and procedure documents are appropriate for revision in order to incorporate this requirement, and must make these revisions.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; review of 22 youths’ files kept by YSCs; conversations with 12 youth and 6 parents; observations of 8 YSC meetings with youth (six of which included family members).

III.A.1.c

The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youth‐appropriate language.

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance

Discussion

Some YSCs reported that when they explain the probation process and 12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 13 of 33

expectations, they will watch for signs that the client does not understand and will try to explain requirements in different ways if necessary. One YSC described merely reading the probation contract as the main method of explaining. All YSCs use the probation contract as a basis for the discussion. Because the probation contract is not written in youth‐appropriate language, it is not an effective tool for ensuring understanding. Therefore, additional steps are needed to make sure that the process is always explained in youth‐friendly terms.
Youth and families I interviewed did report that they understood the requirements for probation and that their assigned YSCs had made those requirements clear to them. However, not all the topics required under the settlement agreement have been discussed with families, as described above, so work must be done to ensure that all topics are covered, and that staff are using tools that incorporate language easily understood by youth and their families.
In addition, staff do not currently receive training about effective communication with youth and families with disabilities, unless they received it during their coursework in college or graduate school. One staff member expressed particular interest in more training in this subject. YSCs would benefit from developing skills to aid in identifying youth and families who may have difficulty processing the information presented, and in alternative strategies for communicating with youth and families who have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and mental health conditions that make processing of information difficult.
I provided to the regional supervisor and state Director of Community Services a link to resources from the State of Washington, where courts engaged in a project to revise court colloquies and other materials to incorporate youth‐appropriate language. This resource and another cited below from the National Juvenile Defender Center may be helpful starting points in considering how to revise existing materials used to advise youth and families about rights and expectations in Lauderdale County or for use by DYS across Mississippi.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to reach substantial compliance, the agency will need to revise the formal probation, informal adjustment, and parole agreements/contracts to incorporate language that youth and families can understand. Any additional handouts developed to explain probation or parole to families and youth also must incorporate youth‐ appropriate language. Guidance materials and training for staff must aid staff in use of youth‐appropriate language and explaining required

13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 14 of 33

topics in ways that maximize understanding. Training for staff must include information about common disabilities among youth in the juvenile justice system and their families, and skill development for staff in communicating with people with such disabilities.
This requirement must be reflected in policy, practice manual, and other appropriate agency documents.
I recommend that the agency review the materials from the Washington Judicial Colloquies Project, including Washington Judicial Colloquies Project: A Guide for Improving Communication and Understanding in Juvenile Court as a resource. While that project focused on what judges would say in court and handouts for youth to take with them after hearings, the approach to the revisions and reasons for doing so are applicable in Lauderdale County as well. The publication may be found here: http://www.teamchild.org/docs/uploads/JIDAN_Judicial_Colloquies_FI NAL.pdf
In addition, this publication from the National Juvenile Defender Center describes other court communication projects and resources: http://njdc.info/wp‐content/uploads/2014/10/Language‐HR‐ 10.8.14.pdf

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Meridian; review of 22 youths’ files kept by YSCs; review of standard contracts/agreements for probation, informal adjustment, and parole; conversations with 12 youth and 6 parents; observations of 8 YSC meetings with youth (six of which included family members); review of training materials and MS Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management Practice.

III.A.1.d

Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.

Compliance Rating Non‐compliance 14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 15 of 33

Discussion

Not all YSCs are setting fixed meeting schedules with their clients, and there is no documented notice to counsel or documentation of efforts to reschedule for counsel. The agreement requires a “fixed meeting schedule,” which I interpret to mean a set day and time at regular intervals. The State’s comments on my draft report state that “MDYS Youth Service Counselors have been and continue to set fixed meeting schedules for youth during the probationary period.” However, I observed some YSCs at the end of a meeting ask the client when they would like to set the next meeting, and then setting a date and time accordingly. The approach of setting one meeting at a time is a reasonable one in order to respond to families’ changing needs; however, it does not appear to meet the stated requirements of the agreement as I currently interpret it. If the parties have a different understanding of the meaning of the term “fixed meeting schedule,” I invite them to share their interpretations of the term with me.
Staff were not yet aware of the new scheduling requirement or the counsel notice and documentation requirements at the time of the compliance visit. The agency will need to work with counsel who represent youth in Youth Court in order to develop an effective notice and rescheduling policy and practice.
In addition, it will be important to help staff understand the due process reasons for the changed scheduling approach. This requirement presents a change in practice to which workers and clients will need to adapt. Staff should be informed that after they agree on a pre‐set schedule, they may continue to be flexible about rescheduling meetings where they agree with youth and families that a change would be helpful, so long as they notify counsel. It would be a shame if staff became inflexible about scheduling because they believed that they could only change pre‐set schedules to allow for counsel to be present.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the State will need to adopt a policy and/or practice guidance about scheduling, notice to counsel, and documentation in Lauderdale County. Developers of the policy or other practice guidance must reach out to counsel who regularly represent youth in Youth Court to ensure that the approach adopted is effective and workable. Staff then must be trained on the new approach and provided with any forms, logs, and other resources needed for compliance with the requirements of this provision.

15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 16 of 33

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Meridian; review of 22 youths’ files kept by YSCs; observations of 8 YSC meetings with youth (six of which included family members).

III.A.2.b.

The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance

Discussion

The DYS worked hard to choose a risk assessment tool, train workers in its use, and adopt policies regarding Graduated Responses and Risk Assessment during 2014 and 2015. The implementation of those policies and practices is still in process. YSCs have all participated in training, supplemental booster trainings, and practice sessions on use of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY), the objective, validated tool adopted by the agency. One of the workers in Lauderdale County is a regional trainer in use of the SAVRY, and the regional supervisor is doing file reviews to assess staff completion of the tool.
However, use of the tool is not yet consistent for all cases before the Youth Court, as workers are incorporating the assessment into their practice gradually. The settlement agreement requires: “The DYS shall develop … a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.” Therefore, for compliance with the agreement, the SAVRY or another risk assessment tool must be used for any matter in which YSCs are providing a recommendation to a Youth Court judge.
The supervisor explained that staff are currently being asked to complete two SAVRY assessments per month, so some youth on formal probation do not yet have a completed SAVRY. Review of youth files confirmed that the practice is not yet fully implemented.

16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 17 of 33
The State has commented that use of the SAVRY is not indicated in all cases. If the State believes that there are some cases that come before Youth Court judges for recommendations by YSCs in which the SAVRY should not be used, this may require modification of the agreement. The State will need to identify those circumstances where it believes that it would be inappropriate to comply with this requirement so that the parties and auditor can determine an appropriate resolution.
For Graduated Responses, the agency developed a policy that included sample incentives and sanctions grids. One regional training with concrete suggestions and approaches was provided to staff in 2015. Following the training, the agency expected that the localities would develop their own incentives and sanctions grids and seek out their own incentives resources. However, development of local graduated response systems requires that someone be assigned to be responsible for the development, and that there be support for the work. The YSCs in Lauderdale County do not have jurisdiction‐specific incentives or sanctions grids. While they are open to using incentives creatively, and sometimes do so with resources already available to them, the system as envisioned in DYS policy is not fully developed or implemented.
I have provided initial written feedback to the agency regarding the graduated responses policy. The policy endorses adopting a range of incentives and sanctions that can be implemented by YSCs, but in other parts of the policy suggests that graduated responses only include measures that must be ordered by the court. It has the makings of an effective strategy to implement graduated responses, but some internal inconsistencies must be straightened out, and other matters need clarification in the policy. The Director of Community Services recently requested that I provide examples of graduated incentives and sanctions grids from other jurisdictions, and I have provided several examples, as well as some additional resource materials. I would be happy to provide sample training materials and other resources if the agency requests them.
Finally, the Mississippi Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management Practice (“Desktop Guide”), the YSCs’ practice manual, does not reflect the recent adoption of the SAVRY and Graduated Responses policies or practices. The Desktop Guide, orientation training, and any other materials guiding staff practice should be updated to incorporate these relatively new policies and expectations.
17

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 18 of 33

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the State must align the SAVRY policy with the requirements of the agreement. Staff then need to use the SAVRY in all situations anticipated by the agency’s policy, and the findings from the SAVRY must inform the recommendations YSCs are making to judges. If the State contends that there are circumstances where YSCs make recommendations to Youth Court judges for which it is not appropriate to have completed the SAVRY, the State must identify those circumstances so that the parties and the auditor can discuss an appropriate resolution.

The agency will also need to revise the graduated responses policy to provide clearer and more consistent guidance to staff. DYS must provide support for YSC staff in Lauderdale County to develop incentives and sanctions grids, and to establish a range of incentives for youth to comply with probation requirements.

While not a requirement for compliance, this work to establish a system of graduated responses is most effectively done in coordination with other court stakeholders where possible.

Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new policies and use of the SAVRY. The agency should also consider whether it would be appropriate to include mention of these and other key functions in job descriptions and periodic evaluations. If the information is too specific to be incorporated into these documents, then the agency must explore other ways to encourage and support full implementation of these new initiatives, and explain in future compliance reports how it determined which documents were appropriate to modify and how it is ensuring full implementation of these policy and practice changes.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of files; Graduated Responses, Probation, and SAVRY policies and appendices; Mississippi Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management Practice; interviews with DYS staff and management; review of training materials; SAVRY Case Audit Form.

III.A.2.c.i.

Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and

18

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 19 of 33

discriminatory enforcement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

The agency has revised the informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts in recent years to make them more understandable. However, there is more to be done.
For example, the probation contract begins with the following phrase:
“WE, THE UNDERSIGNED CHILD AND PARENT(S), GUARDIAN(S), OR CUSTODIAN(S), do hereby acknowledge that said child has been placed on probation by the Lauderdale County Youth Court and as a condition of such probation said child must abide by certain restrictions and rules as more fully set forth herein, as well as the provisions of the Court’s orders, and that said child, therefore must:”
Numerous words in the above phrase are difficult for any non‐lawyer adult to understand, and that much more difficult for many youth in the juvenile justice system. Other parts of the contract include words such as “hereinabove,” “contempt proceedings,” “designated,” and other words beyond the average reading level of an at‐risk teenager. As explained above, the agency should review and revise its informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts and agreements. In addition, I recommend that the agency review its policies to determine where it can make adjustments that could promote use of youth‐ appropriate language across the agency’s communications with youth and families.
In addition, the contracts include terms that could lead to arbitrary enforcement, and some terms make it difficult for families to understand how to comply. For example, paragraph 4 requires youth to “Stay away from all undesirable places including:_______” “All undesirable places” is insufficiently descriptive to provide meaningful guidance to youth, families, or even YSCs. In my review of files I saw the blank in the provision above filled in with phrases such as, “any place that can contribute to the delinquency of a minor.” Such a requirement is overly broad and hard for a youth to know how to comply.
Similarly, it is common in probation contracts to require youth to stay away from the locations where they committed crimes. However, another example from the file review illustrates a provision that is
19

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 20 of 33

difficult for youth to know how to follow. A youth was required to stay away from “Any properties of” the victim. Without addresses, the youth would not have enough information to know whether he was staying away from the victim’s properties or not. Such a provision does not provide sufficient notice to the youth and family, and can lead to arbitrary enforcement.
Helping staff understand more about youths’ due process rights and the importance of fair notice may help them craft more appropriate requirements in the future.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to revise the formal probation, informal adjustment, and parole contracts to incorporate language that youth and families can understand. In addition, staff must be trained so that they fill in the blanks with appropriate provisions that are not overly broad or difficult to understand the scope of the requirement. The agency must consider whether adjustments to policy, the Desktop Guide, orientation, or other resources are necessary to give staff sufficient guidance, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contract, informal adjustment agreement, and parole agreement; review of youth files; training materials; Desktop Guide.

III.A.2.c.ii.

Probation contracts shall:

1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and  
2. Specify how Children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement
while on probation. 

Compliance Rating Non‐Compliance

Discussion

The Probation Contract, Informal Adjustment Agreement, and Parole Agreement do not include these concepts. The Probation and Informal

20

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 21 of 33

Adjustment documents include language that states: “My failure to attend school or work is not excusable solely on the grounds that I was suspended or expelled there from.” DYS will need to develop a plan for youth to satisfy the mandatory school attendance policy while on probation and to explain it to youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to incorporate more discussion of rights that are appropriate to cover in a probation or parole contract. Recently the State requested technical assistance in identifying those rights and revising the contract, so I will work with the State further to provide recommendations for these documents. The State also will need to decide how youth are expected to satisfy the mandatory school attendance policy while on probation if they are disciplined, and what is the appropriate response of a YSC in such circumstances. The State has indicated that it will develop a list of currently available alternatives. Once it identifies these alternatives, it will need to make sure that staff are aware of them and using them as appropriate. Then it will need to determine how to explain these concepts to youth, and incorporate both pieces of information into the probation, informal adjustment and parole contracts/agreements.

Evidentiary Basis

Probation contract, informal adjustment agreement, and parole agreement.

III.A.2.c.iii.

Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance.

Discussion

In most of the files I reviewed, probation officers recommended returning youth to probation with services rather than recommending incarceration when youth violated probation. They show a lot of flexibility and willingness to keep working with youth. In addition, YSCs reported, and it was reflected in the files, that they are no longer seeking separate sanctions for youth when they are disciplined in

21

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 22 of 33
school. This is a significant change in practice.
However, I noted one significant exception in one youth’s file from July 2015. This youth was charged with theft of an item under $200 in value. He was expelled from school at the time. The YSC requested detention and as part of the rationale for putting the youth in detention, the YSC explained that the youth would have nothing to do while expelled. There was no indication that all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration had been exhausted. A low‐level theft would not normally be a detainable offense, and not having enough to do while expelled is not an appropriate reason to detain a youth.
The means for tracking compliance with this provision were not readily available during this first visit. The agency has not maintained a separate list of youth returned to court for probation violations. As a result, I had to rely on staff members’ memories of individual youth who might have had probation violations in the recent past. While I was able to see eight files of youth returned to court for probation violations, it was not a random sample since they were hand‐picked by staff.
I have recommended that the agency maintain a separate list of youth returned to court for probation violations, so that I can review a representative sample chosen at random during the next compliance visit. In addition, it would be helpful for the agency to maintain a list of youth who are alleged to have violated probation through failure to attend school or other educational programming, or suspension or expulsion. The settlement agreement lists metrics to be reviewed by the Independent Auditor, and they include review of YSCs’ recommendations about these groups in particular.
To address the need to keep youth busy while they are suspended or expelled from school, the State may wish to collaborate with other local stakeholders to seek options for youth on probation to be engaged during the day if they are suspended or expelled and are not engaged in alternative educational programs. There may be other programs that could be developed or augmented as reasonable options.
It appears that County staff, parents, police or others often provide the affidavits that are the basis for initial detention due to a probation violation. As a result, in most cases YSCs are not recommending detention at the time the youth is charged with the probation violation. Intake staff who are Lauderdale County employees handle the processing of the charges, so YSCs do not generally have formal
22

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 23 of 33
involvement at the charging stage. For the hearings on probation violation charges, YSCs seem to make significant efforts to recommend responses to violations that allow youth to remain in the community. They appear willing to give youth additional chances, and I also saw evidence in the files of staff advocating to avoid in‐patient placement for youth with mental health disorders where they felt that out‐patient services had not yet been exhausted.
In many circumstances, YSCs are helping families resolve low‐level violations without the need to file new charges, but other situations are not resolved informally. Sometimes when families are particularly frustrated with their children’s behavior, YSCs may suggest that the parent or guardian file the affidavit for probation violation. While this does not represent a direct recommendation of incarceration by the YSC, these interactions can contribute to incarceration of some youth.
Files reflected significant willingness of County intake workers to process intrafamilial problems as formal charges when asked to do so. For instance, files included charges of theft against a youth for stealing $20 and a snack cake from his or her sister. In another case, the youth was charged for cursing and threatening to hit his mother and father, but never actually doing so. While YSCs do not have control over these decisions, this reflects the ease with which misbehavior at home is making its way into the courtroom.
In order to promote the goals of this provision, the State could work with YSCs to increase the range of non‐incarceration responses they can offer families in these circumstances. Completion of a robust graduated response system will help, but staff would benefit from additional support to develop options for responding to families experiencing disciplinary and other challenges. Also, to the extent that other court actors are supporting use of detention of youth charged with probation violations while they await their hearings, DYS may be able to collaborate with system stakeholders to explore establishing alternative programming and services.
Lauderdale County is not among the jurisdictions in Mississippi that currently participate in the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI). State officials involved in JDAI may wish to consider Lauderdale County when deciding where to expand JDAI work next. In the meantime, JDAI resources on alternatives to detention might be helpful. They may be found at http://www.jdaihelpdesk.org/SitePages/alternativestodetention.aspx.
23

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 24 of 33

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, DYS will need to maintain a list of youth returned to court for probation violations so that a representative sample of files can be accessed. In addition, it will need to maintain a list of youth charged with probation violations for school‐related behavior, suspensions and expulsions. The agency also must train YSCs to avoid use of detention for youth who have been suspended or expelled.

Although it is not required for substantial compliance, I recommend that DYS work with other community entities to create alternatives to detention that can offer programming for youth who have been suspended or expelled, so that courts do not need to rely on detention to occupy such youth when they do not represent a danger to themselves or the public.

The State must adjust documents such as the Desktop Guide and other training resources to more clearly articulate the philosophy and expectation that staff recommend incarceration for probation violations only where the behavior is otherwise detainable and all reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.

DYS must help YSCs enhance skills and identify programmatic resources for families experiencing disciplinary challenges with their court‐ involved youth.

Evidentiary Basis Review of files; discussions with YSCs.
III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance.

Discussion

DYS has developed new policies on Graduated Responses and the SAVRY. I have provided some initial feedback on those policies. The policies should be revised to address issues identified in this report. In addition, other policies such as Policy #40 on Probation will need to be aligned with the requirements of the settlement agreement. I provided

24

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 25 of 33

some policy revision suggestions to DYS while on site.
The agency should review each recommendation in this report and determine which written documents are most appropriate to reflect and accomplish implementation of the requirements of this agreement. In some cases the agency may only plan to implement changes to practice in Lauderdale County, while in others it may determine that statewide implementation is appropriate. Adjustment of the documents must follow these decisions.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to review its written materials, including the policy manual, Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated appropriately in key documents.

In a future compliance report, the State will need to identify where in policy and procedure each provision of the agreement has been incorporated. Either in writing or conversation, I would like to have someone explain how officials determined which policies and other documents were the appropriate places to incorporate the revisions.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agency policies, Desktop Guide, orientation materials, and other guidance documents.

III.A.3.b.

The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.
 

Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from initial revision of policies.
III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

25

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 26 of 33

Compliance Rating Substantial Compliance and Not Yet Applicable

Discussion

The parties advised me that they intended this provision to refer to diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators. As explained above, YSCs are generally recommending alternatives to detention and placement where appropriate. It is too soon to know whether they are continuing to monitor future funding opportunities, but I will review this matter for compliance in future visits.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the State must continue to recommend options that do not involve detention or out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate, and must provide documentation of its search for additional funding for alternatives.

Evidentiary Basis Review of files; conversations with DYS personnel.
III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until six months from the effective date of the agreement.
III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for Children and families,
including evidence‐based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings;
and

26

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 27 of 33

e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until six months from the effective date of the agreement.

Discussion

While the time has not come for the agency to comply with this provision, it may be useful for this report to comment and recommend some areas for additional training. In addition to the training recommendations already mentioned elsewhere in this report, I note the following.
There has not been training in constitutional due process requirements. This will be new.
I recommend that the agency devote attention to improving case supervision/disposition planning. The new SAVRY policy already contemplates careful case planning, and the Desktop Guide contains a case supervision plan template as well. However, YSCs are using both the SAVRY Case Supervision Plan and the older Desktop Guide version inconsistently and not in conformance with best practice. I saw few completed case plans in files. Where case plan forms were there, they sometimes merely restated the youth’s charges where they were supposed to identify problem areas, rather than listing individual criminogenic needs on which to focus. Instead of stating objective goals, they were sometimes left blank or included vague concepts such as “anger management” or “avoid temptation.” The section entitled “Counselor plans” included equally vague concepts such as “enforce goals” or “encourage to focus.” Best practices in this area are for probation officers to work with youth and families to establishing short, measurable, attainable goals that youth can meet, incorporating incentives to encourage achievement, and targeting identified criminogenic needs as priorities.
I have provided to the agency a resource from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that may be of assistance in reimagining what training toward effective case planning could entail. It may be found here: http://www.pachiefprobationofficers.org/docs/Case_Planning_Handbo ok.pdf
In addition, the results of the SAVRY are not consistently informing workers’ case supervision plans, despite policy requirements that SAVRY
27

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 28 of 33
results be used to develop the case plan. In some cases, staff were still using an old version of case supervision plans in cases where a new SAVRY case plan is expected under the policy. While the materials for one training I reviewed said that case supervision plans must be updated every 90 days and that they should correspond with the SAVRY, I did not see evidence of that practice consistently in the files I reviewed.
In order to ensure that youth and families have a clear understanding of what is expected of them under a case supervision plan, staff should review the case supervision plan with them and provide a copy as well. The new case supervision plan version developed for the SAVRY is helpful to ensure that staff review important data that should contribute to decision making, but it is too cumbersome to review with families. The agency may wish to develop a service plan form or other short document to review with youth and families what the goals and objectives are for the probation. Staff should be trained to complete the supervision plan or summary document with positive goals and measurable objectives, to incorporate youth and families’ ideas about useful supervision goals along with SAVRY results, and to share the completed document with youth and families. This will allow for a common understanding about the goals of supervision.
The SAVRY Case Audit conducted by supervisors could also be expanded to examine development of case plans and check for completion of a case plan as part of the review.
While some staff may have received training at DYS conferences regarding best practices in social services and therapeutic options, the attendance is not kept in a way that allows me to determine which staff attended which breakout sessions. In addition, the agency provided the agendas to me but not the substantive materials covered. If the agency would like to have me consider DYS conference sessions as training for staff in the future, it will need to provide more information about the content presented and which staff were in attendance at each session.
Another aspect that was evident during my observations of meetings between YSCs and families was the limited range of activity that the YSCs conduct with the youth. The focus of the brief meetings was mostly reporting how things had been in the past month and discussing any problems that had arisen. The inclusion of family members in most sessions limits the activities that YSCs can engage in with youth and also limits the relationships they can build. Today there are resources to help probation officers engage in evidence‐based practices with their
28

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 29 of 33

clients in ways that help youth develop skills focused on addressing criminogenic needs. A number of these are described in the Case Planning Handbook from Pennsylvania described above. The agency has an opportunity to train staff in using probation meetings in more effective ways.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must review current opportunities for training and revise plans to include the subjects required under the settlement agreement. The agency must submit the plans for review in accordance with the timeline established in the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Observations of YSC meetings with clients; file reviews; review of training materials.

III.C.3.

The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from the effective date of the agreement.
III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until six months from the effective date of the agreement.
IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the

29

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 30 of 33
community.  
Compliance Rating The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review.
IV.B.
The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS, may serve as its representative.  A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
Compliance Rating The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.
Compliance Rating The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Independent Auditor review.
V.B.
Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.  
The parties have not agreed whether this provision is subject to Compliance Rating Independent Auditor review.
30

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 31 of 33

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Beginning Compliance

Discussion

I believe that this provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, the deadline for submission of training plans falls later this month.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

Recommendations for reaching compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a.

VIII.A.2.

Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.  

Compliance Rating Beginning Compliance

31

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 32 of 33

Discussion

As explained above, the State completed some policy revisions prior to entering the settlement agreement, but did not complete additional policy review activity once the agreement was in place. Officials seem to have been awaiting guidance from the independent auditor prior to moving forward with further revisions.
Now that the State has received some initial guidance about what it will need to do to comply with the agreement, as well as some initial suggestions from me about changes to its existing policies, it now needs to conduct a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures in order to determine what changes need to be made in order to facilitate compliance with the agreement. The 90‐day deadline set in Part III has passed. The 6‐month deadline for items not covered in Part III falls later this month.
For training, the deadline for submission of initial training plans falls later this month.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must conduct its review of policies and procedures to determine which require revision in order to comply with the agreement, and must submit revisions promptly for review. Further, the state must prepare the training plans outlined in III.C. and submit them for review in accordance with the timeline established in the agreement.

VIII.A.4.

Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

Not applicable until three months after each policy or procedure is Compliance Rating finalized.

32

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 96-1 Filed 03/07/16 Page 33 of 33

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi‐annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi‐annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi‐annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi‐annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Not applicable until six months from the effective date of the agreement.

Discussion

I asked the parties to clarify the relationship between provisions that seemed to suggest different deadlines for the State to produce action plans and compliance reports. DOJ and DHS/DYS have agreed to treat the four‐month deadline for the first comprehensive action plan in VIII.B.1 as moot, and, in lieu, DHS/DYS agreed to satisfy the deadline in VIII.B.2. by submitting the first compliance report six months after the agreement’s effective date. The parties also agreed that the reference in V.G.1. to the first compliance report being four months after the effective date would be moot.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to submit a compliance report prior to the deadline later this month, and then file the next one in June 2016, 30 days prior to my visit in late July 2016.

33

 
 Second Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA
Draft submitted: August 9, 2016 Final submitted: September 5, 2016
Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301-602-1610

I. Introduction
This is the second report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). While the State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian have reached settlements with the Justice Department, litigation regarding the Youth Court and its two sitting judges continues.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct compliance reviews every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the compliance review conducted July 25 through 28, 2016.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed accounting of compliance in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for
2

reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non-compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review provided an opportunity to assess progress the State has made over the past six months, meet with agency personnel involved in reform efforts, provide in-person feedback on some draft tools and policy documents the State has submitted, and observe the first community input meeting required by the settlement agreement. In addition, I met with the Youth Services Counselors (YSCs) and regional supervisor assigned to Lauderdale County Youth Court, observed YSC meetings with youth and their family members, interviewed both of the counsel appointed to represent youth in Lauderdale County Youth Court, and visited the youth from Lauderdale County detained in the Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center at the time of my visit.
The agency has taken significant steps to move toward compliance during the past six months. These include: developing and refining tools to support use of the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) and graduated responses to youth behavior while on probation; increasing consistency of completion of the SAVRY for youth on formal probation;
3

increasing data collection and documentation of youth probation violations; drafting documents to guide YSC notice to youth about their rights and what to expect on probation; significantly revising the probation contract to make it more understandable to youth and their families; and setting fixed schedules for supervision meetings and providing notice of those meetings to counsel. In addition, DYS held the first community input meeting required by the agreement while I was on site. The next important steps for the State’s compliance activities include: completing revisions of key policies and accompanying tools; developing a training plan; and developing countyspecific guidance for Lauderdale County YSCs related to job duties and detention decision-making.
Following the retirement of the previous Community Services Director this summer, DYS is transitioning to a new head of the Community Services Division. That person will also be taking over the role of Settlement Coordinator. Therefore, another key activity in the coming months will be ensuring that the new Community Services Director has the support he needs to take on the activities that lie ahead to reach compliance with the agreement.
I note that there continue to be significant challenges involved in monitoring implementation of this settlement agreement while the claims against other defendants remain in litigation. The State has provided access to all of its own documentation and employees related to this agreement, and has also been more than helpful in reaching out to request access to information under control of others. However, despite the outreach from the State, the Youth Court judges have not permitted me to observe Youth Court or to review documents or databases generated or controlled by the Court. The County has not permitted me to interview County employees, though it did grant permission for me to interview the youths’ appointed counsel, who are County contractors. These circumstances have limited my ability to gain a full picture of YSCs’ interactions with judges, court personnel, youth, families and others in the courtroom setting. They have also limited my opportunities to learn about YSCs’ performance in other collaborative activities with court staff who are county employees, such as interactions with the county intake workers who also serve as Designees. I have done my best to develop as full a picture as possible given these limitations.
4

During the visit I was able to meet with each YSC, the regional supervisor for the region that includes Lauderdale County, the Community Services Director, and the Department of Youth Services Director. I participated a meeting of regional supervisors who have been working on policy changes, in order to explain some of my assessments and recommendations for reaching compliance in person. I also attended the first community input meeting arranged by the State. I observed all meetings between YSCs and their clients that occurred while I was at the Youth Court. Several counselor-client meetings previously scheduled to occur during my visit were rescheduled to meet clients’ and counselors’ needs, so I was not able to observe as many meetings as would have been ideal. Flexibility is important in working with youth and families in this context, so I understand how the plans can shift. After each meeting I interviewed the parent and youth separately as well. I visited Rankin County Detention Center, which houses detained youth for Lauderdale County, and interviewed the one youth who was in detention on the day I visited. I also spoke briefly with youth and families waiting in the lobby for their Youth Court hearings. Therefore, I was able to observe 3 meetings between YSCs and clients, conduct full interviews with 4 youth and 3 family members, and to speak briefly with another 3 youth and 3 family members who were too new to the juvenile justice system to provide insight for my assessment.
I reviewed the documents generated during the past 7 months by YSCs for 21 youth. These documents included YSC case notes, completed SAVRY scoring forms, social histories, recommendations to the court, and forms that tracked the procedural history of the case. I reviewed these documents for youth on probation and on informal adjustment, including a sampling of youth who were reported for probation violations over the past 5 months.
I was able to review the following additional documents while on site:
• Draft outlines for YSCs describing youth rights and the probation process;
• Agenda for 40th Annual Juvenile Justice Symposium August 3-5, 2016; • Agenda for 6th Annual Indian Child Welfare Conference, August 10,
2016;
5

• Notes from my previous exit conference dated January 18, 2016, circulated by the State;
• Several provisions of the Mississippi Code Youth Court Act related to informal adjustment;
• Youth Court Rule 16 governing detention; • Social History Interview Form; • Agenda for DYS Policy Committee Meeting, July 25, 2016; • Agenda and handouts for community input meeting, July 25, 2016.

The State submitted other documents and policies for feedback prior to the visit as well, including drafts of the Probation and Graduated Responses policies, accompanying tools and forms, and the Probation Contract.

Table I summarizes my compliance findings. Some of the provisions of the settlement agreement include deadlines in the future. I have not indicated a compliance rating for those provisions, noting that the requirements are not yet applicable.

Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision

Provision number
III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c
III.A.1.d
III.A.2.a
III.A.2.b
III.A.2.c.i

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Protections Against Self-incrimination Notice to youth Protections Against Self-incrimination Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self-incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth-appropriate language Protections Against Self-incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations Probation Conditions – Understandable

Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance
Partial compliance
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited. Partial compliance
Partial compliance

6

Provision number
III.A.2.c.ii III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a III.A.3.b III.B.1
III.C.1 III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A-C V.B VIII.A.1 VIII.A.2 VIII.A.4

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities

Beginning compliance
Partial compliance
Beginning compliance
Not yet applicable
Substantial Compliance for dispositional decisions; To Be Determined for earlier detention decisions; Non-compliance for monitoring diversion program opportunities and funding.

Training – Develop training plans
Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S.
Community Input
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year

Beginning compliance Beginning compliance Not yet applicable Non-compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance
Beginning compliance
Beginning compliance Not yet applicable

7

Provision number
VIII.B.2

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Reporting – Biannual compliance report Beginning compliance

8

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth-appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

Conversations with DYS youth and families and YSCs indicate that YSCs continue to review the probation contract with clients when the youth are initially placed on probation. They explain what is expected of youth both at the initial meeting and at other times during probation supervision. They discuss what will happen on probation and the YSC role. Staff may discuss some of the potential sanctions imposed on youth who commit probation violations, but not the range of consequences contemplated by the DYS graduated response policy. They do not currently discuss what happens during the revocation process, youths’ right to challenge allegations, and youths’ right to counsel for revocation.

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.

9

While YSCs are covering some of the topics contemplated in this provision when they talk with youth and families, they are not providing to youth a written document that provides notice of the topics identified in this provision, other than what is written in the probation contract. However, the agency has been drafting new tools to guide YSCs’ conversations about the required topics and to offer as handouts for youth and families. I received some of the drafts for the first time while on site. The initial drafts covered some of the required topics, and some still need to be added. During my visit I worked with the regional supervisor for Lauderdale County and the new Community Services Director to clarify the types of information that could be included in these documents.
In the next draft of these documents, agency staff should take care to use language understandable by youth. It would be helpful to seek the assistance of a reading specialist accustomed to working with juvenile justice-involved or at-risk youth and their families, in order ensure that the reading level is appropriate to the population. In addition, as I recommended for the probation contract, once the draft is completed, it should be tested with some existing clients in order to get their insights about whether it is understandable.
One question we identified during our work together was the intended meaning of “initial meeting” in this provision. In some cases the initial meeting between a YSC and a family will occur prior to adjudication. A family may come to the office to seek advice and referral for services when a child has not become involved in the juvenile justice system. A youth and his family may also meet with a YSC prior to the adjudication hearing if he has been charged with an offense and is being processed formally. The purpose of the meeting is for the worker to collect information needed for a social summary and dispositional recommendation. The parties agreed during our exit conference that the “initial meeting” at which DYS must provide the required notice is the first meeting after a court order of formal probation or the meeting at which an informal adjustment commences. The parties have also agreed that similar notice must be provided at the first meeting with the YSC supervising the youth’s parole after a youth returns from placement at the Oakley Youth Development Center. DYS will prepare separate notice documents and staff guidance for initial probation meetings, informal adjustment meetings and initial parole meetings. These handouts must also be in youth-appropriate language.
The agency has been working to update policies to include this
10

requirement, and also plans to incorporate the requirement into staff orientation training materials and the Mississippi Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management, the YSCs’ practice manual.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, DYS must ensure that YSCs provide youth with notice of the required topics in youth-appropriate language, and that this requirement is reflected in policies, procedures and any other relevant documents.

DYS has indicated that it plans to provide YSCs with a guidance document covering these topics, and it will also provide youth and families with a handout on these topics. The staff working on those documents must revise them so that they are useful for YSCs, understandable for youth and families, and cover all necessary content. Then it must test them with existing clients to see what additional recommendations they have for improving the documents, and incorporate appropriate changes.

I recommend (though it is not required) that the agency seek the assistance of a reading specialist familiar with the reading levels of juvenile justice-involved youth and their families, to ensure that the language is appropriate and understandable for the target audience.

The state must also finish incorporating this requirement into DYS policy, staff orientation materials, any other appropriate training, the Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management, and any other appropriate documents.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County and supervisor; review of draft DYS policy on Probation; review of draft outlines for staff, youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.b DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.
11

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

Based on conversations with YSCs and review of their files, it appears that at the time when they begin probation, youth come to meetings along with their parents or guardians, and that the conversations about what to expect while on probation include both youth and their families. As a result, the state’s compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, in order to reach substantial compliance, the State will need to continue editing and finalize the guidance outlines for staff and the handouts for families that address the required topics. The State must also finish incorporating this requirement into DYS policy, staff orientation materials, any other appropriate training, and the Desktop Guide to Effective Case Management.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County and supervisor; review of draft DYS policy on Probation; review of draft outlines for staff, youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.c
The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youthappropriate language.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

YSCs use the probation contract as a basis for the discussion about expectations for youth on probation. As described more below, DYS’ policy committee has been working to finish revisions of the contract that incorporate youth-friendly language more fully. The agency should take the steps I outlined in the previous section (work with a reading
12

specialist, testing with existing clients) to ensure that the notice handout developed to fulfill the requirement of this section also uses youth-appropriate language.
Youth and families I interviewed did report that they understood the requirements for probation at the time they were explained and that their assigned YSCs had made those requirements clear to them. Some were not able to remember clearly what was discussed during that initial meeting, which is why having a handout for families to keep, along with the revised probation contract, will be helpful.
Staff do not currently receive training about effective communication with youth and families with disabilities, unless they received it during their coursework in college or graduate school. As I mentioned during my last report, YSCs would benefit from developing skills to aid in identifying youth and families who may have difficulty processing the information presented, and in alternative strategies for communicating with youth and families who have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and mental health conditions that make processing of information difficult.
Unfortunately, an expected session at the statewide juvenile justice conference in August was to have addressed working with youth with disabilities. However, this session was not included in the conference. The agency will need to seek out other sources of training on this topic. I previously recommended to agency officials, and continue to recommend, that training planners seek out partners from inside or outside the agency with specialized knowledge in this area. Partners might include representatives of the disability rights advocacy community, special education professors from a local university, or other specialists in this field.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to reach substantial compliance, the agency will need to finish revising the formal probation contract and also revise the informal adjustment and parole agreements/contracts to incorporate language that youth and families can understand. Any additional handouts developed to explain probation or parole to families and youth also must incorporate youth-appropriate language. Guidance materials and training for staff must aid staff in use of youth-appropriate language and explaining required topics in ways that maximize understanding. Training for staff must also include information about common disabilities among youth in the juvenile justice system and their families, and skill development for staff in communicating with people with such

13

disabilities.
This requirement must be reflected in policy, practice manual, and other appropriate agency documents.

Evidentiary Basis

Agenda for upcoming state juvenile justice conference; conversations with staff, regional supervisor and Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.d
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The Lauderdale County YSCs have instituted a process for setting meeting schedules with clients and communicating them to appointed counsel. As they meet with new clients, they are filling out a form listing the dates of meetings for the remainder of the probation period. Copies of that list are provided to the youth and turned over to the office secretary, who emails the information to counsel and places a copy of the form in a notebook in the courtroom.
This process is not instituted in all cases yet, as some staff have only done these anticipatory schedules for clients who have come to them since June. The parties also clarified during the exit conference that changes in scheduled appointments will only need to be communicated to counsel if the youth requests presence of counsel at the meeting. YSCs must document whether a client wishes to have counsel present
14

when the meeting is changed. Youth have not requested counsel presence, and counsel have not attended any probation meetings between YSCs and youth since this new process was instituted.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the State will need to finish fully implementing the new system for those clients who do not yet have a fixed meeting schedule, put the requirement in writing in a form that guides Lauderdale County staff, and continue to keep records of compliance.

Evidentiary Basis

Reviews of emails sent to counsel; spot check for notifications to counsel in random sample of cases.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.b.
The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

DYS chose a risk assessment tool (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, or SAVRY), trained workers in its use, and adopted policies regarding Graduated Responses and Risk Assessment during 2014 and 2015. New workers receive training in the SAVRY once a sufficient number of new workers can be brought together for the training. While the agency reports that this generally happens within the first two months after a new employee begins, this was not the case for the new employee who had been hired in Meridian in the spring. The agency reports that it has also been conducting booster trainings for staff every six months.
In my document reviews during this visit, I saw SAVRY reports completed in all the formal probation cases of the current YSC staff. The risk levels staff determined after conducting a SAVRY assessment
15

were reported in the social summaries and dispositional recommendations to the court.
However, in my review of individual SAVRY assessments and dispositional reports, I noticed some inconsistent information between the SAVRYs and the dispositional reports they are supposed to inform. For example, in more than one report, the dispositional report described the youth as living in an area with a low or moderate crime rate, but the SAVRY listed community crime, poverty and violence in a higher category than what was described in the text of the social history. One dispositional report described the youth as having a mentoring relationship with a police officer, yet the SAVRY rated the youth as having no attachment or bond with a prosocial adult. One report included the same information as in a different dispositional report about the same youth two months earlier, where some of the youth’s circumstances had changed over the two-month period. Some SAVRY reports and dispositional reports included incorrect gender of the youth, and some had inconsistent birth dates. One social history described the youth as being on the honor roll, but the SAVRY rated the youth as having “significant difficulties in school achievement.”
These significant inconsistencies and errors suggest that more training and careful evaluation of SAVRY assessments and dispositional reports are still needed. This is especially important because inaccurate reporting on individual items on the SAVRY can lead to inaccurate ratings of risk, which inform the court’s assessment of and decision making about youth. While the agency does have a SAVRY audit form and process used by Regional Directors to review staff completion of the SAVRY, it is clear that these reviews are not catching the types of errors I identified in the documents I reviewed. The agency should reexamine its oversight approach and consider what additional training is needed to prevent these errors.
Completion and timely updates of the SAVRY were not as consistent in the case files of the YSC position that has been vacant since mid-May. Experienced staff have been working hard to cover client meetings and respond to needs of the youth on that caseload in addition to maintaining their own caseloads and training a new colleague who joined the agency in April, so this oversight is understandable. The challenge that the agency will need to face is how to meet this requirement over the next six months when two of four YSCs must be trained in many other areas in addition to use of this evidence-based tool. The SAVRY policy has not yet been revised to align with the settlement agreement, so this task should be addressed in the
16

upcoming months as well.
For Graduated Responses, the agency has done further work to evolve its policy, accompanying forms, and sample incentives and sanctions grids. While some counties in other parts of the state have built upon their training to develop local grids reflective of available programs and resources, Lauderdale County has not yet done so. Thus, the system as envisioned in DYS policy is not yet fully developed or implemented.
I discussed my recommendations for revisions to the latest drafts of the graduated responses policy and accompanying tools with a group assigned to refine the policy and related documents. I also explained that the policy and tools must provide clear procedural guidance to staff, must identify where they have discretion and what factors must guide that discretion, and must include tools that support and are consistent with the policy. After the visit, I followed up with a written summary of my comments on the tools and policy.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the State must align the SAVRY policy with the requirements of the agreement. The State must also train new staff in use of the SAVRY so that they can fulfill their responsibilities to complete a SAVRY in all formal probation cases. The agency must ensure that a SAVRY is completed accurately for all formal probation cases. This includes revising its oversight system to ensure accuracy of SAVRY findings and resulting recommendations to the court.

The agency will also need to continue revisions to the graduated responses policy to provide procedural guidance about use of the accompanying tools as well as providing guidance for discretionary decisions. The tools must support and be consistent with the policy.

DYS must provide support for YSC staff in Lauderdale County so that they can develop incentives and sanctions grids, including establishing a range of incentives for youth to comply with probation requirements. This support includes providing the leadership and guidance to staff necessary to establish local incentives and sanctions grids, providing staff the time and oversight to see that these tasks are completed, explaining parameters for seeking local donations or other permissible sources of funds for incentives, and providing encouragement and oversight to see that the system is implemented once adopted.

While not a requirement for compliance, this work to establish a system of graduated responses is most effectively done in coordination with

17

other court stakeholders where possible.
Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new policies and use of the SAVRY. The agency should also consider whether it would be appropriate to include mention of these and other key functions in job descriptions and periodic evaluations. If the information is too specific to be incorporated into these documents, then the agency must explore other ways to encourage and support full implementation of these new initiatives, and explain in future compliance reports how it determined which documents were appropriate to modify and how it is ensuring full implementation of these policy and practice changes.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC-generated documents about individual youth; Graduated Responses, Probation, and SAVRY policies and appendices; participation in policy development meeting of regional administrators and policy development conference call about graduated responses; interviews with DYS staff and management.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.i.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency has revised the informal adjustment, probation, and parole contracts in recent years to make them more understandable. Over the past few months, the agency has been redrafting the probation contract and receiving comments from me and the Department of Justice. During the meeting of regional supervisors on July 25th, joined by the Community Services Director and the DYS Director, the group reached a near-final version of the contract. I recommended that staff in several
18

regions test the contract out with existing clients to see whether the youth and families feel it is understandable. This step is important because involvement of the target audience is the best way to ensure that the tool is appropriate for them. Staff planning the field test should make sure that the contract is tested with a selection of clients that includes a variety of ages, races and ethnicities, regions of the state, and reading/comprehension abilities. Once the contract is finalized, requirements must be reflected in policy, training, and other appropriate agency documents.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to complete revisions of the formal probation, informal adjustment, and parole contracts to incorporate language that youth and families can understand. This process must include testing it with clients and incorporating appropriate revisions following the test. In addition, staff must be trained so that they fill in the blanks with appropriate provisions that are not overly broad or difficult to understand the scope of the requirement. The agency must incorporate these changes in policy and consider whether adjustments to the Desktop Guide, orientation, and/or other resources are necessary to give staff sufficient guidance, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contract drafts; participation in policy development meeting of senior DYS officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.ii.
Probation contracts shall:
1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement while on probation.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

19

Discussion

The policy committee revised the most recent draft of the probation contract to incorporate and simplify an explanation of rights suggested by the Justice Department. The group also discussed the challenges associated with providing detailed notice about school attendance requirements when each county may include several school districts. The committee would like to explain in the contract that youth must comply with their school districts’ attendance policy, and leave out any further discussion of school system requirements. The committee felt that YSCs could follow up with client-specific guidance and review the school district’s handbook with families where school attendance becomes an issue. The Justice Department and the State have reached agreement on the appropriate content of the probation contract, including its approach to school attendance, and I agree with the approach they have agreed upon.
The policy committee decided that youth who are suspended or expelled must attend a Mississippi Department of Education-approved educational program or that the judge must approve an alternative, rather than leaving the discretion to YSCs. If these are to be the only options to fulfill the mandatory attendance requirement while suspended or expelled, then staff must be trained and knowledgeable about the MDE-approved options and alternative acceptable to the Youth Court that are available for their clients who have been suspended or expelled.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to finalize revisions to the probation, informal adjustment and parole contracts, incorporating appropriate recommendations from the Independent Auditor and Department of Justice. The agency must adjust policy and other documents such as the Desktop Guide, orientation materials, training, and other resources in order to give staff sufficient guidance regarding these topics, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision. The agency must adjust policy, training and other relevant documents in order to ensure that staff are knowledgeable about local options available to youth on probation who are suspended or expelled, and that staff provide client-specific guidance about attendance requirements to youth and families when necessary.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contract and probation policy drafts; participation in policy development meeting of senior DYS officials.

20

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.iii.
Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

DYS has instituted a new mechanism for tracking probation violations brought to the court. This new system made it much easier for me to identify YSC recommendations to review. I appreciate the addition of this tracking form to YSCs’ data collection each month. DYS also adopted a form for YSCs to use when making a probation violation complaint. This form collects most important information about the youth and the reason for the violation. While on site, I made two recommendations to align the form with the factors that the draft graduated response policy asks staff to consider.
There are three times in the course of processing a probation violation where YSCs have the opportunity to make recommendations to judges or designees about a detention decision. The first of these occurs after someone with knowledge of the probation violation files an affidavit describing the probation violation. While the designee makes the detention decision (and YSCs are not legally permitted to serve as Youth Court Designees), it appears that there are some times when staff communicate with the designee about the circumstances of the case. This is an informal opportunity to influence the detention decision. Without more detailed case notes, I cannot tell what YSCs are communicating to designees, whether they are recommending detention in some cases, or what their recommendations for or against detention are based upon.
The second detention decision point is at the detention hearing, which may be the same day as a youth is arrested, or up to two business days later in Mississippi. A YSC attends the hearing, but reports are varied about what the YSC’s role is, what it is supposed to be, and to what extent judges may ask the YSCs for their opinions about whether to
21

detain the youth or what alternative to detention would be appropriate. The State reports that YSCs normally do not provide a recommendation on detention or release, since the authority lies with the court to make this decision. However, others described that practices might differ based upon individual judges’ preferences or interest in particular YSCs’ opinions. The YSCs’ notes generally report the outcome of the hearing, but not what their role in the hearing was or what their recommendations were. One former YSC put some detention recommendations in writing on a notice she designed herself, so I was able to see a few examples of her recommendations and rationale. The other YSCs do not complete a written detention recommendation for the detention hearing, and there has been no requirement to do so.
The third stage at which YSCs may recommend incarceration or alternatives is in conjunction with the formal hearing on a probation violation. In preparation for a possible adjudication, the YSCs prepare written social histories and dispositional recommendations. For this stage I was able to identify when YSCs made a recommendation of detention, and could see from the case history what services and detention alternatives had been attempted previously with a youth. One staff person recorded in the case notes that a particular nonincarceration recommendation represented a graduated sanction for a probation violation. It is nice to see that staff are absorbing these concepts, even as the tools for implementation are still being refined.
Thus, for the first and second stages described above, there was insufficient information in most records for me to evaluate whether staff are recommending detention or not. I have requested that YSCs document in their case notes the information they are sharing with the Designee and any recommendations they make if they have any involvement in the Designee’s detention decision. I have also requested that YSCs expand the documentation of detention hearings to include whether the judge asked for their input, what they said in response to the request, and whether they offered any additional information or recommendations at the detention hearing. Of course, DYS is welcome to institute a different method of recordkeeping in order to accomplish the same goals. For the third stage it appeared that staff were mostly recommending detention in cases where other options had been exhausted, and I did not see any recommendations for secure placement, so it appears that the agency is in substantial compliance with this requirement at the formal hearing stage.
During the exit conference the parties resolved another question about how to interpret the settlement agreement. The question involved the
22

meaning of “otherwise … detainable offense.” The parties agreed that this means a non-status offense. Thus, according to the parties, staff may not, under this agreement, recommend detention or secure placement for a probation violation unless the probation violation conduct is a felony or a misdemeanor and reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.
While the parties did not make this explicit, several provisions governing custody and detention in the Mississippi Code and Mississippi’s Uniform Rules of Youth Court Practice determine when youth may be detained as well, including Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-21-301, 303, 307 and 309, and Rules 11, 12 and 16. In Mississippi, courts and designees may only order detention of a youth where there is probable cause to believe that the youth is within the jurisdiction of the youth court, that custody is necessary, and there is no reasonable alternative to custody. Custody may only be deemed necessary: (1) when a child is endangered or any person would be endangered by the child; or to insure the child's attendance in court at such time as required; or when a parent, guardian or custodian is not available to provide for the care and supervision of the child; and (2) there is no reasonable alternative to custody. See, for example, Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-301(3). Under these provisions, detention is limited to circumstances where the youth is a danger to herself or others, is a risk of flight, or when parents, guardians or custodians are not available to care for the child, and where there is no reasonable alternative. Whether the parties intended implicitly to incorporate these provisions or not, DYS staff must be trained in the law in order to ensure that they understand the bounds of what designees and judges may order if they are to make appropriate recommendations.
I saw one example in which the staff member who has since departed recommended detention for a girl whose probation violation was running away, which is a status offense. This recommendation would not be permitted under the agreement, as the other options for serving this youth who was new to youth court had not yet been tried. Due to the limited documentation in most files, I cannot determine whether this is an isolated example.
The wide variety of answers I received when asking stakeholders about the circumstances under which YSCs may recommend incarceration and what represents a detainable offense make clear that written guidance and training on this requirement are necessary.
The additional documentation of detention recommendations at the
23

early stages will make it more possible for supervisors to provide guidance to staff, and for me to assess compliance with this provision in the future. I look forward to seeing those expanded notes during my next review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to institute additional documentation of detention recommendations at the designee and detention hearing decision points. Also, the agency will need to develop some guidance in writing and also in training for staff to understand how to comply with this provision of the agreement, and then ensure that staff are not recommending detention in cases where they are not permitted to do so under the agreement. This training must include explanation of Mississippi’s laws governing custody and detention of youth. If the agency decides that it will only implement this provision in Lauderdale County, it will need to determine the appropriate means to provide written policy and practice guidance to YSCs in Lauderdale County only.

As I noted in my last report, DYS must also help YSCs enhance skills and identify programmatic resources to help families experiencing disciplinary challenges and lack of probation compliance with their court-involved youth.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC written recommendations and case notes; discussions with YSCs and other stakeholders.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

Since my last visit, the agency has been focused on revising the probation contract and accompanying policy. A team has also been
24

working on the graduated responses policy and tools. I have provided recommendations on these both in writing and in meetings on site.
The agency should review each recommendation in this report and also review the settlement agreement to determine which written documents are most appropriate to reflect and accomplish implementation of the requirements of this agreement. In some cases the agency may only plan to implement changes to practice in Lauderdale County, while in others it may determine that statewide implementation is appropriate. Adjustment of the documents must follow these decisions.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to review its written materials, including the policy manual, Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, staff evaluation materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated in key documents in sufficient detail to support full implementation of the settlement agreement’s requirements.

In a future compliance report, the State will need to identify where in policy and procedure each provision of the agreement has been or will be incorporated. Either in writing or conversation, I would like an agency official to explain how the agency determined which policies and other documents were the appropriate places to incorporate the revisions. We have discussed some of these decisions as they have arisen in exit conferences and the policy committee.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agency policies, Desktop Guide, orientation materials, and other guidance documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.b.
The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.
25

Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from initial revision of policies.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

Compliance Rating

Substantial compliance for dispositional decisions; To Be Determined for earlier detention decisions; Non-compliance for monitoring diversion program opportunities and funding.

Discussion

The parties have advised that they intended this provision to refer to diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators. As explained above, YSCs are generally recommending alternatives to detention and placement where appropriate in written dispositional recommendations. During my next visit, once clearer documentation is available, I will confirm whether this holds true for earlier detention decisions as well.
For the part of this provision that requires the agency to monitor opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs, I was not provided with evidence of efforts to seek new funding sources. The one grant application that the agency submitted this year was for a youth gang task force. The proposal outlined plans to work with youth leaving the Oakley Youth Development Center and returning to the community. This set of activities would not meet the definition of diversion program upon which the parties agreed for this settlement agreement. The agency has identified another potential grant source it plans to pursue in the coming weeks.
This was a difficult year for the agency because it learned that one of its main programs that serve as alternatives to placement, the Adolescent Opportunity Program (AOP), had been supported by federal funds that could not be used for this purpose. The agency has redirected those
26

funds to prevention programs that may not serve as juvenile justice programming. However, Lauderdale County has found a way to maintain its AOP program. This accomplishment is noteworthy, as the program serves as a key alternative to out of home placement in the County.
For future reports, it will be helpful if the agency keeps a log or other documentation of efforts staff make to monitor and identify grant opportunities. While applications for grants illustrate what the agency chose to apply for, they do not document efforts staff have made to look for such opportunities. The DYS Director has agreed to track and provide notification of these efforts in the future, recognizing that a current restructuring of the agency, including a significant budget and staffing cut, may delay this activity in the near term.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State must continue to recommend options that do not involve detention or out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate. The State must also expand YSC case notes or other means of recordkeeping for earlier detention decisions so that I can assess compliance at the earlier detention decision points. DYS will also need to monitor and seek future funding opportunities for diversion programs and provide documentation of its efforts.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC recommendations; conversations with DYS personnel; grant applications.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

27

Discussion

While the agency has not yet submitted a written training plan, it has identified training opportunities available to the juvenile justice and child welfare communities this summer, and has made plans to ensure that staff maximize the training opportunities at those events that are relevant to training topics required by this agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agendas for upcoming conferences; discussions with DYS officials regarding plans for the statewide juvenile justice conference.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for
Children and families, including evidence-based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within
juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created
or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

As described above, the agency has not yet submitted a training plan. In addition to the training recommendations already mentioned elsewhere in this report, I note the following:

28

Constitutional due process requirements:
There has not been training in constitutional due process requirements, but staff will attend a session on this topic at the upcoming statewide juvenile justice conference. I have asked for the materials and any power point presentations to be provided to me so that I can determine whether the content meets the requirements of this agreement. I have also requested documentation of attendance at individual sessions of training that staff attend.
Disposition planning:
The agency has been developing a new case planning document. In at least one of the files I reviewed the case plan was not completed and there was a note on the 8-page old long form that said that a new form was in development, and the old form was left blank. Once the agency completes redevelopment of the form, it should ensure that the training incorporates the training recommendations I made in my previous compliance review report and also aligns with the new case plan form and the ideas behind it. During my visit, I discussed with the policy committee some ways in which the new draft case plan could be rearranged to follow the progress of a case and also encourage staff to incorporate incentives that are tied to individual criminogenic needs. I have provided the parties with an example of such a case plan.
In my last report, I noted the importance of reviewing the case plan with youth and families, so that youth, families and counselors have a common understanding about how the youth’s needs have been assessed, what the relationship is between services recommended and the youth’s needs, what the goals of the probation period will be, and what incentives are available for working toward those goals. When I met with the policy committee, I was told that the case plan was not intended for use with youth and families. If staff will not be reviewing this document with clients, then the agency should establish through policy and training some other mechanism to review these topics with the youth and families being served. The agency may also wish to reconsider whether it wants to revise the case plan so that it may be shared with clients. I did not see anything in the draft I reviewed that would make it inappropriate for clients to see.
As explained above in section III.A.2.b., during my review of individual SAVRY assessments and dispositional reports, I noticed inconsistent information between some SAVRYs and the dispositional reports they were supposed to inform.
29

These significant inconsistencies and errors suggest that more training and careful evaluation of SAVRY assessments and dispositional reports are still needed. This is especially important because inaccurate reporting on individual items on the SAVRY can lead to inaccurate ratings of risk, which inform the court’s assessment of and decision making about youth. While I recognize that there is already a SAVRY audit process in place for Regional Supervisors to review SAVRY completion by staff, it appears that this review has not been sufficient to identify the errors I described in section III.A.2.b.
Best practices in social services and therapeutic options:
In my previous report I noted that some YSCs covered a small range of topics with their clients and engaged in very brief visits. I was pleased to learn during this visit that some staff are taking the time to meet separately with youth and parents at times. However, I also noticed circumstances in which important topics that I learned about through file notes or independent conversation with the youth were not covered in the meetings I observed between the YSC and the youth and family. Some more training about effective probation practice and use of supervision meetings appear to be necessary to develop YSC skills in this area.
Policies, procedures and practices addressed in the Agreement:
I have noted at various places in this report where development of new policies and procedures will also require new training. The agency should review the agreement comprehensively to identify all places where implementation of the agreement will require new training.
For the training plan to be complete, the agency will need to include plans for assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics covered in training. It should also identify steps the agency will take where it determines that staff lack comprehension or competency following training.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must review current opportunities for training and develop training plans to include the subjects required under the settlement agreement. The plans must include means of assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics trained. Plans must also explain what remedial

30

steps the agency will take if these assessments indicate a lack of staff comprehension or competency. The agency must submit the plans for review and incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Justice Department and Independent Auditor.

Evidentiary Basis

Observations of YSC meetings with clients; review of SAVRY assessments, social histories and dispositional recommendations.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.3.
The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from the effective date of the agreement.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Non-compliance

Discussion

I have not yet received a training plan to review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

31

Evidentiary Basis No training plan provided.

Settlement Agreement Provision

IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.  
IV.B.
The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS, may serve as its representative.  A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.

32

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The parties jointly identified the measures upon which they wish compliance with the community input provisions to be assessed. Because they did not identify particular questions as applying to particular parts of this standard, the discussion of the parts A, B, and C has been combined. The questions to be used to evaluate compliance are as follows:
• Did DHS/DYS hold an open community meeting once every six months?
• Was the meeting room accessible to the public? • Did DHS/DYS publicize the meeting at least one week in
advance? • Did DHS/DYS have a representative in attendance? • Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan
and most recent compliance report? • Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a
result of this agreement on its website? • Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
receiving input from interested members of the community? • Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
responding to input from interested members of the community?
Measured by the questions above, the agency has reached partial compliance. The initial meeting occurred on July 25, 2016. As agreed by the parties, the first meeting was scheduled with individuals who had been involved in the initial complaints about the subject matter of this investigation and lawsuit, rather than having a large publicly advertised gathering. The Justice Department provided additional suggestions of individuals to be invited as well. The intent was to engage community leaders and other stakeholders in helping to plan the community input program. Three representatives of the local NAACP who were also clergy attended. There was productive dialogue about the efforts of the department and other issues the attendees wished to raise, including school discipline, trust of the police and other matters.
The location of the event was somewhat accessible to the public, though far from ideal. It was held in the Meridian Police Department headquarters, in a courtroom of the city’s municipal court. Everyone involved agreed that this was not an appropriate location for future

33

meetings given community members’ mistrust of the police, the uncomfortable setup of the courtroom for a meeting in which discussion among participants was the main goal, and the fact that access to the courtroom required entrance past a security window and through a locked door. The DYS Director asked the attendees whether any of their churches would be willing to host the next event in December, and they expect to have further dialogue in the next few months. The attendees asked DYS to provide a representative to speak with their conference of clergy at a future meeting, and the Director agreed to make someone available.
As required by the compliance measures, invitations were sent one week prior to the event. While not required for compliance, I do recommend that invitations be sent further in advance in order to give those interested in participating an opportunity to plan. I talked with one invited individual who did not attend, but might have attended with more notice.
The agency met all of the requirements except for two:
• Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan and most recent compliance report?
• Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a result of this agreement on its website?
The State has only completed one draft compliance report to date, and it did not submit revisions after the Justice Department and I provided feedback identifying needed additions to the report. The Justice Department has waived the requirement that the agency complete an action plan, with the expectation that the content that would have been included in an action plan, outlining details about plans for compliance and a timeline, would be included in the compliance report. However, the agency has not yet provided the details of an action plan in any document. It did not provide summaries of its compliance report or the content of an action plan to participants, though the DYS Director did summarize verbally some of the activities DYS has engaged in so far. The agency handed out copies of the settlement agreement and my first report. The agency has not yet posted summaries of policy changes on its website. By the time of the next meeting DYS will have more opportunity to put these remaining elements in place.

Recommendations In order to reach substantial compliance, the agency will need to

for Reaching

complete a compliance report that meets the requirements of the

34

Compliance

settlement agreement and provide summaries to participants in the next community input meeting. In addition, it will need to post on its website summaries of policy changes made in compliance with the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Observation of first community input meeting (including examination of handouts provided to participants).

 

Settlement Agreement Provision

V.B.
Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

While YSCs in Lauderdale County had not yet received copies of the settlement or details of the requirements by the time of my initial visit, they had certainly been informed of the settlement agreement. At this point, officials and staff have been fully informed, and I have not encountered any agents or independent contractors needed to implement the agreement. If the agency hires contractors to assist in any aspect of implementation such as training, it will be important to share the details of the agreement and the agency’s plans for compliance so that the contractors or agents provide services in accordance with the agreement’s requirements.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to communicate the provisions of the agreement to any future agents or contractors who become involved in aspects of DYS activities impacted by the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis Conversations with DYS officials and YSCs. 35

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

I believe that this provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, my findings on compliance may be found in Part III.C.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

Recommendations for reaching compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing Parts III.A.3.a and III.C.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.2.
Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its
36

initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

As explained above, the State engaged in some policy revisions prior to entering the settlement agreement, but has not completed additional policy revisions since the agreement has been in place. The State has begun to incorporate the feedback the Justice Department and I provided on the Probation and Graduated Responses policies.
Now that the State has received some initial guidance about what it will need to do to comply with the agreement, as well as suggestions about changes to its existing policies, it now needs to conduct a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures in order to determine what changes need to be made in order to facilitate compliance with the agreement. The 90-day deadline set in Part III has passed. The 6-month deadlines for items not covered in Part III and for training plans have passed as well.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must conduct its review of policies and procedures to determine which require revision in order to comply with the agreement, and must submit revisions promptly for review. Further, the state must prepare the training plans outlined in III.C. and submit them for review.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.4. Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State
37

shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.
Compliance Rating Not applicable until three months after each policy or procedure is finalized.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi-annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi-annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi-annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi-annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

I asked the parties to clarify the relationship between provisions that seemed to suggest different deadlines for the State to produce action plans and compliance reports. DOJ and DHS/DYS have agreed to treat the four-month deadline for the first comprehensive action plan in
38

VIII.B.1 as moot, and, in lieu, DHS/DYS agreed to satisfy the deadline in VIII.B.2. by submitting the first compliance report six months after the agreement’s effective date. The parties also agreed that the reference in V.G.1. to the first compliance report being four months after the effective date would be moot. The parties have further agreed that the State need not file a separate action plan, provided that the plans for compliance and timelines for completing activities are included in a compliance report.
The State asked for an example of an effective compliance report. The Department of Justice provided contact information for a settlement coordinator in another jurisdiction, and that individual provided the State with two examples of compliance reports. The State also requested feedback from me and the Justice Department prior to finalizing the first report. However, after we received the draft report, provided suggestions, and pointed out that more specifics about past activities and future plans were needed, the State decided not to submit revisions of its first compliance report.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to submit a compliance report that explains the specifics of achievements it has made and outlines its plans for compliance with remaining requirements in the agreement.

39

 
 City of Meridian, MS Settlement Agreement Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA Interim Compliance Report

Independent Auditor: Chief Rodney Monroe (ret.)

September 26, 2016

1

INTRODUCTION
In March 2016, the Court selected Rodney Monroe and the Police Foundation as the Independent Auditor(s) for the Meridian Police Department (MPD) in Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA. The Auditor is tasked with working with the Meridian Police Department to ensure compliance with provisions outlined in the Settlement Agreement associated with the case.
Since that time, Chief (ret.) Monroe and the Police Foundation have held conference calls, made materials requests, and reviewed MPD documentation to begin to better understand the current level of compliance with Settlement Agreement provisions. On July 17-20, 2016, Chief Monroe, and a member of the U.S. Department of Justice made the first compliance review site visit to Meridian, Mississippi and the Meridian Police Department.
This report outlines compliance findings and recommendations for moving the MPD toward full compliance in the substantive measures of the Settlement Agreement.
COMPLIANCE LEVEL DEFINITIONS
Each provision within the settlement agreement has been given a compliance assessment rating ranging from non-compliance to substantial compliance, as defined below.
• Non-compliance - The MPD has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
• Beginning compliance - The MPD has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
• Partial compliance – The MPD has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
• Substantial compliance - The MPD has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.

September 26, 2016

2

SUMMARY OF INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S FINDINGS
As the Independent Auditor, I conducted my initial compliance review on July 17-20, 2016. The on-site visit provided me the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Meridian Police Department (MPD), including the Chief of Police, along with several sworn and civilian staff members representing several of the substantial remedial areas of focus within the Settlement Agreement.
The initial on-site compliance review was an opportunity to discuss elements of the Settlement Agreement with senior command staff and to bring greater awareness to addressing all elements and achieving full compliance. Our initial meeting also allowed us to agree to be open, collaborative, and transparent with one another in working toward achieving substantial compliance. Prior to my visit, I requested and received several documents for review directly associated with the substantive remedial measures agreed upon within the Settlement Agreement. Documents reviewed are specific to the areas identified within the Settlement Agreement. A detailed list of materials reviewed can be found in the next section of this report.
During the initial compliance review, I personally and independently reviewed each of the above substantive areas and assigned an initial level of compliance. This initial assessment is based on the review of several documents which included the three current policies entitled, “Handling Juveniles,” “Guidelines for Status Offenders,” and “Procedures for Detaining Juveniles.” In addition, I reviewed the 2015 training curriculum entitled, “Procedures for Handling Juveniles.” The curriculum focused mainly of the handling of juveniles in custody of the MPD. It should be noted that this training was only provided to officers of the Department, no command officials attended. Additional documents reviewed included arrest reports, juvenile jail logs, juvenile investigative reports, calls for service records, a draft MOU between the Meridian Public Schools District, (MPSD) and random custody orders obtained by MPD personnel (a comprehensive list is included in the next section).
Several interviews were also conducted with key leaders and responsible persons for several substantive areas during the on-site compliance visit. Interviews included the Chief of Police, Assistant Chief of Police, Commander of Training Division, Commander of Criminal Investigations, Juvenile Investigators, Commander Internal Affairs, Shift Commanders, City Attorney, and civilian support staff responsible for maintaining records. These interviews not only allowed for the gathering of information, but also made senior staff aware of all requirements of the Settlement Agreement and learn the process of documenting and monitoring progress toward achieving compliance. Several of the command staff had not seen the Settlement Agreement, nor were they aware of the substantive areas agreed upon by the City of Meridian and the Department of Justice (DOJ). All interviewees were welcoming, and open regarding their duties, practices, and responsibilities. Each provided direct responses to my questions and showed a willingness to share information. All were very responsive during the interviews and to any requests for follow up documentation.
The MPD has taken some steps toward addressing key areas within the Settlement Agreement, including no longer responding to Meridian schools for the purpose of arresting or transporting juveniles solely at the request of MPSD officials. During my review of calls for service reports, I noted that the MPD no longer routinely responds to Meridian schools.

September 26, 2016

3

The Meridian Public School District (MPSD) has created its own internal police department within the MPSD. Calls for service records spanning over the past two years clearly show that the MPD has taken the necessary steps to significantly reduce the number and types of calls that officers will respond to on school property. However, the only documentation which reflects this change of policy is an amendment to a policy dated August 23, 2012, authored but not signed by a former Chief of Police. The policy amendment states, in part, that MPD shall only respond to MPSD for “incidents involving the commission of a felony, physical violence, or weapons.”
A draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) currently exists between the MPD and the Meridian Public School District. The MOU outlines all the substantial areas of the Settlement Agreement. The draft has been circulated to both parties, and the final draft is in the hands of the MPSD. There has been no movement on the MOU for several months. I requested an interview with key partners within the Meridian Public Schools District, including the current MPSD Chief of Police, School Resource Officers, Superintendent of Schools, and Teachers. My request was based on obtaining an update on the draft MOU, and to discuss other key elements of the Settlement Agreement.
I held a conference call with the Meridian School Board Attorney and DOJ representatives on July 15, 2016, to discuss the scheduling of interviews with the aforementioned MPSD personnel. During that call, I was advised by the attorney that they would not be cooperating in our review and would not be making any of their employees available for interviews.
The MPD has begun to develop an internal policy that addresses several facets contained in the draft MOU. I will continue to reach out to the MPSD to solicit their cooperation in conducting my review. Although I believe the majority of members of the MPD recognize changes have occurred in their response to handling juveniles within the MPSD, the need for written policies and training in several areas of the Settlement Agreement are necessary to institutionalize these changes.
A review of all calls for service to MPSD properties during the previous 18 months show only a few cases in which MPD took direct action. One call involved a juvenile who did not attend the school arrested for the possession of a stolen firearm, and another involved a theft which only required a police report to be taken.
Several juvenile arrest reports and jail logs were reviewed. Reports dating January 2011 thru January 2012 showed a significant number of arrest emanating from school locations. However, January 2012 thru March 2014, reports show a significant reduction in school related arrest. No juvenile arrest records after January 2012 showed arrest by Meridian Police for “disciplinary” type offenses. The arrests records reviewed did show, in a majority of the cases, that a parent or guardian was properly contacted. Several of the records also showed that Miranda rights were given to the juvenile.
There are several areas in which MPD remains non-compliant, and will require significant work in order to come into compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Those areas include:

September 26, 2016

4

• Development of written policy that directly indicates what types of incidents involving juveniles on MPSD property require an MPD response, as well as how and when MPD officers should respond.
• Development of training curricula that ensures all officers and officials are familiar with the Settlement Agreement measures that are incorporated into MPD policies. Additional development and training is needed in the areas of:  De-escalation techniques;  Conflict Resolution;  Child and Adolescent Development; and  Bias Free Policing.
• Updated policies and procedures for the handling of citizen complaints involving MPD responses to, and arrests at MPSD facilities. • Public access to, and filing process for citizen complaint forms to include a tracking system for complaints arising from school-based
arrest. • Specific juvenile data collection pertaining to the number of juveniles referred to MPD by MPSD and the number of arrests arising out
of school-based behavior. • Development and implementation of a community input program.
We continue to hold bi-weekly conference calls with key members of the Meridian Police Department Team. The calls are utilized to follow up on tasks, exchange information, conduct further interviews, and review additional documentation. We will be establishing due dates for completing tasks to ensure timely completion of tasks to come into substantial compliance with Settlement Agreement provisions.
My next on site compliance review visit should take place during the month of November 2016.

September 26, 2016

5

MATERIALS REVIEWED BY INDEPENDENT AUDITOR
• MPD School Based Arrest Policy (Draft) • US District Court, Southern District of Mississippi, Complaint, Civil No. 4:12 CV-00168-HTW-LRA, Filed October 24, 2012 • MPD Standard Operating Procedure, Special Order 99-004, Operating Procedures for Dispatch • State of Mississippi Instructor Certificate for Deborah Young • MPD Miranda Rights Card • MPD General Order 98-033, Office of Internal Affairs, 2/24/1999 • Amendment to MPD Procedures for Responses to MPSD, 08-23-12 • Amendment to MPD Procedures for Responses to MPSD, 08-23-12 • Amendment to MPD Procedures for Responses to MPSD • MPD Calls for Service log • MPD Guidelines for Juvenile Status Offenders • MPD Juvenile Procedures Policy • MPD Law Enforcement Responsibilities Juvenile Prevention Act • MPD and Meridian Public School District Police Department (MPSDPD) Draft Memorandum of Understanding • MPD Grievance Form • MPD Juvenile Law Curriculum • MPD Incident and Arrest Reports • MPD Juvenile Training Materials • Perez, Thomas Letter to Phil Bryant and Jim Hood, 6-28-12 • MPD Rules and Regulations, Code of Conduct • Mississippi State Juvenile Guidelines • Youth Court Statutes • MPD Juvenile Arrest Reports, 2011 through 2016 • MPD Juvenile Jail Arrest Logs • Meridian Public Schools Calls for Service 2015-2016 • MPD General Order 98-001, Code of Conduct • MPD School-based arrest report matrix, August 2012-June 2016 • Reviewed MPD General Order 98-022, Rights in Custody • City of Meridian Website • New Parental Notification Cards • New Departmental Personnel Roster • Communication Division Operating Procedures • First Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al. Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA

September 26, 2016

6

SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES
The below matrix provides detailed descriptions of initial findings and identifies paths forward for achieving greater compliance in certain areas.

A. SCHOOL ARRESTS AND PROBABLE CAUSE
1. Policy and Practices a. Within 90 days of the effective date, the Meridian Police Department shall have adopted practices, policies, procedures and training [regarding school-based arrest] consistent with the principles enumerated in Section III.A.1.a of the Settlement Agreement:

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Interviews with Chief of Police Dubose & A/C Sharpe.
_____________________________ Reviewed draft copy of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Meridian Police Department (MPD) and Meridian Public School District Police Department (MPSDPD).

Findings
Chief Dubose & A/C Sharpe stated they have instructed members of the MPD not to respond to MPS to make arrests. ________________________ MOU is not yet finalized.
MOU requires more specificity and clarity on relationship and procedures between MPD and MPSD.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Verbal directions need to be converted to written policies and directives. Policy should reflect critical issues within the Settlement Agreement. Officers must be trained on the policy.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

______________________________________________ Finalize MOU between MPD and MPSDPD.

MOU & policy should address procedures for handling request for police services at all MPSD locations.

MOU & policy should define what constitutes a schoolbased arrest.

MOU & policy should define notification process to MPSDPD when conducting law enforcement related

September 26, 2016

7

matters on MPSD property.

MOU and policy must contain verbiage that addresses Off-Duty Meridian Police Officers working for the MPSD as school resource officers (SROs). Duties and responsibilities must be clearly defined.

_____________________________ Reviewed unsigned policy amendment to Juvenile Procedures Policy. Dated August 23, 2012.
____________________________ Reviewed Juvenile Jail Arrest Logs from 2011 to 2016.

_________________________ Policy does not include language prohibiting SROs from effecting arrest on behalf of MPD. __________________________ Identified only one school based arrest in 2016 of a juvenile. The juvenile did not attend the school at the time of arrest. He was charged with possession of a firearm. The arrest occurred on school property and the arrest was made by SRO Reese and assisted by MPD/Det. Young. This arrest occurred March 4, 2016.

_______________________________________________ Policy and MOU must contain language prohibiting MPSPD SROs from effecting arrest on behalf of MPD.
______________________________________________ Juvenile Jail Arrest Log should be revised to include a section that denotes if the arrest occurred at a school.

________________

Identified 12 arrests of juveniles occurring on school property (based on address) January 2012 thru December 2015 by MPD Officers. Since the end of 2012, the majority of school-based arrests were made by MPSDPD.

_______________________________________________ Policy and MOU needs to contain parameters for

September 26, 2016

8

_____________________________ Reviewed various calls for service for each MPS location during 20152016.
____________________________ Reviewed MPD Rules and Regulations (pg.18) Code of Conduct.

__________________________ No calls appear to have resulted in arrest and transports of juveniles. Majority of the calls were during non-school hours. Several calls represented False Alarm calls.
_________________________ States that complaints against officers arising out of off-duty employment may be investigated by Internal Affairs.

responding to calls for service at MPSD locations.
_____________________________________________ Should be updated to state that violations and complaints arising from school-based arrests or complaints shall be investigated by Internal Affairs.

______________

(i) Specifically, officers shall only conduct school-based arrests of juveniles under the following circumstances:

a. Officers have probable cause, to the extent required by law, to believe that a juvenile has committed a felony; or

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Reviewed Juvenile Arrest Reports and Juvenile Jail Log Book 20112016.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Arrest reports show probable cause in all arrest reports reviewed. School Based Juvenile Arrest Report dated 3/16/16, a juvenile was arrested at Meridian High School for Possession of Stolen Firearm, probable cause existed.

Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

September 26, 2016

9

b. A criminal offense that involves a real and immediate threat to students, teachers, or public safety; or

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Reviewed juvenile arrest report dated 3/16/16.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Arrest reports show compliance. A juvenile was arrested at Meridian High School for possession of stolen firearm.

Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

c. A misdemeanor or other indictable offense occurs in the officer’s presence, except for offenses identified in (iii)(a); or

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Draft Policy being developed

Findings Process of reviewing draft policy

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

d. A judicial warrant or custody order specifically directs the arrest of a student in a school.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
No records or evidence were yet provided to the Auditor to review.

Findings Awaiting documents

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance Review documents

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

(ii) Officers shall avoid executing a judicial warrant at a school. A felony warrant may be executed at a school when it is not practical to conduct the arrest at alternative locations.

September 26, 2016

10

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor No records or evidence were yet provided to the Auditor to review.

Findings
City Attorney and Police Chief has agreed to provide Custody Orders/Warrants in their possession for review.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance Awaiting documents

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

(iii) Officers shall not respond to requests for school-based arrests for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including incidents involving:

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Reviewed calls for service reports.

Findings
Calls for service reports from 2015-2016 showing only one arrest occurring on MPSD property.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

Majority of MPD responses to MPSD involved calls after school hours, alarms, no calls represented disciplinary issues.

a. Public order offenses including disorderly conduct, disruption of schools or public assembly, trespass, loitering, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon.

September 26, 2016

11

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Reviewed MPD General Order: 98001 Code of Conduct
_____________________________ School-based arrest report matrix reviewed. August 2012-June 2016

Findings
Reads: W. Arrest, Search and Seizure – employees shall not make any arrest, search or seizure which they know, or should know in the totality of the circumstances, is not in accordance with law and Departmental procedure. ____________________________ Report showed 6 arrested in 2012 and 2013, for Disorderly Conduct.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance Include in written policy and MOU.
_____________________________________________

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance
______________

All arrest data shows a SRO as the arresting officer.
MPD SRO: Thompson/one arrest MPSD SRO: Reese/two arrests MPSD SRO: Shepherd/two arrests MPSD SRO: Pierce/one arrest

b. Officers must document in sufficient detail the basis for any school-based arrest, including any factors that justify arresting the youth at school and factors that support a determination of probable cause:
(i) Officers must provide Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where a youth, based on the youth’s mental and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are free to leave.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
September 26, 2016

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
12

Officers and other MPD officials interviewed.

Several officers and officials interviewed stated Miranda rights are only given for felony offenses. Miranda is not given for misdemeanor arrests.

Include in written policy and MOU that all Juveniles arrested shall be given Miranda rights regardless of whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony.

Non-Compliance

_____________________________ Reviewed MPD General Order 98022 “RIGHTS IN CUSTODY.”

____________________________ GO 98-022: RIGHTS IN CUSTODY Reads: (Must be posted where child may see them) A. When an officer takes a child into custody whether with or without a custody order, he shall immediately inform the child of: (1) his/her Miranda rights (2) The reason for his/her custody.

_____________________________________________ Attach signed Miranda Rights Card1 to Investigative Report.
Awaiting documentation of every officer receiving Miranda Rights Card to be carried at all times.

_______________ Partial Compliance

(ii) Officers must notify the juvenile’s guardian of the arrest as soon as practicable, generally no more than three hours after the arrest. If a parent is not notified within three hours, the arresting officers must document, in writing, the reason for the delay.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗

1 The Miranda Rights Card is a card carried by officers that explains a citizen’s rights during police questioning.

September 26, 2016

13

Reviewed MPD General Order 98022, “Rights in Custody.”

States: “….(2) Make sure that the parent or guardian of the detained child has been notified of the child’s location, the charge against him/her and any instructions to the parent or guardian concerning the disposition of the child.” (3) availability of a telephone to call his/her parent or guardian, his/her attorney and personnel of the Youth Court and thereafter the right to telephone his/her attorney or personnel at the Youth Court at reasonable intervals and that he/she may be visited by his/her attorney and authorized personnel of the Youth Court at any time. (4) If no parent or guardian can be contacted immediately, contact Youth Court Judge, Referee or Designee….”

Include 3-hour time period to notify parent or guardian
Arrest Reports shall reflect the time, date, and parent/guardian notified.

Partial Compliance

(iii) Officers shall only interview a detained youth in the presence of the juvenile’s guardian or attorney.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

September 26, 2016

Compliance Level (at time of
14

Auditor
Reviewed MPD General Order 98022, “Rights in Custody.”

Reads: “B. No officer shall interview or interrogate a child held in a detention or shelter facility without approval from the Judge or his designee and, if the child has a lawyer or a legal guardian, they must be present or consent.”

Review)∗

Written policy must also state that all Juvenile arrestees are given Miranda rights before the interview or interrogation. Review directive being drafted associated with Chief Dubose issuance of Rights Cards to all officers.

Partial Compliance

2. Training.

September 26, 2016

15

a. Within six months of the effective date, Meridian Police Department shall provide officers with pre-service and annual in-service training regarding interactions with juveniles while on Meridian Public School District premises, including de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and age appropriate responses and bias-free policing.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor No training materials to review.

Findings No training materials to review.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Identify and develop training curriculum in the areas of de-escalation, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and bias-free policing.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

b. This training shall be conducted by qualified instructors.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Awaiting CV for identified trainers to provide instruction in the areas of de-escalation, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and bias-free policing.

Findings
MPD has a certified trainer experienced in juvenile procedures. Reviewed Instructor Certificate.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Ensure trainers are certified to provide training in areas of de-escalation, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and bias-free policing.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

Identify additional trainers.

c. MPD shall provide roll call trainings regarding these policies as needed.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor No curriculum to review.

Findings No curriculum to review.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance Develop Curriculum

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

d. MPD shall document that all officers have received the required training.

September 26, 2016

16

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor No curriculum to review.

Findings No curriculum to review.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance Develop Curriculum

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

3. Civilian Complaints & Discipline.

September 26, 2016

17

a. Within six months of the effective date, MPD shall ensure that an effective process is in place to consider complaints regarding MPD conduct in the schools, including school-based arrests. MPD shall ensure that community members, including students, parents and guardians, have access to complaint forms to express concerns about MPD. To achieve this outcome, MPD shall ensure that complaint forms are available from the MPD and at City Hall, public libraries, and police stations. MPD shall also make the complaint form available on its website and work with MPSD to make forms available in schools.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Awaiting Complaint Process summary– no formal complaint policy identified to date. Awaiting citizen complaint documents.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy must be developed and should outline complaint process from submission through investigation to officer discipline/accountability.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

____________________________ Reviewed the MPD GO 98-001 Code of Conduct, Section I

___________________________ Reads: “I. Citizen Complaints – Employees shall courteously and promptly notify the appropriate supervisor of any complaint made by a citizen against any employee of the Police Department. Employees may attempt to resolve the complaint, but shall never attempt to dissuade any citizen from lodging a complaint against an employee or the Department. Employees shall follow established Departmental procedures for processing complaints.”

_____________________________________________ Eliminate requirement to have complaint form notarized prior to submission, which will allow complaint forms to be placed online and at other locations.
Greater clarity and accountability towards handling citizen complaints to include filing, assigning, investigating, and follow up

_______________

b. MPD shall specifically track complaints arising from school-based arrests.

September 26, 2016

18

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Reviewed MPD General Order 98001, “Code of Conduct, Section I”

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Reads: “Employees shall courteously and promptly notify the appropriate supervisor of any complaint made by a citizen against any employee of the Police Department. Employees may attempt to resolve the complaint, but shall never attempt to dissuade any citizen from lodging a complaint against an employee or the Department. Employees shall follow established Departmental procedures for processing complaints.”

Develop written policy and process for tracking complaints

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

c. MPD shall routinely assess the need for improvements to its training based on these complaints.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor No identifiable materials to review.

Findings No process identified.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy should include that MPD should routinely assess improvements based on juvenile complaints.

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗
Non-compliance

September 26, 2016

19

d. Officers who violate MPD’s juvenile arrest policies shall be held accountable through the department’s disciplinary system

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor Review MPD GO 98-001, “Code of Conduct,” Section C

Findings
GO Code of Conduct States: C. Employees shall immediately report to a supervisor any violation of this Order that comes to their attention. Supervisors shall take immediate steps to correct a violation of this Order when it comes to their attention, regardless of the supervisor’s or violator’s assignment or rank within the Department.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy does exist. However, juvenile arrest policy should state within the juvenile procedures section that, “a violation of this policy can and will result in disciplinary action.”

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

4. Data Collection.

September 26, 2016

20

a. MPD shall collect statistical data on the number of juveniles referred to the MPD by the MPSD and the number of arrests that arise out of behavior allegedly occurring in the Meridian public schools or at school events, including age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor

Findings

Provided with and reviewed one computer report generated by MPD on July 19, 2016 that captured school based juvenile arrests from January 2011 to June 2016.

Need more structured, consistent process for collecting and tracking statistical data.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Develop format for data collection and tracking to include: Age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct for all juvenile arrests.
Report should be generated and submitted to chief quarterly.

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

b. This data shall be made public on the City’s website on a semi-annual basis.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
City’s website reviewed.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Data not made public on the City’s Compile data and place online at least semi-annually. website.

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

5. Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department.

September 26, 2016

21

a. Consistent with paragraph 92 of the MPSD/EOS Agreement, within 90 days of the effective date, the City shall seek a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MPSDPD and the MPD that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effectuating arrests of students while on school grounds.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Reviewed draft Memorandum of Understanding

Findings
MOU needs to be clarified and finalized.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Modified and signed by both parties.2 Include references to SROs

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Partial Compliance

Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department Notes:

Recommendations for inclusion in MOU (made to Chief Dubose via Chief Monroe during site visit) include: Section: School Arrest and Probable Cause
- State how notification is to be made to MPSDPD and MPD when a law enforcement issue comes to the attention of MPD officers at schools. - State who within MPSDPD and MPD should be notified. - State whether notification shall be made prior to an arrest. - Define what would constitute a “Threat to Public Safety”. - Clarify with examples circumstances when an arrest can be made at school versus being made at an alternative location. - Requirement documentation as to why an arrest occurred at school. - Officers must provide written justification and obtain a supervisor’s approval prior to requesting a Custody Order/Warrant which allows for an
arrest to occur at school. - MOU must be specific as to duties and responsibilities of MPD/SRO officers assigned to schools. - MPSDPD shall establish a process for conveying complaints to MPD against MPD/SROs assigned to schools.

2 Recommendations were made by the Monitor on items to include in the MOU.
September 26, 2016

SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES
22

A. Within six months of the effective date, the City, in consultation with the Police Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms as outlined herein and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this consent decree. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Discussion with Chief Dubose.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

The Chief does hold regular meetings with the Chief’s Advisory Board, he has not yet provided them an update on the consent decree. Nor has the department developed a community input program.

Identify time, location, topic areas, and process for receiving and responding to input from community.

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

B. The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the City shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in place. A representative for the US will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement, the City’s progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns related to the implementation of this agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the Internet.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Discussion with Chief Dubose.

Findings
No open community meeting has been held.

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Compliance Level
(at time of Review)∗

Develop framework, action plan, and identify

Non Compliance

participants (to include police, city representatives, and

DOJ) for the open community meeting.

September 26, 2016

23

C. The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The City shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website they create or maintain.

Material, Evidence or Documentation Reviewed by
Auditor
Discussion with Chief Dubose.

Findings

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

No summaries and other materials have been made available to the public.

Develop Action Plans and make Compliance Reports, revised policies, training curriculum, MOU and another materials developed under this agreement available during community meetings and in public locations.

Compliance Level (at time of Review)∗
Non Compliance

September 26, 2016

24

CONCLUSION & NEXT STEPS
The Independent Auditor continue(s) to hold conference calls every other week with key members of the Meridian Police Department Team, including Counsel and the Chief of Police. The calls are used to follow up on tasks, exchange information, conduct further interviews, and review additional documentation. We will be establishing due dates for completing certain tasks to ensure timely completion of tasks to come into substantial compliance with Settlement Agreement provisions.
My next on site compliance review visit should take place during the month of November 2016.

September 26, 2016

25

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 36
Third Report of the Probation 
 Services Independent Auditor 
 U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.

Civil Action No. 3:13‐CV‐978‐HTW‐LRA
Draft submitted: February 4, 2017 
 Final submitted: February 24, 2017 

Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301‐602‐1610

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 36
I. Introduction
This is the third report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). While the State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian have reached settlements with the Justice Department, litigation regarding the Youth Court and its two sitting judges continues.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct compliance reviews every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the compliance review conducted January 3 through 5, 2017. This is the third compliance review since the parties reached a settlement in this matter.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed description of the State’s compliance status in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s
2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 36
findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non‐compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review visit provided an opportunity to assess the progress the State has made over the past six months. In addition, I participated in a working session with a newly constituted work group focused on revising and implementing the State’s system of graduated responses for youth on probation. I also had the opportunity to observe the biannual community input meeting required by the settlement agreement. I met with the Youth Services Counselors (YSCs) and regional supervisor assigned to Lauderdale County Youth Court, observed YSC meetings with youth and their family members, interviewed youth and families independently, met with both of the counsel appointed to represent youth in Lauderdale County Youth Court, and met with both the Director of the Division of Youth Services (DYS) and the Community Services Director who is also the Settlement Agreement Coordinator.
The agency has made progress toward compliance during the past six months, although numerous personnel changes slowed the State’s efforts. The State completed its corrective action plan, which helps chart future work by noting key tasks that must be completed and identifying the agency staff responsible for developing products and guiding implementation. In addition, the
3 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 36
agency implemented the newly revised contract for youth on probation, which had been the focus of work with a committee of supervisors during my last visit. This fall, the agency arranged for staff training about: due process rights of young people, resources for suspended and expelled youth, and working with people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. In addition, DYS held a community input meeting required by the settlement agreement while I was on site. The agency publicized the event through radio, television and internet, and extended personal invitations to current clients. Officials have been working hard to complete policy refinements as well. The next important steps for the State’s compliance activities include: completing revisions of key policies and accompanying tools; developing a training plan (and then implementing training); developing county‐specific guidance for Lauderdale County YSCs on topics that are not addressed in state‐level policy, and ensuring accuracy in counselors’ assessments of youth and reports to the youth court.
As with my prior two visits, significant challenges remain in monitoring implementation of this settlement agreement while the claims against other defendants remain in litigation. The State has provided access to all of its own documentation and employees related to this agreement, and has also been more than helpful in helping me seek access to information under control of others. However, the County and the Youth Court judges have maintained their decision not to allow me to observe Youth Court, review documents or databases generated or controlled by the Court, or interview County employees. These circumstances continue to limit my ability to gain a full picture of YSCs’ interactions with judges, court personnel, youth, families and others. I have done my best to develop as full a picture as possible given these limitations.
During this visit I observed all meetings between YSCs and their clients that occurred while I was visiting the Youth Court. After each meeting I interviewed the parent (when one was present) and youth separately as well. Therefore, I was able to observe 4 meetings between YSCs and clients, and conduct interviews with 5 youth and 3 family members. While more meetings than these were scheduled during the week of my visit, some clients did not come as scheduled or asked to reschedule.
I reviewed the documents generated during the past 6 months by YSCs for 13 youth. These documents included YSC case notes, completed SAVRY scoring
4 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 36
forms, social histories, recommendations to the court, and forms that tracked the procedural history of the case. I reviewed these documents for youth on probation and on informal adjustment, including youth who were reported for probation violations since August 2016.
I reviewed the following additional documents while on site:
 Notebook of alternative education resources for youth who have been suspended or expelled;
 Power point slides for training entitled, “Suicide Awareness, Prevention, and Intervention in Persons with IDD;”
 Notice of Public Meeting placed in the lobby of the Youth Court, announcing the Community Forum that took place January 5, 2017;
 Letter to parents and guardians from Lauderdale County YSCs inviting them to the January 5 Community Forum; 

 Screen shot of community forum notice on wtok.com; 
  Example of letter sent by Lauderdale County YSCs to solicit tangible 

incentives for youth who meet goals set during probation;  SAVRY case audits by Regional Supervisor for Lauderdale County; and  File Folder Setup protocol.
The State submitted other documents for feedback and/or review prior to and immediately following the visit as well, including:
 New drafts of the explanatory handouts for youth about probation and parole
 The State’s compliance report;  Power point slides from two trainings presented December 9 for YSCs from
across the state: “Identifying and Working with Youth with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,” and “Due Process and Constitutional Rights for Detained and Adjudicated Youth;”  Monthly Probation/Parole Violation Tracking Forms for August 2016 through November 2016;  Screen shot of DHS website with notice of Community Forum;  Handouts from training about services available through Families First for Mississippi;  New drafts of the Graduated Response policy and accompanying tools; and
5 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 6 of 36

 New drafts of the Probation and Informal Adjustment policies and the Informal Adjustment Agreement.

Table I summarizes my compliance findings. Some of the provisions of the settlement agreement include deadlines in the future. I have not indicated a compliance rating for those provisions, noting that the requirements are not yet applicable.

Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision

Provision number
III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c III.A.1.d III.A.2.a III.A.2.b
III.A.2.c.i III.A.2.c.ii III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youth Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth‐appropriate language Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations
Probation Conditions – Understandable language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement

Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Substantial compliance
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited. Substantial compliance for risk assessment; Partial compliance for table of graduated responses Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Partial compliance
Beginning compliance

6 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 7 of 36

Provision number
III.A.3.b III.B.1
III.C.1 III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A‐C V.B VIII.A.1 VIII.A.2 VIII.A.4 VIII.B.2

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities

Not yet applicable
Substantial Compliance for dispositional decisions; To Be Determined for earlier detention decisions; Partial compliance for monitoring diversion program opportunities and funding

Training – Develop training plans
Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S.
Community Input
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year Reporting – Biannual compliance report

Beginning compliance Beginning compliance Beginning compliance Non‐compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Beginning compliance
Beginning compliance Not yet applicable
Partial compliance

7 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 8 of 36

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth‐appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
iii. an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

YSCs, youth and families all report that YSCs continue to review the probation contract with clients when the youth are initially placed on probation. YSCs have begun using the new probation contract developed over the summer. Staff explain what is expected of youth both at the initial meeting and at other times during probation supervision. They discuss what will happen on probation and the YSC role. Staff discuss some of the potential sanctions imposed on youth who commit probation violations, but not the range of consequences contemplated by the DYS graduated response policy. They do not routinely discuss what happens during the revocation process, youths’

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 9 of 36

right to challenge allegations, and youths’ right to counsel for revocation.
This incomplete coverage of the required topics is understandable because the documents designed to guide YSCs have been in development since the summer. I provided feedback on the drafts during my visit in July, and the regional supervisor who was responsible for the handouts and accompanying guidance left the agency in October. I next received a new draft of the handouts in December, shortly before my most recent visit, and have worked with the Community Services Director since then to reach a final draft of these documents. The handouts are now being field tested with youth and families by selected staff, and should be finalized once their feedback has been incorporated.
As I recommended in my last report, it can be helpful to test draft documents with clients and staff in order to get their insights about whether they are understandable and complete. The agency adopted the revised probation contract without a test period. Two notable things occurred as a result. First, it appears that drafters accidentally removed an important provision from the contract. The missing provision provided notice to families about the need to seek court approval before the youth leaves the state. That provision will be added back into the contract and should also be added to the informal adjustment and parole contracts still being revised, to the extent that this rule applies in those contexts. Also, the drafters included two blank spaces beside each provision in the contract. The intent, as discussed during the committee meeting in which the contract was edited, was for the youth to describe his or her understanding of each provision to the YSC. Once the youth is able to explain a provision in his or her own words, then staff and youth are to initial next to that provision. Staff were unaware of the purpose of the blank lines. Now that staff in Lauderdale County have been informed, they agree that this is a useful addition to the form.
Staff will also benefit from a fully revised and adopted Probation policy. The State submitted a new version for review just as my compliance visit was ending. I have since determined that it now meets the requirements of the settlement agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, DYS must ensure that YSCs provide youth with notice of all required topics in youth‐appropriate language. Since the agency has chosen to develop and use handouts to

9 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 10 of 36

help explain these concepts, the State must ensure that staff are provided with guidance about appropriate ways to use the handouts in their conversations with youth and their families. If these will only be used in Lauderdale County (as the State has indicated), then in order to comply with section III(A)(iii)(a), the State must develop written county‐ specific guidance for Lauderdale County staff to guide use of the handouts.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; reviews of draft probation explanation handouts for youth and families; discussion with Director of Community Services.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.b
DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

At the beginning of a youth’s probation and often during the course of probation, YSCs meet with youth and their parents or guardians together. Therefore, early conversations about what to expect while on probation include both youth and their families. As a result, the State’s compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, in order to reach substantial compliance, the State will need to finalize the handouts for families that address the required topics and ensure that staff are informed about the appropriate ways to use the handouts to guide their conversations with families. The State must also create written Lauderdale County‐specific guidance if that is the only jurisdiction where the handouts will be in use.

10 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 11 of 36

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; review of draft probation explanation handouts for youth and families; discussion with Director of Community Services.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.c
The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youth‐ appropriate language.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

YSCs have been using the probation contract as a basis for the discussion about expectations for youth on probation. The recent edits to that document along with the approach outlined above to ensure that youth understand the requirements are appropriate steps to fulfill this requirement. The handouts the agency plans to use in order to help explain the concepts required by the agreement are written with small amounts of information and few words in order to aid in understanding. The field testing process should help the State to identify whether further adjustments would be helpful.
Youth and families I interviewed did report that they understood the requirements for probation at the time they were explained and that their assigned YSCs had made those requirements clear to them. Some did not understand what might happen or what rights they might have to receive the help of a lawyer if they were charged with violating probation. This is why having a handout for families to keep, along with the revised probation contract, will be helpful.
In the past, staff did not receive training about effective communication with youth and families with disabilities, unless they received it during their coursework in college or graduate school. I wrote in my previous reports that YSCs would benefit from developing skills to aid in identifying youth and families who may have difficulty processing the information presented, and in alternative strategies for communicating with youth and families who have learning disabilities, intellectual
11 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 12 of 36

disabilities, and mental health conditions that make processing of information difficult.
DYS began providing training for staff in this area by offering two presentations on working with individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). One training was focused on suicide awareness, prevention and intervention for this population, while the other was intended to provide information on identifying and working with youth with IDD. DYS should be commended for identifying available experts and existing trainings to help fulfill this training need. However, staff reported (and the materials reflected) that the presentation entitled “Identifying and Working with Youth With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities” was much more focused on the adult inmate population than on delinquent youth. Staff also mentioned that they rarely have clients with significant IDD, because those youth are often diverted to other agencies, so this training mismatch is not critical. However, in planning future trainings on working with youth and families with other learning disabilities and mental illness, the agency should work closely with presenters to ensure that trainings are targeted for staff working with teenage clients involved in the juvenile justice system in particular.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to reach substantial compliance, the agency will need to finish revising the informational handouts and the informal adjustment and parole agreements/contracts, to complete the incorporation of youth friendly language. Guidance materials and training for staff must aid staff in use of youth‐appropriate language and explaining required topics in ways that maximize understanding. Training for staff must include information about common disabilities among youth in the juvenile justice system and their families, and skill development for staff in communicating with people with such disabilities.

Pursuant to section III(A)(iii)(a), this requirement must be reflected in policy, the practice manual, and other appropriate agency documents.

Evidentiary Basis

Training materials from past six months; conversations with staff, regional supervisor and Community Services Director.

12 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 13 of 36

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.d
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The Lauderdale County YSCs have instituted a process for setting meeting schedules with clients and communicating them to appointed counsel. As they meet with new clients, they are filling out a form listing the dates of meetings for the remainder of the probation period. Copies of that list are provided to the youth and turned over to the office secretary, who emails the information to counsel and places a copy of the form in a notebook in the courtroom.
I saw consistent evidence in files that the meeting schedules are set, and that staff are appropriately flexible if youth and families need to change the dates. Counsel reported that they are receiving the notices, and youth and families reported that they are given set meeting schedules but know how to change them as needeed. Youth have not requested counsel presence, and counsel have not attended any probation meetings between YSCs and youth since this new process was instituted.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has achieved substantial compliance with the practice requirement, but section III(A)(iii)(a) of the settlement agreement requires revision of policies in order to be compliant. Thus, while I find the State in compliance with this section in practice, the State will need to put the meeting notice and recordkeeping requirements in writing in a form that guides Lauderdale County staff, in order to comply with the policy requirement of section III(A)(iii)(a) as it relates to this topic. The State should continue to keep records of its implementation of this provision.

13 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 14 of 36

Evidentiary Basis Reviews of files; conversations with staff, youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.b.
The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance with regard to risk assessment; Partial compliance with regard to table of graduated responses

Discussion

DYS chose a risk assessment tool (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, or SAVRY), trained workers in its use, and adopted policies regarding Graduated Responses and Risk Assessment during 2014 and 2015. Two of the four YSCs in Lauderdale County are new to the department this year. One began in April and the other in August. They both received training in the SAVRY during the autumn. One experienced staff member reported that she filled in during summer and fall to complete SAVRYs for the staff who had not yet completed training.
In my document reviews during this visit, I saw SAVRY reports completed in all the formal probation files I reviewed. The risk levels staff determined after conducting a SAVRY assessment were reported in the social summaries and dispositional recommendations to the court. I saw one example where the SAVRY finding was reported inaccurately in the social summary, but the problem did not appear widespread. Because the State adopted a risk assessment instrument and has it actively in use in Lauderdale County, I find the State in substantial compliance with the risk assessment requirement of this provision, but note that there is still work to be done on quality assurance, policy alignment and documentation of detention recommendations in order to be in substantial compliance with the policy, procedure and practice requirements of provisions III(A)(3)(a) and III(A)(2)(c)(iii), as they pertain to this provision.
14 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 15 of 36
While I did not identify the same degree of inconsistency between the case notes, social summary, SAVRY and court recommendations as I did during my previous visit, I note that the State still needs to take additional steps toward quality assurance as a component of implementing the SAVRY effectively. This means that there must be meaningful supervisor review that identifies discrepancies between information collected, SAVRY scoring, and recommendations to the court, with feedback provided to line staff. The new regional supervisor, who is also a SAVRY trainer, began her new position in mid‐ December, just before my visit. She conducted an initial review of SAVRY assessments and recommendations completed by each of the staff in Lauderdale County, and she began to identify where improvements were needed. During my visit, we worked on revisions to the supervisors’ file review form. The revisions will allow supervisors to record concerns and provide written feedback to staff as they review files.
I did note some inconsistencies between information gathered or available and information reported to the court in the files I reviewed. The following are some examples: In one case, a worker reported to the court that the youth “does not have any reported or apparent mental, medical or developmental problems,” despite the fact that the file included a discharge summary report from the second of two in‐ patient hospital admissions the child had undergone for mental health reasons. The summary included three Axis I diagnoses. A report to the court in another case stated that the youth had “a mental issue” and was diagnosed with “ADDHD and anger issues” but provided no more specific information. Such information was surely available, as the youth had received in‐patient treatment on three separate occasions, one of which was for 30 days. In another file, the social summary for the court said the youth had “passing grades” but the YSC’s notes indicate that the youth was earning mostly A’s. This youth’s SAVRY reflected a determination that the youth was at a moderate risk level, but the social summary submitted to the court reported that this youth was at high risk for serious re‐offending. As noted previously, recommendations to the court should accurately reflect information gathered.
The SAVRY policy has not yet been revised to align with the settlement agreement, so this task should be addressed in the upcoming months as well in order to comply with the agreement’s policy revision requirements in III(A)(3)(a). Furthermore, as I outline in my comments regarding provision III(A)(2)(c)(iii), in order for me to assess whether the
15 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 16 of 36

state is recommending detention in appropriate cases, the State still needs to implement further documentation.
For Graduated Responses, the agency has done further work to evolve its policy, accompanying forms, and sample incentives and sanctions grids. I received a new draft of the materials just prior to my visit and was able to work with a newly reconstituted committee during my visit. Sadly, the experienced supervisor who chaired this committee died suddenly in December. Two other members of the committee left the agency this autumn as well. However, the new members of the committee are committed to the work and to the shared decision making that the project involves. They have been receptive to examples, recommendations and exchange of ideas.
During my meeting with the committee during this visit, we discussed my recommendations for revisions to the latest drafts of the graduated responses tools and forms. Since then, the group has submitted another draft of the tools and policy for feedback, and we met for another two hours by telephone. Revisions of the tools are nearly completed, and the group has turned to refining the policy.
I was pleased to learn that the YSCs and administrative assistant in Lauderdale County had been working to collect tangible rewards to use as incentives for youth on probation. They have received a few donations and have written letters to solicit donations from more entities. They indicated that they intend to follow up with telephone calls where letters alone have been unsuccessful. I do not believe that a substantial compliance finding is appropriate at this time for the graduated response part of this provision, because Lauderdale County does not yet have county‐specific graduated response grids actively in use.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance with regard to risk assessment, the State must continue to use the SAVRY to inform its recommendations to the court. To reach substantial compliance in the policy, practice and procedure requirements that apply to this provision, the State must ensure that court recommendations, including those embodied in the social summaries submitted by YSCs, reflect consistency with the YSC’s case notes, SAVRY and other documents collected. In order to ensure that workers are providing the court with consistently accurate and appropriate recommendations, the State must ensure that supervisor oversight is rigorous and that it provides sufficient feedback to staff. In accordance with section III(A)(3)(a) of the settlement agreement, the

16 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 17 of 36

State must also align the SAVRY policy with the requirements of the agreement, and in accordance with III(A)(2)(c)(iii), it must increase documentation of court recommendations so that I can determine whether they are appropriate pursuant to the agreement.
The agency will also need to finish revisions to the graduated responses tools and policy. Once the policy and tools are complete, YSC staff in Lauderdale County must develop county‐specific incentives and sanctions grids, including establishing a range of incentives for youth to comply with probation requirements.
While not a requirement for compliance, this work to establish a system of graduated responses at the local level is most effectively done in coordination with other court stakeholders where possible. We have discussed the importance of communication with the court and other entities in the Graudated Responses work group. Because judges have such influence over processes in individual county courts, supervisors have expressed that this collaboration will be especially necessary in Mississippi.
Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new graduated response and SAVRY policies, as well as the quality assurance efforts necessary to ensure accurate, reliable incorporation of the SAVRY into court recommendations and reports such as the social summary.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC‐generated documents about individual youth; Graduated Responses, Probation, and SAVRY policies and appendices; participation in meeting of graduated responses committee; interviews with DYS staff and management.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.i.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
17 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 18 of 36

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency has revised the contract used to explain conditions of probation to youth and their families. As explained above, I recommended that staff in several regions test the contract out with existing clients to see whether the youth and families felt it was understandable and effective prior to full implementation. The agency chose to roll the document out to all staff without taking this additional step. Staff discovered after implementation that a necessary provision had been accidentally eliminated and the agency has added it back into the document. Before finalizing this revision, the agency must seek and incorporate feedback from staff and clients who have been using the form to determine whether any other changes might be appropriate, and share that feedback with me and the Justice Department.
The informal adjustment and parole contracts are still in the process of final revisions. Going forward, once the agency has a version of the informal adjustment and parole contracts that have been through edits from me and the Justice Department, the State must pilot them, share the feedback with me and the Justice Department, and consider feedback from the pilot before statewide adoption in policy. Staff planning the field test should make sure that these contracts are tested with a selection of clients that includes a variety of ages, races and ethnicities, regions of the state, and reading/comprehension abilities. Once the contracts are finalized, requirements must be reflected in policy, training, and other appropriate agency documents.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to complete revisions of the formal probation, informal adjustment, and parole contracts. This process must include testing them with clients and staff, and incorporating appropriate revisions following the tests. (In the case of the probation contract, which has already been in use, seeking feedback from staff and clients who have already used it will be sufficient.) In addition, staff must be trained so that they fill in the blanks with appropriate provisions that are not overly broad or difficult to understand the scope of the requirement. Pursuant to section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, the agency must incorporate these changes in policy and consider whether adjustments to the Desktop Guide, orientation, and/or other documents are necessary to give staff sufficient guidance.

18 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 19 of 36

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contract drafts; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.ii.
Probation contracts shall:
1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement while on probation.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency revised and implemented a new probation contract. As explained above, the informal adjustment and parole agreements are still undergoing revisions. The probation contract does include the two elements required by this provision.
Because youth can only fulfill the mandatory school attendance requirement during a suspension or expulsion if they attend a program approved by the Mississippi Department of Education or an alternative approved by the court, it was important for staff to be knowledgeable about the options available to clients. During the autumn, the Community Services Director prepared a notebook with resources identifying the available options and provided training to staff in Lauderdale County about those options and the resource guide.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to finalize revisions to the probation, informal adjustment and parole contracts, incorporating feedback from staff, youth and families and appropriate recommendations from the Independent Auditor and Department of Justice. The agency must adjust policy and other

19 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 20 of 36

documents such as the Desktop Guide, orientation materials, training, and other resources in order to give staff sufficient guidance regarding these topics, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contract drafts; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.iii.
Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

As I explained in my previous report, there are three times in the course of processing a probation violation where YSCs have the opportunity to make recommendations to judges or designees about a detention decision. The first of these occurs after someone with knowledge of the probation violation files an affidavit describing the probation violation. While the designee makes the detention decision (and YSCs are not legally permitted to serve as Youth Court Designees), staff sometimes do communicate with the designee about the circumstances of the case. This is an informal opportunity to influence the detention decision. Without more detailed case notes, I cannot tell what YSCs are communicating to designees, whether they are recommending detention in some cases, or what their recommendations for or against detention are based upon. I had requested that staff take more detailed notes in situations where they discuss a possible detention of an alleged probation violator with a designee. However, I did not encounter such notes in the files I reviewed.

20 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 21 of 36
The second detention decision point is at the detention hearing, which may be the same day as a youth is arrested, or up to two business days later in Mississippi. A YSC attends the hearing, and in the past some YSCs provided recommendations about detention. Somehow, there was a misunderstanding, and a senior official told staff that they were not allowed to make such detention recommendations. However, the settlement agreement does not suggest that YSCs must remove themselves from the detention decision process, and I did not recommend restricting the YSCs’ role.
What I did request was that the YSCs record notes in their files to report when they are making a recommendation regarding detention, what they are asked in court, and what they say in response, so that I can review their recommendations for compliance with this provision. This is especially necessary at present since I am not permitted to observe court hearings. I hope that there will be more complete documentation of these hearings going forward. Of course, DYS is welcome to institute a different method of recordkeeping in order to accomplish the same goals. The agency is also free to restrict YSCs’ role to the extent that it is within the purview of the agency to set forth the YSCs’ responsibilities, but officials should not suggest that the restriction is due to any requirement of the settlement agreement or the Independent Auditor.
The third stage at which YSCs may recommend incarceration or alternatives is in conjunction with the formal hearing on a probation violation. In preparation for a possible adjudication, the YSCs prepare written social summaries and dispositional recommendations. For this stage I was able to identify whether YSCs made a recommendation of incarceration, and could see from the case history what services and detention alternatives had been attempted previously with a youth. I did not see any recommendations for incarceration among the files I reviewed, and believe that for the formal hearing decision point only, the agency remains in substantial compliance with the practice required in this provision.
As I noted in my previous report, DYS staff must be trained in the law governing detention in order to ensure that they understand the bounds of what designees and judges may order if they are to make appropriate recommendations. This is not training they have received, and staff were not aware of the law in this area.
21 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 22 of 36

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to institute additional documentation of detention recommendations at the designee and detention hearing decision points. Also, the agency will need to develop some guidance in writing and also in training for staff to understand how to comply with this provision of the agreement, and then ensure that staff are not recommending detention in cases where they are not permitted to do so under the agreement. This training must include explanation of Mississippi’s laws governing custody and detention of youth. In order to comply with the policy and procedures requirements of section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, if the agency decides that it will only implement this provision in Lauderdale County, it will need to determine the appropriate means to provide written policy and practice guidance to YSCs in Lauderdale County only.

As I noted in my last report, DYS must also help YSCs enhance skills and identify programmatic resources to help families experiencing disciplinary challenges and lack of probation compliance with their court‐involved youth.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC written recommendations and case notes; discussions with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

Since my last visit, the agency has revised the probation contract and policy. As described above, although the contract has been put in use, the agency revised it again to replace an accidentally removed provision. The agency has revised drafts of the informal adjustment contract and policy as well as the parole contract and policy, and is nearing completion of those documents. A team has also been working
22 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 23 of 36

on the graduated responses policy and tools. I have provided recommendations on these both in writing and in meetings on site. I recognize that the multiple steps required to complete each revision are time consuming and am pleased to see progress toward finalizing a number of these projects.
The agency should review each recommendation in this report and also review the settlement agreement to determine which written documents are most appropriate to reflect and accomplish implementation of the requirements of this agreement. In some cases the agency may only plan to implement changes to practice in Lauderdale County, while in others it may determine that statewide implementation is appropriate. Adjustment of the documents must follow these decisions.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to review its written materials, including the policy manual, Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, staff evaluation materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated in key documents in sufficient detail to support full implementation of the settlement agreement’s requirements.

In a future compliance report, the State will need to identify where in policy and procedure each provision of the agreement has been or will be incorporated. Either in writing or conversation, it will be helpful for an agency official to explain how the agency determined which policies and other documents were the appropriate places to incorporate the revisions. We have discussed some of these decisions as they have arisen in exit conferences and the policy committee.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agency policies, Desktop Guide, orientation materials, and other guidance documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.b.
The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to
23 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 24 of 36
prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement. Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from initial revision of policies.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

Compliance Rating

Substantial compliance for dispositional decisions; To Be Determined for earlier detention decisions; Partial compliance for monitoring diversion program opportunities and funding.

Discussion

The parties have advised that they intended this provision to require diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators. As explained above, YSCs are generally recommending alternatives to detention and placement where appropriate in written dispositional recommendations. During my next visit, once clearer documentation is available, I will confirm whether this holds true for earlier detention decisions as well.
For the part of this provision that requires the agency to monitor opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs, the Community Services Director has sent me an email when he considered a grant source for potential funding. The agency has not found any new grant sources to meet this need, and has mainly been relying on the notices that come by email from the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) as the source for information about new grant possibilities. In the weeks ahead, I will attempt to help the agency identify other sources of information about grants for at‐risk youth.

24 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 25 of 36

For future reports, it will be helpful if the agency keeps a log or other documentation of efforts staff make to monitor and identify grant opportunities.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State must continue to recommend options that do not involve detention or out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate. The State must also expand YSC case notes or other means of recordkeeping for earlier detention decisions so that I can assess compliance at the earlier detention decision points. DYS will also need to monitor and seek future funding opportunities for diversion programs and provide documentation of its efforts.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC recommendations; conversations with DYS personnel; emails from Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

While the agency has not yet submitted a written training plan, it has identified and planned training opportunities for staff. For example, two of the three training topics at a statewide YSC training day addressed topics required by the settlement agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

25 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 26 of 36

Evidentiary Basis

Review of training materials from recent trainings, conversations with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for
Children and families, including evidence‐based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within
juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created
or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

As described above, the agency has not yet submitted a training plan. In addition to the training recommendations already mentioned elsewhere in this report, I note the following:
Constitutional due process requirements:
Staff attended a training entitled, Due Process and Constitutional Rights for Detained and Adjudicated Youth. This training explained where due process protections are embodied in federal and state law, and it outlined some key substantive and procedural due process protections. The training also explained how due process rights apply to youth in the juvenile justice system, both in facilities and when on community‐based supervision. This training appears to have provided an excellent basis

26 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 27 of 36
for staff to understand their roles in helping protect due process rights of youth, and the staff found it engaging and informative.
Disposition planning:
The agency has been developing a new case planning document, which was further edited by the Graduated Responses work group this month. Once the agency completes redevelopment of the form, it should ensure that staff are trained in effective development of a case plan, appropriate ways to work with families as part of effective disposition planning, incorporation of the SAVRY and social history in development of the case plan, use of incentives to promote progress toward goals and objectives, and proper use of the form.
Also, as discussed above, I identified some inconsistencies in the file between information collected and reports made to the court, and the new regional supervisor has been working on enhancing quality assurance in this area. As training needs are further identified through those reviews, future trainings should address the needs identified through quality assurance activities.
Best practices in social services and therapeutic options:
There have not been any trainings about effective probation practice, helping youth develop new skills, therapeutic options, evidence‐based practices, or other best practices since my last review.
Appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings:
There have not been any trainings about this topic since my last visit.
Policies, procedures and practices addressed in the Agreement:
In the coming months, several of the policies currently being finalized will be ready for implementation. Implementation should include training on the new policies, the underlying reasons for the policy changes, and any new tools that accompany the policies. The agency should review the agreement comprehensively to identify all places where implementation of the agreement will require new training.
For the training plan to be complete, the agency will need to include plans for assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics covered in training. It should also identify steps the agency will
27 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 28 of 36

take where it determines that staff lack comprehension or competency following training.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must develop training plans to include the subjects required under the settlement agreement. The plans must include means of assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics trained. Plans must also explain what remedial steps the agency will take if these assessments indicate a lack of staff comprehension or competency. The agency must submit the plans for review and incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Justice Department and Independent Auditor.

Evidentiary Basis

Observations of YSC meetings with clients; review of SAVRY assessments, social histories and dispositional recommendations.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.3.
The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

While DYS has not completed a written training plan, the agency has begun to provide trainings in some topics required by the agreement, as described above.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency will need to complete its training plan and begin providing additional training in accordance with the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis Records of recent trainings.

28 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 29 of 36

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Non‐compliance

Discussion

I have not yet received a training plan to review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

Evidentiary Basis No training plan provided.

Settlement Agreement Provision

IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.  
IV.B.
The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to
29 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 30 of 36

attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS,
may serve as its representative.  A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The parties jointly identified the measures they wish the Independent Auditor to use to assess compliance with the community input provisions. Because the questions apply to the community input meeting as a whole, the discussion of the parts A, B, and C has been combined. The questions to be used to evaluate compliance are as follows:
 Did DHS/DYS hold an open community meeting once every six months?
 Was the meeting room accessible to the public?  Did DHS/DYS publicize the meeting at least one week in
advance?  Did DHS/DYS have a representative in attendance?  Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan
and most recent compliance report?  Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a
result of this agreement on its website?  Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
30 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 31 of 36
receiving input from interested members of the community?  Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
responding to input from interested members of the community?
Measured by the questions above, the agency has reached substantial compliance because, in accordance with the parties’ definition of substantial compliance, it has “achieved nearly all the requirements” as outlined by the parties. The initial meeting took place on July 25, 2016, and a subsequent meeting occurred on January 5, 2017. The meeting on January 5 was held at the Historic First Union Missionary Baptist Church, in Meridian. It was well attended and full of lively dialogue, reflecting the commitment of the community to improving opportunities for its young people and remedying the past experiences that formed the basis for this lawsuit. The willingness of DYS officials to participate in free‐flowing dialogue with participants reflected their commitment to engaging productively with the community and being transparent as it works to comply with this settlement agreement.
The meeting was accessible to the public, with available parking, plenty of space in the church for the meeting, and ease of access for news media. More than 50 people attended. Representatives of DYS attending the meeting included the DYS Director, DYS Community Services Director, DYS regional supervisor and Lauderdale County‐based DYS staff.
Once agency personnel had identified a location, they publicized the meeting on the DYS website, in letters to current clients and their families, on flyers placed in the lobby of the Youth Court, and by arranging for public service announcements on the radio, television, and in other media. As several participants pointed out, starting with publicity earlier will provide more opportunity for people to plan to attend in the future. The reason for delay was because the agency was trying to work with community leaders to identify a church to host the event, and this took longer than expected. Perhaps this process will be easier next time, as relationships are gradually formed.
The DYS Director welcomed participants, provided a description of the litigation and settlement, and gave a brief update about developments. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to allowing the public to ask questions and offer comments, and for DYS to respond with answers where appropriate.
31 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 32 of 36

The agency met all of the requirements fully except for two, and met the other two listed below to some extent:
 Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan and most recent compliance report?
 Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a result of this agreement on its website?
The State handed out copies of its action plan and provided examples of its recent activities, which is close to meeting the requirement. The agency has not yet posted summaries of policy changes on its website because none of the revised policies were actually at the point of full approval and adoption. By the time of the next meeting DYS will have more opportunity to put these remaining elements in place, but these activities in conjunction with the rest of the work on community input are close enough altogether to qualify as substantial compliance.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to provide a written or verbal summary of its action plan and most recent compliance report to participants at the next community input meeting. In addition, it will need to post on its website summaries of policy changes made in compliance with the agreement. Furthermore, the State will need to continue conducting community input meetings every six months for the duration of the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Observation of first and second community input meetings, examination of handouts provided to participants, review of agency website notice, notice in Youth Court, letters to clients.

 
Settlement Agreement Provision

V.B.
Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.

32 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 33 of 36

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

While YSCs in Lauderdale County had not yet received copies of the settlement or details of the requirements by the time of my initial visit, they had certainly been informed of the settlement agreement. At this point, officials and staff have been fully informed, and I have not encountered any agents or independent contractors needed to implement the agreement. If the agency hires contractors to assist in any aspect of implementation such as training, it will be important to share the details of the agreement and the agency’s plans for compliance so that the contractors or agents provide services in accordance with the agreement’s requirements.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to communicate the provisions of the agreement to any future employees, agents or contractors who become involved in aspects of DYS activities impacted by the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis Conversations with DYS officials and YSCs.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

This provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by

33 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 34 of 36

reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, my findings on compliance may be found in Part III.C.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

Recommendations for reaching compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing Parts III.A.3.a and III.C.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.2.
Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

As explained above, the State has begun to incorporate the feedback the Justice Department and I provided on several policies and has completed or is nearing completion of several policies and accompanying documents.
Now that the State has revised several of its policies and is nearing final versions, officials should conduct a comprehensive review of DYS policies and procedures in order to determine what changes need to be made in order to facilitate compliance with the agreement. The 90‐day
34 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 35 of 36

deadline set in Part III has passed. The 6‐month deadlines for items not covered in Part III and for training plans have passed as well.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must conduct its review of policies and procedures to determine which require revision in order to comply with the agreement, and must submit revisions promptly for review. Further, the state must prepare the training plans outlined in III.C. and submit them for review.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.4.
Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until three months after each policy or procedure is finalized.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi‐annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi‐annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi‐annual compliance tour until the
35 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 103-1 Filed 02/28/17 Page 36 of 36

Agreement is terminated. Each bi‐annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those
actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The parties have clarified expectations in several provisions. DOJ and DHS/DYS have agreed to treat the four‐month deadline for the first comprehensive action plan in VIII.B.1 as moot, and, in lieu, DHS/DYS agreed to satisfy the deadline in VIII.B.2. by submitting the first compliance report six months after the agreement’s effective date. The parties also agreed that the reference in V.G.1. to the first compliance report being four months after the effective date would be moot. The parties have further agreed that the State need not file a separate action plan, provided that the plans for compliance and timelines for completing activities are included in a compliance report.
The state submitted its first complete compliance report in December 2016. It did address each area and describe actions that had been taken. It did not uniformly describe the actions the state intends to take to reach substantial compliance, and did not offer dates by which it planned to do so.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to submit compliance reports that outline its plans for compliance with remaining requirements in the agreement, including dates by which those actions will be taken. Further, the State will need to prepare, submit and distribute timely compliance reports until the agreement is terminated.

36 


 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 79 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 3

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


United States of America,

)


)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge )


Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge )


Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State

)


of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of

)


Human Services; and Mississippi Division of

)


Youth Services

)


)

)

Defendants.

)

)

)


 Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA 
 
 


 


Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement

The State of Mississippi and the United States of America (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 Parties have engaged in extensive arms-length

settlement negotiations. The Agreement is reasonable and equitable, and reflects the Parties’ mutual

desire to protect the constitutional rights of Lauderdale County youth while avoiding the burdens of

contested litigation. The Agreement, if approved, will resolve all of the United States’ claims against

the Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services.

In support of this motion, the parties submit the accompanying Memorandum in Support

of Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement.

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June 2015.

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 79 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 3

For the Plaintiff THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

GREGORY K. DAVIS United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

MARK KAPPELHOFF Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 548997) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

/s/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480 Direct: (601) 973-2840 Facsimile: (601) 965-4409
E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

/s/ Rashida Ogletree
RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
 JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 
 462985)
 RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030)
 MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343) 

Attorneys
 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202)305-3712 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov

Counsel for the State of Mississippi:
/s/ Douglas T. Miracle DOUGLAS T. MIRACLE (Bar No. 9648) Speical Assistant Attorney General Civil Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General 550 High Street, Suite 1100 Post Office Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 Phone: (601) 359-5654 Facsimile: (601) 359-2003 E-mail: dmira@ago.state.ms.us

2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 79 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I hereby certify that on June 19, 2015, I electronically filed a copy of 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:
Charles W. Wright, Jr. Charles W. Wright, Jr., PLLC 1208 22nd Avenue P.O. Box 1677 Meridian, MS 39302 Charlie_wright@comcast.net
Lee Thaggard Robert T. Bailey Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009 thaggard@BarryPalmerLaw.com
Ronnie L. Walton Reed C. Darsey Glover, Young, Walton & Simmons, PLLC P.O. Drawer 5514 Meridian, MS 39302-5514 ronnie@gloveryoung.com
Douglas T. Miracle Harold E. Pizzetta, III Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation Division P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 dmira@ago.state.ms.us hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
/s/ Rashida Ogletree RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
3 


 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 1 of 7

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


United States of America,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge ) 


Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge )


Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State )


of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of

)


Human Services; and Mississippi Division of )


Youth Services

)


)


)


Defendants.

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA 
 
 


MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF JOINT MOTION 
 FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT


The State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (the “State”) and the United States of America (collectively, “the Parties”) 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 the result of two (2) years of litigation and negotiations by the parties, and provides relief that is fair, reasonable, and adequate. Through the Agreement, the Parties seek to resolve the United States’ claims against the State and avoid the burdens of contested litigation. The State does not admit legal liability, but has engaged cooperatively in settlement negotiations and the Parties have agreed to enter into the Agreement out of a mutual desire to protect the constitutional rights of Lauderdale County youth involved in the youth probation system.

1 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 7
I. Background
On October 24, 2012, following an eight-month investigation, the United States filed a
complaint against the State of Mississippi, City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, and Judge
Frank Coleman and Judge Veldore Young, pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141.1 U.S. Compl., ECF No. 1. The allegations with
respect to the Mississippi Department of Human Services and the Division of Youth Services
(DYS) are set forth in the United States’ Complaint, ECF No. 1. The proposed Agreement resolves these claims.2
II. Discussion
This Court should enter the proposed Agreement because it resulted from arm’s length
negotiations by sophisticated parties; it is fair, adequate, and reasonable; and it is the most
effective way to implement the reforms needed to address the allegations in the complaint.
1 The United States has resolved its claims against the City of Meridian through a separate agreement to be filed with this Court. In November 2014, the United States reached an impasse with the Youth Court Judges and the County and returned to a litigation track with these defendants. See Judges Renewal of Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 57; Judges’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 58; Judges’ Mem. of Law, ECF No. 59; County Joinder of Mots. to Dismiss, ECF Nos. 60 and 61. See also Order, ECF No. 75. 2 In 2013, this Court approved a settlement between the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section (“EOS”) and the Meridian Public School District. See Consent Order, ECF 36, Barnhardt v. Meridian Municipal Separate School District, et al., No. 4:65-CV-01300 (S.D. Miss 2013). The Barnhardt case was initiated by private plaintiffs and this Court later granted leave for the United States to intervene as a plaintiff. The Agreement in Barnhardt was adopted to ensure that the school district administers student discipline in a fair and non­ discriminatory manner, reduces the disproportionate assignment of exclusionary sanctions to black students, and provides all students with an equal opportunity to learn in a safe, orderly, and supportive environment. Id. at ¶ 27. The State is not a party to the Barnhardt agreement, and that agreement does not address the State’s policies or practices concerning youth probation. The instant case is not a class action and does not involve private plaintiffs. The attached Agreement only binds the United States and the State.
2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 3 of 7
Moreover, the “strong judicial policy” of the Fifth Circuit “favor[s] the resolution of disputes through settlement.” Parker v. Anderson, 667 F.2d 1204, 1209 (5th Cir. 1982). Settlement is a particularly effective resolution in this case because the Parties represent two government agencies. By allowing the Parties to “avoid the risks as well as costs of full scale litigation,” a settlement agreement is a “highly useful tool for government agencies, since it maximizes the effectiveness of limited law enforcement resources.” United States v. City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d 1147, 1151-52 (5th Cir. 1975). In addition, “[b]ecause of the consensual nature of the decree, voluntary compliance is rendered more likely.” Id. at 1152, n. 9.
The Agreement is the result of two (2) years of litigation and settlement negotiations, including numerous in person and telephonic negotiations mediated by Magistrate Judge Anderson and many conference calls and exchanges of draft agreements between the Parties. The Parties have compromised opposing purposes to reach an agreement “and the resultant decree embodies as much of those opposing purposes as the respective parties have the bargaining power and skill to achieve.” United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 682 (1971) (requiring that, in reviewing negotiated agreements, “the scope of a consent decree must be discerned within its four corners, and not by reference to what might satisfy the purposes of one of the parties to it.”). In approving the Agreement, this Court must “only assure[] itself that there has been valid consent by the concerned parties and that the terms of the decree are not unlawful, unreasonable, or inequitable.” City of Jackson, Miss., 519 F.2d at 1151. The attached Agreement meets these requirements and effectively remedies the allegations identified by the United States in its Complaint.
The Agreement requires Youth Services Counselors to provide youth with notice in youth-appropriate language of the role of Youth Services Counselors, potential consequences to
3 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 4 of 7
youth for violating probation, an explanation of the probation review and revocation process, the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings as well as how they can satisfy the requirement that youth on probation must attend school. If a youth violates the terms of probation, the Agreement prohibits DYS from recommending incarceration unless the violation itself amounts to a detainable offense, and only after all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted. When setting review meetings with youth, the Agreement requires DYS to set a fixed meeting schedule, to make reasonable efforts to advise the youth’s attorney of the scheduled times, and to document best efforts to accommodate the attorney’s schedule. Finally, to further the sustainability and transparency of reforms, the Agreement requires that DYS provide training on topics relevant to implementation of the agreement and participate in a community input program to inform the community about the progress of reforms and hear community questions and concerns.
The Agreement will be monitored by a Probation Services Independent Auditor, jointly selected by the parties, whose reports will be filed with the Court. In addition, to preserve resources and to promote the efficient implementation of this Agreement, the Parties will meet on an annual basis regarding the possibility of transferring supervision of provisions of the Agreement from external monitoring to monitoring by the United States. The monitoring terms that the Parties have agreed to are reasonable.
The Agreement will terminate when the State has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions and has maintained that substantial compliance for 12 consecutive months. In addition, subsections of the agreement may be terminated earlier if the State maintains substantial compliance with the relevant subsections for a period of one year.
4 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 5 of 7

III. Conclusion
The State of Mississippi, the Department of Human Services and the Division of Youth Services and the United States share the same interest in protecting the constitutional rights of Lauderdale County youth and have worked together cooperatively to develop this Settlement Agreement. The Parties concur that the Agreement resolves all issues related to the United States’ investigation of the Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services. Therefore, the Parties respectfully and jointly request that this Court approve the Agreement in its entirety, and enter it as an order of the Court.
Respectfully submitted this 19th day of June, 2015.

For the Plaintiff THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

GREGORY K. DAVIS United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

MARK KAPPELHOFF
 Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
 Civil Rights Division 


JUDY C. PRESTON 
 Acting Chief 


SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA Bar No. 
 548997) 
 Deputy Chief 
 Special Litigation Section 


5 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 6 of 7

/s/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014) Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480 Direct: (601) 973-2840 Facsimile: (601) 965-4409
E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

/s/ Rashida Ogletree
RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441) JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 462985) RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030) MICHELLE JONES (DC Bar No. 989343)
Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202)305-3712 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov

Counsel for the State of Mississippi:
/s/ Douglas T. Miracle DOUGLAS T. MIRACLE (Bar No. 9648) Speical Assistant Attorney General Civil Litigation Division Office of the Attorney General 550 High Street, Suite 1100 Post Office Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 Phone: (601) 359-5654 Facsimile: (601) 359-2003 E-mail: dmira@ago.state.ms.us

6 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 81 Filed 06/19/15 Page 7 of 7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
 I hereby certify that on June 19th, 2015, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing Memorandum in Support of 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:
Charles W. Wright, Jr. Charles W. Wright, Jr., PLLC 1208 22nd Avenue P.O. Box 1677 Meridian, MS 39302 Charlie_wright@comcast.net
Lee Thaggard Robert T. Bailey Barry, Thaggard, May & Bailey, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009 thaggard@BarryPalmerLaw.com
Ronnie L. Walton Reed C. Darsey Glover, Young, Walton & Simmons, PLLC P.O. Drawer 5514 Meridian, MS 39302-5514 ronnie@gloveryoung.com
Douglas T. Miracle Harold E. Pizzetta, III Office of the Attorney General Civil Litigation Division P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205-0220 dmira@ago.state.ms.us hpizz@ago.state.ms.us
/s/ Rashida Ogletree RASHIDA OGLETREE (DC Bar No. 974441)
7 


 
 City of Meridian, MS Settlement Agreement Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA
Compliance Report

Independent Auditor: Chief Rodney Monroe (ret.)

June 13, 2017

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction from the Independent Auditor.......................................................................................................................................... 3
Substantive Remedial Measures ........................................................................................................................................................... 5 School Arrests and Probable Cause .....................................................................................................................................................................5 1. Policy and Practices............................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Training. ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 3. Civilian Complaints & Discipline........................................................................................................................................................................... 22 4. Data Collection..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 5. Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department. ............................................................................................................. 28
Community Input ................................................................................................................................................................................29
Conclusion ...........................................................................................................................................................................................32
Compliance Level Definitions ...............................................................................................................................................................32
Appendix LIst.......................................................................................................................................................................................33

June 13, 2017

2

INTRODUCTION FROM THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR

On September 26, 2016, an Interim Compliance Report1 was submitted to the Court capturing the compliance status of remedial measures associated with City of Meridian, MS Settlement Agreement Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW_LRA. Since that time, the Independent Auditor has continued to work with the City of Meridian to review various documents, conduct regular interviews with Meridian Police Department personnel, and research training opportunities. The Independent Auditor has led this effort by conducting several onsite visit(s)2, and holding regular bi-weekly conference calls with the auditing team, the City of Meridian team and U.S. Department of Justice representatives. The City of Meridian has continued to move forward in a very positive and deliberate manner to work toward full compliance of Settlement Agreement remedial measures.
This report outlines compliance findings and observations since the Auditor’s last report. Primary goals during this time were to focus on several key areas, including establishing a school based arrest policy, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Meridian Public School District, a community engagement forum, training, and the internal affairs policy. During the past eight months, we have continued to work as a team to make significant progress and achieve substantial compliance within many areas.
Through numerous calls and reviews, the team developed, revised, and implemented two critical policies addressing school based arrest and internal affairs. These policies provide guidance on the handling of citizen complaints involving school based arrest, data collection, and periodic review of data. Each policy provides specific procedures and significant guidance for MPD response to school based incidents. It also provides protocols for citizens wishing to bring forward concerns regarding officers’ conduct during encounters with juveniles in a school environment.
The school based arrest policy also requires that data be collected on all arrests, including type of arrest, arresting officer, and demographics of the arrestee. The policies govern MPD’s response to various calls for service, types of arrest, and other services in which MPD may deploy resources within a school environment. Further, the policies provide citizens guidance on filing complaints regarding alleged misconduct on the part of officers handling of school based incidents.
Another significant milestone has been the development of a final Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public School District Police Department. The MOU provides an agreed upon a set of procedures and guidelines which both departments will follow to ensure a professional working relationship in providing constitutional policing within the Meridian Public School System. The MOU describes the duties and responsibilities of each department for response, arrest and probable cause, training, citizen complaints, and handling of conflicts of interest that occur on school property. The MOU was approved by the Meridian City Council on May 16, 2017, and is awaiting approval by the school board and final signatures from both departments.
Progress has been made in various training areas including de-escalation and conflict resolution, along with adolescent development. Training for these two important areas will begin in June 2017. All members of the MPD will participate in the training by a certified trainer selected and approved by the Auditor and the City of Meridian. The curriculum was approved and permission granted to move forward. The Department of Justice and the Independent

1 Attached to this report as Appendix A. 2 On-site visits were held on July 26, 2016 and December 8, 2016.

June 13, 2017

3

Auditor will visit and observe the initial training in June 2017. The City is working to identify and approve bias-free policing training curriculum, and MPD has reached out to various sources who offer the training, and hopes to identify and retain the services of a local trainer at a reasonable cost.
In December 2016, the City of Meridian prepared a Community Input Plan which was approved by the Auditor to comply with the Settlement Agreement’s remedial measure to conduct a community forum. The meeting was well publicized to the public via radio, newspaper, and on the City/Police website. Requirements of the Agreement were met, regarding topic areas discussed, along with allowing feedback from citizens within the meeting. At the end of the meeting, community members were provided a written survey. The meeting was attended by the Mayor, School Board President, Chief of Police, DOJ, and Independent Auditor. Approximately 42 citizens also attended the meeting, and all were engaged in the content, making comments and asking questions.
MPD has submitted monthly reports to the Independent Auditor, that captures all calls for service to Meridian Public Schools. The reports have shown that the MPD has only responded to MPSD property for routine type calls, mainly involving alarm alerts, minor disturbances, and other incidents occurring during non-school hours. The reports show that many of the calls were turned over to MPSDPD personnel prior to MPD’s arrival. In addition, monthly arrest reports over the last five months shows no arrests have been made by MPD personnel. Where an arrest occurred, which are few, the arrest was made by MPSDPD. Monthly reports on citizen complaints, and custody orders applied for and served, showed no school based incidents between September 2016 and April 2017.
The Meridian Police Department has made significant progress in complying with Settlement Agreement remedial measures, as detailed in the text below. However, progress toward several other measures remain in at a Non-Compliance and Partial Compliance level.

June 13, 2017

4

School Arrests and Probable Cause 1. Policy and Practices

SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES

a. Within 90 days of the effective date, the Meridian Police Department shall have adopted practices, policies, procedures and training [regarding school-based arrest] consistent with the principles enumerated in Section III.A.1.a of the Settlement Agreement:

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Level
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance Verbal directions on school-based arrest should be converted to written policies and directives.
Policy should reflect critical issues within the Settlement Agreement as outlined below.
Officers must be trained on the policy.

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

MPD GO-98-022: School Based Arrest Policy
Calls for Service/Arrest/In cident Reports to all MPSD locations January - April 2017
Juvenile Custody Orders from March 2015 – August 2016

GO-98-022 – Revised School Based Arrest Policy has been developed and distributed to all MPD officers. Documentation has been submitted and reviewed by the independent auditor, verifying that all MPD officers have received the new policy. The policy establishes and defines a uniform Department policy regarding the arrest of Meridian Public School District (“MPSD”) students on property owned and operated by the school district. The policy focuses Its intent on the Department ensuring that all school-based arrests be dealt with in accordance with applicable state statutes and the constitutional rights of juveniles.
Based on records reviewed, the policy was distributed between Oct 30, 2016-Jan 25, 2017. All sworn members of the department have received new policy.

Meridian Police Department (MPD) General Order (GO) 98022: School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)
Juvenile Custody Orders for March 2015 – August 2016. (Appendix C)
Training on MPD GO-98022 School Based Arrest Policy & Signature logs for training (Appendix D)
MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable

June 13, 2017

5

June 13, 2017

December 2016 - Review of calls for service to all Meridian public schools for the months of August 2016 thru December 2016 shows MPD officers have not responded to MPS to engage in a schoolbased arrest. The majority of calls for service have been handled in their entirety by MPSDPD.

Incident Reports (Appendix E)
Complaint documentation (Appendix H)

_______________ Finalize Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MPD and MPSPD.
MOU & policy should address procedures for handling request for police services at all MPSD locations.

MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public Schools Police Department (MPSPD)

MOU & policy should define what constitutes a school- based arrest.

The MOU & policy should define notification process to MPSDPD when

January 2017 thru April 2017 - Review of MPD Juvenile Arrest Log did not show any arrest of juveniles within the Meridian Public School System. _________________________________________ November 2016 - The draft MOU has been updated by both DOJ and Independent Monitor to address the following areas:
• Limited roles and responsibilities of MPD officers
• Defines arrest and probable cause • Training • Civilian complaints and discipline • Addresses conflicts of interest for MPD
officers working as School Resource Officers
Tasks Completed: The City of Meridian has completed the MOU, which was presented to and approved by the Meridian City Council on May 16, 2017.
Tasks Still to be Completed: The MOU needs to be approved, signed and distributed by the Meridian School Board.

_________________ MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public Schools Police Department (MPSPD) which has been approved by the City Council (Appendix F)

6

June 13, 2017

conducting law enforcement related matters on MPSD property. MOU and policy must contain verbiage that addresses OffDuty Meridian Police Officers working for the MPSD as school resource officers (SROs). Duties and responsibilities must be clearly defined.
Policy and MOU must contain language prohibiting MPSPD SROs from effecting arrest on behalf of MPD.

______________ Meridian Police Department General Order 98-033, Office of Internal Affairs Policy.

_________________________________________ May 2017, GO-98-033, MPD Final Revised Office of Internal Affairs Policy approved to address the process for filing and investigating citizen complaints associated with MPD officer’s conduct and violations of the School Based Arrest Policy. Policy also addresses locations where citizens will have access to complaint forms.

__________________ MPD General Order 98033: Office of Internal Affairs Police (Appendix G)

Citizens will not have to swear to an affidavit to file a school based arrest complaint.

All school based arrest complaints will be investigated by Internal Affairs.

Complaint forms are expected to be available to citizens at all police facilities, City Hall, and on department website.

7

June 13, 2017

_______________ Juvenile Jail Arrest Log should be revised to include a section that denotes if the arrest occurred at a school.

Established a monthly report from MPD which captures all calls for service, arrest, and complaints associated with MPSD locations.

Tasks Still to Be Completed: • Training on revised policy will be completed by
June 5, 2017. • Provide complaint forms within schools and
libraries.
MPD has submitted a monthly report capturing various activities at MPSD locations, calls for service, juvenile arrest, citizen’s complaints, and custody orders. January 2017, 31 calls for service, sounds of gun shots, assaults, false burglar alarm, suspicious persons and observations.
January 3, 2017, MPD assisted SRO’s on a call for several suspicious persons inside the school. SRO conducted the arrest of two juvenile subjects for trespassing.

__________________ MPD Monthly Juvenile Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)
Complaint documentation (Appendix H)

February 2017, 32 calls for service, 3 alleged shooting incidents, (all unfounded), several false burglar alarms, suspicious persons, and 1 assault.
February 14, 2017, MPD received a dispatch to transport a juvenile arrest from Marion park High School, request was denied and call transferred to MPSDPD.

March 2017, 37 calls for service, no arrest or transports.
March 2, received call to transport prisoner from Marion Park High School, call was rerouted to MPSDPD.

April 2017, 36 calls for service, no arrest. April 26, MPD received call for a runaway female, located female near school,

8

_______________ Policy and MOU needs to contain parameters for responding to calls for service at MPSD locations.

____________ MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations

Should be updated to state that violations and complaints arising from school-based arrests or complaints shall be investigated by Internal Affairs.

Mirandized, contacted parent and escorted back to school. _________________________________________

__________________ MPD Monthly Juvenile Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)

(i) Specifically, officers shall only conduct school-based arrests of juveniles under the following circumstances: a. Officers have probable cause, to the extent required by law, to believe that a juvenile has committed a felony; or

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy, MOU and training on policy and MOU.

Materials Reviewed
Memorandum of Understanding approved by MPSDPD, MPD, DOJ, and Auditor
Meridian Police Department

Current Review/Status/Findings
MOU and School Based Arrest policy has been developed, and the School-Based Arrest policy has been issued. Both specifically detail under what circumstances MPD officers can affect arrest within the MPSD, and roll call training has been conducted.

Support Documentation
MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public School District Police Department (MPSPD) which has been approved by the City Council, but

June 13, 2017

9

General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy
Juvenile Arrest Reports from January-April 2017
Training provided to MPD officers on GO 98-022.

January 2017 Juvenile Arrest Reports show no reports of arrest by MPD officers within MPSD.
February 2017 Juvenile Arrest Reports show no reports of arrest by MPD officers within MPSD.
March 2017 Juvenile Arrest Reports show no arrest of juveniles by MPD officers within MPSD.
April 2017 Juvenile Arrest Reports show no arrest of juveniles by MPD officers within MPSD.

not yet approved by the School Board. (Appendix F)
MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)

Training and signature sheets provided to MPD officers on GO 98-022 (Appendix D)

b. A criminal offense that involves a real and immediate threat to students, teachers, or public safety; or

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Materials Reviewed
MOU approved by the MPSPD, MPD, DOJ, and Monitor. MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Log Report

Current Review/Status/Findings
MOU and GO-98-022, School Based Arrest policy indicates under what circumstances MPD officers take enforcement action within MPSD.

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)

June 13, 2017

10

associated with MPSD locations (Auditor reviewed September 2016 thru April 2017)
Juvenile Custody Orders (Auditor reviewed all orders from March 2015 thru August 2016 and from January 2017 through April 2017)

January, February, March, and April 2017 Juvenile Arrest Logs show no arrest of juveniles within MPSD for either felony or misdemeanor offenses.

MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)
MPD Juvenile Custody Orders – March 2015 – August 2016. (Appendix C)

(Auditor didn’t look at custody orders for September 2016 to December 2016 because arrest logs indicated that no arrests were made.)

c. A misdemeanor or other indictable offense occurs in the officer’s presence, except for offenses identified in (iii)(a); or

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed
to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy, MOU, and training on policy and MOU.

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

MPD GO-98-022: MPD GO-98-022 - School Based Arrest

School Based Arrest Policy has been developed and issued to

Policy

all MPD personnel which indicates the

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School

June 13, 2017

11

MOU approved by the MPSPD, MPD, DOJ, and Monitor
Training on MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy

types of offenses MPD officers can affect an arrest.

Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)
Training on MPD GO-98022 School Based Arrest Policy & Signature logs for training (Appendix D)

Signature logs for all MPD officers receiving new school-based arrest policy

MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public Schools Police Department (MPSPD) which has been approved by the City Council (Appendix F)

d. A judicial warrant or custody order specifically directs the arrest of a student in a school.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗

Current Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed
to Come into Compliance

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Partial

Substantial Include in written

Juvenile Custody Orders Review of all Juvenile Custody Orders MPD Juvenile Custody

Compliance Compliance policy, MOU, and

from March 2015-August since last report have not shown any Orders from March 2015 –

training on policy and 2016.

custody orders applied for, issued, or August 2016 (Appendix C)

MOU.

served on juveniles within MPSDS.

(Auditor did not review

custody orders for

September 2016 to

December 2016 because

arrest logs indicated that

no arrests were made.)

(ii) Officers shall avoid executing a judicial warrant at a school. A felony warrant may be executed at a school when it is not practical to conduct the arrest

at alternative locations.

June 13, 2017

12

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Non Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed
to Come into Compliance MPD Juvenile Custody Orders (March 2015 – August 2016)
MPD Calls for Service/Arrest Log (January 2017 – April 2017)

Materials Reviewed
MPD Juvenile Custody Orders and Arrest Reports.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Review of juvenile arrest reports show no juvenile arrests occurred for January 2017 – April 2017 indicating no custody orders derived from executive of a warrant on school property.
MOU and GO-98-022, School Based Arrest policy indicates MPD officers shall avoid executing a judicial warrant at any MPSDS. Juvenile Arrest Reports from January 2017 thru April 2017, have been reviewed indicating no Juvenile Custody Orders issued or served within MPSDS.

MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)
Training on MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy & Signature logs for training (Appendix D)

(iii) Officers shall not respond to requests for school-based arrests for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including incidents involving:

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into
Compliance

Substantial Include in written policy, Compliance MOU, and training on
policy and MOU.

Materials Reviewed
MPD Juvenile Calls for Service reports.

Current Review/Status/Findings
MOU and GO-98-022, School Based Arrest Policy states: “Officers shall not respond to requests of school-based arrests for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including incidents involving: Public order offenses including disorderly conduct, disruption of schools or public

Support Documentation
MPD Monthly Calls for Service Log & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)

June 13, 2017

13

assembly, trespass, loitering, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon.”

a. Public order offenses including disorderly conduct, disruption of schools or public assembly, trespass, loitering, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into
Compliance
Include in written policy and MOU.

Materials Reviewed
MPD Juvenile Monthly Arrest Reports and Calls for Service Report.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

This verbiage is included in both the revised School Based Arrest Policy and the Proposed MOU.
As examples of MPD responding, and handing over to MPSDPD: • On January 3, 2017, MPD responded to a
call for service at Northwestern Jr. High school for a suspicious person call. MPD immediately contacted MPSDPD and turned the call over them. MPSDPD completed affidavits for two adult arrest for trespassing. Case # 17000289

January Monthly Call for Service Report for Northwestern Junior High School (Appendix J)
February Call for Service Report for Marion Park Alternative School (Appendix K)

• On February 14, 2017, MPD received a request to a prisoner transport from Marion Park Alternative School. The call was transferred and handled by MPSDPD. MPD did not respond. Case#170450086
b. Officers must document in sufficient detail the basis for any school-based arrest, including any factors that justify arresting the youth at school and factors that support a determination of probable cause:

June 13, 2017

14

(i) Officers must provide Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where a youth, based on the youth’s mental and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are free to leave.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

__________

Partial

Substantial

Compliance Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Include in written policy and MOU that all Juveniles arrested shall be given Miranda rights regardless of whether the offense is a misdemeanor or felony. ______________ Attach signed Miranda Rights Card3 to Investigative Report.
Documentation of every officer receiving Miranda Rights Card to be carried at all times.

Materials Reviewed
MPD GO-98022 School Based Arrest Policy
September 29, 2016 email to the force from Chief Dubose.
_____________ MPD GO 98022, School Based Arrest Policy “RIGHTS IN CUSTODY.”

Current Review/Status/Findings
GO 98-022, III-D-1 School Based Arrest Policy states: Officers must provide a Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where the juvenile, based on his or her mental and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are not free to leave.
_____________________________________________ September 29, 2016, Chief Benny Dubose issued an email to the entire department stating, “Whenever contact is made with a juvenile, they must be mirandized using the City issued Miranda Warning and dispatch must be advised so that date and time can be documented.”
September 2016. Documentation was received and reviewed that all officers received a copy of Chief Dubose’s email and signed for the Miranda Rights Card.
A review of the January 30, and April 26, 2017, call for service reports for suspicious persons, and runaway noted in the comment section that MPD officer

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy, “Rights in Custody” (Appendix B)
Training on MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy & Signature logs for training (Appendix D)
Training on MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy & Signature logs for training (Appendix D)
MPD Miranda Rights Card & Signature log reporting that all officers have received the Miranda Rights cards (Appendix L)
MPD Monthly Calls for Service Log & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and

3 The Miranda Rights Card is a card carried by officers that explains a citizen’s rights during police questioning.

June 13, 2017

15

responding to assist MPSDPD advised juvenile of their corresponding applicable

Miranda Rights.

Incident Reports (Appendix

E)

(ii) Officers must notify the juvenile’s guardian of the arrest as soon as practicable, generally no more than three hours after the arrest. If a parent is not notified within three hours, the arresting officers must document, in writing, the reason for the delay.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗

Current Compliance

Partial

Substantial

Compliance Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into Compliance Include 3-hour time period to notify parent or guardian

Materials Reviewed
MPD General Order 98-022, School Based Arrest Policy, “Rights in Custody.”

Arrest Reports shall reflect the time, date, and parent / guardian notified.

MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

GO-98-022, III, D-2 School Based Arrest Policy states: “Officers must notify the juvenile’s guardian of the arrest as soon as practicable, generally no more than three hours after the arrest. If a parent is not notified within three hours, the arresting officer must document, in writing, the reason for the delay.”
Members who violate elements of the School-Based Arrest policy will be held accountable through the Department’s Disciplinary System.

Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy, “Rights in Custody” (Appendix B)
MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)

(iii) Officers shall only interview a detained youth in the presence of the juvenile’s guardian or attorney.

June 13, 2017

16

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed
to Come into Compliance
Written policy (GO98-022) must also state that all Juvenile arrestees are given Miranda rights before the interview or interrogation.

Materials Reviewed
MPD General Order 98-022, School Based Arrest Policy, “Rights in Custody.”

Directive associated with the changed policy to be sent by Chief Dubose to all MPD officers.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Addressed in revised MPD GO-98-022, III, D-3 School Based Arrest Policy. Now states:
“Officers shall only interview a detained juvenile in the presence of juvenile’s guardian or attorney.”
General Order 98-022: GO 98-022, III-D-1 School Based Arrest Policy states: Officers must provide a Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where the juvenile, based on his or her mental and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are not free to leave.

Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy, “Rights in Custody” (Appendix B)
Juvenile Custody Orders - January 2017 to April 2017 (Appendix I)

September 29, 2016, Chief Benny Dubose issued an email to the entire department stating, “Whenever contact is made with a juvenile, they must be mirandized using the City issued Miranda Warning and dispatch must be advised so that date and time can be documented.”

September 2016. Documentation was received and reviewed that all officers received a copy of Chief Dubose’s email and signed for the Miranda Rights Card.

A review of the January 30, and April 26, 2017, call for service reports for suspicious persons, and runaway noted in the comment section that MPD officer responding to assist MPSDPD advised juvenile of their Miranda Rights.

June 13, 2017

17

2. Training.

a. Within six months of the effective date, Meridian Police Department shall provide officers with pre-service and annual in-service training regarding interactions with juveniles while on Meridian Public School District premises, including de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and age appropriate responses and bias-free policing.

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Partial Compliance

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Identify and develop training curriculum in the areas of deescalation, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and bias-free policing.

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Training curriculum for De-escalation, Conflict Resolution, and Child and Adolescent.

Tasks Completed: April 2017 – City of Meridian, USDOJ, and Auditor approved training curriculum (with modifications suggested) and trainer to begin department-wide training in the areas of de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, and child and adolescent development. The training is to begin in the month of June 2017, and will be conducted by Dr. Lee Marlow, a Licensed Psychologist. The training will focus on providing MPD Officers with the tools needed to deescalate an Adolescent/Minor (AM) that has escalated and may be in a crisis so that the AM and the MPD may resolve the crisis with the least amount of disruption necessary for safety while maintaining dignity and respect.

Most recent draft of De-escalation training curriculum (Appendix M)

Tasks still to be completed: Finalizing Training curriculum and Trainer for bias-free policing. Implementation/execution of de-escalation, conflict resolution & child and adolescent development training.

June 13, 2017

18

b. This training shall be conducted by qualified instructors.

Compliance Level (as stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Partial Compliance

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Ensure trainers are certified to provide training in areas of deescalation, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and bias-free policing.

Materials Reviewed
Certification of Instructor Dr. Marlow
Interviewed Instructor Dr. Marlow.

Identify additional trainers.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Tasks Completed: Dr. Marlow has the following credentials making her qualified to deliver training to MPD personnel: • Clinical Director, Weems Community Mental Health
Center, Meridian Mississippi; • Director, Children and Youth Services, Weems
Community Mental Health Center, Meridian, Mississippi; • Licensed Psychologist, Children and Youth Services, Weems Community Mental Health Center, Meridian, Mississippi License number Mississippi 40-014; • Adjunct Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University Meridian Branch, Meridian, Mississippi; and • Consultant, Bradley Sanders Adolescent Complex, East Mississippi State Hospital, Meridian Mississippi.

Dr. Lee Marlow’s CV (Appendix N)

Tasks Still to be Completed: As of May 2017, MPD continues to identify a qualified trainer & curriculum for Bias Free Policing training. Execution of other training will occur on June 13-14 2017.

c. MPD shall provide roll call trainings regarding these policies as needed.

June 13, 2017

19

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Partial Compliance

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance
Develop roll call training curriculum on these policies

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

MPD GO-033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy, and MPD GO022: School Based Arrest policy.

Tasks Completed: Roll Call Training for both MPD GO-022 has been completed for all sworn officers.
Tasks still to be Completed: Roll Call Training for MPD GO-033 is in process and will be completed by June 5, 2017.

Signature logs for the distribution and discussion of new policies.

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)
Training on and signature logs for MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix D)
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

d. MPD shall document that all officers have received the required training.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Partial Compliance

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Develop Curriculum

Roll call rosters reviewed for distribution and instructions on new policies (GO022 and GO033).

Tasks Completed: Development of curriculum for Deescalation, Conflict Resolution, Child & Adolescent Development. Development and execution of roll call training for revised policy.
Class rosters and attendance records will be provided and inspected for all participants attending both roll call

Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix B)

June 13, 2017

20

De-escalation, Conflict Resolution, Child & Adolescent Development and Bias-free policing Training logs reviewed after training is executed throughout department.

training and De-escalation, Conflict Resolution, Child & Adolescent Development and Bias-free policing classes.
Auditor and DOJ plan on attending initial training in June 2017.
Tasks to be Completed: • Execution of IA Policy Roll Call training and review
of signatures. • Execution of De-escalation, Conflict Resolution,
Child & Adolescent Development Training and review logs by Auditor. • Identification, execution and review of logs for Biasfree policing by Auditor.

Training on and signature logs for MPD GO-98-022 School Based Arrest Policy (Appendix D)
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

June 13, 2017

21

3. Civilian Complaints & Discipline.

a. Within six months of the effective date, MPD shall ensure that an effective process is in place to consider complaints regarding MPD conduct in the schools, including school-based arrests. MPD shall ensure that community members, including students, parents and guardians, have access to complaint forms to express concerns about MPD. To achieve this outcome, MPD shall ensure that complaint forms are available from the MPD and at City Hall, public libraries, and police stations. MPD shall also make the complaint form available on its website and work with MPSD to make forms available in schools.

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy must be developed and should outline complaint process from submission through investigation to officer discipline/acco untability.
Eliminate requirement to have complaint form notarized prior to submission, which will allow complaint

Materials Reviewed
MPD GO-98-033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy
Sections of policy addressing locations where citizens can file complaints.
Section of policy allowing citizens to file complaints without having to swear to affidavit.

Current Review/Status/Findings
GO-98-033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy outlines the process for citizen complaints, to include the reporting and investigation of all complaints to include those emanating from School Based Arrest. Below are excerpts from the policy as they relate to school based arrest:
“This directive sets forth policies and procedures regarding the reporting and investigation of citizen complaints, including those relating to school-based arrests, and the disciplinary process including summary punishment, emergency suspension and administrative leave. The comprehensive format includes the Administrative Hearing procedures. (Sample forms pertaining to the investigative and disciplinary processes are also included).”
GO-98-033, V-A-2, states: “In addition, officers assigned to OIA shall have the authority to receive and investigate all complaints associated with MPD members conduct within the Meridian Public Schools, including School-Based arrests.”

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98-033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

June 13, 2017

22

forms to be placed online and at other locations.
Greater clarity and accountability towards handling citizen complaints to include filing, assigning, investigating, and follow up

GO-98-033, V-A-2-C states: “Complaints involving School-Based arrests need not be sworn to before a Notary Public in order to require formal investigation.”
GO-98-033, V-A, states: “Upon receipt of a complaint and determination by departmental leadership that an investigation is necessary, the complaint shall be assigned an Internal Investigations Unit Case number. All complaints regarding MPD conduct in schools, including School-Based arrests, shall be documented and investigated.”
GO-98-033, VI-A-8, states: “Any Citizen Complaint filed regarding MPD conduct in schools, to include a School-Based arrest situation, shall be investigated by IA. The complaints will not be required to be ‘duly sworn.’”

b. MPD shall specifically track complaints arising from school-based arrests.

Compliance Level (as stated
in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗

Current Compliance

Non-

Substantial

Compliance Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into Compliance
Develop written policy and process for tracking complaints

Materials Reviewed
MPD GO-98033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy

Current Review/Status/Findings
GO-98-033, V-E-1, requires an OIA log to be maintained to record all complaints regarding MPD conduct in schools, including School-Based arrests. This log will include the following information: a. Name of accused employee(s) b. Name of complainant c. District of complaint

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

June 13, 2017

23

d. Nature of complaint e. OIA control number f. Date complaint received g. Date and time of incident h. Unit assigned to investigate i. Disposition

c. MPD shall routinely assess the need for improvements to its training based on these complaints.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗

Current Compliance

Non-

Substantial

Compliance Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy should include that MPD should routinely assess improvements based on juvenile complaints.

Materials Reviewed
MPD GO-98-033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

GO-98-033, VII-D-1&2 states the following: “The OIA shall, on a monthly basis, forward to the Deputy Chief a written report detailing the open and closed investigations involving School-Based arrests in OIA records and the status of any open investigations, as well as the number of juveniles referred to MPD that month by the Meridian Public School District. The report should include information regarding the juvenile’s age, race, and gender, as well as the race and gender of the officer and the misconduct alleged. The Deputy Chief shall then file a report with the Chief based on the OIA report. The Chief shall assess the need for improvements to training based on any patterns and trends noted in the report regarding School-Based arrests.”

Meridian Police Department General Order 98033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

d. Officers who violate MPD’s juvenile arrest policies shall be held accountable through the department’s disciplinary system.

June 13, 2017

24

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Policy does exist. However, juvenile arrest policy should be revised to state within the juvenile procedures section that, “a violation of this policy can and will result in disciplinary action.”

Materials Reviewed
MPD GO-98033: Office of Internal Affairs Policy
This policy supersedes Juvenile Arrest Policy as it applies to school-based arrests.

Current Review/Status/Findings
GO-98-033 VII, E-1&2 states the following: “Final Disposition: All apparent violations of law, ordinance, Rules, Regulations, Articles and General Orders shall be noted when the final report is forwarded to the Chief for review and action. Once the final investigative report is filed with the Chief of Police by the OIA officer/investigator, the Chief will review the recommendation and case findings to determine the appropriate course of action. Except in extraordinary situations, the Chief shall, within 72 hours, make a final determination on the case.”
“Once the final disposition is completed, the officer shall be notified and a copy of the results of the action shall be forwarded to the OIA for inclusion in the case file.”

Support Documentation
Meridian Police Department General Order 98033 – Office of Internal Affairs Policy (Appendix G)

Although the juvenile arrest policy does not contain language explicitly stating that a violation of its policy will result in disciplinary action, MPD’s Internal Affairs policy makes it clear that officers who violate departmental orders will be subject to discipline.

June 13, 2017

25

4. Data Collection.

a. MPD shall collect statistical data on the number of juveniles referred to the MPD by the MPSD and the number of arrests that arise out of behavior allegedly occurring in the Meridian public schools or at school events, including age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Develop format for data collection and tracking to include: Age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct for all juvenile arrests.

Materials Reviewed
January-April 2017 Reports showing all calls for service, arrest and complaints emanating from MPSD locations

Report should be generated and submitted to chief quarterly.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Currently, administrative staff supplies the Independent Auditor with a monthly report that lists, by call type, all calls for service to MPSD locations to include disposition, arrest occurring at MPSD, (including incident and arrest reports), and citizen complaints. *It should be noted no arrest of juvenile offenders on Meridian school property have been recorded since the last compliance report.
Monitor recommends Chief of Police continues to receive these reports either on a monthly or quarterly basis.

MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports (Appendix E)
Complaint documentation (Appendix H)

b. This data shall be made public on the City’s website on a semi-annual basis.

Compliance Level (at 6-
months)
NonCompliance

Current Compliance
NonCompliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance Compile data and place online at least semiannually.

Materials Reviewed
MPD Website

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documents Attached

GO-98-033, VII-2, states: “The statistical information contained in the reports shall be made public on the City’s website on a semi-annual basis.”

None.

June 13, 2017

26

As of May 2017, the website has not been developed to post statistical information.

June 13, 2017

27

5. Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department.

a. Consistent with paragraph 92 of the MPSD/EOS Agreement, within 90 days of the effective date, the City shall seek a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the MPSDPD and the MPD that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effectuating arrests of students while on school grounds.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Partial Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance MOU should be modified and signed by both parties.4
Include references to SROs.

Materials Reviewed
MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public School District Police Department (MPSPD)

Current Review/Status/Findings
The MOU has been drafted, agreed upon by MPD, MPSDPD, DOJ, and the Independent Auditor. It finalized, signed by the Mayor and City Council, and is awaiting approval and dissemination by school board. The MOU adopted all recommendations listed in Interim Compliance Report.

Support Documentation
Interim Compliance Report submitted to the Court in September 2016 (Appendix A).
MOU between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public School District Police Department (MPSPD) which has been approved by the City Council. (Appendix F)

4 Recommendations were made by the Auditor on items to include in the MOU.

June 13, 2017

28

COMMUNITY INPUT

A. Within six months of the effective date, the City, in consultation with the Police Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms as outlined herein and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this Settlement Agreement. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Non Compliance

Current Compliance
Substantial Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as
Needed to Come into Compliance
Identify time, location, topic areas, and process for receiving and responding to input from community.

Materials Reviewed
MPD Community Input Plan

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

November 2016 - the MPD and City developed a Community Input Program designed to discuss the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) that was entered into by the United States of America through the Department of Justice (“United States”) and the City of Meridian (collectively, the “Parties”) to address the administration of juvenile justice for children arrested in Meridian schools. It is the intention of the parties to allow the Meridian community to be given a forum to fully understand, ask questions and provide feedback on the issues in the Agreement.

MPD Community Input Plan (Appendix O)

The plan included: • posting and publishing of the community meeting date, time and location 10 days prior to the meeting; • preparation of an agenda; • surveying of participants; and • evaluating feedback.
B. The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the City shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in place. A representative for the US will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement, the City’s progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns related to the implementation of this agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the Internet.

June 13, 2017

29

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗

Current Compliance

Non -

Substantial

Compliance Compliance

Tasks Formerly Identified as Needed to Come into Compliance
Develop community input framework, action plan, and identify participants (to include police, city representatives , and DOJ) for the open community meeting.

Materials Reviewed
Attended MPD Community Input Forum.
Reviewed signature log.

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

December 8, 2016, a community forum was held to discuss MPD and the City’s Settlement Agreement with the Department of Justice.
Approximately 42 community members were in attendance (signed the attendance roster) including, the Mayor, the U.S. Department of Justice, President of School Board, Chief of Police, City Attorney, member of NAACP, former teachers, other interested parties and Independent Monitor.

Public Notice (in Meridian Star) of Meridian Police Department Community Meeting held on December 8, 2016. (Appendix P).

The meeting agenda included the following: • A brief explanation of the Settlement Agreement and
procedural history of lawsuit; • Explanation of the purpose of meeting, including a process
for information received; • Explanation of policies and remedial measures taken to
comply with agreement.

B. The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The City shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website they create or maintain.

June 13, 2017

30

Compliance Level (as
stated in the 1st Compliance
Report)∗
Non Compliance

Current Compliance
Non Compliance

Tasks Needed to Come into Compliance

Materials Reviewed

Current Review/Status/Findings

Support Documentation

Develop Action Plans and make Compliance Reports, revised policies, training curriculum, MOU and other materials developed under this agreement available during community meetings and in public locations.

MPD Citizen surveys
Discussions with MPD Chief Dubose.

Tasks Completed: The majority of comments and questions made during the meeting centered on previous incidents occurring within MPSD.
Community surveys were distributed during the meeting. Seven surveys were completed and returned. The findings included: • Majority stated the presentation was informative; • Majority had clear understanding of the Settlement
Agreement; • Majority believed community forum was helpful; and • Majority stated their general concerns surrounded more
opportunities for students and greater cooperation between schools, police and community.
Tasks Still to be Completed: While the community survey was a step in the right direction, the MPD has not regularly made action plans, compliance reports, revised policies, training curriculum, MOU or other materials developed under this agreement accessible to the public via the Internet or paper copies.

Community surveys returned during community forum (Appendix Q).

June 13, 2017

31

CONCLUSION
While significant progress has been made in implementing many of the remedial measures inherent to the Settlement Agreement, a couple of critical areas remain that require additional work and monitoring.
The Independent Auditor will be attending the June training session on June 13-14, 2017 to evaluate the de-escalation and adolescent development training, and to audit final compliance in several areas.
Areas that currently appear to require more work include the following: • A certified training curriculum for Bias Free Policing identified and executed; • Final distribution of GO-98-33, Internal Affairs Policy to all personnel; • Community Forum Update; • Ensuring a description of the MPD Citizen Complaint Process and the Citizen Complaint Form are available on the Departmental website; and • Public access to complaint filing process for citizen complaints.
Based on current progress status, the above areas continue to be of great interest to the City and progress continues move forward. The Independent Auditor recommends that these areas continue to be a focus and that the City of Meridian continue to work toward substantial compliance for each remedial measure in the Settlement Agreement. We believe that the remaining measures can be completed in the next three to four months.

COMPLIANCE LEVEL DEFINITIONS

Each provision within the settlement agreement has been given a compliance assessment rating ranging from non-compliance to substantial compliance, as defined below.

• Non-compliance - The MPD has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.

• Beginning compliance - The MPD has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.

• Partial compliance – The MPD has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.

• Substantial compliance - The MPD has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.

June 13, 2017

32

Appendix A: Appendix B: Appendix C: Appendix D: Appendix E:
Appendix F:
Appendix G: Appendix H: Appendix I: Appendix J: Appendix K: Appendix L:

APPENDIX LIST
Interim Compliance Report (submitted to the Court on September 26, 2016) Meridian Police Department General Order 98-022 - School Based Arrest Policy Meridian Police Department Juvenile Custody Orders – January 2015 to August 2016* Training and Signature logs for all MPD officers trained on and receiving MPD GO 98-022 – School Based Arrest Policy MPD Monthly Calls for Service & Arrest Report associated with MPSD locations, and corresponding applicable Incident Reports - January 2017 to April 2017* Memorandum of Understanding between the Meridian Police Department and the Meridian Public Schools Police Department (MPSPD) – Not yet approved by Meridian School Board Meridian Police Department General Order 98-033 - Internal Affairs Policy Complaint Documentation* Juvenile Custody Orders – January 2017 to April 2017* Case #17000289 - January Monthly Call for Service Report for Northwestern Junior High School* Case #170450086 - February Call for Service Report for Marion Park Alternative School* MPD Miranda Rights Card, Distribution Email and Roster

June 13, 2017

33

Appendix M: De-escalation Training Curricula Materials Appendix N: Dr. Lee Marlow’s Curricula Vitae (CV) Appendix O: Meridian Police Department Community Input Plan Appendix P: Public Notice of Meridian Police Department Community Meeting held on December 8, 2016. Appendix Q: Community Surveys returned during Community Forum

*All items noted with an asterisk in the Appendices above contain sensitive juvenile information, and may be made available upon request.

June 13, 2017

34

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 1 of 33
Fourth Report of the Probation 
 Services Independent Auditor 
 U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:13‐CV‐978‐HTW‐LRA
Draft submitted: September 3, 2017 
 Final submitted: October 14, 2017 

Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301‐602‐1610

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 2 of 33
I. Introduction
This is the fourth report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). The State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian reached settlements with the Justice Department, and on September 30, 2017, the United States District Court dismissed the Justice Department’s claims against Lauderdale County and its two sitting juvenile court judges.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct compliance reviews every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the compliance review conducted July 24 through 27, 2017. This is the fourth compliance review since the parties reached a settlement in this matter.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed description of the State’s compliance status in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the
2 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 3 of 33
compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non‐compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review visit provided an opportunity to assess the progress the State has made since January 2017. In addition, I worked with policy committees on graduated responses and training policies. I also attended the biannual community input meeting required by the settlement agreement. I met with the Youth Services Counselors (YSCs) and the Regional Director assigned to Lauderdale County Youth Court, observed YSC meetings with youth and their family members, interviewed youth and families independently, met with counsel appointed to represent youth in Lauderdale County Youth Court, and met with the Director of the Division of Youth Services (DYS) and the Community Services Director, who is also the Settlement Agreement Coordinator.
The agency has made significant progress toward compliance during the past six months. The State completed development of most of the policies required under the settlement agreement, established processes to solicit and incorporate feedback from line staff on new tools and forms in development, and finalized a handout for youth and families to cover topics that must be
3 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 4 of 33
communicated under the settlement. In addition, the agency piloted and then finalized the newly revised contracts for youth on informal adjustment and parole. The agency arranged for staff to attend a Youth Mental Health First Aid training and also conducted training about the new probation contracts. In addition, DYS held a community input meeting required by the settlement agreement while I was on site. The agency publicized the event through radio, television and internet. Staff also extended invitations to current clients, advocates and individuals who had attended prior community input meetings. The next important steps for the State’s compliance activities include: developing a training plan (and then implementing training); implementing new policies recently developed or revised; and ensuring consistent use of newly developed tools and processes.
As with my prior visits, significant challenges remain in monitoring implementation of this settlement agreement while the claims against other defendants remain in litigation. The State has provided access to all of its own documentation and employees related to this agreement, and has also been more than helpful in helping me seek access to information under control of others. However, the County and the Youth Court judges have maintained their decision not to allow me to observe Youth Court, review documents or databases generated or controlled by the Court, or interview County employees. These circumstances continue to limit my ability to gain a full picture of YSCs’ interactions with judges, court personnel, youth, families and others. I have done my best to develop as full a picture as possible given these limitations.
During this visit I observed meetings between YSCs and their clients. After each meeting I interviewed the parent and youth, generally separately, as time permitted. Therefore, I was able to observe 8 meetings between YSCs and clients, and conduct interviews with 9 youth and 9 family members.
I reviewed documents generated during the past 6 months by YSCs for 11 youth. These documents included YSC case notes, completed SAVRY scoring forms, social histories, recommendations to the court, and forms that tracked the procedural history of the case. I reviewed these documents for youth on probation and on informal adjustment, including youth who were reported for probation violations since January 2017.
4 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 5 of 33
I reviewed the following additional documents while on site:
 Lauderdale County staff recommendations for improvements to the informal adjustment and probation contracts, as well as a consolidated supplemental handout explaining information required under the settlement agreement;
 Training manual for Youth Mental Health First Aid;  SAVRY case audits by Regional Supervisor for Lauderdale County; and  Sampling of emails sent to counsel for youth on the YSCs caseloads
informing them of meeting schedules.
The State submitted other documents for feedback and/or review prior to and immediately following the visit as well, including:
 The State’s compliance report;  Questionnaire for piloting new informal adjustment and parole
agreements;  Monthly Probation/Parole Violation Tracking Forms for January 2017
through June 2017;  Letters to community members regarding the Community Forum;  Email communication between DYS and a reporter providing notification
about the Community Forum;  Drafts of a new Training policy and accompanying lists of topics for Core
Training and Clerical Training;  New drafts of a guidance memo for staff in Lauderdale County to
implement the provision requiring that counsel be notified of probation meeting schedules;  Drafts of a DYS memo providing guidance on YSCs’ detention recommendations;  New drafts of the Graduated Response policy and accompanying tools; and  New drafts of the Probation and Informal Adjustment policies and contracts.
Table I summarizes my compliance findings. Some of the provisions of the settlement agreement include deadlines in the future. I have not indicated a compliance rating for those provisions, noting that the requirements are not yet applicable.
5 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 6 of 33

Provision number
III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c III.A.1.d III.A.2.a III.A.2.b
III.A.2.c.i III.A.2.c.ii III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a III.A.3.b III.B.1
III.C.1

Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision 


Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youth Protections Against Self‐incrimination ‐ Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth‐appropriate language Protections Against Self‐incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations
Probation Conditions – Understandable language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities Training – Develop training plans

Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited. Substantial compliance for risk assessment and partial compliance for graduated responses. Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance Partial compliance Not yet applicable
Substantial Compliance
Beginning compliance

6 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 7 of 33

Provision number
III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A‐C V.B
VIII.A.1
VIII.A.2 VIII.A.4
VIII.B.2

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S.
Community Input
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year Reporting – Biannual compliance report

Beginning compliance Beginning compliance Non‐compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Partial compliance
Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance

7 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 8 of 33

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth‐appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
iii. an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

During this period, DYS finalized its Informal Adjustment, Probation and Parole policies and contracts, having piloted them in several counties including Lauderdale County. Managers developed a questionnaire and considered and incorporated feedback from staff in development of the contracts. In addition, in Lauderdale County, in order to comply with the notice requirements in this provision, DYS developed and implemented handouts to ensure that youth and families were notified of the required topics. During my compliance visit, staff made clear that they had suggestions about how to improve the handouts, and I agreed with their recommendations. DYS agreed to approve the recommended

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 9 of 33

changes. YSCs now use the combination of the informal adjustment or formal probation contract and the handout in order to inform youth of the information required under this provision of the settlement agreement. I have confirmed that they are covering these topics through observation and conversations with YSCs, youth and families. Therefore, the State has reached substantial compliance with this provision.

The staff in Lauderdale County expressed additional recommendations to improve the contracts, and the agency incorporated a number of the suggestions into the informal adjustment agreement as well.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As explained above, the State has reached substantial compliance with this provision because it has revised the contracts, developed handouts, placed them into use, and revised the state‐wide policies that apply. Now, in order to complete the steps of incorporating all parts of this settlement agreement into policy as required by section III(A)(3)(a), the State must develop written county‐specific guidance for Lauderdale County staff to guide use of the handouts.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; reviews of probation explanation handouts for youth and families; review of youth files; discussion with Director of Community Services.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.b
DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

At the beginning of a youth’s probation and often during the course of probation, YSCs meet with youth and their parents or guardians together. Therefore, early conversations about what to expect while on probation include both youth and their families. As a result, the State’s

9 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 10 of 33

compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, the State has reached substantial compliance with this provision. Now, in order to comply with section III(A)(3)(a), which requires incorporation of settlement requirements into policy, and to complete the final elements of this provision, the State must develop written county‐specific guidance for Lauderdale County staff to guide use of the handouts.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with all YSCs in Lauderdale County; reviews of probation explanation handouts for youth and families; review of youth files; discussion with Director of Community Services.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.c
The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youth‐ appropriate language.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The newly revised informal adjustment agreement and probation and parole contracts have been written in youth‐friendly language. One innovation in the implementation of the new agreements and contracts is that YSCs now ask youth to explain in their own words to ensure that they understand each provision of the informal adjustment or probation agreements/contracts. Staff and youth must initial next to each provision showing that youth were able to explain each provision in their own words. This ensures that YSCs are confirming youths’ understanding of the process and the court’s expectations. The agreements/contracts are included in youth files, and my conversations with youth and families indicated that they understood these concepts.

10 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 11 of 33

I wrote in my previous reports that YSCs would benefit from developing skills to aid in identifying youth and families who may have difficulty processing the information presented, and in alternative strategies for communicating with youth and families who have learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and mental health conditions that make processing of information difficult.
During the last compliance period, DYS began providing training for staff in this area by offering two presentations on working with individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities (IDD). During this compliance period, three of the four YSCs from Lauderdale County attended an all‐day training on Youth Mental Health First Aid. The other YSC has attended this training in the past. This course is directed at a wide variety of professionals and others who work with young people, but it served as a useful presentation of basic information about a variety of mental health challenges facing young people, along with common signs and symptoms. Since it was directed at a broad audience, the training did not include discussion about how these signs and symptoms of mental illness might be relevant to the work of YSCs, so I recommended that in order to fulfill this identified need, managers and staff sit down to discuss how the training might apply to their work. The Director of Community Services informed me that he met with the staff to review the material and discuss how it relates to their work. I will assess whether this training led to increased knowledge when I visit this winter.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State is in substantial compliance because YSCs are using the revised written tools, and youth and families seem to understand what has been explained to them.

Pursuant to section III(A)(3)(a), this requirement must be reflected in policy, the practice manual, and other appropriate agency documents.

Evidentiary Basis

Training materials from past six months; review of youth files; conversations with staff, regional supervisor and Community Services Director.

11 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 12 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.d
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The Lauderdale County YSCs have instituted a process for setting meeting schedules with clients and communicating them to appointed counsel. As they meet with new clients, they are filling out a form listing the dates of meetings for the remainder of the probation period. Copies of that list are provided to the youth and turned over to the office secretary, who emails the information to counsel and places a copy of the form in a notebook in the courtroom.
I saw consistent evidence in files that the meeting schedules are set, and that staff are appropriately flexible if youth and families need to change the dates. Youth and families reported that they are given set meeting schedules but know how to change them as needed. Youth have not requested counsel presence, and counsel have not attended any probation meetings between YSCs and youth since this new process was instituted. One of the attorneys appointed to represent youth in juvenile proceedings confirmed that she has been receiving the emails. The other appointed counsel was out of town during my visit, but he has confirmed that he was receiving the emails in the past.
In spot‐checking the process, I determined that some email notices to counsel are falling through the cracks. I used the current caseload lists to request the emails to counsel of randomly‐selected youth. In some cases there was no email to be found, though in many cases I could confirm that the correct email had been sent. During my visit, we devised some quality assurance measures to help ensure that the
12 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 13 of 33

notices are sent consistently. The form used to notify youth and families of meeting dates will be amended to add two check‐off boxes, one for staff to confirm that they have turned in the form to the administrative assistant and one for the administrative assistant to confirm that she has sent the emails. In addition, the administrative assistant will review monthly caseload lists to confirm whether she has sent emails to counsel in each case.
Because the state has developed a system and put it into practice, I find that it has achieved substantial compliance, but during the next compliance period it will need to show that the quality assurance mechanism is fully functioning.
The State has developed a memo implementing this provision locally in Lauderdale County. I provided suggestions for additions, which the State incorporated. The Department of Justice did not have any additional feedback. Thus, the State is also in compliance with the requirement to have a policy implementing this aspect of the settlement agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has achieved substantial compliance with the practice requirement and section III(A)(3)(a) of the settlement agreement requiring revision of policies as well. The State should continue to keep records of its implementation of this provision.

Evidentiary Basis Reviews of files; conversations with staff, youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.b.
The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance for risk assessment tool; partial compliance for graduated responses.

13 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 14 of 33

Discussion


DYS chose a risk assessment tool (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, or SAVRY), trained workers in its use, and adopted policies regarding Graduated Responses and Risk Assessment during 2014 and 2015.
In my document reviews during this visit, I saw SAVRY reports completed in all the formal probation files I reviewed. The risk levels staff determined after conducting a SAVRY assessment were reported in the social summaries and dispositional recommendations to the court.
I noted during previous reviews that the State needed to take additional steps toward quality assurance as a component of implementing the SAVRY effectively. This means that there must be meaningful supervisor review that identifies discrepancies between information collected, SAVRY scoring, and recommendations to the court, with feedback provided to line staff. The Regional Director, who is also a SAVRY trainer, began her new position in mid‐December 2016. Since then she has been reviewing SAVRY completion and details in youth files and working with staff where she identifies discrepancies. I reviewed some of the files she evaluated as well as her documentation of the evaluations, and the process appears to be working. There are many fewer discrepancies between evidence in the parts of the files I am permitted to review, the scoring of the SAVRY, and the assessments reported to the court. Because I am not privy to the entire file on which workers base their scoring, I cannot be certain whether their assessments reflect the entire file, but I can tell that the Regional Director is engaging in meaningful quality assurance, and I did not see the extent of discrepancies that I identified in previous compliance visits.
The SAVRY policy has not yet been revised to align with the settlement agreement, so this task should be addressed in the upcoming months in order to comply with the agreement’s policy revision requirements in III(A)(3)(a). The policy should reflect what staff and supervisors should do if they identify a significant error in review of the SAVRY that may have had an impact on the outcome of a juvenile’s case. In addition, the Graduated Responses policy team has created substantial revisions to the case supervision plan. The new case plan should be reflected in the SAVRY policy, where the old case plan form is still appended and referenced.
The agency has completed its revision of its graduated response policy and accompanying grid templates. The policy requires that YSCs work
14 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 15 of 33

with judges and referees in their jurisdictions to develop locally‐ applicable incentives and sanctions grids based on templates included in the policy, as well as standards for when youth should be brought back to court. The agency will need to conduct training for YSCs so that they understand the purpose of incentives and sanctions and so that they have the tools and skills necessary to develop the local grids and standards. The Community Services Director informed me that in the past weeks since my visit and after the policy was finalized, the Lauderdale County YSCs received an introductory training about the policy and accompanying tools. The next step will be to develop the grids and standards for return to court with local judges and referees.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance with regard to risk assessment, the State must continue to use the SAVRY to inform its recommendations to the court, and the Regional Director must continue to review files and provide feedback to staff on completed SAVRY assessments. In accordance with section III(A)(3)(a) of the settlement agreement, the State must also align the SAVRY policy with the requirements of the agreement.

To reach substantial compliance with regard to graduated responses, YSC staff in Lauderdale County must develop county‐specific incentives and sanctions grids, including establishing a range of incentives for youth to comply with probation requirements, and make use of them.

Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new graduated response and SAVRY policies, as well as the quality assurance efforts necessary to ensure accurate, reliable incorporation of the SAVRY into court recommendations and reports such as the social summary.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC‐generated documents about individual youth; review of Regional Director evaluation of recently conducted SAVRYs; Graduated Responses and SAVRY policies and appendices; participation in meeting of graduated responses committee; interviews with DYS staff and management.

15 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 16 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.i.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency has revised the agreements and contracts used to explain conditions of informal adjustment, probation and parole to youth and their families, and will soon issue new versions of the policies that include these documents. Before finalizing this revision, the agency sought feedback from staff and clients during a pilot period in several jurisdictions including Lauderdale County to determine whether any other changes might be appropriate, and the agency shared that feedback with me and the Justice Department.
I also noted previously that the staff should be trained to write requirements into the agreements that are not overly broad or hard to understand. I learned from staff that they were trained about this requirement. In reviewing files, I did not see any provisions written into the contracts that included overly broad language or requirements that were hard to understand.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to ensure that the policies issued to staff and available online include the most up to date versions of the contracts recently revised. Pursuant to section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, the agency must consider whether adjustments to the Desktop Guide, orientation, and/or other documents are necessary to give staff sufficient guidance.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contracts and youth files; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

16 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 17 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.ii.
Probation contracts shall:
1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement while on probation.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

As explained above, the agency has revised and implemented use of the new informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts and policies to include these provisions in Lauderdale County and will soon finalize documents for statewide roll‐out. Staff were trained last year on options for education for suspended and expelled youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to comply with the policy and practice requirements of section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, the agency must adjust other documents such as the Desktop Guide, orientation materials, training, and other resources in order to give staff sufficient guidance regarding these topics, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.iii.

17 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 18 of 33

Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable
alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

As I have explained in my previous reports, there are three times in the course of processing a probation violation where YSCs may have the opportunity to make recommendations to judges or designees about a detention decision. The first of these occurs after someone with knowledge of the probation violation files an affidavit describing the probation violation. While the designee makes the detention decision (and YSCs are not legally permitted to serve as Youth Court Designees), staff sometimes do communicate with the designee about the circumstances of the case. This is an informal opportunity to influence the detention decision. In my file review I did not see case notes that described these interactions, but that may be because the Lauderdale County YSCs rarely request detention for probation violators. My conversations with YSCs suggest that such a recommendation is rare. Often the designees are making decisions in the middle of the night when a youth is arrested, and they do not contact YSCs after hours to gather information before making detention decisions in those circumstances.
The second detention decision point is at the detention hearing, which may be the same day as a youth is arrested, or up to two business days later in Mississippi. A YSC attends the hearing, and depending on the judge’s request will sometimes make a recommendation regarding detention. Counsel with whom I spoke confirmed that YSCs rarely recommend detention for probation violators. I reviewed the monthly Probation/Parole Violation Tracking Form on which DYS compiles information about the resolution of probation violations in Lauderdale County each month. I asked YSCs questions about a number of their cases and learned that many are handled without return to court, and that often the judges make detention decisions without asking the opinions of YSCs.
The third stage at which YSCs may recommend incarceration or alternatives is in conjunction with the formal hearing on a probation violation. In preparation for a possible adjudication, the YSCs prepare

18 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 19 of 33

written social summaries (some YSCs provide these to the court and some keep them in their files, only to be produced if requested) and dispositional recommendations, which are provided to the court. For this stage I was able to identify whether YSCs made a recommendation of incarceration, and could see from the case history what services and detention alternatives had been attempted previously with a youth. None of the files I reviewed included a recommendation of incarceration.

The State has completed a memorandum to guide practice in Lauderdale County that makes clear the need to document all detention recommendations at any of the three stages in case notes, as well as the requirement that staff exhaust other options before recommending incarceration for probation violations.

I noted in my previous report that DYS staff must be trained in the law governing detention in order to ensure that they understand the bounds of what designees and judges may order if they are to make appropriate recommendations. Some information about the law governing detention is contained in the new Graduated Response policy, as is a requirement that staff exhaust options in the graduated sanctions grid prior to recommending detention. The law is laid out in more detail in the recent draft memo described in the preceding paragraph. The key will be providing training to staff that gives meaning to the legal provisions cited in the memo. Despite the fact that this training has not occurred, the agency is still in substantial compliance with this section because staff are exhausting other options before recommending incarceration.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

While the agency has achieved substantial compliance with this provision, the agency will need to complete training for staff to understand how to comply with this provision of the agreement. This training must include explanation of Mississippi’s laws governing custody and detention of youth and how to exhaust non‐incarceration options before recommending incarceration at any stage of a probation violation proceeding in Lauderdale County.

As I noted in my last report, as it implements training, DYS must also help YSCs enhance skills and identify programmatic resources to help families experiencing disciplinary challenges and lack of probation compliance with their court‐involved youth.

Evidentiary Basis 19 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 20 of 33
Review of YSC logs, written recommendations and case notes; discussions with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

Since my last visit, the agency has revised the informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts and policies. It also created handouts to guide conversation about additional topics not covered in the contracts but required by this agreement. The State completed the graduated response policy and tools recently as well. The agency has drafted local policies for Lauderdale County to guide notifying counsel of probation meeting dates and finalized the local guidance memom to make clear YSCs’ role in detention decisions. The agency has drafted and completed one revision of the training policy. This is significant progress.
I have noted above where additional work toward policy development or practice is needed. I also met with the DYS Director and Community Services Director to discuss a timeline for completion of remaining requirements, so we have a fairly comprehensive list of what still needs to be accomplished. The agency should check recommendations in this report against the list we compiled to determine whether anything needs to be added. The agency has completed some items on the list since the time of our meeting.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to review its written materials, including the policy manual, Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, staff evaluation materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated in key

20 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 21 of 33

documents in sufficient detail to support full implementation of the settlement agreement’s requirements.
In a future compliance report, the State will need to identify where in policy and procedure each provision of the agreement has been or will be incorporated. Either in writing or conversation, it will be helpful for an agency official to explain how the agency determined which policies and other documents were the appropriate places to incorporate the revisions. We have discussed some of these decisions as they have arisen during the course of implementing this settlement agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agency policies, Desktop Guide, orientation materials, and other guidance documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.b.
The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Not applicable until one year from initial or most recent revision of policies.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance 21 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 22 of 33

Discussion

The parties have advised that they intended this provision to require diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators. As explained above, YSCs are generally recommending alternatives to detention and placement and exhausting other options before recommending incarceration.
For the part of this provision that requires the agency to monitor opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs, the Community Services Director has sent me an email when he considered a grant source for potential funding.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State must continue to recommend options that do not involve detention or out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate. DYS will also need to continue to monitor and seek future funding opportunities for diversion programs and provide documentation of its efforts.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC recommendations; conversations with DYS personnel; emails from Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

While the agency has not yet submitted a written training plan, it has identified and planned training opportunities for staff. In addition, DYS has drafted its first policy governing training, which we discussed in a meeting of the training committee during my visit in July. Appended to

22 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 23 of 33

the policy is a draft of the topics to be covered in new staff orientation, called Core Training. I provided some initial feedback on the list of topics to be covered, noting where it did not appear that required topics from this settlement agreement had been included. The Community Services Director reports that the committee has expanded the length of the orientation training in response to my feedback and is actively developing curricula and materials for the orientation sessions.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of training materials from recent trainings, conversations with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for
Children and families, including evidence‐based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within
juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created
or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

As described above, the agency has not yet submitted a training plan. I have posed to the parties a number of questions about their intended
23 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 24 of 33
meaning for some elements of this provision, and am awaiting their clarifications. Thus, my comments below should be considered preliminary only.
I have commented elsewhere in this report about training. In addition to the training recommendations already mentioned elsewhere in this report, I note the following:
Constitutional due process requirements:
As described in my last report, staff received a training that addressed this topic well.
Disposition planning:
As explained above, the agency has developed a new case planning document, which is included in the nearly final Graduated Response policy. Now the agency must ensure that staff are trained in effective development of a case plan, appropriate ways to work with families as part of effective disposition planning, incorporation of the SAVRY and social history in development of the case plan, use of incentives to promote progress toward goals and objectives, writing measurable and achievable goals, and proper use of the form.
Also, as discussed above, the new Regional Director has been working on enhancing quality assurance in the SAVRY. As training needs are further identified through those file reviews, future trainings should address the needs identified through quality assurance activities.
Best practices in social services and therapeutic options:
There have not been any trainings about effective probation practice, helping youth develop new skills, therapeutic options, evidence‐based practices, or other best practices since my last review.
Appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings:
There have not been any trainings about this topic since my last visit.
Policies, procedures and practices addressed in the Agreement:
The agency has been providing training in Lauderdale County as new policies have been adopted.
24 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 25 of 33

For the training plan to be complete, the agency will need to include plans for assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics covered in training. It should also identify steps the agency will take where it determines that staff lack comprehension or competency following training.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must develop training plans to include the subjects required under the settlement agreement. The plans must include means of assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics trained. Plans must also explain what remedial steps the agency will take if these assessments indicate a lack of staff comprehension or competency. The agency must submit the plans for review and incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Justice Department and Independent Auditor.

Evidentiary Basis

Observations of YSC meetings with clients; review of SAVRY assessments, social histories and dispositional recommendations.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.3.
The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Beginning compliance

Discussion

While DYS has not completed a written training plan, the agency has begun to provide trainings in some topics required by the agreement, as described above.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency will need to complete its training plan and begin providing additional training in accordance with the agreement.

25 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 26 of 33 Evidentiary Basis Records of recent trainings and discussions with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Non‐compliance

Discussion

I have not yet received a training plan to review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency must draft a training plan and submit it for review in order to reach compliance with this requirement.

Evidentiary Basis No training plan provided.

Settlement Agreement Provision

IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.  

26 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 27 of 33

IV.B.
The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS,
may serve as its representative.  A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The parties jointly identified the measures they wish the Independent Auditor to use to assess compliance with the community input provisions. Because the questions apply to the community input meeting as a whole, the discussion of the parts A, B, and C has been combined. The questions to be used to evaluate compliance are as follows:
 Did DHS/DYS hold an open community meeting once every six months?
 Was the meeting room accessible to the public?  Did DHS/DYS publicize the meeting at least one week in
advance?  Did DHS/DYS have a representative in attendance?
27 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 28 of 33
 Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan and most recent compliance report?
 Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a result of this agreement on its website?
 Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for receiving input from interested members of the community?
 Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for responding to input from interested members of the community?
The agency sustained substantial compliance with this provision during the past compliance period because, in accordance with the parties’ definition of substantial compliance, it has “achieved nearly all the requirements” as outlined by the parties. The agency held its third community input meeting on July 25, 2017, at 31st Avenue Missionary Baptist Church, in Meridian. The agency ensured that all its staff from Lauderdale County were in attendance, as well as the agency Director, Director of Community Services, and Regional Director who oversees Lauderdale County. Handouts were available describing the current state of compliance. Several community members and reporters attended as well. In all, approximately 30 people participated. DYS leaders gave a summary of recent activities and plans for the future, and also responded to questions and ideas from community members. The meeting was accessible to the public, with available parking, plenty of space in the church for the meeting, and ease of access for news media.
Agency personnel publicized the meeting in serveral ways. They posted announcements on the DYS website, sent letters to current clients and their families as well as individuals who attended previous community input meetings, handed flyers to some clients, and arranged for public service announcements and other coverage online and in other media. They reached out to print, television and radio reporters and sent notices to individuals who attended the last meeting who provided contact information.
The agency met all of the requirements fully except for one:
 Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a result of this agreement on its website?
The agency has not yet posted summaries of policy changes on its website. However, because the agency has met all the other
28 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 29 of 33

requirements, its activities on community input meet the definition of substantial compliance. Prior to the next compliance visit, I suggest that the agency work with its website coordinator to post summaries of policy changes adopted thus far.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to post on its website summaries of policy changes made in compliance with the agreement. Furthermore, the State will need to continue conducting community input meetings every six months for the duration of the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Observation of community input meetings, examination of handouts provided to participants, review of agency website notice, advance news coverage, emails from Community Services Director, letters to clients.

 

Settlement Agreement Provision

V.B.
Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

Officials and staff have been fully informed about the agreement, and I have not encountered any agents or independent contractors needed to implement the agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to communicate the provisions of the agreement to any future employees, agents or

29 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 30 of 33
contractors who become involved in aspects of DYS activities impacted by the agreement. Evidentiary Basis Conversations with DYS officials and YSCs.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

This provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, my findings on compliance may be found in Part III.C.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance and Evidentiary Basis

Recommendations and evidentiary basis for reaching compliance may be found in the sections of this report addressing Parts III.A.3.a and III.C.

VIII.A.2. 
 30 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 31 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency is almost done with its policy and procedure development. As identified in this report, the following are still outstanding, with most of them in final stages of back and forth with the Justice Department and auditor to incorporate recommendations:

 Revisions of the SAVRY policy.  Creation of a memo guiding use of supplemental handouts to
accompany the new probation and informal adjustment contracts in Lauderdale County.

As a result, the state has complied with “nearly all” the requirements of this section because it has provided at least an initial draft of all revisions with the exception of one state policy and one local memo.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must create and/or finalize the remaining items on the list above. Further, the state must prepare the training plans outlined in III.C. and submit them for review.

Evidentiary Basis

Draft and final policies and local Lauderdale County implementation memos.

31 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 32 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.4.
Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance for all finalized policies.

Discussion

The State has adopted and begun implementing each policy that has been finalized. I will be able to assess full implementation of many of these policies during the next compliance visit.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State should continue to train staff and ensure ongoing use of new tools and policies as each one is issued.

Evidentiary Basis See discussions above for each section.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi‐annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi‐annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi‐annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi‐annual compliance report submitted
32 


Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 118-1 Filed 10/16/17 Page 33 of 33

by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those
actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The state submitted a timely compliance report prior to the July 2017 compliance visit. It did address each area and describe actions that had been taken, as well as the actions the state intends to take to reach substantial compliance, and challenges it is facing. The report did not offer dates by which it planned to do so. However, in a subsequent telephone call the DYS Director and the Community Services Director did identify target dates for completion of items remaining to achieve substantial compliance with the settlement agreement. Because the State submitted a substantive report that addressed each provision and its accomplishments and next steps, I find that this is substantially compliant.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to include target dates for compliance activities in its next compliance report and continue including the other elements it included in the June report. Further, the State will need to prepare, submit and distribute timely compliance reports until the agreement is terminated.

Evidentiary Basis Compliance reports.

33 


 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 1 of 16

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

PLAINTIFF

VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:13-cv-978-HTW-LRA

CITY OF MERIDIAN, et. al.

DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before this Court is a Motion to Dismiss based on the Doctrines of Rooker-Feldman and absolute judicial immunity [Docket No. 58] filed on November 25, 2014 by Defendants Judge Frank Coleman and Judge Veldore Young (“Judges”). On November 28, 2014, Defendant Lauderdale County, Mississippi (“Lauderdale County”) joined in this Motion to Dismiss, contending that it, too, under the motion should be dismissed from this action since its juridical fate is inextricably intertwined with that of the judges. These three parties are the only remaining Defendants (collectively, “Defendants”) in this matter1. The Plaintiff herein is the United States of America, which commenced this action in this court in 2013, naming as Defendants the City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, Judge Frank Coleman, Judge Veldore Young, the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services. The sainted aim of this litigation, proclaims the United States, is to eliminate a pattern or practice of conduct in violation of juveniles’ constitutional rights, privileges or immunities by the Defendants. The United States

1 During the course of this litigation, the Court held a number of hearings toward settlement in this matter. Many parties did settle, and the Court appointed a monitor to oversee the settlement involving the Police Department and the School District. The Court selected a monitor and received reports conducted under the watchful eye of the monitor. Then, during this time, inasmuch, the Court wondered whether any additional concerns would be raised about the involvement of the Youth Court and the Judges, this Court delayed ruling on the Judges’ motions to determine if any additional factual matters would develop.
1

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 2 of 16
has characterized the systematic abuses it attacks as violations of the Fourth2, Fifth3, and
Fourteenth4 Amendment rights of juveniles subject to jurisdiction of the Lauderdale County
Youth Court.
Eventually, pursuant to settlement negotiations, approved and sometimes facilitated by
this court, most of the parties reached a compromise and settled their differences with solutions
to be monitored by this court.
The judges herein and Lauderdale County, which endorses the judges’ position in their
motion, have refused to accede to the demands contained in the United States’ complaint against
them; here, these judge defendants, championing the doctrines of Rooker-Feldman and absolute
judicial immunity, campaign for a complete dismissal of all accusations against them buried in
the United States’ complaint.
On an earlier day, this court permitted oral arguments on the relevant jurisprudence and
additional briefing submitted by all parties. Now, this court issues its ruling and hereby
GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.
JURISDICTION Federal question subject matter jurisdiction attaches pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13315, which
provides that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under
2 U.S. Const. amend. IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. 3 U.S. Const. amend. V: No person. . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 4 U.S. Const. amend. XIV: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. 5 28 U.S.C. §1331: The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 3 of 16
the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” This Court also exercises jurisdiction over this matter herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 13456, which states that district courts shall exercise jurisdiction over civil proceedings initiated by the United States.
The United States additionally asserts its authority to bring this suit against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. §14141. This statute authorizes the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, to bring a civil action for declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice “by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
FACTS On October 24, 2012, the United States of America filed suit against then-Defendants City of Meridian; County of Lauderdale; Judge Frank Coleman, in his official capacity; Judge Veldore Young, in her official capacity; State of Mississippi; Mississippi Department of Human Services; and Mississippi Division of Youth Services. Pl.’s Compl. at 1. Currently, the only remaining Defendants in this matter are Judge Young, Judge Coleman, and the County of Lauderdale. On December 1, 2011, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) notified the City of Meridian and the Lauderdale County Youth Court of its investigation into alleged unconstitutional practices. On June 29, 2012, the DOJ notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of its investigation to include the Division of Youth Services, in relation to the administration of juvenile justice in Lauderdale County. Id. The DOJ also claimed that Defendants had denied them access to youth records from the Meridian Police Department, the Lauderdale County
6 28 U.S.C. §1345: Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 4 of 16
Youth Court, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services. The DOJ futher accused the defendants of denying DOJ personnel access to youth court proceedings and contact with juvenile detention center personnel. Id. at 3, 4.
On August 10, 2012, the DOJ notified Defendants and their attorneys in a letter that it had determined that Defendants were violating the constitutional rights of children in Meridian and Lauderdale County. Defendants were put on notice that the United States would file a federal lawsuit against Defendants within 60 days, unless Defendants engaged in meaningful negotiations in that time to resolve the alleged violations. Id. at 4. All Defendants issued a letter dated August 23, 2012 denying all allegations, and on September 11, 2012, the State Defendants (State of Mississippi, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services) issued a letter stating that the Division of Youth Services had made unspecified changes in its general prohibition policies. These submitted changes did not resolve the dispute, in the eyes of the DOJ.
After repeated letters back and forth from all parties reiterating DOJ findings of alleged constitutional violations and Defendants’ assertions of various policy changes, DOJ sought federal court intervention and filed this lawsuit.
The United States’ lengthy complaint sectioned its accusations against the respective defendants. This court will not summarize the United States’ accusations against the other defendants, but will do so with regard to the three defendants urging the motion to dismiss.
The judges herein preside over youth court in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. Elected by local popular vote, they serve a term of four years. At youth court, they preside over proceedings involving youth under the age of eighteen. Those proceedings embrace matters concerning a delinquent child, a child in need of supervision, a neglected child, an abused child, or a
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 5 of 16
dependent child. A Youth Court Judge, when adjudicating the behavior of a delinquent, is
empowered to hold a disposition hearing in order to determine treatment and rehabilitation of the
delinquent child. Youth Court proceedings are not open to the general public, although parents
and guardians may attend. Pertinent state statutes proclaim that the in-court youth must be
afforded basic constitutional rights, to wit: all parties have the right to be represented by counsel
during all proceedings and shall be informed of that right. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-201(1); any
incriminatory information obtained from a child in conjunction with these proceedings shall not
be admitted against the child on the issue of whether the child committed a delinquent act under
the Youth Court Act or on the issue of guilt in any criminal proceedings. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-
21-207. In its complaint, the United States challenges whether the above judges actually
accorded basic rights to the youth before them.
The United States’ complaint alleges that the targeted juvenile justice system, of which
the above judges were (and, are) an integral part, failed generally to afford youth the minimal
procedural safeguards required by the United States Constitution, namely by the Fourth7, Fifth8,
and Fourteenth9 Amendments. More specifically, the United States’ complaint contends that
these defendants, as part of the juvenile justice system, failed to afford youth before them legal
safeguards which would enable the youth to understand and respond meaningfully to the charges
7 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” U.S. Const., Amend. IV. 8 The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” U.S. Const., Amend. V. 9 The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const., Amend. XIV.
5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 6 of 16
and be allowed to access an alternative route to incarceration and/or probation. According to the
United States’ complaint, these youths are discriminatorily hailed into youth court, without
benefit of counsel, without a true understanding of the charges, without comprehension of
defense resources, all the while being exposed to disproportionate and severe consequences,
including incarceration for minor, technical violations which should be handled at schools under
school discipline or suspensions.
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RELIEF
The United States has asserted that the Defendants herein help operate a “school-to-
prison pipeline” by arresting, adjudicating, and incarcerating children for school infractions
without exercising appropriate discretion and without regard for their obligations under the
United States Constitution. Pl.’s Compl. at 9. The United States describes this alleged cycle as
follows:
“MPD [Meridian Police Department] automatically arrests all students referred to MPD by the District, [which] employs a system of severe and arbitrary discipline that disproportionately impacts black children and children with disabilities . . . the children arrested by MPD are then sent to the County juvenile justice system, where existing due process protections are illusory and inadequate . . . The Youth Court places children on probation, and the terms of the probation set by the Youth Court and DYS [Department of Youth Services] require children once on probation to serve any suspensions from school incarcerated in the juvenile detention center. Once Defendants-collectively, the administrators of the juvenile justice system- place a child from the District in this cycle, he or she is repeatedly subjected to unconstitutional government action and potential incarceration without procedural safeguards. The Youth Court Judges, who are responsible for ensuring that children are treated in accord with constitutional and legal guarantees of fairness and neutrality, acknowledge this cycle, including the over-referral of children from the District to the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system, but aver that their “hands are tied” and they are powerless to change the system.” Id. at pp. 9, 10.
Plaintiff’s exhaustive prayer for relief requests that the Court:
 a.) Enter a judgment declaring that Defendants’ policies, procedures, practices, and patterns of conduct, as alleged herein, violate the Fourth,
6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 7 of 16
Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §14141;  b.) Enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from subjecting children under their jurisdiction and supervision from the unconstitutional and unlawful policies, procedures, practices, and patterns of conduct described above;  c.) Enter an order requiring Defendants to promulgate and effectuate policies that protect the constitutional rights of the children under their jurisdiction and supervision as described above;  d.) Enter an order for equitable relief including, but not limited to, the creation of alternatives to detention and juvenile justice processes for children, and review and expungement of youth records and provisions of supports for children who have been harmed by Defendants’ pattern or practice of constitutional violations, as alleged herein;  e.) Retain jurisdiction of this case until Defendants have fully complied with all orders of this Court, and there is a reasonable assurance that Defendants will continue to comply in the future absent continuing jurisdiction; and  f.) Order any such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
The alleged criticized acts of the judges targeted by the United States are all judicial in
nature, performed and to be performed within the purview of their jurisdiction and official
capacity of judges. Their judicial offices are created under Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-107(2)10,
which authorizes them to hold “exclusive original jurisdiction in all proceedings concerning a
delinquent child, a child in need of supervision, a neglected child, an abused child, or a
dependent child.” Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-151.
In its prayer for relief, the United States seeks remedies which would require the judges
to perform their judicial pre-trial and post-trial activities in a manner agreeable to the United
States, i.e., reviewing probable cause for arrests and detention; ensuring juveniles know their
rights after arrest and when appearing before the judges; appreciating the gravity of a plea;
ensuring the competency of attorneys appearing on behalf of the juvenile; sentencing the juvenile
10Miss. Code. Ann. § 43-21-107(2): A youth court division is hereby created as a division of the chancery court of each county in which no county court is maintained and any chancellor within a chancery court district shall be the judge of the youth court of that county within such chancery court district unless another judge is named by the senior chancellor of the county or chancery court district as provided by this chapter.
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 8 of 16
fairly and in consonant with the juvenile’s past history, maturity and criminal behavior; tailoring sentences mindful of weighing the goals of education in a free-world school-like setting against incarcerating the juvenile in a youth facility behind bars for the safety of the community.
The United States’ complaint against the defendants herein is principally powered by the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Their guarantees and protections are oft-quoted; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to be protected against selfincrimination, and the right to due process.
To constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the movant must show that an arrest was made without probable cause, and therefore constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Constitution. This protection may be violated by an officer’s use of excessive force during the course of an arrest, or an unlawful arrest not supported by probable cause. See Keim v. City of El Paso, 162 F.3d 1159, 1998 WL 792699, at *4 n. 4 (5th Cir. Nov. 2, 1998) (citing Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 395, 109 S.Ct. 1865, 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989); Duckett v. City of Cedar Park, 950 F.2d 272, 278–79 (5th Cir.1992)).
The strictures of the Fifth Amendment demand proof that a person in custody must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed. Failure to prove that these measures have been taken constitutes a violation of the person’s Fifth Amendment rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966); JDB v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261, 269 (2011) (“Prior to questioning, a suspect “must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either retained or appointed.” 384 U.S., at
8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 9 of 16
444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Florida v. Powell, 559 U.S. ––––, ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1195, 1198, 175 L.Ed.2d 1009 (2010)”).
The elements of a Fourteenth Amendment violation include a showing that a person has been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 579, 95 S.Ct. 729, 738, 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975) (at minimum, due process requires “some kind of notice and ... some kind of hearing” (emphasis in original); informal hearing required before suspension of students from public school); United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 746, 107 S.Ct. 2095, 2101, 95 L.Ed.2d 697 (1987) (“So-called ‘substantive due process' prevents the government from engaging in conduct that ‘shocks the conscience,’ ... or interferes with rights ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ”) (quoting Rochin v. California, supra, at 172, 72 S.Ct., at 209–210, and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325–326, 58 S.Ct. 149, 151–152, 82 L.Ed. 288 (1937)).
Before a trier of fact can reach an ultimate determination of a violation, a plaintiff in a lawsuit where immunity has been raised must first overcome that hurdle; so, now this court proceeds to a discussion of immunity.
DISCUSSION I. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply in this case.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine proclaims that United States district courts do not have jurisdiction over challenges to final state court decisions that arise out of judicial proceedings, even if those challenges involve allegations that the state court’s actions were unconstitutional. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 75 L. Ed. 2d 206 (1983). The doctrine bars district courts from reviewing claims that are “inextricably intertwined” with state court
9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 10 of 16
judgments- that is, when “the District Court is in essence being called upon to review the statecourt decision.” Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483 n. 16. The facts of the twin namesakes, Rooker and Feldman, are as follows:
Rooker involved Plaintiffs Dora and William Rooker, who lost two rounds of litigation in Indiana state courts. They then filed an action in federal district court asking the court to declare the state court judgment “null and void”, alleging that it violated their federal due process and equal protection rights. The district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court affirmed because: 1) under federal jurisdictional statutes, only the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over final state court judgments; 2) the statutory jurisdiction of the federal district court is “strictly original”, not appellate. As a result, the Supreme Court held that federal district courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to “reverse or modify” state court judgments.
Feldman turned on facts where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied Marc Feldman and Edward Hickey’s waiver applications from a bar admission rule. Feldman and Hickey then filed suit in federal district court arguing that the DC Court’s ruling violated their federal constitutional rights. The Supreme Court barred these claims, holding that they were “inextricably intertwined” with the DC Court’s decision and thereby extending the rule as applied in Rooker to also include claims that were not litigated in the state court, but are inextricably intertwined with the merits of the state court.
In the case sub judice, the United States is requesting this federal court to determine whether juveniles’ rights were violated in the state court proceedings conducted by the Defendants. This would place this district court as an appellate court to review the correctness of
10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 11 of 16
the state court’s rulings, which is directly prohibited by the Supreme Court under the RookerFeldman doctrine.
In response to the invocation of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, the United States argues that this principle does not apply to our present case because the United States is not challenging a state court judgment entered against it. In support of this theory, the United States cites the Supreme Court’s ruling in Johnson v. DeGrandy, where the Court interpreted the RookerFeldman as an abstention “under which a party losing in state court is barred from seeking what in substance would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party’s claim that the state judgment itself violates the loser’s federal rights.” Johnson v. DeGrandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1006 (1994). The Court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply in that case because the United States, which invoked the doctrine, was not a party in the state court proceeding. Id.
The United States Supreme Court, in a more recent ruling, explicitly detailed when the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies to bar action by a federal court:
“The Rooker–Feldman doctrine, we hold today, is confined to cases of the kind from which the doctrine acquired its name: cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.”
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S. Ct. 1517, 1521–22, 161 L. Ed. 2d 454 (2005). The United States is not challenging a state court judgment rendered against it in federal court in our present case. Thus, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not apply.
The United States also asserts the inapplicability of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine by citing this Court’s previous ruling that because it was not involved with a state court judgment “so inextricably intertwined” with its current claims, the doctrine does not bar its request for
11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 12 of 16
federal court review. In the Court’s order entered on September 4, 2013, the Court denied Defendants’ previous Motion to Dismiss [Docket No. 10] and reasoned the following:
“This interest is not necessarily identical to the interests of individual children facing delinquency proceedings in state court, nor is the United States’ interest so “intertwined” with such individuals so as to justify barring prospective relief to a person not a party to the challenged state actions. As in U.S. v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, State of Georgia, 656 F.2d 131, 134-46 (5th Cir. 1981), the United States has a separate interest in ensuring juvenile justice systems are operated in a constitutionally permissible manner, an interest and institutional role in upholding that interest that the individual juveniles do not share. The United States has an interest that transcends that of private state defendants.” Docket No. 20, p. 3. It is for these reasons that the Court is not convinced to grant the present motion to dismiss based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court is, however, persuaded to dismiss the United States’ claims against the Defendants pursuant to the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, and the inapplicability of §14141 to members of the judiciary, namely, Judges Coleman and Young. The Court’s analysis of these principles are described herein. II. Absolute Judicial Immunity Defendants claim they are protected from Plaintiffs’ claims under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity. The United States Supreme Court has held judicial immunity in high regard, recognizing the principle as “a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice” in that “a judicial officer, in exercising the authority vested in him [or her], [should] be free to act upon his [or her] own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequence to himself.” Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335, 347, 20 L.Ed. 646 (1871). In more recent cases, the Supreme Court and the Fifth Circuit both have established a high bar for Plaintiffs to surpass in order to overcome judicial immunity (“Judges are immune from damage claims arising out of acts performed in the exercise of their judicial functions, even when the
12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 13 of 16
judge is accused of acting maliciously.”) Mitchell v. McBryde, 944 F.2d 229, 230 (5th Cir. 1991) (citing McAlester v. Brown, 469 F.2d 1280, 1282 (5th Cir.1972); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 359, 98 S.Ct. 1099, 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978)).
Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has held that judicial immunity can be overcome only in two sets of circumstances: 1) when the actions complained of were nonjudicial, i.e., actions not taken in the judge’s official capacity, and 2) when the actions complained of, though judicial in nature, were taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11-12 (1991) (citing Forrester v. White, 484 U.S., at 227-229, 108 S.Ct., at 544-545; Stump, 435 U.S., at 360; Bradley, 80 U.S. at 351.).
All claims against Defendants were judicial in nature, and were actions taken within their jurisdiction and official capacity as judges. As such, Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity from Plaintiffs’ claims.
The United States responds that judicial immunity cannot be extended to cases seeking injunctive relief, citing Pulliam v. Allen, 466 U.S. 522, 536 (1984). In that case, the Court refused to extend judicial immunity from monetary damages to shield a state court magistrate from liability for injunctive relief in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. §1983. The facts of that case bear reviewing: After respondents were arrested for non-jailable misdemeanors, petitioner, a Magistrate in a Virginia county, imposed bail, and when respondents were unable to meet the bail, petitioner committed them to jail. Subsequently, respondents brought an action against petitioner in Federal District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that petitioner's practice of imposing bail on persons arrested for non-jailable offenses under Virginia law and of incarcerating those persons if they could not meet the bail was unconstitutional. The court agreed and enjoined the practice, and also awarded respondents costs and attorney's fees under the Civil
13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 14 of 16
Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976. Determining that judicial immunity did not extend to injunctive relief under § 1983 and that prospective injunctive relief properly had been awarded against petitioner, the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of attorney's fees.
In our present case, Plaintiffs are seeking much more than injunctive relief; the United States is asking this Court to overturn or reverse state court orders and judgments issued by the Youth Court Judges and, further, with the United States being in charge of picking and choosing which orders may be “too severe” or “too complex” for juveniles to understand. Additionally, the United States would have this Court dictate to the Youth Court when it must hold hearings, what type of hearing to hold, and what procedures the Youth Court must implement in holding those hearings. Thereafter, this United States District Court would be required to review each order by the Youth Court and determine whether the proceeding was adequate. The Youth Court Judges would be required to “promulgate and effectuate policies” acceptable to the United States and this court. The District Court would, at its pleasure, be empowered to “review” and “expunge” Youth Court orders and records, and create alternatives to detention for juveniles, as well as create alternatives to the current juvenile justice system for delinquent juveniles.
In sum, the United States wants this Court to become the direct appellate court for Youth Court proceedings, thereby creating a “take-over” of the state court procedures and systems, under the guise of providing declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief from this Court. This request is distinguishable from the cases cited by Plaintiffs, as those cases merely reviewed requests for injunctive relief. As the actions complained of by Plaintiffs were judicial in nature and were performed by Defendants in their official capacity as judges, Defendants are entitled to judicial immunity.
14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 15 of 16
III. §14141 Does Not Apply to Members of the Judiciary The United States also attempts to overcome Defendants’ judicial immunity by enlisting
the statutory authority of 42 U.S.C. §14141. This statute authorizes the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, to bring a civil action for declaratory and equitable relief to eliminate a pattern or practice “by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice, or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States11.” The United States asserts that the Youth Court Judges herein are “officials” within the meaning of the statute, and would have the Court view the Lauderdale County Youth Court as a “governmental agency” against which the United States can bring suit.
This Court is not persuaded by the United States’ interpretation of the statute. The plain language of the statute clearly reads that it authorizes the United States to bring suit against “officials” or “employees of any governmental agency with responsibility. . .” This Court does not agree that these definitions include any branch of the judiciary, here being the Lauderdale County Youth Court or the Youth Court Judges. Indeed, in the Notes of Decisions accompanying the statute, the cases citing this statute as their authority involve police departments, sheriffs’ offices, and boards of commissioners associated with other branches of law enforcement. State courts or other branches of the judiciary are not among these notes of decisions. This particular section of the statute itself is entitled “Part B: Police Pattern or Practice”, indicating that even the legislative history of the statute was focused on its application to police departments and other
11 42 U.S.C. §14141: (a) Unlawful conduct: It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (b) Civil action by Attorney General: Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1)1 has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice.
15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 116 Filed 09/30/17 Page 16 of 16

branches of law enforcement, rather than members of the judiciary. Finally, the United States has

admitted that there is no case law supporting this assertion of the statute against members of the

judiciary, and the Court notes that the statute itself does not include judges. [Docket No. 113, p.

3]. This Court, therefore, is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s assertion that the statute applies to

members of the judiciary, namely, the Lauderdale County Youth Court and the Defendant

Judges.

Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs’ assertion that the statute applies to

the Youth Court Judges, and therefore this argument in support of overcoming judicial immunity

is without merit.

CONCLUSION

Upon reviewing the submitted briefs of authorities on this matter, as well as hearing oral

arguments from all parties on the issues, this Court hereby GRANTS the Defendants’ Motion to

Dismiss [Docket No. 58] based on absolute judicial immunity and the inapplicability of Title 42

U.S.C. §14141 to members of the judiciary. The Court has noted that this ruling dismisses the

only remaining defendants in this case, and therefore declares all pending motions and

outstanding matters in this case to be MOOT and that this lawsuit be DISMISSED with

prejudice.

SO ORDERED, this the _30th__ day of September

, 2017.

_s/ HENRY T. WINGATE__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 32
Fifth Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA
Draft submitted: February 18, 2018 Final submitted: March 30, 2018
Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301-602-1610

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 32
I. Introduction
This is the fifth report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). The State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian reached settlements with the Justice Department, and on September 30, 2017, the United States District Court dismissed the Justice Department’s claims against Lauderdale County and its two sitting juvenile court judges. An appeal of the dismissal remains in litigation.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct compliance reviews every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the compliance review conducted January 16 through 19, 2018, as well as a rescheduled community input forum held on March 22, 2018. This is the fifth compliance review since the parties reached a settlement in this matter.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed description of the State’s compliance status in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed
2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 32
compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non-compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review visit provided an opportunity to assess the progress the State has made since July 2017. I also worked with the DYS Director, the Community Services Director and the Regional Director who oversees Lauderdale County, to reach a nearly final version of the policy that governs use of the state’s adopted risk and needs assessment instrument, the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY). I met with the Youth Services Counselors (YSCs) and the Regional Director assigned to Lauderdale County Youth Court, checked the implementation of policies that have been adopted in the past year, and met with a youth from Lauderdale County detained in the Rankin County Juvenile Detention Center. Unfortunately, several planned activities had to be canceled when the court was closed due to inclement weather two of the three days I was in Meridian. The community forum scheduled for January 16 was rescheduled for March 22, and I joined by telephone. The only youth I was able to meet with during the visit was the one I could visit in the detention center on one of the days the courthouse was closed. I was able to meet with one parent who was
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 4 of 32
awaiting her child’s court hearing on the day the courthouse was open. All meetings between Youth Services Counselors and their clients were canceled on the days I was in Meridian. Staff obligingly photocopied youth files so that I could review them after the visit due to limited time for file review during the visit. I followed up with several DYS personnel and with the attorneys who serve as appointed counsel for youth in Luaderdale County by telephone and email after reviewing files.
The agency has made progress toward compliance in a number of areas during the past six months. The State incorporated staff input to improve the informational handouts provided to families. DYS ensured consistent use of the new probation and informal adjustment contracts and implemented new quality assurance provisions to ensure that it was notifying counsel for youth about meeting dates as required by the settlement agreement. Staff are consistently completing risk and needs assessments in formal probation cases, and the Regional Director is doing regular file reviews to ensure quality and accuracy of assessments. The State adopted a finalized policy on graduated responses during this time period, as well as several local directives to implement the agreement in Lauderdale County. It also updated its policy for risk and needs assessment, and drafted a training plan. The first anniversary of a policy revision occurred this month, and the State sought staff input and submitted proposed revisions to the policy in a timely manner.
In several areas, the state has now reached substantial compliance and sustained it for one year. The areas include establishment of fixed meeting schedules and notification of counsel (Section III(A)(1)(d)); adoption of a risk and needs assessment (part of Section III(A)(2)(b)); recommending diversion where appropriate at the disposition decision point (part of Section III(B)(1)); notice to staff, agents and others of the settlement agreement (Section V(B)); and community input (Sections IV(A-C).
The next important steps for the State’s compliance activities include: revising the training plan (and then implementing the rest of the required trainings); developing local grids and implementing a graduated response system in Lauderdale County now that the policy has been adopted; finalizing forms and training staff on the updates to the risk and needs assessment policy; establishing a policy and system for annual reviews of policies; and updating remaining
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 5 of 32
documents to reflect the requirements of the settlement agreement. A key component to completing these final steps will be identifying effective training resources within or outside of the Department.
As with my prior visits, significant challenges remain in monitoring implementation of this settlement agreement while the appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of some defendants from the lawsuit continues. The State has provided access to all of its own documentation and employees related to this agreement, and has also been more than helpful in helping me seek access to information under control of others. However, the County and the Youth Court judges have maintained their decision not to allow me to observe Youth Court, review documents or databases generated or controlled by the Court, or interview County employees. These circumstances continue to limit my ability to gain a full picture of YSCs’ interactions with judges, court personnel, youth, families and others. I have done my best to develop as full a picture as possible given these limitations.
I reviewed documents generated during the past 6 months by YSCs for 13 youth. These documents included YSC case notes, completed SAVRY scoring forms, social histories, recommendations to the court, and forms that tracked the procedural history of the case. I reviewed these documents for youth who were reported for probation violations since July 2017.
I reviewed the following additional documents while on site:
• SAVRY case audits by Regional Supervisor for Lauderdale County; • Sampling of emails sent to counsel for youth on the YSCs caseloads
informing them of meeting schedules; • Lauderdale County updated Service Referral Matrix; • Confirmations of staff training; • Monthly Probation/Parole Violation Tracking Forms for August 2017
through December 2017; and • Handouts, informal adjustment agreements and probation contracts in use.
The State submitted other documents for feedback and/or review prior to and immediately following the visit as well, including:
5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 6 of 32

• The State’s compliance report; • Letters to community members regarding the Community Forum; • Web postings regarding the Community Forum; • Drafts and final version of Graduated Response policy and accompanying
tools; • Final version of a guidance memo for staff in Lauderdale County to
implement the provision requiring that counsel be notified of probation meeting schedules; • Final version of a DYS memo providing guidance on YSCs’ detention recommendations; • DYS memo implementing use of explanatory handouts for youth and families; • Drafts and final version of risk and needs assessment policy revisions and accompanying forms; • Drafts and final version of the case plan form; • Annual revisions of the Probation policy and contract; • Handouts from Families First of Mississippi; and • Sign-in sheets from the March 22 Community Forum.
Table I summarizes my compliance findings.

Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision

Provision number
III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c
III.A.1.d
III.A.2.a

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Protections Against Self-incrimination Notice to youth Protections Against Self-incrimination Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self-incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth-appropriate language Protections Against Self-incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors

Substantial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited.

6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 7 of 32

Provision number
III.A.2.b
III.A.2.c.i
III.A.2.c.ii
III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a III.A.3.b
III.B.1
III.C.1 III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A-C V.B
VIII.A.1
VIII.A.2 VIII.A.4
VIII.B.2

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating

Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations
Probation Conditions – Understandable language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities Training – Develop training plans
Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S.
Community Input
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year Reporting – Biannual compliance report

Substantial compliance for risk assessment and partial compliance for graduated responses. Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance Partial compliance Substantial Compliance
Substantial Compliance
Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Partial compliance Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Partial compliance
Substantial compliance Substantial compliance
Substantial compliance

7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 8 of 32

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth-appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
iii. an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

During this period, DYS further adjusted its handouts to incorporate suggestions from staff, and also issued written guidance for using the handouts. Staff continued to use the revised probation and informal adjustment contracts as well.

Recommendations As explained above, the State sustained substantial compliance with

for Reaching

this provision during this reporting period. In addition, as required by

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 9 of 32

Compliance

section III(A)(3)(a), the State developed written county-specific guidance for Lauderdale County staff to guide use of the handouts.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with YSCs; reviews of probation explanation handouts for youth and families and guidance for their use; review of youth files; discussion with Director of Community Services.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.b
DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

At the beginning of a youth’s probation and often during the course of probation, YSCs meet with youth and their parents or guardians together. Therefore, early conversations about what to expect while on probation include both youth and their families. As a result, the State’s compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, the State has reached substantial compliance with this provision and has issued written guidance for staff, in compliance with section III(A)(3)(a).

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with YSCs; reviews of probation explanation handouts for youth and families and guidance for their use; review of youth files; discussion with Director of Community Services.

9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 10 of 32

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.c
The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youthappropriate language.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

I confirmed in my review of files and in conversations with staff that they are consistently using the new process of reviewing each contract provision and having youth initial once they understand, and are also initialing the document themselves after confirming that youth understand. They reflected an understanding of how to adjust the conversation for youth or parents who have disabilities or other circumstances that make it harder for them to understand what is communicated.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State is in substantial compliance because YSCs are using the revised written tools, and youth and families seem to understand what has been explained to them. The State has revised its policies to reflect use of the new contracts.

Pursuant to section III(A)(3)(a), this requirement must be reflected in the practice manual, orientation/training materials, and other appropriate agency documents.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of youth files; conversations with staff and Community Services Director.

10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 11 of 32

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.d
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

I saw consistent evidence in files that the meeting schedules are set for those youth who are expected to participate in regular meetings at the Youth Court. (Youth in some programs such as TOP are not required to meet regularly with their Youth Services Counselors and therefore do not have fixed meeting schedules in their files.) Counsel are not assigned to youth who have informal adjustment agreements, so no notice to counsel is required for youth meeting with YSCs on informal adjustment matters. Youth have not requested counsel presence, and counsel have not attended any probation meetings between YSCs and youth since this new process was instituted.
During my last visit we established some additional quality assurance steps to ensure that the notices were consistently sent to counsel. I confirmed that the State has implemented the new steps and that notices are being sent for cases where counsel have been assigned and appointments have been scheduled.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State achieved substantial compliance with the practice requirement and section III(A)(3)(a) of the settlement agreement requiring revision of policies during the last reporting period. The State sustained substantial compliance with this section, III(A)(1)(d), during this period.

Evidentiary Basis Reviews of files; conversations with staff.

11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 12 of 32

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.b.
The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance for risk assessment tool; partial compliance for graduated responses.

Discussion

Risk assessment
DYS chose a risk assessment tool (the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth, or SAVRY), trained workers in its use, and adopted policies regarding Graduated Responses and Risk Assessment during 2014 and 2015. During the past several months, the agency revised both policies and many accompanying forms.
In my document reviews during this visit, I saw SAVRY reports completed in all the formal probation files I reviewed. The risk levels staff determined after conducting a SAVRY assessment were reported in the social summaries and dispositional recommendations. The Regional Director continues to engage in review of the SAVRY along with other aspects of file reviews, and from the documents I had access to, the scoring and reporting of the scores appeared consistent with the information available. She is giving feedback to staff when she identifies need for improvement.
Now that the agency has completed revision of the SAVRY policy and is nearly done with revising the forms, the State is in substantial compliance with the agreement’s policy revision requirements in III(A)(3)(a). The staff must now be trained about the updates to the policy. I recommend that the State adopt a clearer way of documenting staff review of the SAVRY scoring at required times and upon key events. The current documentation reflects the dates of review, but it is not clear whether the counselor has updated the scoring and whether ratings have changed. The State has decided to create a separate case plan policy and the parties have agreed that the new policy is not subject to review under this settlement agreement.
12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 13 of 32
I want to note that during our interviews, one of the staff expressed that she did not see a reason to complete the SAVRY, and felt it was just another form to be completed. Structured risk and needs assessments are considered best practice in the field, as they help to ensure that decisions about levels of supervision and services provided to youth are guided by objective factors, rather than intuition and discretion, which can lead to disparities. The staff member’s comments suggest that training in the use of the SAVRY has not incorporated information about why risk and needs assessments are valuable, or the message did not come across. I encourage the State to include an element in the SAVRY training or in the training about best practices in social service delivery that explains the reason behind use of structured decision making tools.
Graduated responses
The agency has completed its revision of the graduated response policy and accompanying grid templates. The policy requires that YSCs work with judges and referees in their jurisdictions to develop locallyapplicable incentives and sanctions grids based on templates included in the policy, as well as standards for when youth should be brought back to court. While the agency conducted training for YSCs in Lauderdale County by reviewing the policy with them, staff did not come away with an understanding of what they would need to do in order to develop and adopt local graduated sanctions and incentives grids. While staff did revise their dispositional service matrix with current services available for case planning, they have not created graduated response grids and did not realize that they were different things.
I was pleased to observe in the case files and interviews with staff that they clearly understand the concepts of graduated incentives and sanctions and are incorporating them into their practice, even if the documents have not been produced. They identified use of a variety of incentives and sanctions with youth, even though the County does not have tangible rewards or new intermediate sanctions available. The next step is for there to be a local system agreed upon between the court and the YSCs, and for it to be written in the form of the templates established in policy.
The Community Services Director and Regional Director reported that they had met with one of the two juvenile court judges in Lauderdale County to discuss graduated responses. However, the line staff did not know about that meeting or anything that was discussed. I encourage management to communicate about such meetings with the line staff
13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 14 of 32

who work regularly with these judges, especially if the line staff are expected to carry out development of graduated response grids. I also encourage the State to provide training to staff about how to work with judges and develop the grids, how to explain the reasons behind use of graduated responses, and the principles of effective graduated response grids. I have provided sample materials to assist with this effort. I encourage the State to provide me and the Justice Department with training plans and documents prior to the training in order to avoid the need to redo it.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance with regard to risk assessment, the State must continue to use the SAVRY to inform its recommendations to the court, and the Regional Director must continue to review files and provide feedback to staff on completed SAVRY assessments. In accordance with section III(A)(3)(a) of the settlement agreement, the State must implement the revised policy, and ensure that other agency documents reflect any changes.

To reach substantial compliance with regard to graduated responses, DYS staff in Lauderdale County must develop county-specific incentives and sanctions grids and make use of them. The State must provide adequate training for them to carry out this activity.

Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new graduated response and SAVRY policies. While not required to reach substantial compliance, training should reflect the reasons why a structured decision making tool such as the SAVRY is used in probation practice.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC-generated documents about individual youth; review of Regional Director evaluation of recently conducted SAVRYs; Graduated Responses and SAVRY policies and appendices; revised Service Matrix; interviews with DYS staff and management.

14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 15 of 32

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.i.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency has revised the agreements and contracts used to explain conditions of informal adjustment, probation and parole to youth and their families, and has issued new versions of the policies that include these documents. In reviewing files, I did not see any provisions written into the contracts that included overly broad language or requirements that were hard to understand.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to continue to use the contracts. Pursuant to section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, the agency must consider whether adjustments to the Desktop Guide, orientation, and/or other documents are necessary to give staff sufficient guidance.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contracts and youth files; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.ii. Probation contracts shall:
1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how children can satisfy the mandatory school
15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 16 of 32

attendance requirement while on probation.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

As explained above, the agency has revised and implemented use of the new informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts and policies. Staff were trained last year on options for education for suspended and expelled youth, and they continue to use the contracts.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to comply with the policy and practice requirements of section III(A)(3)(a) of the agreement, the agency must adjust other documents such as the Desktop Guide, orientation materials, training, and other resources in order to give staff sufficient guidance about use of the contracts and options for school attendance compliance, and should explain in a future compliance report how it decided where to incorporate guidance about this provision.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.iii.
Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

Staff in Lauderdale County do not make recommendations about whether to detain youth at the time of arrest. Those decisions are

16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 17 of 32
made by designees, often outside of work hours. YSCs generally are not the ones to sign the affidavit that forms the basis for the probation violation; witnesses to the violations, including parents, program directors, and the County employee responsible for electronic monitoring, are usually the ones to sign the affidavits.
The second detention decision point is at the detention hearing, which may be the same day as a youth is arrested, or up to two business days later in Mississippi. A YSC attends the hearing, and will only make a recommendation regarding detention if the judge asks. Staff reported that they did not recommend detention at any detention hearings for youth awaiting adjudication for probation violations. Counsel for youth reported that they did not recall any cases where YSCs advocated for detention of a youth. Some youth were detained pre-hearing, but reportedly without a recommendation from YSCs.
I noted and appreciated the increase in detail in case notes about what happened during court hearings, in accordance with newly issued DYS guidance. Staff reported that they were trained to record what happened in court, including recording any time they made a detention recommendation. They were not trained to record if they made no recommendation. I suggest that staff incorporate one additional sentence in notes about court hearings to make the report clearer: “The judge [asked/did not ask] my opinion about whether the youth should be detained, and I [recommended/did not recommend] detention at this hearing.” If detention was recommended, staff should explain why they recommended detention.
The third stage at which YSCs may recommend incarceration or alternatives is in conjunction with the formal hearing on a probation violation. None of the files I reviewed included a recommendation of incarceration. The DYS director reported that Lauderdale County did not send any youth to the state secure placement facility during 2017. Two staff did recommend mental health treatment in an in-patient facility for clients. These recommendations occurred after violent and/or erratic behavior by the young people, and reflected an appropriate exhaustion of other options. One recommendation I have for documents I reviewed is that some social summaries and dispositional recommendations in the files do not contain dates, making it difficult to know when they were last revised. I recommend that staff always include dates on social summaries and court recommendations.
I discussed the rules on detention with staff, and they all were able to give illustrative examples of when detention may and may not be used
17

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 18 of 32

for youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency has achieved substantial compliance with this provision. In order to sustain substantial compliance and provide clearer documentation, I recommend that staff add the additional phrases I outlined above.

As I noted in my last report, as it implements training, DYS must help YSCs enhance skills and identify programmatic resources to help families experiencing disciplinary challenges and lack of probation compliance with their court-involved youth.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC logs, written recommendations and case notes; discussions with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency has nearly finished its policy revisions. It has revised handouts to provide clear explanations about topics not covered in the contracts but required by this agreement. The State completed the graduated response policy and tools and trained staff in them as well. The agency has issued local policies for Lauderdale County to guide notifying counsel of probation meeting dates, to make clear YSCs’ role in detention decisions, and to require use of the informative handouts. The agency has completed revision of the SAVRY policy and nearly completed revision of the accompanying forms.
We have agreed that the only remaining policy work required under the agreement is revision of the training policy and a policy documenting the requirement for annual revision of policies. The agency will
18

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 19 of 32

determine where is the appropriate place in the policy manual to incorporate an annual policy revision provision. The agency also wisely intends to develop a case planning policy, but the parties have agreed that it is not required under the agreement.
As described above, there is still work to be done on implementation of the graduated response policy, and work is still necessary to complete the training requirements and posting of required documents. Following revision of the SAVRY policy and forms, some training will be necessary to ensure compliance with the changes. In addition, there are other agency written documents such as the core training manual that need to reflect the provisions of the agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to complete its review of its written materials, including the Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, staff evaluation materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated in key documents in sufficient detail to support full implementation of the settlement agreement’s requirements. Staff must fully incorporate new and revised policies into their practice as well.

Evidentiary Basis Review of agency policies and other guidance documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.b.
The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance.

Discussion

In March, the first anniversary of the State’s revision of the Probation policy and probation contract arrived. DYS asked staff from various

19

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 20 of 32

parts of the state to provide feedback, notified me and the Justice Department about contemplated revisions, incorporated some of my suggestions, and reissued the policy.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State must continue to review and revise, as appropriate, the policies adopted or rewritten pursuant to the settlement agreement. In order to achieve compliance with the policy adoption provisions of Section III.A.3.a., the state must adopt a policy governing annual policy review and revision.

Evidentiary Basis

Probation policy and contract, communications from Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The parties have advised that they intended this provision to require diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators. As explained above, YSCs are recommending alternatives to detention and placement and exhausting other options before recommending incarceration.
For the part of this provision that requires the agency to monitor opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs, the Community Services Director has previously sent me an email when he considered or applied for a grant source for potential funding. During this compliance period I did not receive any such emails. However, upon inquiry, he did describe that a statewide group that works to promote juvenile justice system reform is planning to seek
20

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 21 of 32
grant funds to support efforts. In addition, a new program, Families First, has come to Lauderdale County. This program is funded by a grant to the Department of Human Services, and can serve youth diverted from the juvenile justice system and their families as well as family members of youth who are clients of DYS.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State must continue to recommend options that do not involve detention or out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate. DYS will also need to continue to monitor and seek future funding opportunities for diversion programs and provide documentation of its efforts.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC recommendations; conversations with DYS personnel; emails from Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The State recently submitted a written training plan. It includes plans to complete most trainings for Lauderdale County staff prior to my next visit. I have communicated that I believe that more work is necessary to plan for one of the areas of the training, so the plan is still being revised, and the Justice Department is still reviewing it. DYS has also drafted, received feedback from me and the United States, but not yet finalized a policy governing training. Appended to the policy is a draft of the topics to be covered in new staff orientation, called Core Training.

21

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 22 of 32

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to reach substantial compliance with this provision, the State must incorporate reasonable recommended revisions to the plan.

Evidentiary Basis Review of draft training plan and policy; conversations with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for
Children and families, including evidence-based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within
juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created
or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

I have commented elsewhere in this report about training. In addition to the training recommendations already mentioned elsewhere in this report, I note the following:
Constitutional due process requirements:
As described in my last report, staff received a training that addressed this topic well.
Disposition planning:
The state has adopted a new case planning document and revised its
22

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 23 of 32
policy governing risk and needs assessment. It also plans to develop a policy on case planning. Now the agency must ensure that staff are trained in effective development of a disposition plan, appropriate ways to work with families as part of effective disposition planning, incorporation of the SAVRY and social history in development of the case plan, writing measurable and achievable goals, and proper use of the form. The draft training plan indicates that a disposition planning training is scheduled for Lauderdale County staff, to occur in March.
Best practices in social services and therapeutic options:
During the past six months, the agency required that staff participate in online courses including Interstate Compact, Community Services for Trafficking Victims, Family Engagement in Youth-Family Teams, Motivational Interviewing, and Commercial Sexual Exploitation. There have not been any other trainings about effective probation practice, helping youth develop new skills, therapeutic options, evidence-based practices, or other best practices since my last review.
Appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings:
There have not been any trainings about this topic since my last visit. The draft training plan indicated that a training about this topic is scheduled for April.
Policies, procedures and practices addressed in the Agreement:
The agency has been providing training in Lauderdale County as new policies have been adopted. As I explained above, there is some more training to be done to fully implement the graduated response policy, and once the SAVRY policy revisions are completed, staff will need to be informed about changes to the policy.
I do wish to note that the approach to training under this agreement over the past few months has not been ideal. It appears that training has mostly involved reading policies or notes to staff, without discussion of how the concepts might apply to their work, or other methods of effective training. For training of professional adults to be effective, it should take into account principles of adult learning. These include involving a variety of teaching methods (visual, auditory, tactile, experiential) to respond to different learning styles of participants, ensuring that they understand why the principles are important, recognizing and incorporating the experience of the participants, and
23

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 24 of 32

being positive and encouraging. DYS will need to find ways to ensure that it provides engaging and effective training on the required topics in the coming months in order to maximize the likelihood that staff will learn and incorporate the concepts into their practice as required for compliance.
For training planning to be complete, the agency will also need to plan for assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics covered in training. The agency should also identify steps it will take where it determines that staff lack comprehension or competency following training.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must finish revising its training plan to include the subjects required under the settlement agreement. The plans for each training must include means of assessment of staff comprehension of and competency in topics trained. The agency must also explain what remedial steps it will take if these assessments indicate a lack of staff comprehension or competency. The agency must incorporate appropriate recommendations from the Justice Department and Independent Auditor.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of youth files, discussions with DYS personnel, review of training confirmations, draft training plan.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.3.
The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency has begun to provide trainings in some topics required by the agreement, as described above.

24

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 25 of 32

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency will need to complete revising its training plan and begin providing additional trainings in accordance with the agreement.

Evidentiary Basis Records of recent trainings and discussions with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The State submitted a training plan for review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the State will need to revise its training plans, incorporating feedback from me and from the Justice Department as appropriate.

Evidentiary Basis Draft training plan.

Settlement Agreement Provision

IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to
25

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 26 of 32

input from interested members of the community.  
IV.B.
The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS, may serve as its representative.   A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The parties jointly identified the measures they wish the Independent Auditor to use to assess compliance with the community input provisions. Because the questions apply to the community input meeting as a whole, the discussion of the parts A, B, and C has been combined. The questions to be used to evaluate compliance are as follows:
• Did DHS/DYS hold an open community meeting once every six months?
• Was the meeting room accessible to the public?

26

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 27 of 32
• Did DHS/DYS publicize the meeting at least one week in advance?
• Did DHS/DYS have a representative in attendance? • Did DHS/DYS provide to the public summaries of its action plan
and most recent compliance report? • Had DHS/DYS posted summaries of policy changes made as a
result of this agreement on its website? • Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
receiving input from interested members of the community? • Did DHS/DYS’ community meeting include a process for
responding to input from interested members of the community?
The agency scheduled and publicized an event for the night of January 16, 2018. However, the event was canceled due to snow and ice. The meeting was rescheduled for March 22. Upon the agreement of the parties, I joined the meeting by telephone.
The State publicized the rescheduled event more than one week in advance, posting information on its website, sending letters to families of youth involved in the courts, and requesting media coverage. Approximately 15 people attended the event in addition to DYS and U.S. Department of Justice staff. An article about the meeting appeared in the Meridian Star online on March 23, 2017, the day after the event.
The State held the meeting in a church accessible to the public, which provided a welcoming environment. The DYS Director and Community Services Director, as well as staff from Lauderdale County and the Regional Director, all attended. The DYS Director presented a clear and informative summary of the efforts the agency has made and the accomplishments over the past several months. He answered all questions asked in a transparent and responsive manner, and invited feedback. One of the attendees expressed his appreciation for the straightforward way in which the Director explained developments and answered questions.
Handouts available to the attendees included the state’s most recent compliance report and the Independent Auditor’s most recent report, which I had shared in near final form pending findings about this meeting. A representative from Families First of Mississippi also provided written information and a presentation about the services available through its program, which is funded by DYS.
27

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 28 of 32

The parties and I agreed that the State could comply with the requirement to post summaries of policy changes by posting its compliance reports, since the State also posts all of its policies online. The State has been promptly posting new versions of policies but has yet to post the compliance reports or my reports on its website. However, because the State has complied with all other aspects of the requirements regarding community input, I find it in substantial compliance with these community input provisions.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has reached substantial compliance and sustained it for one year. To sustain substantial compliance, it must continue to hold community input forums every six months and must post the compliance reports and my reports on its website.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of agency website notice, emails from Community Services Director, letters to clients, notes in case files indicating when invitations to the community meeting were sent to clients.

Settlement Agreement Provision

V.B.
Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

Officials and staff have been fully informed about the agreement, and I have not encountered any agents or independent contractors needed to implement the agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to communicate the provisions of the agreement to any future employees, agents or contractors who become involved in aspects of DYS activities impacted by the agreement.

28

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 29 of 32 Evidentiary Basis Conversations with DYS officials and YSCs.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

This provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, my findings on compliance may be found in Part III.C.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance and Evidentiary Basis

Recommendations and evidentiary basis for reaching compliance may be found in the sections of this report addressing Parts III.A.3.a and III.C.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.2.
Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To
29

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 30 of 32

accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency is almost done with its policy and procedure development. As identified in this report, the following are still outstanding:

• Final revisions of the training policy. • Incorporation of the requirement of annual policy revision
somewhere in the agency’s policies.

As a result, the state has complied with “nearly all” the requirements of this section because it has completed all but the two items above.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must create and/or finalize the remaining items on the list above.

Evidentiary Basis

Draft and final policies and local Lauderdale County implementation memos.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.4.
Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance
30

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 31 of 32

evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance for all finalized policies.

Discussion

The State has adopted and begun implementing each policy as it has been finalized. With the exception of the graduated response policy and recent revisions to the SAVRY policy, all newly adopted or revised policies have been implemented.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State must continue to train staff and ensure ongoing use of new tools and policies as each one is issued.

Evidentiary Basis See discussions above for each section.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi-annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi-annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi-annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi-annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State
31

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 125 Filed 04/02/18 Page 32 of 32

will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The state submitted a timely compliance report prior to the January 2018 compliance visit. It did address each area and describe actions that had been taken, as well as the actions the state intends to take to reach substantial compliance, and challenges it is facing. The report did not offer dates by which it planned to do so. Because the State submitted a substantive report that addressed each provision and its accomplishments and next steps, I find that this is substantially compliant.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance with this provision, the State will need to include target dates for compliance activities in its next compliance report and continue including the other elements it included in the June report. Further, the State will need to prepare, submit and distribute timely compliance reports until the agreement is terminated.

Evidentiary Basis Compliance reports.

32

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 1 of 16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 2 of 16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 3 of 16

Meridian Police Department (MPD) Settlement Agreement Compliance Assessment Table

III. SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES

A. School Arrests and Probable Cause
1. Policy and Practices
a. Within 90 days of the Effective Date, Meridian Police Department shall have adopted practices, policies, procedures, and training consistent with the principles below:
(i) Officers shall only conduct school-based arrests of juveniles under the following circumstances:
a. Officers have probable cause, to the extent required by law, to believe that a juvenile has committed a felony; or
b. A criminal offense that involves a real and immediate threat to students, teachers, or public safety; or
c. A misdemeanor or other indictable offense occurs in the officer’s presence, except for offenses identified in (iii)(a); or
d. A judicial warrant or custody order specifically directs the arrest of a student in a school.
(ii) Officers shall avoid executing a judicial warrant at a school. A felony warrant may be executed at a school when it is not practical to conduct the arrest at alternative locations.

Independent Auditor Compliance Rating as of
January 2018

June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs

DISCUSSION:

1

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 4 of 16

MPD’s charge classification reports list all juvenile arrests conducted from January to June 2018, and the location of those arrests. MPD also runs a separate log that lists any juvenile arrests occurring at the five junior high, high, and alternative schools in Meridian (Carver Junior High, Kate Griffin Junior High, Northwest Junior High, Meridian High School, and Marion Park Alternative School). We reviewed the charge classification reports, along with the school juvenile arrest logs, to determine whether MPD conducted any school-based arrests during the compliance rating period. No school-based arrests were conducted. As stated in prior reports of the Independent Police Auditor, in 2016, MPD drafted and finalized a schoolbased arrest policy that incorporated the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. In 2017, MPD trained its officers on the policy. Thus, MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

(iii) Officers shall not respond to requests for school-based arrests for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, including incidents involving:

a. public order offenses including disorderly conduct, disruption of schools or public assembly, trespass, loitering, profanity, dress code violations, and fighting that does not involve serious physical injury or a weapon.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD calls for service records; charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs

DISCUSSION:

From January – June 2018, there were 257 calls for service at the junior high, high school, and alternative schools in Meridian. Meridian Public Schools District Police Department (MPSDPD) officers responded to 150 of those calls. MPD officers handled, or assisted in handling, 107 calls. 184 of the 257 calls pertained to “false alarms” sounding at the schools. Other calls involved incidents or interactions that occurred well outside of school hours. MPD call responses to the schools during school hours were relatively infrequent and
2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 5 of 16
conducted in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding between MPD and MPSDPD.
In reviewing the calls for service records, we noticed that MPD conducted sixteen “observation” calls at various Meridian public schools immediately before or shortly after school hours. MPD officers resolved these calls without incident, and did not detain or arrest any individuals during the calls. According to MPD, it initiated these calls to assist with traffic before and after school and provide visibility at special events in the hopes of reducing traffic and congregation around the school during evening hours. We ask that MPD continue to initiate and handle these observation calls with caution, so as not to run afoul of the Settlement Agreement’s prohibition on conducting school-based arrests for public order offenses such as public assembly or loitering.
MPD remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

b. Officers must document in sufficient detail the basis for any school-based arrest, including any factors that justify arresting the youth at school and factors that support a determination of probable cause:

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs

DISCUSSION:

As stated earlier, DOJ reviewed the charge classification reports, along with the school juvenile arrest logs, to determine whether MPD conducted any school-based arrests during the compliance assessment period. No school-based arrests were conducted. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision.

(i) Officers must provide a Miranda warning as soon as a juvenile is placed in a situation where a youth, based on the youth’s mental and psychological maturity, would reasonably believe they are not free to leave.
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 6 of 16

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs; calls for service records

DISCUSSION:

As stated earlier, MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. MPD calls for service records further indicate that no Miranda warnings were given to juveniles or required. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

(ii) Officers must notify the juvenile’s guardian of the arrest as soon as practicable, generally no more than three hours after the arrest. If a parent is not notified within three hours, the arresting officer must document, in writing, the reason for the delay.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs; calls for service records

DISCUSSION:

MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 7 of 16

(iii) Officers shall only interview a detained youth in the presence of the juvenile’s guardian or attorney.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs; calls for service records

DISCUSSION:

MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. A review of calls for service records and charge classification reports further indicate that MPD officers did not detain any juveniles during this assessment period. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

2. Training
a. Within six months of the Effective Date, Meridian Police Department shall provide officers with pre-service and annual in-service training regarding interactions with juveniles while on Meridian Public School District premises, including de-escalation techniques, conflict resolution, child and adolescent development, and age appropriate responses and biasfree policing.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

N/A

DISCUSSION:

5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 8 of 16
As stated in prior reports of the Independent Police Auditor, in July 2017, MPD provided officers with annual in-service de-escalation, conflict resolution, and child and adolescent development training. In October 2017, MPD provided officers with annual in-service biasfree policing training. In 2017, MPD officers also received roll call training on MPD’s new school-based arrest policy and its Internal Affairs policy, which detailed how MPD will receive and investigate school-based complaints.
In April and May of this year, MPD officers received additional training focusing on juvenile justice issues. The online training focused on juvenile gun violence, the links between drugs and delinquency, and identifying effective strategies and programs to reduce juvenile violations. MPD did not hire any new recruits during the assessment period; thus, it did not conduct any pre-service training on juvenile justice issues. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

b. This training shall be conducted by qualified instructors.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

N/A

DISCUSSION:
As stated in prior reports of the Independent Police Auditor, qualified instructors conducted the bias-free policing training, as well as the de-escalation, conflict resolution, and child and adolescent development training. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

c. MPD shall provide roll call trainings regarding these policies as needed.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

N/A

6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 9 of 16
DISCUSSION:
There was not a demonstrated need for any roll call training on the policies during this assessment period, as MPD officers had received in-service training and roll call training in 2017. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

d. MPD shall document that all officers have received the required training.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD roster for April and May 2018 online training

DISCUSSION:

As stated in prior reports of the Independent Police Auditor, in 2017, MPD provided signature logs verifying officer attendance at the bias-free policing, de-escalation, and roll call trainings. MPD also provided DOJ with a roster of the MPD officers who attended the April and May 2018 online training. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

3. Civilian Complaints and Discipline
a. Within six months of the Effective Date, MPD shall ensure that an effective process is in place to consider complaints regarding MPD conduct in the schools, including school-based arrests. MPD shall ensure that community members, including students and parents or guardians, have access to complaint forms to express concerns about MPD. To achieve this outcome, MPD shall ensure that complaint forms are available from the MPD and at City Hall, public libraries, and police stations. MPD shall also make the complaint form available on its website and work with the Meridian Public School District to make forms available at the schools.
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 10 of 16

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

N/A

DISCUSSION:

As stated in prior reports of the Independent Police Auditor, in 2017, MPD revised its Internal Affairs policy to incorporate protocols regarding MPD receipt and investigation of schoolbased complaints. The complaint forms are available on MPD’s website and at City Hall, Meridian public library, and the police station. Despite the City’s efforts, the Meridian Public School District did not agree to make complaint forms available at its schools. PD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

b. MPD shall specifically track complaints arising from school-based arrests.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD spreadsheet listing IA complaints received by case number, complainant, date of incident, location of incident, date filed, officer involved, nature of complaint, and whether complaint was school-related

DISCUSSION:

MPD received nine complaints from members of the public during this assessment period. None of the complaints pertained to school-based arrests or MPD conduct in schools. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 11 of 16

c. MPD shall routinely assess the need for improvements to its training based on these complaints.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance DISCUSSION:

MPD spreadsheet listing IA complaints received by case number, complainant, date of incident, location of incident, date filed, officer involved, nature of complaint, and whether complaint was school-related

As stated previously, none of the complaints received by MPD during this assessment period pertained to school-based arrests or MPD conduct in schools. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

d. Officers who violate MPD’s juvenile arrest policies shall be held accountable through the department’s disciplinary system.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs

DISCUSSION:

MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. Additionally, none of the complaints received by MPD during this assessment period pertained to school-

9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 12 of 16
based arrests or MPD conduct in schools. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision of the Settlement Agreement.

4. Data Collection
a. MPD shall collect statistical data on the number of juveniles referred to the MPD by the Meridian Public School District and the number of arrests that arise out of behavior allegedly occurring in the Meridian public schools or at school events, including age, race, gender, and alleged misconduct.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD calls for service records; charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest logs; MPD quarterly compliance reviews for the first and second quarter of 2018

DISCUSSION:

MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. Additionally, the Meridian Public School District has not referred any juveniles to MPD during this assessment period. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision.

b. This data shall be made public on the City’s website on a semi-annual basis.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

MPD calls for service records; charge classification reports; school juvenile arrest

10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 13 of 16

DISCUSSION:

logs; MPD quarterly compliance reviews for the first and second quarter of 2018; City website

MPD did not conduct any school-based arrests during this assessment period. Additionally, the Meridian Public School District has not referred any juveniles to MPD during this assessment period. The City provides information pertaining to referrals and school-based arrests in its quarterly compliance reviews and compliance reports, which are posted on the City’s website. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this provision.

5. Coordination with Meridian Public School District Police Department
a. Consistent with ¶92 of the MPSD/EOS Agreement, within 90 days of the effective date, the City shall seek a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) between the Meridian Public School District Police Department and the MPD that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effectuating arrests of students while on school grounds.

Compliance Rating as of January 2018
Substantial Compliance

June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

MPD calls for service records

DISCUSSION:

As stated in a prior report of the Independent Police Auditor, in 2017, MPD and MPSDPD entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that delineated authority and specified procedures for effecting arrests of students while on school grounds. The MOU was approved by the Meridian City Council and the Meridian School Board. A review of MPD calls for service records indicate that both departments are performing their responsibilities consistent with the MOU. MPD remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 14 of 16

IV. COMMUNITY INPUT
A. Within six months of the Effective Date, the City, in consultation with the Police Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms as outlined herein and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns regarding the implementation of this consent decree. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance

N/A

DISCUSSION:

As stated in a prior Independent Police Auditor report, in May 2016, the City and MPD developed and implemented a community input plan to keep the community informed of its compliance efforts and hear community questions and concerns about Settlement Agreement implementation. The community input plan is compliant with the Settlement Agreement and is used by MPD and the City on an ongoing basis. The City remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

B. The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the City shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in place. A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement, the City’s progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns related to the implementation of this agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the City shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.

Compliance Rating as of June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

January 2018

Rating

Reviewed

12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 15 of 16

Substantial Compliance

Substantial Compliance DISCUSSION:

Public Notice of Meridian Police Department Community Meeting held on May 17, 2018; Meridian Facebook page posting; DOJ observation of community input meeting

On May 17, 2018, the City held its third community meeting at Mount Olive Missionary Baptist Church in Meridian. At the meeting, the City and MPD informed the public about the requirements of the Agreement and the City’s progress, and answered community questions about MPD implementation. The City advertised the meeting through publication in the local newspaper, announcements on local radio stations, and the City’s website. For the very first time, the City also advertised the meeting through the City’s Facebook page. Despite the increased social media outreach efforts, only five residents attended the meeting. The City has stated that it will brainstorm about and implement new strategies to increase community participation. These strategies will include reaching out directly to members of the public who attended prior meetings.
The City remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

C. The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The City shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website they create or maintain.

Compliance Rating as of January 2018
Substantial Compliance

June 2018 DOJ Compliance Supporting Documentation

Rating

Reviewed

Substantial Compliance

Action Plan and Compliance Report provided at the May 17, 2018 community meeting; Second Compliance Report; MPD quarterly compliance reviews for the first and

13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 126-1 Filed 09/12/18 Page 16 of 16

DISCUSSION:

second quarter of 2018; City website

At the May 2018 community meeting, the City provided the public with copies of its Action Plan and Compliance Report. The City also provided the public with its quarterly compliance review for the first quarter of 2018. (The quarterly compliance review is the City and MPD’s self-assessment of its compliance efforts.) The Action Plan and Compliance Report, Second Compliance Report, and quarterly compliance reviews for the first and second quarter of 2018 are available on the City’s website.
The City remains in substantial compliance with this Settlement Agreement provision.

14

 
 Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-60805
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
FILED
February 1, 2019
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk

v.

LAUDERDALE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI; JUDGE VELDORE YOUNGGRAHAM, In her official capacity; and JUDGE LISA HOWELL, In her official capacity,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Before REAVLEY, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. JENNIFER WALKER ELROD, Circuit Judge:
This case presents a question of statutory interpretation. The question is whether the phrase “officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice,” as it is used in 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a), includes the judges of a county youth court. Holding that it does not, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
I. As this is a question of statutory interpretation, we begin with the text of the statute. In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 Enforcement Act.1 Relevant to this case are the provisions found in Title XXI, § 210401, 108 Stat. 2071, now codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601. That section, enacted under a title heading of “State and Local Law Enforcement,” and a subtitle heading of “Police Pattern or Practice,” reads as follows:
(a) Unlawful conduct It shall be unlawful for any governmental authority, or any agent thereof, or any person acting on behalf of a governmental authority, to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles that deprives persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States. (b) Civil action by Attorney General Whenever the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of paragraph (1)2 has occurred, the Attorney General, for or in the name of the United States, may in a civil action obtain appropriate equitable and declaratory relief to eliminate the pattern or practice. 34 U.S.C. § 12601.
1 Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796 (1994).
2 The reference to “paragraph (1)” is presumably a scrivener’s error that should read “paragraph (a)”—as there does not appear to be a paragraph (1) in the associated statutory scheme to which it could plausibly be referring, and it appears quite clear that the intended reference was to paragraph (a). See also Holloway v. United States, 526 U.S. 1, 19 n.2 (1999) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (noting that a scrivener’s error in a statute may only properly be corrected by a court when the text is devoid of any plausible purpose for being written in that manner); United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 82 (1994) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“[T]he sine qua non of any ‘scrivener’s error’ doctrine . . . is that the meaning genuinely intended but inadequately expressed must be absolutely clear; otherwise we might be rewriting the statute rather than correcting a technical mistake.”).
2

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 II.
The United States Department of Justice initiated this litigation in October 2012. In its complaint, the United States alleged, inter alia,3 that Lauderdale County and its two Youth Court judges4 operated a “school-toprison pipeline” and, through their administration of the juvenile justice process, were engaged in patterns or practices that denied juveniles their constitutional rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.
Before we further address the litigation underlying this appeal, it will be useful to offer some background on the Lauderdale County Youth Court, its judges, and its procedures. In Mississippi, county youth courts are divisions of the county courts, and the judges of the county courts are also the judges of the youth courts. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-107. County judges are elected for terms of four years, and the Governor has authority to fill vacancies by appointment. Id. §§ 9-9-5, 9-7-1, 9-1-103. Lauderdale County is authorized two county judges. Id. § 9-9-18.3. When a juvenile is charged with offenses under youth court jurisdiction, he or she is brought before an intake officer of the court who establishes jurisdiction and recommends whether informal resolution or custody is warranted. Id. § 43-21-357. If the juvenile is placed into custody, he or she must be brought before a youth court judge within 48 hours—excluding weekends and holidays—for a probable cause determination. Id. § 43-21-301. If needed, the juvenile is appointed a guardian ad litem and/or
3 In the same complaint, the government also made allegations against the City of Meridian, through the Meridian Police Department, and the state of Mississippi, through its Division of Youth Services. However, those allegations are not part of the appeal before us.
4 The complaint and initial litigation named Judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young-Graham as defendants in their official capacities. During the course of this litigation, Judge Coleman was replaced by Judge Lisa Howell on the Youth Court, and the parties agree that she should be substituted in as a party to this appeal. We have therefore adjusted the style of the case to replace Judge Coleman with Judge Howell.
3

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 4 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 defense counsel. Id. §§ 43-21-121, 43-21-201. If the juvenile is held in custody, an adjudicatory hearing must be held within 21 days, with a few exceptions. Id. § 43-21-551. If the juvenile is adjudicated to be delinquent or in need of supervision, a disposition hearing must then be scheduled within 14 days. Id. § 43-21-601. If the disposition requires detention, the detention cannot exceed 90 days. Id. § 43-21-605(1)(l). To perform the work of the youth courts, the youth court judges may appoint intake officers, guardians ad litem, defense counsel, and prosecutors. Id. §§ 43-21-119 (intake officers); 43-21-117 (prosecutors); 43-21-121 (guardians ad litem); 43-21-201 (defense counsel). The county board of supervisors controls the funding and budget for county youth courts. Id. § 43-21-123.
The government brought this action against Lauderdale County and its Youth Court judges under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (formerly codified at 42 U.S.C. 14141). By way of alleged constitutional violations, the government alleges that the Lauderdale County judges: delay detention hearings for longer than 48 hours; do not base their detention determinations on whether probable cause exists; do not consistently provide defense counsel; do not clearly articulate the standards for school suspensions; do not conduct hearings that determine whether violations occurred but instead “exist solely to determine punishment[;]” and do not allow juveniles sufficient access to their attorneys.5
By way of relief, the complaint filed by the United States seeks: (1) a declaration that constitutional violations are occurring; (2) an injunction against said unconstitutional practices; (3) an order requiring the defendants “to promulgate and effectuate” policies more protective of constitutional rights;
5 This list is by no means exclusive of all the alleged constitutional violations pleaded by the government in their complaint, but it summarizes the judges’ alleged constitutional violations that were briefed by the government on appeal.
4

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 5 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 (4) an order directing the creation of “alternatives to detention and juvenile justice processes for children,” as well as the “review and expungement of youth records[;]” (5) for the court to retain jurisdiction until the defendants fully comply; and (6) “any such additional relief as the interests of justice require.” Though not the basis of our decision, we share the concerns expressed by the district court that the government appears to be seeking remedies that would not only exceed the authority of the Youth Court judges, but also dictate how the Youth Court judges shall perform their adjudicatory functions when enforcing state law.6 Accord ODonnell v. Harris Cty, 892 F.3d 147, 155 (5th Cir. 2018) (holding that the judge of a county court may be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when acting as a policymaker for the county, but not when “acting in his or her judicial capacity to enforce state law” (quoting Johnson v. Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1992))).
The litigation underlying this appeal was tied up in motions, discovery, and settlement discussions for years. The judges first moved to dismiss this litigation on Younger abstention grounds, but that argument was rejected by the district court. The judges next moved to dismiss on the grounds of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and judicial immunity. In September 2017, the district court rejected the Rooker-Feldman argument, but granted the motion to dismiss on the bases that the plain statutory language of 34 U.S.C. § 12601 did not encompass youth court judges, and also that the judges were entitled to judicial immunity with respect to the claims raised. The government timely
6 At oral argument, the government averred that, at least as applied to the judges, it is only seeking remedies that are “procedural” in nature. Oral Argument at 15:30, 16:10. United States v. Lauderdale Cty, (No. 17-60805), http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/oral-argumentinformation/oral-argument-recordings. However, the government subsequently declined multiple opportunities to explain, precisely, the nature of the remedies it is seeking against the judges. See, e.g., id. at 18:30, 19:55, 21:40.
5

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 6 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 appeals the statutory interpretation and judicial immunity determinations. As far as we are aware, this is the first—and thus far the only—Section 12601 claim brought against the judges of a youth court (or any court) to be resolved in the federal courts through adjudication.
III. The government contends that the district court erred in its conclusion that 34 U.S.C. § 12601 does not encompass the Lauderdale County Youth Court judges.7 Boiled down to its core, the argument between the parties is whether the phrase “officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice,” when viewed in the context of 34 U.S.C. § 12601, should include the judges of the Youth Court. To put an even finer point on the argument, the question is whether the Youth Court should be considered an “agency” under the statute. We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Matter of Glenn, 900 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2018). “The task of statutory interpretation begins and, if possible, ends with the language of the statute.” Trout Point Lodge, Ltd. v. Handshoe, 729 F.3d 481, 486 (5th Cir. 2013). “When the language is plain, we ‘must enforce the statute’s plain meaning, unless absurd.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Nowlin, 576 F.3d 258, 261–62 (5th Cir. 2009)); see also BedRoc Ltd. v. United States, 541 U.S. 176, 183 (2004) (“The preeminent canon of statutory interpretation requires [the court] to ‘presume that [the]
7 We note that the district court framed its analysis by: first holding that the judges had judicial immunity against the claims made against them in this case; and then holding that that judicial immunity was not overcome by 34 U.S.C. § 12601, as that statute does not apply to the judges. However, the question of judicial immunity as to specific claims need not be reached if the judges are not proper defendants under the statute to begin with. Accordingly, on appeal, both the government and the judges in this case correctly present the question as: first, whether the statute applies to judges; and second, if it does, whether the judges have judicial immunity against the specific claims made.
6

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 7 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.’ ” (quoting Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (1992))).
Because 34 U.S.C. § 12601 does not define how the term “agency” is used in the statute, we “look first to the word’s ordinary meaning.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. 401, 407 (2011). The government enters this analysis at a disadvantage. The Supreme Court has observed that “[i]n ordinary parlance, . . . courts are not described as ‘departments’ or ‘agencies’ of the Government.” Hubbard v. United States, 514 U.S. 695, 699 (1995). In fact, the Supreme Court has noted that “it would be strange indeed to refer to a court as an ‘agency.’ ” Id. Even setting that precedent aside, a common sense understanding of the word “agency” would seem to require, at least when the word is used in the ordinary sense, that there be a principal on behalf of whom the agent acts. See Agency, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990). The government does not identify what principal the Youth Court judges would be acting as agents for.
The fact that the word “agency” is not normally understood to include the courts does not mean that Congress could not have enacted a statute that includes them in the definition. Indeed, Congress has enacted several other statutes that do just that. See, e.g., 22 U.S.C. § 6106(1)8 (defining “agency” for the purposes of the Mansfield Fellowship Program to include “any court of the judicial branch”); 5 U.S.C. § 3371(3)9 (defining “[f]ederal agency” for the purposes of a statute governing employee assignments between the federal and state governments to include “a court of the United States”). But this fact also cuts against the government here. Given that Congress, when it so chooses,
8 Pub. L. 103-236, § 257, 108 Stat. 432 (1994). 9 Pub. L. 91-648, § 402(a), 84 Stat. 1920 (1971), amended by Pub. L. 95-454, § 603(a), 92 Stat. 1189 (1978).
7

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 8 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 knows how to deviate from the ordinary usage of “agency” by expressly defining the term to include courts, the fact that Congress did not do so in this statute weighs against deviating from the ordinary usage here.10 Accord Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 216 (2005) (noting, in the context of a different statutory interpretation question, that the inclusion of an overt act requirement in other statutes clearly demonstrated Congress “knows how to impose such a requirement when it wishes to do so”); Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 476 (2003) (noting that “[w]here Congress intends to refer to ownership in other than the formal sense, it knows how to do so”). But see 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B)11 (defining “agency” for the purposes of the Administrative Procedure Act to explicitly exclude the courts).
Recognizing that the ordinary usage of “agency” will not lead to its desired outcome, the government maintains that we must view the word in the context of the rest of the statute. See Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 9 (2004) (“[W]e construe language in its context and in light of the terms surrounding it”); Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132 (1993) (observing the “fundamental principle of statutory construction (and, indeed, of language itself) that the meaning of a word cannot be determined in isolation, but must be drawn from the context in which it is used”). See also Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, 69 (2012) (“Words are to be understood in their ordinary, everyday meanings—unless the context indicates that they bear a technical sense.”). So we now turn to the context.
10 The statute now codified at 22 U.S.C. § 6106(1) (expressly defining “agency” to include “any court” for the purposes of that act) and the statute now codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601 (not expressly defining “agency” to include courts for the purpose of that act) were both passed in 1994 by the same Congress.
11 Pub. L. 89–554, 80 Stat. 381 (1966).
8

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 9 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 We will begin our contextual analysis by looking at the title and subtitle of the statutory section enacting this text. While section headings are not controlling, they can be used as evidence when interpreting the operative text of the statute. See Yates v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1074, 1083 (2015) (plurality op.); id. at 1089–90 (Alito, J., concurring in the judgment); Almendarez–Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 234 (1998) (“the title of a statute and the heading of a section are tools available for the resolution of a doubt about the meaning of a statute” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As already noted, 34 U.S.C. § 12601 was enacted under the title heading of “State and Local Law Enforcement,” and the subtitle heading of “Police Pattern or Practice.” Pub. L. No. 103-322, § 210401, 108 Stat. 2071. Those headings do not support the government’s argument that the statute is intended to include judges.12 We next address the question of superfluity. “It is ‘a cardinal principle of statutory construction’ that ‘a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.’ ” TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (quoting Duncan v. Walker, 553 U.S. 167, 174 (2001)). See also Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., 720 F.3d 620, 622 (5th Cir. 2013) (“In construing a
12 The government argues that we should disregard those titles based on its assertion that, after the titles were written, the text was modified by an amendment whose sponsor made a single statement purportedly suggesting an intent to include juvenile court systems. We reject this argument. In construing a statute, it is our duty to evaluate the text that was actually enacted into law by both houses of Congress and the President. We will not go down the rabbit hole of attempting to divine the intent of Congress as a whole based on a single statement by a single Senator. Accord Blanchard v. Bergeron, 489 U.S. 87, 99 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“I decline to participate in this process. It is neither compatible with our judicial responsibility of assuring reasoned, consistent, and effective application of the statutes of the United States, nor conducive to a genuine effectuation of congressional intent[.]”); Texas v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 829 F.3d 405, 422 n.27 (5th Cir. 2016) (declining to consider a single comment in a House Report because “[w]e do not consider passing commentary in the legislative history . . . when the statutory text itself yields a single meaning”).
9

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 10 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 statute, a court should give effect, if possible, to every word and every provision Congress used.”). 34 U.S.C. § 12601 refers to “pattern[s] or practice[s] of conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice or the incarceration of juveniles[.]” (emphasis added). The government argues in its opening brief on appeal that the second clause would be rendered superfluous if we interpret Section 12601 to encompass only law enforcement personnel. However, that is not the only alternate reading of the statute. As the government rightly concedes in its Reply Brief, the second clause would still encompass more than law enforcement personnel even if not read to include youth court judges. The “incarceration of juveniles” language would clearly still include the personnel of the juvenile detention facilities, and, as the original parties to this litigation demonstrate, the “administration of juvenile justice” language would still include, just to name a few examples, both Lauderdale County and Mississippi’s Division of Youth Services. Thus, excluding the judges of the Youth Court from Section 12601 would not render portions of the statute superfluous.
The judges, for their part, raise a noscitur a sociis argument. “[W]e rely on the principle of noscitur a sociis—a word is known by the company it keeps—to ‘avoid ascribing to one word a meaning so broad that it is inconsistent with its accompanying words, thus giving unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress.’ ” Yates, 135 S. Ct. at 1085 (plurality op.) (quoting Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., 513 U.S. 561, 575 (1995)). See also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law at 195 (“When several [words] are associated in a context suggesting that the words have something in common, they should be assigned a permissible meaning that makes them similar.”). The judges argue that the principle of noscitur a sociis weighs towards interpreting the clause “conduct by law enforcement officers” as limiting the meaning of “any governmental
10

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 11 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 agency” to entities that are similar to law enforcement agencies. However, on this point the judges’ argument holds little water. As the government correctly points out, noscitur a sociis “is invoked when a string of statutory terms raises the implication that the ‘words grouped in a list should be given related meaning.’ ” S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 547 U.S. 370, 378 (2006) (quoting Dole v. Steelworkers, 494 U.S. 26, 36 (1990)). The statutory text “conduct by law enforcement officers or by officials or employees of any governmental agency” does not contain a string of terms; rather, it contains two independent clauses separated by a disjunctive “or.” See Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 138 S. Ct. 1134, 1141 (2018) (noting that “or” is “almost always disjunctive” (quoting United States v. Woods, 571 U.S. 31, 45 (2013))). As such, the noscitur a sociis argument does not support the judges’ argument that Section 12601 should be interpreted to exclude judges—though its rejection does not necessarily lend weight to the government’s countercontention that Section 12601 must be interpreted to include them. On net, this argument is a wash.
We now turn to the government’s argument that “governmental agency” should not be viewed in isolation, but instead should be interpreted as modified by the clause “with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice.” See, e.g., Leocal, 543 U.S. at 9 (“we construe language . . . in light of the terms surrounding it”). See also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law at 167 (noting that “the judicial interpreter [must] consider the entire text, in view of its structure and of the physical and logical relation of its many parts”). The government asserts that the modifying phrase “with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice” should be interpreted to include juvenile courts within the meaning of “governmental agency.” However, this argument is weak for the same reason that the superfluity argument fails. Even though juvenile courts
11

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 12 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 are indeed entities with responsibility for administering juvenile justice,13 not all entities are “agencies.” There is no shortage of non-adjudicatory entities with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice—most, if not all, of which are more amenable to the ordinary understanding of the word “agency” than is a court. It seems quite reasonable to infer that Congress was referring to those non-adjudicatory entities when enacting the phrase “governmental agency with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice[,]” and we see little support for the government’s argument that by adding such language Congress deviated from the ordinary usage of the term “agency.” As such, the government’s invocation of the modifying phrase “with responsibility for the administration of juvenile justice” is weak evidence for the proposition that the word “agency” should be interpreted outside its ordinary meaning.
The government also makes the related argument that the phrase “governmental agency” should be interpreted to include juvenile courts because the phrase is modified by the word “any.” Specifically, the government appears to argue that by using the phrase “any governmental agency,” what Congress intended to say was “all governmental entities.” This argument is just like the previous one, but weaker still. “Entity” is still not a synonym for “agency.” It is quite reasonable to infer that Congress, by use of the word “any,” was referring to any agency ordinarily referred to as an agency. As such, use of the word “any” to modify “governmental agency” is also weak evidence for the proposition that the phrase should be interpreted outside its ordinary meaning.
13 See Court, Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) (defining “court” as “a body organized to administer justice[.]”).
12

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 13 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 Finally, we will address the purpose argument. Congress’s stated purpose in authorizing the Attorney General to bring lawsuits under Section 12601 was “to eliminate the pattern or practice” of denying juveniles their constitutional and statutory rights. 34 U.S.C. § 12601(b). The government argues that because juvenile courts are a central part of the juvenile justice system, interpreting Section 12601 to exclude juvenile courts would “effectively vitiate” the purpose of the statute. See also Scalia & Garner, Reading Law at 63 (“A textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document’s purpose should be favored.”). However, “no law pursues its purpose at all costs, and . . . the textual limitations upon a law’s scope are no less a part of its ‘purpose’ than its substantive authorizations.” Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 752 (2006) (plurality op.). 34 U.S.C. § 12601 has a clear textual limitation in the form of the word “agency.” Moreover, given that the government can presumably still bring Section 12601 lawsuits against many other entities in the juvenile justice system without stretching the ordinary meaning of any words—including counties, city councils, mayors, police commissioners, correctional facilities, and youth services—we think it strains credulity to say that Congress’s purpose in enacting the statute would be vitiated unless the word “agency” was interpreted outside of its ordinary meaning. Therefore, we decline to interpret the word “agency,” as it is used in 34 U.S.C. § 12601, to encompass the Youth Court. As such, the district court did not err in dismissing the Section 12601 claims brought against the Lauderdale County Youth Court judges.
IV. We now turn to two residual matters raised by the parties. First, we consider the question of judicial immunity. The parties dedicate considerable portions of their briefs disputing whether or not the Youth Court judges should
13

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 14 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
No. 17-60805 have judicial immunity against the specific claims made against them in his lawsuit. However, because we hold that the text of 34 U.S.C. § 12601 is not applicable to the judges of the Youth Court, we do not reach the question of judicial immunity as to any of the specific claims raised in this case.14
Second, we consider the question of whether this lawsuit can continue against Lauderdale County if the Youth Court judges are excluded. Before the district court, the government argued that Lauderdale County was independently liable under Section 12601 because of its budgetary authority over the Youth Court and its alleged failure to provide indigent juveniles with adequate representation. However, on appeal, the government changed course and now only argues that dismissal of the County follows dismissal of the judges, and that reversing the latter also requires reversing the former.15 Moreover, at oral argument, counsel for the government conceded that it did not brief an independent basis for continuing the litigation against the County, and stated that if the judges are deemed to be outside of Section 12601 then the claims against the County should also be dismissed. Oral Argument at 59:00. We take the government at its word.
Therefore, because we hold that the district court did not err in dismissing the lawsuit against the judges on the basis that they are outside the scope of Section 12601, and because the government has affirmatively
14 We likewise do not consider the district court’s determinations regarding the Younger abstention and Rooker-Feldman arguments.
15 In a letter filed with the court after oral argument, the government argues that if we interpret Section 12601’s use of the phrase “governmental agency” to exclude the Youth Court, then we should remand to determine whether public defenders and non-judicial court personnel can be held liable under the statute. However, not only did the government fail to make that argument in its briefs, but it has also not named these persons as defendants in this litigation. As such, we decline the government’s invitation to remand for that purpose, and leave it be addressed in future cases where the issue is squarely raised and litigated. See, e.g., Sindhi v. Raina, 905 F.3d 327, 334 (5th Cir. 2018) (noting that issues not briefed will not be considered on appeal).
14

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819440 Page: 15 Date Filed: 02/01/2019 No. 17-60805
waived any other argument for continuing the lawsuit against the County, we affirm the dismissal of this litigation as it pertains to Lauderdale County. See United States v. Young, 872 F.3d 742, 747 (5th Cir. 2017) (“Waiver is the ‘intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.’ ” (quoting United States v. Arviso-Mata, 442 F.3d 382, 384 (5th Cir. 2006))).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
15

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/01/2019

LYLE W. CAYCE CLERK

United States Court of Appeals
FIFTH CIRCUIT OFFICE OF THE CLERK
TEL. 504-310-7700 600 S. MAESTRI PLACE,
Suite 115 NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130

February 01, 2019

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES LISTED BELOW

Regarding: Fifth Circuit Statement on Petitions for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc

No. 17-60805 USA v. City of Meridian, et al USDC No. 3:13-CV-978

--------------------------------------------------Enclosed is a copy of the court's decision. The court has entered judgment under FED. R. APP. P. 36. (However, the opinion may yet contain typographical or printing errors which are subject to correction.)

FED. R. APP. P. 39 through 41, and 5TH Cir. R.s 35, 39, and 41 govern costs, rehearings, and mandates. 5TH Cir. R.s 35 and 40 require you to attach to your petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc an unmarked copy of the court's opinion or order. Please read carefully the Internal Operating Procedures (IOP's) following FED. R. APP. P. 40 and 5TH CIR. R. 35 for a discussion of when a rehearing may be appropriate, the legal standards applied and sanctions which may be imposed if you make a nonmeritorious petition for rehearing en banc.

Direct Criminal Appeals. 5TH CIR. R. 41 provides that a motion for a stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41 will not be granted simply upon request. The petition must set forth good cause for a stay or clearly demonstrate that a substantial question will be presented to the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this court may deny the motion and issue the mandate immediately.

Pro Se Cases. If you were unsuccessful in the district court and/or on appeal, and are considering filing a petition for certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, you do not need to file a motion for stay of mandate under FED. R. APP. P. 41. The issuance of the mandate does not affect the time, or your right, to file with the Supreme Court.

Court Appointed Counsel. Court appointed counsel is responsible for filing petition(s) for rehearing(s) (panel and/or en banc) and writ(s) of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, unless relieved of your obligation by court order. If it is your intention to file a motion to withdraw as counsel, you should notify your client promptly, and advise them of the time limits for filing for rehearing and certiorari. Additionally, you MUST confirm that this information was given to your client, within the body of your motion to withdraw as counsel.

Case: 17-60805 Document: 00514819449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/01/2019
The judgment entered provides that each party bear its own costs on appeal.
Sincerely, LYLE W. CAYCE, Clerk
By: _______________________ Debbie T. Graham, Deputy Clerk Enclosure(s) Ms. Tovah Calderon Ms. Kathleen Ingram Carrington Ms. Christine Anne Monta Mr. Luther T. Munford Mr. Lee Thaggard

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 1 of 8

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

United States of America,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

v.

)

)

)

City of Meridian; State of Mississippi;

)

Mississippi Department of Human Services; and )

Mississippi Division of Youth Services,

)

)

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

Civil Action No. 3:13-CV-978-HTW-LRA

JOINT MOTION TO TERMINATE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

The United States of America and the City of Meridian (collectively, “the Parties”) jointly move this Court to enter an order terminating the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) entered in this case.1 As determined in the attached United States’ Final Assessment of the City of Meridian’s Compliance with the Settlement Agreement (“Assessment”) (see Attachment 1), the City of Meridian is in substantial compliance with all provisions of the Agreement, and has maintained substantial compliance with those provisions for a year. The parties hereby respectfully request that this Court terminate the Agreement pursuant to Section VII.B. of the Agreement, which requires termination “when the City has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions of this Agreement and has maintained that substantial compliance for 12 twelve consecutive months.”

1

See Order Granting Motion for Settlement Agreement, ECF No 83.

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 2 of 8

DISCUSSION 1. On December 1, 2011, the United States opened an investigation into the administration of juvenile justice in Lauderdale County, Mississippi pursuant to the Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (re-codified at 34 U.S.C. § 12601).

2. On August 10, 2012, the United States issued a letter determining that there was reasonable cause to believe the City of Meridian, through its police department, had engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct by arresting Meridian public school students without probable case that an unlawful offense had been committed.

3. In August of 2012, the City revised its policy on school-based arrests. The revised policy limited the circumstances under which Meridian Police Department officers can arrest youth on school grounds. However, there was disagreement between the parties as to whether the City’s revisions fully remedied the United States’ allegations.

4. On October 24, 2012, the United States filed a complaint against the City of Meridian, the Lauderdale County Youth Court Judges, Lauderdale County, and the State of Mississippi alleging violations of substantive and procedural due process rights afforded to youth who appear in Lauderdale County Youth Court.2

2

U.S. Compl., ECF No. 1. The United States also entered into a Settlement Agreement with the State of

Mississippi, resolving its claims against the State alleging due process violations in youth probation services. See

Order Granting Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 84. The United States’ claims against the Lauderdale County

Youth Court Judges and Lauderdale County were dismissed by this Court on September 30, 2017, Memorandum

Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 116, and the dismissal was affirmed by Fifth Circuit on

February 1, 2019. Certified Copy of USCA Judgment, ECF No, 129.

2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 3 of 8

5. On November 20, 2012, the City of Meridian answered the complaint by denying that it had violated such substantive and procedural due process rights afforded to youth within its jurisdiction.
6. On September 18, 2015, at the request of the Parties, this Court entered the Agreement, which resolves the United States’ claims against the City of Meridian.3
7. The Agreement prohibits the Meridian Police Department (“MPD”) from arresting children for behavior that should be addressed as a school discipline issue. The Agreement requires the MPD to create policies and training detailing the specific and limited circumstances under which school-based arrests4 may be conducted, and provide due process protections to those youths who are arrested. It requires the City of Meridian to seek a Memorandum of Understanding between the MPD and the Meridian Public School District Police Department that delineates authority and specifies procedures for effecting school-based arrests. The Agreement also requires officers to receive training regarding interactions with juveniles while on school grounds, including bias-free policing and youth and adolescent development training, and for the department to track and thoroughly investigate complaints about school-based arrests and MPD conduct in schools. Additionally, it requires the City to collect and make public data on school-

3

See Order Granting Motion for Settlement Agreement, ECF No. 83.

4

The Agreement defines “school-based arrest” as an arrest of a Meridian Public School student on property

controlled by the Meridian Public School District while the student is attending school, at school programs or

events, and being transported to and from school on buses controlled by the Meridian Public School District.

Settlement Agreement at II.N.

3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 4 of 8

based arrests and hold community input meetings every six months to inform the community of the City’s progress in implementing the Agreement.

8. In April 2016, the Court approved the Parties’ choice of an Independent Police Auditor (“Auditor”) to monitor the City’s compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Shortly after the appointment of the Auditor,5 the City began implementing measures to comply with the Agreement’s provisions:

• It created a policy prohibiting officers from engaging in school-based arrests unless specified circumstances exist and trained officers on the policy;
• It drafted and finalized a joint Memorandum of Understanding with the Meridian Public School District Police Department delineating authority and specifying procedures for conducting school-based arrests;
• It revised its complaint policy to ensure that complaints about school-based arrests and MPD conduct in schools are appropriately investigated and officers are held accountable;
• It conducted bias-free policing and child and adolescent training for its officers; • It regularly held community input meetings to advise the public on the City’s progress
implementing the terms of the Agreement, and posted on the City’s website any significant actions taken as a result of the Agreement.

9. In December 2017, after issuing several reports assessing the City’s compliance efforts and the progress made, the Auditor determined that the City was in substantial compliance with

5

See Order Granting Motion to Select Police Foundation as Auditor, ECF No. 99.

4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 5 of 8
all Agreement provisions. In January 2018, the case was transitioned from monitoring by the Independent Auditor to monitoring by the United States, as permitted by Section V.F. of the Agreement.6
10. Based upon the United States’ monitoring of the Agreement, the United States has concluded, and the City of Meridian agrees, that the City has remained in substantial compliance with all of its provisions for over twelve consecutive months. As the attached Assessment demonstrates, no school-based arrests have been made. MPD officers are following the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to by the parties. MPD officers are continuing to receive training regarding interactions with juveniles. The City has held several community input meetings, and posted on its website the measures it has taken to come into compliance with the Agreement.
CONCLUSION Accordingly, the Parties jointly move this Court to enter an order terminating the Settlement Agreement entered in this case.

6

See Notice of Filing of Independent Auditor’s Final Compliance Report, ECF No. 123.

5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 6 of 8

For Plaintiff United States:
D. MICHAEL HURST United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi

ERIC S. DREIBAND Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

/s/ Mitzi Dease Paige MITZI DEASE PAIGE (Bar No. 6014) (MA Bar. No. 548997) Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS. 39201 Phone: (601) 965-4480 Direct: (601) 973-2840 Facsimile: 601) 965-4409 E-mail: mitzi.paige@usdoj.gov

STEVEN H. ROSENBAUM Chief Special Litigation Section
SHELLEY R. JACKSON (MA. Bar No. 548997) Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
/s/ F. Nicole Porter JACQUELINE CUNCANNAN (DC Bar No. 462985) RICHARD GOEMANN (DC Bar No. 405030) F. NICOLE PORTER (DC Bar No. 465742) Attorneys U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 616-3119 Facsimile: (202) 514-6903 E-mail: nicole.porter@usdoj.gov

6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 7 of 8

For the City of Meridian:

/s/ Ronnie L. Walton (by permission)
RONNIE L. WALTON (MS Bar No. 6933) Glover, Young, Hammack, Walton & Simmons, PLLC 1724-A 23rd Avenue Post Office Box 5514 Meridian, Mississippi 39302-5514 Telephone: 601-693-1301 Telecopier: 601-693-1363 Ronnie@gloveryoung.com

7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 131 Filed 05/23/19 Page 8 of 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 23rd day of May, 2019, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing Joint Notice to Terminate Settlement Agreement and the accompanying attachment with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to those Parties identified in the Case Management System.
/s/ F. Nicole Porter F. Nicole Porter
8

 
 Case 3:13-cv-00IN97T8H-HETUWN-LITREAD SDToAcuTmEeSnDt I1S2T7RIFCilTedC1O1U/2R7T/18 Page 1 of 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN DIVISION

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v. City of Meridian, et al.
Defendants.

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No.

)

3:13-CV-978

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

NOTICE OF FILING

To: All Counsel of Record
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on November 27, 2018, the United States caused to be filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, Northern Division, the following document, attached hereto: Sixth Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor.
/s/ Richard C. Goemann Richard C. Goemann (D.C. Bar No. 405030)
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Phone: (202) 353-1313 Facsimile: (202) 514-4883 E-mail: richard.goemann@usdoj.gov

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th day of November, 2018, I electronically filed a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing and the accompanying attachment with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which sent notification of such filing to those Parties identified in the Case Management System.
/s/ Richard C. Goemann Richard C. Goemann

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 1 of 33
Sixth Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor U.S. v. City of Meridian, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:13‐CV‐978‐HTW‐LRA
Draft submitted: September 16, 2018 Final submitted: November 26, 2018
Dana Shoenberg dshoenberg@cclp.org 301‐602‐1610

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 2 of 33
I. Introduction
This is the sixth report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor, prepared pursuant to the settlement agreement between the State of Mississippi and the United States in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al.
In June 2015, the State of Mississippi (“the State”) and the United States Department of Justice (“Justice Department”) reached an agreement to resolve the United States’ investigation and litigation regarding the State’s handling of youth referred for law enforcement by public schools. The investigation and subsequent litigation included the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Department of Human Services Division of Youth Services (DYS). The State of Mississippi and the City of Meridian reached settlements with the Justice Department, and on September 30, 2017, the United States District Court dismissed the Justice Department’s claims against Lauderdale County and its two sitting juvenile court judges. An appeal of the dismissal remains in litigation.
This report addresses the agreement reached between the State of Mississippi and the United States (“the parties”) regarding youth probation services provided by DYS to children facing delinquency charges in the Lauderdale County Youth Court. On November 18, 2015, pursuant to the settlement agreement, the parties jointly selected me, Dana Shoenberg, J.D., LL.M., as the Probation Services Independent Auditor. The agreement requires that the Independent Auditor conduct compliance reviews every six months, with additional reviews as necessary if emergent issues arise. The report below outlines my findings from the compliance review conducted August 13 through 17, 2018. This is the sixth compliance review since the parties reached a settlement in this matter.
II. Compliance Review Findings
This report includes a summary of compliance findings and a detailed description of the State’s compliance status in each substantive area of the settlement agreement. The summary of compliance findings in Part A includes a chart listing each provision and the State’s level of compliance. The detailed compliance ratings in Part B include: the full text of each provision, the compliance rating, a discussion of the Auditor’s findings, recommendations for reaching compliance, and a description of the evidentiary basis for the Auditor’s findings. The parties agreed upon the following terms to describe levels of compliance:
Non‐compliance means that the State has made no notable progress in achieving compliance on any of the key components of the provision.
Beginning compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with a few, but less than half, of the key components of the provision.
2

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 3 of 33
Partial compliance means that the State has made notable progress in achieving compliance with the key components of the provision, but substantial work remains.
Substantial compliance means that the State has met or achieved all or nearly all the components of a particular provision.
A. Summary of Compliance Findings
This compliance review visit provided an opportunity to assess the results of several new trainings that were conducted since my last visit and to observe implementation of updates to key policies.
The agency focused its implementation efforts on training this spring, conducting three trainings specific to Lauderdale County and also involving staff in other agency‐wide training opportunities. The county‐specific trainings included one on graduated responses, one on professional roles of juvenile justice system personnel, and one on disposition planning. In addition, employees attended an agency‐wide training on motivational interviewing and the State’s juvenile justice conference, which offered many options for learning sessions. Over the past 6 months, the agency also adopted a policy establishing a process for timely revision of existing policies, completed its first two policy reviews and revisions under the policy, and updated two policies to incorporate new forms.
The State has reached substantial compliance and sustained it for one year in several new areas. These include: providing notices to youth and guardians about probation, inquiring into understanding and using youth‐appropriate language (Sections III(A)(1)(a‐c)); probation contract revisions (Sections III(A)(2)(c)(i and ii)); exhaustion of alternatives before recommending incarceration for probation violations (Section III(A)(2)(c)(iii)); recommending diversion from incarceration and monitoring funding opportunities (Section III(B)(1)); policy and procedure review (Section VIII(A)(2)); policy and procedure implementation (Section VIII(A)(4)) (as it pertains to adoption, beginning implementation and revision of policies); and completion of a biannual compliance report (Section VIII(B)(2)). Other sections reached substantial compliance for the first time: development and implementation of training plans (Section III(C)(1, 3 and 4).
As of my last report, the State had sustained substantial compliance for one year in the following areas: establishment of fixed meeting schedules and notification of counsel (Section III(A)(1)(d)); adoption of a risk and needs assessment (part of Section III(A)(2)(b)); recommending diversion where appropriate at the disposition decision point (part of Section III(B)(1)); notice to staff, agents and others of the settlement agreement (Section V(B)); and community input (Sections IV(A‐C)). As agreed between the parties, I did not spend time assessing compliance in these areas during my visit. For the items listed in the previous paragraph as having reached one year of sustained substantial compliance, this will be the last time that I monitor compliance with those items as well.
3

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 4 of 33
The next important steps for the State’s compliance activities include: revising the training policy and implementing the last required training; revising the draft graduated incentives and sanctions grids and implementing them fully in Lauderdale County; and updating remaining documents including the Desktop Guide to Probation Practice, the Core Training Manual as it pertains to the topics covered in this agreement, and any other operational documents such as job descriptions and performance evaluation materials, as appropriate, to reflect the requirements of the settlement agreement.
As with my prior visits, significant challenges remain in monitoring implementation of this settlement agreement while the appeal of the District Court’s dismissal of some defendants from the lawsuit continues. The State has continued to provide access to all of its own documentation and employees related to this agreement, and has also been more than helpful in helping me seek access to information under control of others. However, because of the ongoing litigation, I have not been permitted to observe Youth Court, review documents or databases generated or controlled by the Court, or interview County employees. These circumstances continue to limit my ability to gain a full picture of YSCs’ interactions with judges, court personnel, youth, families and others. I have done my best to develop as full a picture as possible given these limitations.
I reviewed documents generated during the past 6 months by YSCs for 23 youth. These documents included YSC case notes, completed SAVRY scoring forms, social histories, recommendations to the court, and forms that tracked the procedural history of the case. I reviewed these documents for youth who were reported for probation violations from February through June 2018, as well as a random sample from each staff member’s caseload and the caseload assigned to the vacant position, which has been managed by one of the YSCs since a longtime YSC’s retirement this spring.
I reviewed the following additional documents while on site:
 Confirmations of staff training; and  Results of pre‐ and post‐testing associated with trainings conducted.
The State submitted other documents for feedback and/or review prior to and immediately following the visit as well, including:
 The State’s compliance report;  Radio spot regarding the Community Forum;  Web postings regarding the Community Forum;  Draft of Lauderdale County Graduated Incentives and Sanctions grids; and  Monthly probation violation tracking forms.
4

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 5 of 33

Table I summarizes my compliance findings, and detailed discussions follow.
Table I. Compliance Ratings, by Provision

Provision number
III.A.1.a III.A.1.b III.A.1.c
III.A.1.d
III.A.2.a
III.A.2.b
III.A.2.c.i
III.A.2.c.ii
III.A.2.c.iii III.A.3.a

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating Monitoring Completed?

Protections Against Self‐ incrimination ‐ Notice to youth Protections Against Self‐ incrimination ‐ Notice to youths’ guardians Protections Against Self‐ incrimination – Inquiry about youths’ understanding and use of youth‐appropriate language Protections Against Self‐ incrimination – Fixed meeting schedule, notification of counsel, rescheduling meetings for counsel Probation Review and Revocation – Probation status review by Youth Services Counselors
Probation Review and Revocation – Use of graduated responses and risk assessment tool for court recommendations
Probation Conditions – Understandable language and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement Probation Contracts – Clear explanation of youth rights, including how to satisfy mandatory school attendance Limits on recommending incarceration for probation violations Review of Policies and Procedures – Revise for compliance with settlement agreement

Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
The parties have agreed that this section will not be audited. Substantial compliance for risk assessment sustained one year; partial compliance for graduated responses. Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
Substantial compliance Sustained 1 year
Partial compliance

Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes for risk assessment; no for graduated responses Yes
Yes
Yes
No

5

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 6 of 33

Provision number
III.A.3.b III.B.1
III.C.1 III.C.2 III.C.3 III.C.4 IV.A‐C V.B
VIII.A.1
VIII.A.2

Description of Provision

Compliance Rating Monitoring Completed?

Reassess effectiveness of policies, procedures and practices annually and revise as necessary Diversion and Treatment Options – Recommend youth for existing diversion where appropriate and monitor future funding opportunities Training – Develop training plans
Training – cover topics relevant to responsibilities in delinquency proceedings Training – Begin implementing training plans within 12 months, then annually Training – submit to Auditor and U.S. Community Input
Implementation and Monitoring – Notification to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents and independent contractors Policies and Procedures – Generate policies and procedures to ensure compliance and submit for review Policies and Procedures – Complete Policy and Procedure Review within 6 months

Substantial Compliance No Sustained through 2 compliance periods Substantial Compliance Yes Sustained 1 year

Substantial compliance No

Partial compliance

No

Substantial compliance No

Substantial compliance No
Substantial compliance Yes Sustained 1 year Substantial compliance Yes Sustained 1 year

Partial compliance

No

Substantial compliance Yes Sustained 1 year. Remaining policy will be monitored under III(A)(3)(a).

VIII.A.4

Policies and Procedures – Adopt and begin implementation within 3 months after finalizing; implement within one year

Substantial compliance Yes for all finalized policies. Sustained one year. Implementation of remaining policy and modification of ancillary documents

6

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 7 of 33

Provision number
VIII.B.2

Description of Provision
Reporting – Biannual compliance report

Compliance Rating Monitoring Completed?
will be monitored under other relevant sections including III(A)(3)(a). Substantial compliance Yes Sustained 1 year

B. Detailed Compliance Ratings
This section provides details about compliance with each substantive provision in the agreement.
Table II. Detailed Compliance Ratings

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.a
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that Youth Services Counselors provide youth at their initial meeting a notice using youth‐appropriate language regarding the following:
i. the youth services process, including the role of the Youth Services Counselor;
ii. the potential consequences to youth for violating their probation contract, including the range of sanctions the youth may face;
iii. an explanation of the probation [review and]1 revocation process, including the youth’s right to challenge allegations of probation violations, and the youth’s right to counsel in revocation hearings.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

1 The parties have agreed that the words “review and” are extraneous in the above provision, and that the Auditor should not include them in compliance reviews and assessments.
7

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 8 of 33

Discussion

During this period, staff continued to use the revised probation and informal adjustment contracts as well as the new handouts to provide notice to youth and their families of the required topics.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has now sustained substantial compliance for one year, and this provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with YSCs; review of youth files; conversations with youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.b
DYS shall also make diligent efforts to provide the notice described above to the youths’ guardians.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

At the beginning of a youth’s probation and often during the course of probation, YSCs meet with youth and their parents or guardians together. Therefore, early conversations about what to expect while on probation include both youth and their families. As a result, the State’s compliance with the notice requirements is the same for the youths’ guardians as it is for the youth.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

As described above, the State has sustained substantial compliance for one year, and this provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis

Conversations with YSCs; review of youth files; conversations with youth and families.

8

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 9 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.c
The DYS shall inquire into the Child’s ability to understand the probation process and ensure that this process is explained in youth‐ appropriate language.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

Staff are consistently reviewing each contract provision and having youth initial once they understand, and are also initialing the document themselves after confirming that youth understand. Youth and family members with whom I spoke reported that YSCs explained the probation process thoroughly and that they did not leave with questions about what to expect.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has now sustained substantial compliance for one year, and this provision will not be subject to further monitoring. The State has revised its policies to reflect use of the new contracts as well.

Evidentiary Basis Review of youth files; conversations with staff, youth and families.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.1.d
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will set a fixed meeting schedule at the youth’s initial meeting for all subsequent probation meetings, notify the youth’s counsel of the meeting schedule and make best efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting. Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors will document their efforts to reschedule a probation meeting should the youth request the presence of counsel who is unavailable at the time of the previously scheduled meeting.
9

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 10 of 33

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance reached in January 2017 and sustained for one year – no longer subject to monitoring.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.b.
The DYS shall develop, at a minimum, a table of graduated responses and a risk assessment tool, which the Youth Services Counselors shall use when making recommendations to the Youth Court Judges regarding the appropriate response to youth conduct.

Compliance Rating

For risk assessment tool, the State reached substantial compliance in January 2017 and sustained it for one year, so the risk assessment part of this provision is no longer subject to monitoring.

For graduated responses, partial compliance.

Discussion

Graduated responses
The State has made progress in its work to adopt and implement graduated responses for youth on probation. This spring, a DYS regional supervisor provided additional training to Lauderdale County YSCs about effective use of graduated incentives and sanctions. Staff were motivated by the training to take additional steps to gather tangible incentives to offer youth for positive behavior on probation. They also worked to develop solid first drafts of local incentives and sanctions grids. After developing the draft grids, they provided them to the local judges for feedback, but as of the time of my visit they had not yet received any feedback, and the grids were not in use.
I provided the staff with some suggestions to improve or reconsider elements in the version of the grids I was provided. For example, I noted where the lists of sanction and incentive options appeared to have duplication of available measures and where they used different language for the same concept from box to box. Some boxes omitted options that seemed as though they might have been unintentional, so I encouraged staff to review each box to determine whether they intended to eliminate sanction options. For example, in the draft sanctions grid, “Phone call to parent” was listed as an option for YSCs to
10

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 11 of 33
use with youth assessed as high risk who were accused of minor probation infractions, but it did not appear as an option for youth assessed as moderate and low risk who were accused of minor probation infractions. Discussion revealed that in some cases staff had not meant to discard options for certain risk levels of youth.
Similarly, in the incentives grid, which is broken into columns of incentives available for completion of short term goals and long term goals, some significant incentives appeared in the short term goal column, but conversation revealed that staff thought they would be more appropriate to offer youth who achieved significant goals. Some contemplated incentives, such as a meal with a judge, require commitment from the youth court judges and agreement as to when such an incentive would be appropriate to offer before they can be fully implemented. Therefore, further revisions to the grid by staff and consultation with the youth court judges are needed.
In practice, I saw clear uses of incentives and sanctions in a variety of cases I reviewed and client meetings I attended, and YSCs appear to be embracing the concepts. For example, adjustment of curfew times, moving them both later and earlier, was commonly used for incentives and sanctions. Other examples of incentives included verbal praise, allowing youth to skip meetings with the YSC, early release from electronic monitoring, certificates of accomplishment, food treats, and other gifts that staff had collected from local donors.
On the sanctions side, YSCs seem to be using verbal interventions, moving curfew to earlier times, seeking electronic monitoring extensions, encouraging parents to use home discipline strategies, and referring youth to additional services as responses to noncompliance. YSCs also work with families, service providers, and the county electronic monitoring operator to identify significant violations and file complaint questionnaires with the court.
There is still some fine tuning to be done to integrate incentives and sanctions effectively and consistently into case planning and practice, but the more recent case plans from May and later months showed clear improvements from earlier in the year. In earlier case plans from the year, I saw many examples of sections left blank, but by summer, staff were completing more parts of the case plan. For example, the case supervision plan has sections that are included to ensure that staff will engage in a discussion with youth and their families about incentives and sanctions that would be meaningful to them. In some files earlier in the compliance period, this section was not filled in. In
11

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 12 of 33
addition, for each criminogenic need on which the counselor plans to focus with the youth, the case plan includes spaces for individual action steps and the incentives promised if youth complete the action step. In some case plans, there were no action steps or incentives filled in. By summer, staff were completing more of the boxes.
There is also space in the case plan for the YSC to fill in the date each incentive was received. There are spaces below that for additional action steps upon completion of the first one. I did not see any case plans in which the date received had been filled in. The committee that developed the new case plan included the “date received” space as a way to ensure that incentives were actually provided and documented. When a youth completes an assigned task and an incentive has been promised, it is critical to the graduated response system that the youth actually receive the incentive promised. Also, as action steps are completed, other ones should replace them in a case plan so it becomes a living document to guide next steps for youth, family and counselor.
I saw some examples of incentives provided during the course of probation, but in other cases, the case plans indicated that incentives would only be earned after the full length of probation. For example, I reviewed case plans that said that youth must have negative drug screens for six months in order to earn an incentive. Another file require a youth to take all mental health medications daily as required for six months in order to earn an incentive. One useful aspect of incentives is that they can engage youth by helping them work toward and achieve small, attainable accomplishments during the course of probation so that they stay motivated. If the rewards come at the end of probation, the incentives are not being used to their fullest potential to motivate youth to progress through the court’s expectations. I saw more examples of incentives tied to shorter term actions in later case plans. For example, one plan identified a youth’s criminogenic need as mental health/emotional stability/personal hygiene. The objective goal for the youth was to practice personal hygiene daily, and the counselor had set a measurable activity/action step: “Youth will bathe daily and put on clean clothes daily and continuing (2 weeks straight).” The incentive available for completion of the activity was a food gift certificate. This is an example of an effective, measurable, attainable and time‐bound goal with a specific incentive tied to it.
One youth I spoke with was given three incentive items on the final day of probation. The youth was surprised, not having been expecting anything at all. This suggests that the incentives were not incorporated into case planning or previous conversations with this young person.
12

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 13 of 33

With a limited number of tangible incentives available, it would make sense to spread them across the course of probation, rather than just saving them for the end.
Another case plan in a file I reviewed was not completed, but it did identify “Drugs” as the main criminogenic need area, and it identified as a potential incentive that “If youth acts right 30 days on monitor will not be drug tested until 2nd month.” I was glad to see that the YSC contemplated providing an incentive earlier than the end of probation, but concerned about the offer of a possible incentive that sends a mixed message about what the youth most needs to focus on. If drug use is the central problem for the youth, then incentivizing electronic monitoring compliance with reduced drug use surveillance seems like a mismatch. In addition, “if youth acts right” does not provide the youth enough guidance about a measurable and specific goal because it is vague and subject to varying interpretation.
Overall, it is exciting to see that staff have begun to appreciate the value of using graduated responses, that they are discussing them with youth and their families and writing them more regularly into case plans, and that there has been clear progress in developing and implementing a written guide for their use. The steps remaining to reach substantial compliance should be achievable within the near term.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To reach substantial compliance with regard to graduated responses, DYS staff in Lauderdale County must complete editing their incentives and sanctions grids and then implement them. Ideally, this will involve input from the youth court judges, but DYS will be in substantial compliance if staff make their best efforts to engage the judges, including attempting to schedule a meeting with the judges and reminding the judges that DYS is awaiting feedback. If the judges do not collaborate with DYS after best efforts have been made, DYS will achieve substantial compliance if it implements edited grids that make use of its own available resources.

In addition, discussion with youth and families of incentives and sanctions should be consistently reflected in case supervision plans; incentives should be tied to individual specific, measurable, attainable, reasonable and time‐bound goals; and provision of incentives when they have been earned should be clearly documented in the case plan.

13

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 14 of 33

Other documents such as the Desktop Guide and orientation materials must be updated to incorporate the practice, approach and philosophy embodied in the new graduated response and SAVRY policies.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC‐generated documents about individual youth including case supervision plans; draft Graduated Response grids; interviews with DYS staff and management; review of dispositional planning training materials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.i.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DYS shall, to the extent necessary, adopt or revise policies, procedures, and practices to ensure that conditions of youths’ probation are written in simple terms that are easily understandable to youths and prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The revised informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts remain in use. I identified one concern: I noted in several files that one of the YSCs was filling in the contract section marked, “Stay away from the following places:” with the words “drug known areas.” I explained to both the YSC and supervisor that setting a rule that youth must stay away from known drug areas was the kind of vague and overly broad instruction that the settlement was trying to prevent. Both the counselor and supervisor were assigned to Lauderdale County after the initial implementation of the settlement when this issue was first addressed. This one aberration on its own does not negate the State’s substantial compliance. However, it speaks to the importance of ensuring that instructions to prevent inappropriate contract entries are part of new employee training and guidance for YSC practice.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has now sustained substantial compliance for one year, and this provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

14

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 15 of 33

Evidentiary Basis

Review of probation contracts and youth files; discussion with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.ii.
Probation contracts shall:
1. Include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights in the contract; and
2. Specify how children can satisfy the mandatory school attendance requirement while on probation.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

As explained above, the agency has revised and implemented use of the new informal adjustment, probation and parole contracts and policies, and staff continue to use the contracts.
One family expressed frustration that there are not more options in the county for youth who are suspended or expelled from school. Agency staff explained to me that the youth court was exploring expanding the education options for youth not permitted to be in school, but such new options are not yet available.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has now sustained substantial compliance for one year. This provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of youth files; discussion with YSCs, youth, families, and other agency officials.

15

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 16 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.2.c.iii.
Youth Services Counselors shall not recommend incarcerating a youth for violations of their probation contract that would not otherwise amount to a detainable offense, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

For purposes of assessing compliance with this section, I have broken the review into three subcategories: time of arrest, detention hearing, and disposition hearing.
As explained previously, staff in Lauderdale County do not normally make recommendations about whether to detain youth at the time of arrest. Those decisions are made by designees, often outside of work hours. YSCs generally are not the ones to sign the affidavit that forms the basis for the probation violation; witnesses to the violations, including parents, program directors, and the County employee responsible for electronic monitoring, are usually the ones to sign the affidavits.
The second detention decision point is at the detention hearing. A YSC attends the hearing, and will only make a recommendation regarding detention if the judge asks. In the cases where YSCs have recommended use of detention pending disposition for a youth violating probation, it appeared that the youth either had charges for new detainable offenses in addition to the probation violations or that, to the extent I could tell from counselor notes in the probation file and interviews, all locally available alternatives had been exhausted. One of the public defenders reported that the staff continue to work hard to seek available options before recommending detention or out of home placement.
The third stage at which YSCs may recommend incarceration or alternatives is in conjunction with the formal hearing on a probation violation. In cases where staff recommended that detention be used as a disposition, either the youth had new charges along with the probation violations or it appeared from available documents and

16

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 17 of 33

interviews that all locally available alternatives had been exhausted. According to the DYS director, Lauderdale County did not send any youth to the State’s secure placement facility during 2017 or the first half of 2018.
I had previously recommended that when the YSCs complete the social summaries, they write in the date when it was written or updated. I did not see that suggestion implemented in the files I reviewed. Reports should have dates on them so that the reader can more easily determine what period of time the recommendations cover, how recently they were updated, and which court hearing the recommendations correspond with. Therefore, I continue to recommend that YSCs include a date completed on their social summaries.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency has sustained substantial compliance with this provision for one year. This provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of YSC logs, written recommendations and case notes; discussions with YSCs and other agency officials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.a.
Within 90 days of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall revise its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements to ensure compliance with this Settlement Agreement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

The agency has nearly finished its policy revisions. During this compliance period the agency revised forms for case planning and risk assessment review, and reissued policies that referred to those documents. It also adopted a case supervision plan policy, which the parties agreed was outside the scope of the settlement agreement, and a policy providing for annual review of policies.
17

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 18 of 33

We have agreed that the only remaining new policy development work required under the agreement is revision of the training policy.
As described above, there is still work to be done on implementation of the graduated response policy, and work is still necessary to finish presenting the required training topics, issue the training policy, and revise other documents necessary to fully implement the agreement.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To achieve substantial compliance, the agency will need to complete its review of its written materials, including the Desktop Guide, orientation training materials, staff evaluation materials, and other documents that guide staff practice. The agency must ensure that each provision in the settlement agreement is incorporated in key documents in sufficient detail to support full implementation of the settlement agreement’s requirements. Staff must fully incorporate new and revised policies into their practice, and the training policy must be completed.

Evidentiary Basis Review of agency policies and other guidance documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.A.3.b.
The DHS/DYS shall reassess the effectiveness of its policies, procedures, practices, and existing agreements annually and make necessary revisions to increase the effectiveness of its efforts to prevent violations of youth’s constitutional rights with regard to the subject matter of this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance.

Discussion

As described in my last report, the first anniversary of the State’s revision of the probation policy and probation contract arrived in March. DYS asked staff from various parts of the State to provide feedback, notified me and the Justice Department about contemplated revisions, incorporated some of my suggestions, and reissued the policy in April. The agency also revised the Graduated Responses and SAVRY

18

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 19 of 33

policies in April to incorporate and reference its newly revised case supervision plan and policy, and reviewed and reissued the Parole policy effective September 1.
The agency has adopted a policy that sets forth a process for annual policy revisions in the first quarter of each year. In addition, the parties have agreed on a way to ensure that policies that reach their one‐year anniversary this fall, prior to the agency’s first quarter annual review of all policies, will receive a timely review consistent with the settlement agreement. The agency will conduct a full review at the one‐year anniversary of the policy’s issuance, and then do a brief check in January to confirm that circumstances have not changed, thereby putting all policies on the same cycle for future years.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The State has now sustained substantial compliance for two reporting periods. If the substantial compliance rating continues during the next compliance period, then this provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis

Probation policy and contract, communications from Community Services Director, policy on annual policy reviews, case plan policy and documents.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.B.1.
Lauderdale County Youth Services Counselors shall continue to recommend youth to existing diversion programs, where appropriate, and to monitor future opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs should such programs become available.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The parties have advised that they intended this provision to require staff to recommend diversion from detention and out of home placement for probation violators where appropriate. YSCs are mostly
19

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 20 of 33

recommending alternatives to detention and placement and are exhausting other options before recommending incarceration for probation violators.
I offer this observation: there are many cases on the YSCs’ caseloads with similar combinations of truancy, runaway, simple assault, and disturbing family peace, some with youth drug use. These cases often start with informal probation or a short period of formal probation, then some will escalate to longer formal probation, use of electronic monitoring, suspended detention sentences and eventual detention as the youth continues a pattern of behaviors but now amasses violations of probation and electronic monitoring and sometimes new charges as he or she fails to comply with the rules that have been imposed. Some communities have had success developing multidisciplinary teams that can support families, ensure that community resources are fully used, and advocate for new services and funding if the community has gaps in its continuum of services. While outside the scope of requirements of this settlement agreement, I encourage DYS and the court to collaborate with other stakeholders and service providers to explore whether such multidisciplinary teams could provide more robust options for diversion or prevent escalation of involvement for identified groups of youth in Lauderdale County.
For the part of this provision that requires the agency to monitor opportunities and sources of funding for additional diversion programs, the Community Services Director reports having reviewed information about possible funding, including participating in a webinar offered by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. He was not able to identify any appropriate new funding for Lauderdale County programs. He reported that the Families First program, which came to Lauderdale County within the past year, funded by a grant to the Department of Human Services, is expanding its offerings to include substance abuse assessment and referral. He explained that this option for accessing substance abuse services may allow for more youth with potential substance abuse problems to be diverted from the system rather than needing to access such services through the courts.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency has sustained substantial compliance with this provision for one year. This provision will not be subject to further monitoring.

Evidentiary Basis 20

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 21 of 33
Review of youth case files and YSC recommendations; conversations with DYS personnel; emails from Community Services Director.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.1.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DYS shall develop training plans for all Youth Court Counselors involved in providing delinquency and probation services in the Youth Court and shall submit the training plan to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States for review and input.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The State submitted a draft training plan in March. The plan listed names of the training, dates, and anticipated trainers. After the Justice Department requested more details, DYS sent individual outlines for each scheduled training. After the trainings were completed, DYS sent the materials provided to staff. DYS has also drafted, received feedback from me and the United States, but not yet finalized a policy governing training.
One topic for training remains to be completed, as well as revisions to new employee orientation and the training policy. The topic to be completed is “Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for Children and families, including evidence‐based practices.” The training plan draft listed Motivational Interviewing (MI) among the planned training topics, and after the training the agency sent the presentation materials. I agree that motivational interviewing can partially count toward this requirement, as long as staff also receive additional training that helps YSCs understand what are the evidence‐ based practices in juvenile justice, and what are considered best practices for treating the youth and families whom they serve. Also, staff need further support in order to practice MI and receive feedback. More comments about MI are included in Section III(C)(2)(c).
I have shared with the Community Services Director some sources of information for the evidence‐based practices training and encouraged him to seek out possible trainers. He has been working on locating a trainer. Once a training is in the works, the agency should share with
21

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 22 of 33

me and the Justice Department an outline or comparable plan for the training.
As explained below, if the State wishes to count motivational interviewing as a best practice to be evaluated by me, the State should submit plans for further developing the motivational interviewing skills of the YSCs beyond the brief training they received for all DHS workers.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance with this provision, the State must submit an outline for a training on evidence‐based juvenile justice practices, a plan for supplementing the motivational interviewing training YSCs have received, and orientation plans for new workers that cover the topics found in the settlement agreement.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of draft training plan and policy; training materials; conversations with staff.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.2.
The training plans shall ensure that appropriate staff are trained on topics relevant to their role and responsibilities in juvenile delinquency proceedings including:
a. Constitutional due process requirements;   b. Disposition planning;   c. Best practices in social service and therapeutic options for
Children and families, including evidence‐based practices;   d. The appropriate professional role of different players within
juvenile proceedings; and e. Any of the policies, procedures or practices that are created
or revised pursuant to this Agreement.

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion 22

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 23 of 33
The settlement agreement provides the following definitions regarding training:
“Train” means to instruct in the skills addressed to a level that the trainee has the demonstrated proficiency to implement those skills as, and when, called for in the training. “Trained” means to have achieved such proficiency.
The parties agreed that I would assess compliance with this provision by observing and talking with staff to determine whether they had adequately incorporated the concepts from training in their practice.
a. Constitutional due process requirements:
As described in my last report, staff received a training that addressed this topic well. Staff seem to understand the need to provide youth with due process through proper probation violation hearings and are using the materials developed by the agency to help clients understand their rights. The concern expressed elsewhere in this report about vague language in contracts and case plans is something DYS managers should keep in mind when reviewing YSC work product.
b. Disposition planning:
The State has adopted a new case supervision plan, developed a case planning policy, and revised its policy governing risk and needs assessment. In my last report I noted that the agency would need to ensure that staff were trained in effective development of a disposition plan, appropriate ways to work with families as part of effective disposition planning, incorporation of the SAVRY and social history in development of the case plan, writing measurable and achievable goals, and proper use of the form. The training was provided to staff in March.
Staff have begun to use the new case plan form, but there is still variability in the case plans’ identification of objective, meaningful goals to address youths’ crime‐related needs, action steps that could help youth achieve those goals, incentives the youth can earn if they complete the action steps, and creation of action steps that are specific, measurable, achievable, reasonable/relevant, and appropriately time‐ bound.
23

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 24 of 33
For example, in one case plan I reviewed, one of the youth’s identified areas of criminogenic need was “Disruptive Behaviors/Personality.” The action listed for the youth to complete was, “Enroll in activities and increase positive peer interactions.” This action step is problematic because it is: 1) not specific enough – the youth does not know what types of activities he is expected to enroll in or how to increase positive peer interactions; 2) not measurable – how will the youth, parent and counselor know when the action step has been achieved? 3) not time‐ bound – what does the youth need to do by when?
In another case, the client’s social summary indicates that the child has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability and “Obitual defiance” and has no past injuries, surgeries and/or diseases. However, it lists three medications the youth is taking that are typically used to address other mental health conditions. The case plan lists only “drug treatment teaching the disadvantages of using drugs” as a service referral, and no action steps. Other notes in the file suggest that the youth was actually participating in other programs not listed in the case plan. The youth was eventually detained for 30 days due to new assault and disturbing family peace charges. The case plan and contact notes do not indicate that there has been a full effort to sort out all of this young person’s needs, ensure that needed services are provided, and align the case plan with identified needs. (Note: because the new charges constitute a “detainable offense” under the agreement, this example does not implicate Section III(A)(2)(c)(iii) above.)
I will work with DYS over the coming weeks to share more examples from the files I reviewed for further training and discussion purposes. Providing follow‐up feedback to staff is appropriate after an important training, and should help them refine their practice.
c. Best practices in social services and therapeutic options:
During the past six months, the agency required that staff participate in courses including Interstate Compact, Community Services for Trafficking Victims, Family Engagement in Youth‐Family Teams, Motivational Interviewing, and Commercial Sexual Exploitation.
As explained in the training plan section above, the agency has begun to address this training requirement, but there are two things the agency needs to do in order to reach substantial compliance with this area.
1) More on Motivational Interviewing
24

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 25 of 33
Staff participated in an agency‐wide motivational interviewing (MI) training, but I did not see consistent use of MI skills during my client meeting observations. There could be several reasons for this, including the likelihood that my presence changes the dynamic in the room, the lack of follow‐up practice with juvenile justice‐specific case scenarios after MI was introduced to the whole Department of Human Services, and the fact that several of the client meetings I observed were final meetings where the youth had completed probation, so the nature of the visit was different from usual.
I would like to explore with the parties possible alternative approaches for me to assess whether staff have been sufficiently “trained” in MI or anything else the agency submits for review. Options might include having me watch staff do motivational interviewing meetings with each other pretending to be the client, or having me play the client for role plays with staff. I also encourage the agency to provide opportunities for staff to practice and receive follow‐up training and feedback as needed.
2) Training on evidence‐based and best practices in juvenile justice and best practices for treating the youth and families who make up the DYS caseload
The Community Services Director is working on developing this training. I have sent a number of resources, and would be happy to discuss this further.
d. Appropriate professional role of different players within juvenile proceedings:
This training occurred in April. Staff appear to understand the roles of the various players in the system.
e. Policies, procedures and practices addressed in the Agreement:
The agency has been providing training in Lauderdale County as new policies have been adopted. This spring, the agency did a follow‐up graduated responses training as well.
In my last report, I encouraged the agency to figure out how it would assess understanding and proficiency following training, and to determine steps to take if staff lack comprehension or competency. The agency chose to do pre‐ and post‐tests, which staff did not appreciate because the tests were written to capture tiny details in
25

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 26 of 33

policy, rather than assess the most important points of understanding and skill development. I encourage management to work with staff to figure out what meaningful methods of assessment might be most effective.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to achieve substantial compliance, the agency must provide follow‐up supervision and feedback to staff on dispositional planning, and must complete training on section C, evidence‐based and best practices. Key concepts included in trainings should be reflected in revisions to the Desktop Guide and orientation materials.

Evidentiary Basis

Review of youth files, discussions with DYS personnel, review of training materials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.3.
The DYS shall begin implementing its first training plans within twelve months of the Effective Date and shall create subsequent training plans on an annual basis thereafter.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency has drafted a training plan, provided additional details for most trainings as requested, and implemented the trainings for which there were plans.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

To sustain substantial compliance, the agency will need to finish the additional elements of its training plan and, one year after the initial plan was submitted, complete another plan.

Evidentiary Basis Records of recent trainings and discussions with staff.

26

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 27 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

III.C.4.
Training plans developed pursuant to this subsection shall be submitted to the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States subject to the review process set forth below in subsection VIII.A.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The State submitted a training plan for review.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

In order to sustain substantial compliance, the State will need to finish and submit the additional elements of its training plan, incorporating feedback from me and from the Justice Department as appropriate. One year after the initial plan was submitted, that State will need to complete another plan.

Evidentiary Basis Draft training plan, additional training materials.

Settlement Agreement Provision

IV.A.
Within six months of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS, in consultation with the Probation Services Independent Auditor and the United States, shall develop and implement a community input program to keep the community informed about the progress of its reforms and to hear ongoing community questions and concerns. The community input program shall include a process for receiving and responding to input from interested members of the community.  
IV.B.
27

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 28 of 33

The community input program shall require at least one open community meeting every six months for the duration of this Agreement. A representative for the DHS/DYS shall be required to attend the open meeting so long as this Agreement is in effect. Counsel for the State, or any other person chosen by the DHS/DYS,
may serve as its representative.  A representative for the United States will also attend. The open meetings shall inform the public about the requirements of this Agreement and the DHS/DYS’ progress in each substantive area of the Agreement, and address community concerns regarding this Agreement. The meetings shall be held in a location that is accessible to the public. At least one week before the open meetings, the DHS/DYS shall widely publicize the meetings using print media, radio, and the internet.
IV.C.
The community meetings shall include summaries of the Action Plan and Compliance Reports required by this Agreement during the period prior to the meeting and any policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement. The DHS/DYS shall make any written summary of policy changes or other significant actions taken as a result of this Agreement publicly available on a public website it creates or maintains.

Compliance Rating

The State reached substantial compliance in January 2017 and sustained it for one year. Therefore, these provisions are no longer subject to monitoring.

The parties agreed that the State is still obligated to hold its community forums every six months throughout the life of the settlement agreement implementation.

Settlement Agreement Provision

V.B. Notification. Within two weeks of the Effective Date, the DHS/DYS shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to DHS/DYS officials, staff, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in the implementation of this Agreement.
28

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 29 of 33
Compliance Rating Substantial compliance reached in July 2016 and sustained for one year – no longer under monitoring.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.1.
The DHS/DYS shall generate such policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. The policies and procedures developed pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to the review process described below in paragraphs VIII.A.2 and VIII.A.3.  

Compliance Rating Partial compliance

Discussion

This provision creates the same requirement as that found in provision III.A.3.a., except that III.A.3.a. contains a time requirement not found in VIII.A.1., and VIII.A.1. refers to the review process described below. In addition, the review process set forth in part VIII.A. is incorporated by reference in Part III.C., which addresses training. With regard to policies and procedures, my findings on compliance may be found in the section of this report addressing III.A.3.a. With regard to training, my findings on compliance may be found in Part III.C.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance and Evidentiary Basis

Recommendations and evidentiary basis for reaching compliance may be found in the sections of this report addressing Parts III.A.3.a and III.C.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.2. Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. Unless otherwise stated in Section III of this Agreement, the DHS/DYS shall complete its policy
29

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 30 of 33

review and revision within six months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, the DHS/DYS shall adhere to the Agreement regarding each substantive provision. After the DHS/DYS completes its initial revision, it shall immediately submit the revised policies to the Probation Services Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Both the Independent Auditor and the United States shall submit to the DHS/DYS any suggested revisions to the proposed policies within thirty (30) days. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the Independent Auditor’s and the United States’ suggested revisions, the DHS/DYS shall revise the policies to incorporate the revisions, where deemed appropriate by DHS/DYS.

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The agency is almost done with its policy and procedure development. As identified in this report, only the final revisions of the training policy remain.
The agency has sustained substantial compliance with this provision for one year because “all or nearly all” of the requirements were met. The state did not complete its policy revisions within the 6 month time frame required, but eventually completed all but the remaining training policy.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

Development and implementation into practice of the remaining training policy will be monitored under Section III(A)(3)(a).

Evidentiary Basis

Draft and final policies and local Lauderdale County implementation memos.

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.A.4. Policy Implementation. No later than three months after each policy or procedure is finalized consistent with Paragraph III.A.2, the State
30

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 31 of 33

shall formally adopt and begin implementing the policies and modify all orders, job descriptions, training materials, and performance evaluation instruments in a manner consistent with the revised policies and procedures. Following adoption and implementation, the DHS/DYS shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the Independent Auditor for review and input and to the United States for its review and input. Unless otherwise stated, all policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.

Compliance Rating

Substantial compliance for all finalized policies. Modification of ancillary documents such as job descriptions, training materials and performance evaluation instruments will be monitored under the relevant sections in the rest of the agreement.

Discussion

The State has adopted and begun implementing each policy as it has been finalized. With the exception of the graduated response policy, all newly adopted or revised policies have been implemented, and the State has begun implementing that policy. As described above, the training policy has not yet been finalized, so the state has not had an opportunity to comply with this provision as it pertains to that policy. The state has been in substantial compliance because the provision as written requires only that the state begin to implement each policy and align documents as the policies are adopted.
The agency has sustained substantial compliance with this provision for one year for those policies already issued. The remaining documents to be aligned and policies to be implemented will be monitored under the relevant sections in the rest of the agreement, including Section III(A)(3)(a).

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The remaining documents to be aligned and policies to be implemented will be monitored under the relevant sections in the rest of the agreement as noted, including Section III(A)(3)(a).

Evidentiary Basis See discussions above for each section.

31

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 32 of 33

Settlement Agreement Provision

VIII.B.2.
Compliance Report. The DHS/DYS shall submit a bi‐annual compliance report to the United States and the Probation Services Independent Auditor, the first of which shall be filed within six months of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the bi‐annual reports shall be filed 30 days prior to the Independent Auditor’s bi‐annual compliance tour until the Agreement is terminated. Each bi‐annual compliance report submitted by the DHS/DYS shall describe the actions it has taken during the reporting period to implement this Agreement and shall make specific reference to the Agreement provisions being implemented. To the extent any provision of this Agreement is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, the State will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those
actions will be taken.  

Compliance Rating Substantial compliance

Discussion

The State submitted a timely compliance report prior to the August 2018 compliance visit. It addressed each area and described actions that had been taken, as well as the actions the State intends to take to reach substantial compliance, and challenges it is facing. The report did not offer dates by which it planned to address remaining issues. However, because the State submitted a substantive report that addressed each provision and its accomplishments and next steps, I find that this is substantially compliant.

Recommendations for Reaching Compliance

The agency has sustained substantial compliance with this provision for one year. This provision will not be subject to further monitoring. However, the State is still expected to submit reports 30 days prior to each compliance visit.

Evidentiary Basis Compliance reports.

32

Case 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA Document 127-1 Filed 11/27/18 Page 33 of 33 33

 
 Office o f the Assistant Attorney General

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division
Washington, D.C. 20530
AUG 1 0 2012

VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL

The Honorable Phil Bryant Governor State o f Mississippi 550 High Street Jackson, MS 39201

The Honorable Cheri M. Barry Mayor, City of Meridian 2412 Seventh St Post Office Box 1430 Meridian, MS 39302-1430

The Honorable Frank Coleman County Court Judge 500 Constitution Avenue, 3rd Floor Meridian, MS 39301

The Honorable Veldore Young County Court Judge 500 Constitution Avenue, 3rd Floor Meridian, MS 39301

Jim Hood Attorney General State of Mississippi 550 High Street, Suite 1200 Jackson, Mississippi 39201

J. Richard Barry Attorney for Lauderdale County Hammack, Barry, Thaggard & May, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, MS 39302-2009

Ronnie Walton City Attorney Glover, Young, Walton & Simmons, PLLC P.O. Box 5514 Meridian, MS 39302

Re: Findings Regarding Department of Justice Investigation of Lauderdale County Youth Courts Meridian Police Department, and Mississippi Division of Youth Services

Dear All:

We write regarding the United States Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) investigation of allegations that the Lauderdale County Youth Court (“Youth Court”), the Meridian Police Department (“MPD”), and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (“DYS”) are violating the

2- -
constitutional rights of juveniles in Meridian who are referred for law enforcement action by public schools. On December 1, 2011, we notified the City of Meridian and Lauderdale County of our intent to conduct an investigation of MPD and the Youth Court pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (“Title VI”). On June 29, 2012, we notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of our investigation to include DYS. This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations to resolve the alleged constitutional violations in the administration of juvenile justice, we will not delay in filing for relief in federal court.
We find reasonable cause to believe that these agencies’ administration of juvenile justice violates the constitutional rights of children in the City of Meridian and the County of Lauderdale under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments.1 Based on the serious and longstanding nature of the violations, as well as these agencies’ refusal to cooperate with our investigation and provide reasonable access to information, we believe a federal lawsuit against the government entities and agents responsible for administering juvenile justice is necessary to vindicate the rights of the children in Meridian and Lauderdale County. Our preferred course of action would be to avoid contested litigation through your cooperation in our ongoing investigation and joint efforts to remedy constitutional deficiencies.
SUMMARY OF VIOLATIONS
This letter provides notice that, unless there are meaningful negotiations, DOJ, on behalf of the United States, will file a complaint in federal district court within 60 days. The suit would be filed against the City of Meridian, the County of Lauderdale, Lauderdale County Youth Court, Youth Court Judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young in their official capacities, the State of Mississippi, the Mississippi Department of Human Services, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (collectively referred to as “the entities”). It would allege the following causes of action:
(1) The City of Meridian Violates the Fourth Amendment by Arresting Children Without Assessing Probable Cause;
(2) Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges Violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process in the Youth Court Process;
(3) Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process Rights in the Probationary Process; and
1We have not yet reached a conclusion regarding whether any of the entities are violating the equal protection rights of children, or children's rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Our investigation of these issues is ongoing.

3- -
(4) The City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate Children’s Right to Substantive Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment.
While the basis for each allegation is described more fully below, in sum, the entities named above help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline, whereby, following referral of students who attend school in the Meridian Public School District (“District”) to law enforcement, the MPD, Youth Court, and DYS administer juvenile justice without regard for their obligations under the United States Constitution. By policy and practice, MPD automatically arrests all students referred to MPD by the District. The children arrested by MPD are then sent to the County juvenile justice system, where existing due process protections are illusory and inadequate. The Youth Court places children on probation, and the terms of the probation set by the Youth Court and DYS require children on probation to serve any suspensions from school incarcerated in the juvenile detention center.
The students most severely affected by these practices are black children and children with disabilities in Meridian. While the City of Meridian’s overall population is approximately 62% black, 36% white, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian, the District has a student enrollment that is approximately 86% black, 12% white, 1% Hispanic, and 1% Asian. Approximately 13% of District students have been identified as eligible for an Individualized Education Program under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Students in the District are expelled and suspended for longer than ten days at a rate almost seven times the rate for Mississippi schools generally.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
DOJ concludes that there is reasonable cause to believe that the City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, Judges Coleman and Young, and the State of Mississippi, are engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of children in the juvenile justice system. We have concluded that the City of Meridian commits these violations through the MPD; that Lauderdale County commits these violations through the Youth Court; that Judges Coleman and Young commit these violations in their official capacities as Youth Court Judges; and that the State of Mississippi commits these violations through its Department of Human Services, and its sub-agency, DYS. These entities, working in conjunction, help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline that routinely and repeatedly incarcerates children for school disciplinary infractions,
2
The IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) entitle school-aged children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education. Both Section 504 and the ADA protect individuals with disabilities, including children, from disability-based discrimination.
The children expelled and suspended at these disproportionate rates are almost exclusively black children. In addition, the District’s rate of expulsions and out of school suspensions for students with individualized education programs is also approximately seven times higher than the rate for Mississippi schools generally.

4- -
punishing children so disproportionately as to violate the constitutional right to substantive due process, and without constitutionally required procedural safeguards.
The entities do not afford children in the juvenile justice system with even the minimum safeguards required by the Constitution. As a result, the City of Meridian engages in a pattern or practice of arresting children in school without probable cause. Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges engage in a pattern or practice of violating the procedural due process rights of children in the youth court process by incarcerating children without a timely determination of probable cause and without providing children meaningful representation by an attorney. Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and DYS also violate the procedural due process rights of children who have allegedly violated probation. All entities engage in a pattern or practice of imposing disproportionate and severe consequences including incarceration for technical probation violations such as school suspensions, without any due process whatsoever.
I. The City of Meridian Violates the Fourth Amendment by Arresting Children Without Assessing Probable Cause
The City of Meridian, through the MPD, engages in a pattern and practice of violating the Fourth Amendment rights of juveniles by failing to require or to make individualized assessments of probable cause when arresting juveniles referred to MPD by the District.
The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits an officer to arrest a suspect without a warrant only “if there is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense.” Michigan v. DeFillippo, 443 U.S. 31, 36 (1979); see also Club Retro L.L.C. v. Hilton, 568 F.3d 181, 204 (5th Cir. 2009). “Probable cause for arrest exists ‘when the facts and circumstances within the knowledge of the arresting officer and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information are sufficient in themselves to warrant in a person of reasonable caution the belief that an offense has been or is being committed.’” United States v. Fortuna, 796 F.2d 724, 739 (5th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 950 (1986) (citations omitted). The arresting officer must make an individualized assessment based on facts and circumstances “particularized to the arrestee,” and these “facts must be known by the officer at the time of the arrest; post-hoc justification based on facts later learned cannot support an earlier arrest.” Club Retro, 568 F.3d at 204. Moreover, probable cause is an objective standard. The arresting officer’s subjective intention is immaterial in judging whether their actions were reasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146, 153-55 (2004); see also Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 97 (1964) (“[G]ood faith on the part of the arresting officers is not enough. If subjective good faith alone were the test, the protections of the Fourth Amendment would evaporate, and the people would be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, only in the discretion of the police.”).
The Fourth Amendment protects students from unreasonable seizures at school. See New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 333 (1985). Arrests constitute seizures for the purposes of Fourth Amendment protections because a seizure occurs when circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would believe that he is not free to leave the premises. United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980). The Fifth Circuit has applied the probable cause standard to a student’s challenge to an arrest made by police officers at a Mississippi high school. See C.H., II v.

5- -
Rankin County School Dist., 415 Fed. Appx. 541, 543 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding police officer had probable cause to arrest student on school campus where administrator stated he witnessed the alleged behavior and officer observed physical injuries alleged to be the result of this behavior). Mississippi state law also includes strong presumptions against warrantless arrests of juveniles. See Miss. Code § 43-21-301; § 43-21-303.
MPD command staff and officers consistently characterized MPD as a “taxi service” for District schools and the Juvenile Center. According to MPD personnel, MPD policy requires officers to automatically arrest a student whenever school staff indicate that they would like to press charges. MPD officers who respond to District referrals do not assess the facts or circumstances of the alleged charge, or whether the alleged conduct actually qualifies as an arrestable offense. Instead, MPD officers routinely handcuff and arrest students without obtaining prior youth court custody orders or making necessary assessments of probable cause.
MPD’s pattern or practice of automatically arresting children referred by the District constitutes a blanket failure to apply probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment. This is true even though MPD officers may subjectively believe that they are acting appropriately in following MPD policy and practice, and the directives of District administrators and staff. See Devenpeck, 543 U.S. at 153-55; Beck, 379 U.S. at 97. Although officers do sometimes obtain predicate information from District personnel prior to making an arrest, this does not appear to be a prerequisite to an arrest. Instead, MPD officers routinely rely solely on the referral decisions made by District personnel and do not independently assess probable cause. This kind of mechanical reliance cannot satisfy the requirement to make a probable cause determination on a systemic level.
II. Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges Violate the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process in the Youth Court Process
Lauderdale County violates the rights of juveniles subject to the jurisdiction of the Youth Court in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments by denying them access to meaningful procedural protections in the juvenile justice process.
Under federal law, constitutional due process protections apply to children in the juvenile justice process. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that, although the purpose of juvenile court proceedings is supposed to be rehabilitation rather than punishment, the risk that children will instead be treated punitively or criminally requires that jurisdictions provide due process protections. See generally In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967); Kent v. U.S., 383 U.S. 541 (1966). The Supreme Court has described the minimum contours of these protections as including the provision of adequate and timely notice of charges and court proceedings to children and their guardians, representation by an attorney when incarceration is possible, protection against self-incrimination, an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and a probable cause determination by a judicial officer within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. See County o f Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1974); In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 33-57; see also Moss v. Weaver, 525 F.2d 1258, 1260 (5th Cir. 1976) (holding that Gerstein probable cause hearings are required for juveniles).

6- -
Mississippi state law incorporates many of the Gault findings into the youth court process, mandating that children taken into custody receive detention hearings within 48 hours and timely notice of those hearings, and that counsel be appointed for all critical stages of youth court proceedings, including detention, adjudicatory and disposition hearings; parole or probation revocation proceedings; and post-disposition matters. Miss. Code § 43-21-201(1). However, Mississippi law excepts weekends and holidays from the 48-hour requirement, in violation of the constitutional standard defined by the U.S. Supreme Court in McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 57.
Lauderdale County routinely violates children’s due process rights as articulated in Gault, Gerstein, and McLaughlin. With regard to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause determination requirement, the Supreme Court has stated that “[w]hatever procedure a State may adopt, it must provide a fair and reliable determination of probable cause as a condition for any significant pretrial restraint of liberty, and this determination must be made by a judicial officer either before or promptly after arrest.” Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 124-25. The Fifth Circuit has been clear that the Gerstein probable cause hearings are required for juveniles, Moss, 525 F.2d at 1260, and the U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently held that probable cause determinations must be made within 48 hours, McLaughlin, 500 U.S. at 57.
Lauderdale County uses a two step process to initially place a child in detention following an arrest and then keep a child in detention pending adjudication. In the first step, an intake officer at the Juvenile Center, who is also a designee of the Youth Court in Lauderdale County, issues a temporary custody order. In the second step, a Youth Court Judge holds a detention hearing and issues a detention order. However, neither of these initial steps satisfies the Gerstein requirements because they do not appear to include probable cause determinations. Rather, these orders focus on the state law criteria for temporarily removing children from custody of their parents or guardians, which require a finding that custody is necessary and there are no reasonable alternatives to custody.4 Moreover, the detention hearings that are held do not meet the federal 48 hour standard, as Lauderdale County holds all juvenile hearings, including detention hearings, only on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Although Lauderdale’s practice is consistent with Mississippi state law, which carves out weekends and holidays from the 48 hour requirement, it violates the constitutional standard, resulting in significant extensions of “temporary” incarceration.
Lauderdale County also fails to meaningfully meet G ault’s proscription that juveniles be provided representation by an attorney when incarceration is possible, protection against selfincrimination, and an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. Children and their guardians consistently report that they are not always appointed an attorney for detention or adjudication hearings, and that the public defender who is appointed pursuant to a contract with the Youth Court does not provide children and guardians with meaningful or effective representation. These combined conditions do not satisfy the “essentials of due process and fair treatment” required by the Supreme Court in Gault. 387 U.S. at 30.
4 Custody is deemed “necessary,” under Mississippi law only “(i) When a child is endangered or any person would be endangered by the child; or (ii) to insure the child’s attendance in court at such time as required; or (iii) when a parent, guardian or custodian is not available to provide for the care and supervision of the child.” Miss. Code § 43-21-301(3)(b).

7- -
III. Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services, Violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments by Failing to Provide Children Procedural Due Process Rights in the Probationary Process
Lauderdale County and DYS violate the constitutional rights ofjuveniles under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments through their policies, procedures, and practices with respect to probation and probation revocation for children in the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system.
In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires probable cause hearings for parole and probation revocations, where the liberty interest of the parolee or probationer is at stake. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that the minimum requirements of due process in the context of a parole or probation revocation proceeding are: written notice of the claim; disclosure to the parolee or probationer of evidence against him; opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a neutral and detached decision-maker; and a written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for revoking parole or probation. Gagnon, 411 U.S. at 781-782;Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 489. Moreover, the Court in Gagnon found that the effectiveness of these due process rights may depend on the use of skills which the probationer or parolee is unlikely to possess, noting that “the unskilled or uneducated probationer or parolee may well have difficulty in presenting his version of a disputed set of facts,” and that due process may therefore require appointment of an attorney for indigent parolees or probationers. Gagnon, 411 at 786-88. The Supreme Court has noted that the protection of an attorney in legal proceedings is especially important for children, who are particularly vulnerable to the coercive nature of the criminal justice process. See In re Gault, 387 U.S. at 39 n. 65 (“The most informal and well-intentioned of judicial proceedings are technical; few adults without legal training can influence or even understand them; certainly children cannot.”); see also J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 2397 (2011) (“The law has historically reflected the same assumption that children characteristically lack the capacity to exercise mature judgment and possess only an incomplete ability to understand the world around them.”)
The Youth Court regularly imposes supervised probation on children in Lauderdale County as part of the adjudication and disposition process. DYS “youth counselors,” or probation officers, in Lauderdale County typically present a recommendation to the Youth Court concerning specific probation requirements for each child, and the Youth Court decides which of these requirements to include in the dispositional order. The Youth Court also orders the child to comply with all the rules or regulations as set forth in the probation contract the youth counselor provides. The youth counselors then implement and supervise children’s probation, including determining when a child has violated the terms of his or her probation.
The probation contracts authorized, imposed, administered, and enforced by Lauderdale County and DYS contain conditions that are not comprehensible to juveniles and cannot effectively inform juveniles of their procedural rights and protections, including their right to request a probable cause hearing with respect to an alleged probation violation. Moreover, there

8- -
is no evidence that Lauderdale County and DYS ever provide constitutionally required probable cause hearings, or any procedural safeguards whatsoever, to juveniles alleged to have violated probation, even when incarceration and loss of liberty are possible consequences of the probation violation. Rather, the probation contracts in practice grant absolute discretion to the youth counselor to determine whether there was, in fact, a probation violation, and what the consequence of the alleged probation violation will be. To the extent that the County does provide a hearing after an alleged probation violation, it appears to be purely dispositional, with the youth counselor or Youth Court Judge determining whether the time a child has already served in the detention center is sufficient punishment for the alleged violation.
The U.S. Supreme Court articulated a three-part test for determining what procedures due process requires in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976). First, the Court must assess the value of the liberty interest and the degree of potential deprivation. Second, the Court must evaluate the fairness and reliability of any existing procedures and the probable value, if any, of additional procedural safeguards. Third, the Court must consider the administrative burden and other societal costs or benefits which might be associated with requiring more process as a matter of constitutional law.
In the instant case, children face loss of liberty, incarceration, and the interruption of school and family life—exactly the type of interests and deprivation the Supreme Court found sufficiently serious in Morrissey and Gagnon as to require substantial procedural protections. Moreover, the Fifth Circuit has observed that juveniles facing delinquency charges which could result in incarceration have a protected liberty interest at stake. See Drummond v. Fulton Cnty. D ep ’t. o fFamily & Children’s Servs, 563 F.2d 1200, 1208 (5th Cir. 1977) (contrasting “clearly” protected liberty interest of juveniles facing charges which could result in incarceration with assertion that juveniles in foster care have protected liberty interest in not being moved). Lauderdale County’s current procedures provide no indicia of fairness and reliability, especially as applied to children deemed to have violated probation because of a school suspension. In those instances, the fact of the suspension, regardless of the underlying circumstances and without any additional inquiry, is automatically converted by a youth counselor into a probation violation. The Gagnon Court noted that “[b]oth the probationer or parolee and the State have interests in the accurate finding of fact and the informed use of discretion.” 411 U.S. at 785. This conclusion is clearly applicable to the present situation, in which the incarceration of children, even for two or three days, amounts to a deprivation of liberty and an interruption of educational services, which work a substantial detriment to both the child and the community.
IV. The City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services Violate Children’s Right to Substantive Due Process Under the Fourteenth Amendment
The City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, the Youth Court Judges, and DYS, working in concert, violate the Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights of juveniles through their policies, procedures, and practices with respect to incarcerating students who attend school in the District for technical probation violations, including those resulting from suspensions for alleged school disciplinary infractions.

9- -
The Due Process Clause “guarantees more than fair process... .The Clause also provides heightened protection against government interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997). “Government actions that burden the exercise of those fundamental rights or liberty interests are subject to strict scrutiny, and will be upheld only when they are narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest.” Seal v. Morgan, 229 F.3d 576, 574 (6th Cir. 2000).
Two different legal standards may be used to measure whether government actors have committed a substantive due process violation when a fundamental right or liberty interest is implicated. One standard prohibits the deprivation of a fundamental right or liberty interest by government action that is so arbitrary and abusive as to shock the conscience. See, e.g., County o f Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-49 (1998) (substantive component of the Due Process Clause is violated by government action when it “can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.”); Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 126 (1992) (“The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to prevent government from abusing its power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression.”) (internal citations omitted). The second standard protects individuals from the “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of vague standards.” See, e.g., National Endowmentfo r the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569, 588 (1998). Under this doctrine, a policy may violate substantive due process when it is rooted in written regulations or procedures which, (1) fail to provide people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited, or, (2) authorize or even encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 732 (2000) (summarizing void for vagueness standard as applied to statute); City o f Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (ordinance vesting vast amount of discretion to the police in its enforcement violates due process because scope is too broad and does not provide for sufficient notice); Fairchild v. Liberty Independent School Dist., 597 F.3d 747, 761-62 (5th Cir. 2010) (applying void for vagueness analysis to local school district policies).
The government actors here are violating children’s substantive due process rights under both standards through their pattern or practice of incarcerating District students for probation violations resulting from suspensions for alleged school disciplinary infractions, without any procedural safeguards whatsoever. The system established by the City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, and DYS to incarcerate children for school suspensions “shocks the conscience,” resulting in the incarceration of children for alleged “offenses” such as dress code violations, flatulence, profanity, and disrespect. Moreover, the process used to effectuate this incarceration results from arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of vague standards, in violation of substantive due process requirements. The vagueness of Lauderdale County’s probation contracts, combined with the lack of procedural protections in the probation revocation process, vest the probation officer with complete discretion to determine whether a probation violation has occurred and what the punishment should be. For example, the probation contract states that any suspension from school is a violation of probation and must be served in the detention center. This statement fails to provide any specificity about the types of behavior for which a student can be suspended, and, therefore, incarcerated. Further, the absolute reliance by the youth counselors and Youth Court on District personnel’s application of disciplinary policies— i.e., finding a probation violation solely based on the fact that a student has been suspended—

- 10-
allows for selective and abusive government action by District, County, and DYS personnel that results in the incarceration of children.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE INVESTIGATION
The Civil Rights Division of DOJ makes the findings described above following an eightmonth investigation. DOJ notified the City of Meridian and the Lauderdale County Youth Court of its investigation into these practices on December 1, 2011. On June 29, 2012, DOJ notified the State of Mississippi of the expansion of this investigation to include DYS, in relation to the administration of juvenile justice in Lauderdale County.
During the course of this investigation, DOJ conducted numerous site visits to Meridian, and met with a wide range of community stakeholders and affected parties. DOJ attorneys interviewed MPD command staff, juvenile detectives, and patrol officers, as well as MPD’s training officer, IT staff, and the dispatch commander for the County’s E-911 services. DOJ attorneys also interviewed the DYS youth probation counselors in Lauderdale County, their regional supervisor, and their state-level supervisor.
DOJ also sought access to the Youth Court, including records, proceedings, and personnel. Although Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges initially pledged full cooperation with our investigation, Lauderdale County and the Youth Court Judges have consistently denied DOJ access to information about the policies and practices of the Youth Court, including the opportunity to observe the Youth Court, interview Youth Court staff, and review Youth Court files. Additionally, the Youth Court Judges have directed the City of Meridian to deny the DOJ access to law enforcement files concerning children referred from the District to the MPD.
In refusing DOJ access, Lauderdale County and Judges Coleman and Young cited Mississippi Code § 43-21-259 and § 43-21-261, which provide confidentiality protections for juvenile records, including youth court and law enforcement records. However, Mississippi law also permits judges to authorize release of these records when it is in the best interests of the children, the public safety, or the functioning of the Youth Court. The County and Youth Court Judges have continued to assert confidentiality concerns despite the authority of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ under federal statute to investigate allegations of constitutional and federal law violations in the administration of juvenile justice, DOJ’s strict obligations regarding sensitive personal information under federal privacy laws, and the Civil Rights Division’s long experience protecting the confidentiality of sensitive personal information, including incarcerated juveniles and court records.
To date, Lauderdale County has failed to produce even a single document in response to DOJ’s requests for information. Lauderdale County has also remained silent about any reasons for refusing to produce non-confidential information, such as policies and procedures, as well as for denying DOJ access to interview court personnel about non-confidential information.
After an initial period of cooperation with DOJ’s investigation, the City of Meridian, apparently at the direction of the Youth Court, has denied the Department of Justice further

- 11-
access to information about the practices of the MPD with respect to children referred by the District, and/or under the supervision of the Lauderdale County Youth Court.
The State of Mississippi, through DYS, has provided some cooperation with the DOJ’s investigation, permitting DOJ attorneys to interview DYS youth probation counselors in Lauderdale County and their supervisors. DOJ also sought information regarding Lauderdale County Youth Court proceedings and outcomes from the Mississippi State Administrative Office of the Courts (“AOC”), which collects and maintains data from counties throughout the State about youth court proceedings. The AOC staff members who we met with during our site visit were helpful in describing their database and initially offered cooperation. However, when DOJ subsequently requested data from the AOC pertaining to Lauderdale County, the Mississippi Assistant Attorney General responded in writing on March 26, 2012, that the AOC will not provide such information, citing the confidentiality protections for youth court records in Mississippi Codes § 43-21-259 and § 43-21-261.
Despite the entities’ refusal to provide reasonable access to DOJ regarding their administration of juvenile justice, DOJ gathered sufficient information to find that the City of Meridian, Lauderdale County, Judges Coleman and Young, and the State of Mississippi, are engaged in a pattern or practice of violating the constitutional rights of children in the juvenile justice system.
RESOLUTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
It is in the best interests of the children subject to the administration of juvenile justice in Meridian and Lauderdale County to fully resolve these constitutional violations as expeditiously as possible. We hope you share our view that a collaborative approach by all parties would be productive.
We are willing to engage in meaningful negotiations to resolve the entities’ constitutional violations in the administration of juvenile justice, as long as the entities commit to timely engage all relevant stakeholders with decision-making authority in these negotiations. However, because of the severity of the constitutional violations at issue, and the grievous and irreparable nature of the harm suffered by children in Meridian and Lauderdale County as a result of these violations, we will not unduly delay filing for relief in federal court.
Please note that this letter is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division’s website.
As you know, our Special Litigation Section is handling this matter. The Chief of the Special Litigation Section, Jonathan M. Smith, may be reached at 202-514-5393, and Deputy Chief Shelley Jackson may be reached at 202-305-3373. Special Litigation Section Attorney

- 12-
Lori Rifkin, who has been the primary contact for your legal counsel in our investigation, may be reached at 202-514-8434.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General
cc: Robert Bailey Attorney for Lauderdale County Hammack, Barry, Thaggard & May, LLP P.O. Box 2009 Meridian, Mississippi 39302-2009
Tonya M. Blair Special Assistant Attorney General Division of Human Services State of Mississippi P.O. Box 220 Jackson, MS 39205
Alfred B. Jeraigan, Jr. Assistant U. S. Attorney Chief, Civil Division Southern District of Mississippi 501 E. Court Street, Ste. 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201

 
 U.S. District Court Southern District of Mississippi (Northern (Jackson)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:13-cv-00978-HTW-LRA

United States of America v. City of Meridian et al Assigned to: District Judge Henry T. Wingate Referred to: Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson Related Case: 4:65-cv-01300-HTW-LRA Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights

Date Filed: 10/24/2012 Date Terminated: 09/30/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Alfred B. Jernigan-Federal Gov , Jr. U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Jackson 501 East Court Street Suite 4.430 Jackson, MS 39201 601/973-2820 Fax: 601/965-4409 Email: al.jernigan@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 12/16/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Forestine Nicole Porter-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washiington, DC 20530 202/616-3119 Fax: 202/514-4883 Email: nicole.porter@usdoj.gov 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 TERMINATED: 11/29/2017

Jacqueline Cuncannan-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 601 D Street, NW Washington, DC 20530 202/616-2556 Email: jacqueline.cuncannan@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan M. Smith-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Civil Rights Div 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202/514-8434 Fax: 202/514-0212 TERMINATED: 07/10/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lori Rifkin-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Civil Rights Div 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202/514-8434 Fax: 202/514-6903 Email: lori.rifkin@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 03/08/2013 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Jones-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 601 D St., NW, Room 5013 Washington, DC 20004 202/305-3642 Fax: 202/514-0212 Email: michelle.jones2@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/10/2015 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 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Rashida Jamila Ogletree-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 202/305-3712 Email: rashida.ogletree@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard Charles GoemannFederal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - Civiel Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, PHB 5421 B Washington, DC 20530 202/353-1313 Fax: 202/514-4883 Email: richard.goemann@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Roy L. Austin-Federal Gov , Jr. U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Civil Rights Div 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Patrick Henry Building, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20530 202/514-8434 Fax: 202/514-0212 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

V.
Defendant
City of Meridian TERMINATED: 09/18/2015

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas E. Perez-Federal Gov U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-Housing & Civil Enforcement Sect Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 303/406-5024 Fax: 202/514-1116 TERMINATED: 07/10/2015 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michael D. Goggans MANNING GROSS + MASSENBURG, LLP 1700 S. 28th Ave., Suite D Hattiesburg, MS 39402 601/255-0259 Fax: 601/255-0260 Email: mgoggans@mgmlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronnie Leigh Walton GLOVER, YOUNG, WALTON, & SIMMONS, PLLC P. O. Drawer 5514 Meridian, MS 39302-5514 (601) 693-1301 Fax: 601/693-1363 Email: ronnie@gloveryoung.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Reed C. Darsey GLOVER, YOUNG, HAMMACK, WALTON, & SIMMONS, PLLC P. O. Drawer 5514 1724A 23rd Avenue (39301) Meridian, MS 39302-5514

Defendant County of Lauderdale
Defendant Judge Frank Coleman In his official capacity

601/693-1301 Fax: 601/693-1363 Email: reed@gloveryoung.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Lee Thaggard BARRY, THAGGARD & MAY, LLP P.O. Box 2009 505 Constitution Ave. (39301) Meridian, MS 39302-2009 601/693-2393 Fax: 601/482-7855 Email: thaggard@btmlegal.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Thomas Bailey BARRY, THAGGARD & MAY, LLP P.O. Box 2009 505 Constitution Ave. (39301) Meridian, MS 39302-2009 601/693-2393 Fax: 601-482-7855 Email: baileyr@btmblaw.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles W. Wright , Jr. CHARLES W. WRIGHT, JR., PLLC P.O. Box 1677 Meridian, MS 39302-1677 (601) 693-6555 Email: charlie_wright@comcast.net ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Henry W. Palmer LAWYERS, PLLC P. O. Box 1205 Meridian, MS 39303

Defendant Judge Veldore Young In her official capacity
Defendant State of Mississippi TERMINATED: 09/18/2015
Defendant Mississippi Department of Human Services

601/693-8204 Email: henry@lawyerspllc.com (Inactive) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles W. Wright , Jr. (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Henry W. Palmer (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas T. Miracle-State Gov MISSISSIPPI ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE 550 High Street, Suite 1200 P. O. Box 220 (39205) Jackson, MS 39201 601/359-5654 Fax: 601/359-2003 Email: dmira@ago.state.ms.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold Edward Pizzetta-State Gov , III OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. Box 220 550 High Street (39201) Jackson, MS 39205-0220 601/359-3680 Email: hpizz@ago.state.ms.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas T. Miracle-State Gov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold Edward Pizzetta-State

Defendant
Mississippi Division of Youth Services

Gov , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Douglas T. Miracle-State Gov (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Harold Edward Pizzetta-State Gov , III (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/24/2012
10/24/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/14/2012 11/15/2012

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against City of Meridian, Judge Frank Coleman, County of Lauderdale, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi, Judge Veldore Young, filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(RRL) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
2 Summons Issued as to City of Meridian, Frank Coleman, County of Lauderdale, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi, Veldore Young. (RRL) (Entered: 10/24/2012)
3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi (Miracle, Douglas) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Harold Edward Pizzetta, III on behalf of Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi (Pizzetta, Harold) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 3-4: Style of case is incorrect wrong division: Attorney is directed to correct the error in future filings. (RRL) (Entered: 11/14/2012)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 3 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer re 1 Complaint. Mississippi Department of Human Services answer due 11/30/2012; Mississippi Division of Youth Services answer

11/16/2012
11/20/2012 11/20/2012 11/20/2012 11/30/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/07/2012 12/11/2012 12/20/2012 01/14/2013

due 11/30/2012; State of Mississippi answer due 11/30/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 11/15/2012. No further written order will be issued. (WG) (Entered: 11/15/2012)
5 SUMMONS Returned Executed City of Meridian served on 10/30/2012, answer due 11/20/2012; Frank Coleman served on 10/30/2012, answer due 11/20/2012; County of Lauderdale served on 10/30/2012, answer due 11/20/2012; Mississippi Department of Human Services served on 10/26/2012, answer due 11/16/2012; Mississippi Division of Youth Services served on 10/26/2012, answer due 11/16/2012; State of Mississippi served on 10/26/2012, answer due 11/16/2012; Veldore Young served on 10/30/2012, answer due 11/20/2012. (RRL) (Entered: 11/19/2012)
6 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by County of Lauderdale.(Bailey, Robert) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
7 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by City of Meridian. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Letter dated September 18, 2012)(Walton, Ronnie) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
8 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, Answer and Defenses by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young.(Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 11/20/2012)
9 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi.(Miracle, Douglas) (Entered: 11/30/2012)
10 MOTION to Dismiss Based on Younger Abstention by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
11 PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
12 MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 12/07/2012)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion to Stay Proceedings Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/11/2012 (WG) (Entered: 12/11/2012)
14 Response in Opposition re 10 MOTION to Dismiss Based on Younger Abstention by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) filed by United States of America (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 12/20/2012)
15 Rebuttal re 14 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Based on Younger Abstention filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/31/2013 01/31/2013 03/07/2013 03/08/2013
09/04/2013 09/04/2013 09/05/2013 09/05/2013 10/07/2013
10/07/2013

16 MOTION to Strike 15 Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss by United States of America (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
17 MEMORANDUM in Support re 16 MOTION to Strike 15 Rebuttal to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Rifkin, Lori) (Entered: 01/31/2013)
18 MOTION to Substitute Attorney by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 18 Motion to Substitute Attorney. Attorney Lori Rifkin terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 3/8/2013. No further written order will be issued. (WG) (Entered: 03/08/2013)
19 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Motion to Strike Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/4/13 (TRS) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
20 ORDER denying 10 Motion to Dismiss Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/4/13 (TRS) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
21 Rule 16(a) Initial Order Telephonic Case Management Conference set for 10/7/2013 11:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (WG) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by Lee Thaggard on behalf of County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 09/05/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Case Management Conference held on 10/7/2013. Participants: Mitzi Paige, Michelle Jones, Shelley Jackson, Henry Palmer, Lee Thaggard, Douglas Miracle, Michael Goggans, and Reed Darsey. Case Management Order to be entered. (WG) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
23 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER Disclosure due by 11/12/2013 Motions for Amended Pleadings due by 11/7/2013 Motions for Joinder of Parties due by 11/7/2013 Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 4/23/2014 Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 5/23/2014 Discovery due by 7/25/2014 Motions due by 8/8/2014 Settlement Conference set for 6/25/2014 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson at the Jackson Federal Courthouse, 501 E. Court Street, Suite 6.150, Jackson, MS Pretrial Conference set for 11/25/2014 or 11/26/2014 09:00 AM before District Judge Henry T. Wingate Bench Trial set during two-week trial period commencing 12/8/2014 09:00 AM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before

10/10/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/12/2013 11/22/2013 12/06/2013
12/06/2013
12/09/2013 12/16/2013

District Judge Henry T. Wingate Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 10/7/2013 (WG) (Entered: 10/07/2013)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by Mitzi Dease Paige on behalf of United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 10/10/2013)
25 NOTICE of Service of Pre-Discovery Disclosure by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi (Miracle, Douglas) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael D. Goggans on behalf of City of Meridian (Goggans, Michael) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
27 NOTICE of Service of Pre-Discovery Disclosure by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
28 NOTICE of Appearance by Reed C. Darsey on behalf of City of Meridian (Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
29 NOTICE of Service of Pre-Discovery Disclosure by United States of America (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
30 NOTICE of Service of Pre-Discovery Disclosure by City of Meridian (Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 11/12/2013)
31 NOTICE of Service of Initial Disclosure by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 11/22/2013)
32 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by City of Meridian, Frank Coleman, County of Lauderdale, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi, United States of America, Veldore Young (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Protective Order)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 32 . 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.). (ND) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
33 ORDER granting 32 Motion for Protective Order; Joint Confidentiality and Protective Order entered. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/9/2013. (ACF) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
34 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by United States of America (Paige, Mitzi) (Entered: 12/16/2013)

12/16/2013 12/26/2013
12/26/2013 12/26/2013 02/14/2014 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 03/20/2014
04/01/2014 04/04/2014

TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 34 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Alfred B. Jernigan, Jr. terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 12/16/2013. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. (WG) (Entered: 12/16/2013)
TEXT ONLY ORDER OF TRANSFER pursuant to the new Realignment Act signed into law on December 20, 2013, and the Administrative Order filed December 26, 2013, this case is hereby transferred to the Northern Division of this district. The Act and Administrative Order are posted on the Courts website at www.mssd.uscourts.gov. The district judge and magistrate judge assignments in this case will remain the same. Signed by Chief District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr., on December 26, 2013. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL FOLLOW.(LDR) Modified on 1/13/2014 (LDR). (Entered: 01/10/2014)
Case transferred in from Eastern Division on 12/26/2013; former Case Number 4:12-cv-168. (LDR) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to TEXT ONLY ORDER OF TRANSFER: Docket text modified to reflect transfer to the Northern Division. (LDR) (Entered: 01/13/2014)
35 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 02/14/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 35 . Attorney advises that there is an error in this entry, and it should be disregarded. It will be correctly refiled. (ND) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
36 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
37 Joint MOTION for Entry of ESI Stipulation and Order by City of Meridian, Frank Coleman, County of Lauderdale, Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi, United States of America, Veldore Young (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Stipulation and Order Regarding Discovery)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 03/20/2014)
38 ORDER granting 37 Motion for Entry of Stipulation and Order Regarding Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 4/1/2014. (ACF) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
39 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by City of Meridian (Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 04/04/2014)

04/08/2014 04/14/2014 04/17/2014 04/17/2014 04/18/2014
04/18/2014 04/25/2014 04/25/2014 04/25/2014 04/28/2014 04/29/2014

NOTICE OF RESETTING: Settlement Conference RESET for 5/15/2014 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson per request and representations of counsel (WG) (Entered: 04/08/2014)
40 NOTICE of Service of (Response to USA's First and Second Request for Production) Response to Request for Production by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services (Miracle, Douglas) (Entered: 04/14/2014)
41 MOTION Modify Case Management Order re 23 Case Management Order,,, by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Modified Case Management Order)(Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
42 MOTION Modify Case Management Order re 41 MOTION Modify Case Management Order re 23 Case Management Order,,, Memoradum in Support by United States of America (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/17/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 42 . The incorrect event was chosen in filing this document. This document should have been docketed as a Memorandum in Support of Motion event. Attorney is directed to refile using the correct event, "Memorandum in Support of Motion", and link it to motion 41 . Motion 42 will be terminated. (ND) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
43 MEMORANDUM in Support re 41 MOTION Modify Case Management Order re 23 Case Management Order,,, filed by United States of America (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/18/2014)
44 NOTICE of Service of Defendant, Lauderdale County Response to Request for Production by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
45 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Frank Coleman (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
46 NOTICE of Service of Response to Request for Production by Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 04/25/2014)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 45 and 46 . The wrong case number is on these PDF filings. Attorney is directed to correct the error in future filings. (ND) (Entered: 04/28/2014)
47 NOTICE of Service of Request for Production by City of Meridian (Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 04/29/2014)

04/29/2014 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 04/30/2014 05/06/2014 05/06/2014 05/07/2014
05/09/2014 05/15/2014 05/15/2014
05/16/2014

48 NOTICE of Service of Interrogatories by City of Meridian (Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 04/29/2014)
49 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Alphus Moore by United States of America (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
50 NOTICE to Take Deposition of Amy Reynolds by United States of America (Jones, Michelle) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
51 NOTICE of Appearance by Jacqueline Cuncannan on behalf of United States of America (Cuncannan, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
52 ORDER granting 41 Motion to Modify Case Management Order Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/05/2014 (WG) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
Set/Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines/Hearings: Designate Experts Plaintiff Deadline due by 5/9/2014 Designate Experts for Defendant Deadline due by 6/10/2014 (WG) (Entered: 05/06/2014)
53 NOTICE of Service of Supplemental Response to Request for Production by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services, State of Mississippi (Miracle, Douglas) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
54 NOTICE of Service of Designation of Experts by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 05/09/2014)
55 NOTICE of Service of SUPPLEMENTAL Response to Request for Production by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Palmer, Henry) (Entered: 05/15/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 5/15/2014 in Jackson, MS. Appearances: Shelley Jackson, Rashida Ogletree, Michelle Jones, Mitzi Dease Paige, Lee Thaggard, Joe McCraney, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, Judge Frank Coleman, Veldore Young, Melonie Taylor Gore, William Rosamond, Doug Miracle, James Maccarone and Henry Palmer. Settlement negotiations begun. Court will set status conference for later date. (WG) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 5/29/2014 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 05/16/2014)

05/22/2014 05/22/2014 05/29/2014
05/29/2014 07/16/2014
08/07/2014 08/07/2014

ORE TENUS MOTION to Stay Discovery by County of Lauderdale (WG) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting ore tenus Motion to Stay Discovery Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 5/22/2014 (WG) (Entered: 05/22/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/29/2014. Participants: Shelley Jacksonm, Rashida Ogletree, Michelle Jones, Ronnie Walton, Reed Dorsey, Ben McMurtray, Doug Miracle, Bill Rosamond, Lee Thaggard, Mitzi Paige and Henry Palmer. Parties continued settlement discussions. Defendants will present objections/comments to Plaintiff's proposed agreement by 6/16/2014. Plaintiffs will respond by 6/25/2014. In-person conference to be scheduled in mid-July. (WG) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Settlement Conference set for 7/16/2014 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson to continue further negotiations (WG) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 7/16/2014 in Jackson, MS. Appearances: Michelle Jones, Shelley Jackson, Rashida Ogletree, Henry Palmer, Judge Frank Coleman, Lee Thaggard, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, James Maccarone, Melonie Gore, Bill Rosamond, Doug Miracle. Negotiation efforts continued. Parties will continue to confer. Telephonic Status Conference to be set. NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 8/7/2014 11:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440.) (WG) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/7/2014. Participants: Michelle Jones, Rashida Ogletree, Shelley Jackson, Lee Thaggard, Ronnie Walton, Reed Darsey, Doug Miracle, Jim Macarone, Mealnie Gore and Earl Scales. Court and counsel discussed status of case. Settlement conference will be set. (WG) (Entered: 08/07/2014)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER setting Settlement Conference for 9/16/2014 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson at the Jackson Federal Courthouse, 501 E. Court Street, Suite 6.150, Jackson, MS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 8/7/2014. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. (WG) (Entered: 08/07/2014)

09/10/2014 09/16/2014 09/17/2014 10/08/2014
10/09/2014 10/28/2014
10/28/2014

56 NOTICE of Appearance by Charles W. Wright, Jr on behalf of Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 09/10/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Settlement Conference held on 9/16/2014 in Jackson, MS. Negotiations continued as to all defendants. Court will set a telephonic conference to ascertain status of settlement negotiations. Appearances: Doug Miracle, Bill Rosamond, Melonie Gore, Lee Thaggard, Ronnie Walton, Matthew Watson, Reed Darsey, Michelle Jones, Rashida Ogletree, Shelley Jackson, Frank Coleman, Charles Wright, Jim Maccarone and Veldore Young. (WG) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/8/2014 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: TelephonicStatus Conference held on 10/8/2014. Discussions/Negotiations with the Court continued. Parties are to confer and an in-person conference will be set at a later date. Telephonic conference with the Department of Justice, county and judicial defendants to be set during the week of 10/27/2014. Participants: Michelle Jones, Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, Shelley Jackson, Nicole Stinson, Judges Coleman and Young, Charles Wright, Doug Miracle, Lee Thaggard and Jacqueline Cuncannan. (WG) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/28/2014 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Department of Justice, County and Judicial Defendants only to participate in this conference. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 10/09/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/28/2014. Participants: Shelley Jackson, Rashida Ogletree, Mitzi Paige, Michelle Jones, Lee Thaggard, Judge Young, Judge Coleman, Jacqueline Cuncannan and Charles Wright. Parties reported on status of negotiations. A separate telephone conference will be conducted with state and city defendants; remaining defendants will file dispositive motion on or before 11/28/2014; response due 11/28/2014; and reply due 12/26/2014. (WG) (Entered: 10/28/2014)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Motions due by 11/28/2014 (WG) (Entered: 10/28/2014)

10/29/2014 11/03/2014 11/06/2014
11/20/2014
11/20/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014 11/25/2014

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to Minute Entry dated 10/28/2014. Same is modified to the extent that the date for responses to be filed is amended to read December 12, 2014. (WG) (Entered: 10/29/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/6/2014 02:45 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson with plaintiff, state and city defendants to participate. Plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/6/2014. Participants: Jim Maccarone, Melanie Gore, Bill Rosamond, Doug Miracle, Jacqueline Cuncannan, Michelle Jones, Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Jamila Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Leigh Walton and Shelley Jackson. Parties have conferred. State and City are negotiating separate agreements. Status report due in two weeks. NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/20/2014 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 11/07/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/20/2014. Participants: Jim Maccarone, Douglas Miracle, Bill Rosamond, Michelle Jones, Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Ronnie Walton and Shelley Jackson. Parties report that negotiations were continuing with state and city defendants. Court will set another telephonic status conference herein. (WG) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/8/2014 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson with plaintiff and state and city defendants. Plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 11/20/2014)
57 MOTION to Dismiss by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
58 MOTION to Dismiss by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 11/25/2014)
59 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 11/25/2014)

11/28/2014 11/28/2014 12/08/2014
12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014 12/12/2014
12/12/2014 12/19/2014

60 Joinder in Document by County of Lauderdale to 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 11/28/2014)
61 Joinder in Document by County of Lauderdale to 59 Memorandum in Support filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman, 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 11/28/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 12/8/2014. Participants: Douglas Miracle, Jacqueline Cuncannan, Jim Maccarone, Melanie Gore, Michelle Jones, Mitzi Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, Shelley Jackson and Matt Watson. Negotiations continuing. Court will set another conference herein. NOTICE OF SETTING: ( Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/6/2015 03:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. (Plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440.) (WG) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
62 RESPONSE in Opposition re 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
63 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 62 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
64 RESPONSE in Opposition re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
65 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
66 Response in Opposition re 61 Joinder in Document by County of Lauderdale to 59 Memorandum in Support filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman, 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman (Thaggard, Lee) filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
67 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 66 Response in Opposition, to Joinder in Document by County of Lauderdale filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 12/12/2014)
68 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 60 Joinder in Document, 57 MOTION to Dismiss by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/19/2014)

12/19/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/26/2014 12/27/2014 12/29/2014 01/06/2015
01/06/2015 01/21/2015
01/21/2015

69 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 59 Memorandum in Support, 58 MOTION to Dismiss , 61 Joinder in Document by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/19/2014)
70 REPLY to Response to Motion re 63 Memorandum in Support, 62 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion re 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 65 Memorandum in Support filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
72 REPLY to Response to Motion re 63 Memorandum in Support, 62 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/26/2014)
73 REPLY to Response to Motion re 66 Response in Opposition, 64 Response in Opposition to Motion, 65 Memorandum in Support, 67 Memorandum in Support filed by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/27/2014)
74 NOTICE of Correction relative to Certificate of Service by County of Lauderdale re 73 Reply to Response to Motion (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 12/29/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/6/2015. Participants: Doug Miracle, Matt Watson, Bill Rosamond, Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, Shelley Jackson, Jim Maccarone and Melanie Gore. Parties are continuing settlement efforts. Another status conference will be set for 1/21/2015 at 2:30 p.m. (WG) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 1/21/2015 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson (WG) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/21/2015. Parties gave status report on negotiation efforts. Another conference will be scheduled herein. Participants: Douglas Miracle, Matt Watson, Jim Maccarone, Melanie Gore, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Ronnie Walton, and Shelley Jackson. (WG) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/11/2015 02:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson.

02/11/2015 02/11/2015 02/25/2015 03/04/2015
03/09/2015

Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 01/21/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/11/2015. Parties gave update on negotiation efforts. Court will set another status conference for a later date. Participants: Doug Miracle, Jacqueline Cuncannan, Jim Macaroon, Matt Watson, Michelle Jones, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Shelley Jackson and Melanie Gore. (WG) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
NOTICE OF SETTING: Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/25/2015 02:15 PM before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson. Counsel for plaintiff to initiate conference call. Telephone number: 601-608-4440. (WG) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson: TelephonicStatus Conference held on 2/25/2015. Participants: Doug Miracle, Jacqueline Cuncannan, Matthew Watson, Jim Maccarone, Rashida Ogletree, Reed Darsey, Shelley Jackson, Bill Rosemond and Melanie Gore. The parties (city and state only) have agreed on certain terms relative to settlement. A status conference should be set before the District Judge. (WG) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. PARTICIPANTS: S. Jackson, M. Paige, R. Olgetree, M. Jones, and R. Goldman, government's counsel; R. Waltson and R. Darsey, counsel for defendant City of Meridian; D. Miracle and B. Rosemond, counsel for defendant State of MS, MSDHS, MS Division of Youth Services; Charles Wright, counsel for defendant Judge Young and Coleman ; J. Macarrone and M. Gore, representatives of MS Division of Youth Services. Telephone Conference held on 3/4/2015. Parties advised the Court of the ongoing settlement negotiations between the government, States of MS and City of Meridian. Once the Court has received and reviewed the proposed settlement agreement a Teleconference will be scheduled to discuss the court's observation. After the Court approves the settlement agreement, then a Motion Hearing will be scheduled for oral argument. Thereafter, the court will address the matter of discovery after a ruling on the Motions to Dismiss. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (TRS) (Entered: 03/04/2015)
75 ORDER setting out herein how the court will proceed with the case. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/09/15 (TRS) (Entered: 03/09/2015)

03/30/2015 04/14/2015
06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/19/2015 06/19/2015 07/09/2015 07/10/2015
09/15/2015

76 NOTICE of Appearance by Richard Charles Goemann on behalf of United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 03/30/2015)
TEXT ONLY ORDER finding as moot 68 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply ; finding as moot 69 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 4/14/15 (TRS) (Entered: 04/14/2015)
77 Joint MOTION for Settlement Between the United States and the City of Meridian by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
78 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 77 Joint MOTION for Settlement Between the United States and the City of Meridian filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
79 Joint MOTION for Settlement Between the United States and the State of Mississippi by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
80 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 79 Joint MOTION for Settlement Between the United States and the State of Mississippi filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 80 . Attorney advises that there is an error in this entry, and it should be disregarded. It will be correctly refiled as Doc. 81 . (ND) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
81 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 79 Joint MOTION for Settlement Between the United States and the State of Mississippi filed by United States of America (Ogletree, Rashida) (Entered: 06/19/2015)
82 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 07/09/2015)
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting 82 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Jonathan M. Smith; Michelle Jones and Thomas E. Perez Fed Gov terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Linda R. Anderson on 7/10/2015. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL BE ISSUED. (WG) (Entered: 07/10/2015)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 9/17/2015 01:30 PM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS) (Entered: 09/15/2015)

09/17/2015
09/18/2015 09/18/2015 09/21/2015 10/07/2015
10/09/2015

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: M. Paige, R. Ogletree, R. Goemann, S. Jackson, DOJ counsel; R. Walton and R. Darsey, counsel for defendant City of Meridian; L. Thaggard and R. Bailey, counsel for defendant City of Lauderdale; C. Wright, counsel for defendant Judge Coleman and Young; D. Miracle and J. Macarrone, counsel for defendant State of MS. Telephone Conference held on 9/17/2015. The court GRANTED 77 Joint Motion for Settlement between the US and City of Meridian, MS; and 79 Joint Motion for Settlement between the US and State of MS. The parties were directed to contact the courtroom deputy to schedule a hearing on all outstanding issues. (TRS) Modified on 9/23/2015 (TRS). (Entered: 09/18/2015)
83 ORDER granting 77 Motion for Settlement Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/17/15 (TRS) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
84 ORDER granting 79 Motion for Settlement Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/17/15 (TRS) (Entered: 09/18/2015)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 58 MOTION to Dismiss , 57 MOTION to Dismiss : Motion Hearing set for 10/7/2015 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS) (Entered: 09/21/2015)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: Mitzie Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Shelley Jackson, counsel for DOJ; Lee Thaggard, counsel for defendant County of Lauderdale; Charles Wright, Jr., counsel for defendant Judge Frank Coleman and Veldore Young.Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2015 re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman, 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman. The court reserved ruling. Defense witnesses: Judges Frank Coleman and Veldora Young. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-608-4188. (TRS) (Entered: 10/08/2015)
85 Response to Order re Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: Mitzie Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Shelley Jackson, counsel for DOJ; Lee Thaggard, counsel for defendant County of Lauderdale; Charles Wright, Jr., counsel for defendant Judge Frank Coleman and Veldore Young.Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2015 re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman, 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman. The court reserved ruling. Defense witnesses: Judges Frank Coleman and Veldora Young. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-608-4188. (TRS) filed by

10/19/2015
10/20/2015 12/01/2015 12/03/2015 12/29/2015 12/29/2015

County of Lauderdale (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Youth Court Administrative Order), # 2 Exhibit 2: August 18, 2014 Minutes of Board of Supervisors, # 3 Exhibit 3: August 3, 2015 Minutes of Board of Supervisors, # 4 Exhibit 4: Announcement of Vacancy of Youth Court Prosecutor position)(Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 10/09/2015)
86 Response in Opposition re 85 Response to Order re Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: Mitzie Paige, Rashida Ogletree, Shelley Jackson, counsel for DOJ; Lee Thaggard, counsel for defendant County of Lauderdale; Charles Wright, Jr., counsel for defendant Judge Frank Coleman and Veldore Young.Motion Hearing held on 10/7/2015 re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman, 57 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Veldore Young, Frank Coleman. The court reserved ruling. Defense witnesses: Judges Frank Coleman and Veldora Young. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-608-4188. (TRS) filed by County of Lauderdale (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Youth Court Administrative Order), # 2 Exhibit 2: August 18, 2014 Minutes of Board of Supervisors, # 3 Exhibit 3: August 3, 2015 Minutes of Board of Supervisors, # 4 Exhibit 4: Announcement of Vacancy of Youth Court Prosecutor position)(Thaggard, Lee) Response to Defendant Lauderdale County's Supplement to the Record filed by United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 10/19/2015)
87 ATTACHMENT re 86 Response in Opposition,,,, Certificate of Service by United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 10/20/2015)
88 STATUS REPORT Joint Statement Regarding Status of the Parties Agreement on the Police Independent Auditor by United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 12/01/2015)
89 STATUS REPORT Joint Statement Regarding Status of the Parties Agreement on the Probation Services Independent Auditor by United States of America (Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 12/03/2015)
90 MOTION to Select the Police Foundation as Independent Auditor re 88 Status Report by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Curricula Vitae)(Ogletree - Federal Gov, Rashida) (Entered: 12/29/2015)
91 MOTION Concerning Nomination for Independent Police Auditor by City of Meridian (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Jimmy R. Houston, Sr. Resume, # 2 Exhibit B - Robert L. Johnson Resume)(Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 12/29/2015)

01/05/2016 01/13/2016 02/18/2016 02/24/2016 02/25/2016
03/03/2016 03/07/2016 03/15/2016 03/16/2016

92 STATUS REPORT by United States of America (Cuncannan - Federal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 01/05/2016)
93 Joint MOTION Telephonic Status Conference re 91 MOTION Concerning Nomination for Independent Police Auditor , 90 MOTION to Select the Police Foundation as Independent Auditor re 88 Status Report by United States of America (Ogletree - Federal Gov, Rashida) (Entered: 01/13/2016)
Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 2/25/2016 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS) (Entered: 02/18/2016)
94 RESPONSE to Motion re 90 MOTION to Select the Police Foundation as Independent Auditor re 88 Status Report filed by City of Meridian (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A- proposed budget)(Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 02/24/2016)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. PARTICIPANTS: Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Ogletree, and Shelley Jackson, DOJ; Ronnie Walton and Reed Darsey, defense counsel for City of Meridian, MS; Lee Thaggard, defense counsel for County of Lauderdale; Charles Wright, Jr., defense counsel for Judge Frank Coleman and Judge Veldore Young. Telephone Conference held on 2/25/2016 at the request of the parties concerning the nomination for an Independent Police Auditor. The court provided the parties with some dates available to have a hearing and interview with the two proposed candidates for the Independent Police Auditor and the parties were directed to contact the courtroom deputy with dates they and their candidate would be available. Thereafter, the court will enter an order setting a firm date and time. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (TRS). (Entered: 02/25/2016)
95 NOTICE of Appearance by Forestine Nicole Porter (Federal Gov) on behalf of United States of America (Porter (Federal Gov), Forestine) (Entered: 03/03/2016)
96 NOTICE of Filing by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Monitor's Report Pursuant to Settlement Agreement)(Goemann, Richard) (Entered: 03/07/2016)
Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 3/18/2016 09:30 AM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (TRS) (Entered: 03/15/2016)
97 First MOTION to Appoint Expert Police Foundation as Independent Auditor by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit,

# 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit)(Porter (Federal Gov), Forestine) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/16/2016

98 SUPPLEMENT by City of Meridian to 91 MOTION Concerning Nomination for Independent Police Auditor Supplement to Motion Pursuant to Court's Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposal to Serve as Consent Decree Court Monitor of the City of Meridian, Meridian Police Department)(Darsey, Reed) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/16/2016

DOCKET ANNOTATION as to # 97 . 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. (ND) (Entered: 03/16/2016)

03/18/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. APPEARANCES: Mitzi Dease Paige, Rashida Olgetree, Forestine Porter, and Shelley Jackson, US DOJ; Ronnie Walton and Reed Darsey, counsel for defendant City of Meridian; Lee Thaggard, counsel for defendant County of Lauderdale; Charles Wright, Jr., counsel for defendants Judges Frank Coleman and Veldore Young.Status Conference held on 3/18/2016. Court examined government's Independent Auditors (Chief Rodney Monroe and Jennifer Zeunik) and confirmed the selection reached by the parties. Each side will bear their own costs of each monitor's attendance at the hearing. The auditors are ordered to abide by the terms as outlined in the Consent Decree. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (TRS) (Entered: 03/21/2016)

03/28/2016

99 ORDER granting 90 Motion to Select the Police Foundation ; finding as moot 91 Motion concerning Nomination for Independent Police Auditor ; granting 93 Motion for a Telephonic Status Conference Concerning the Nomination for Independent Police Auditor ; granting 97 Motion to Appoint Expert Police Foundation Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/25/16 (TRS) (Entered: 03/28/2016)

09/06/2016

100 STATUS REPORT Second Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor by United States of America (Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 09/06/2016)

09/29/2016

101 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Independent Police Auditor's First Compliance Report by United States of America (Porter (Federal Gov), Forestine) (Entered: 09/29/2016)

10/21/2016

Set Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 10/27/2016 01:00 PM before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. (hw) (Entered: 10/21/2016)

10/27/2016

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate: Telephone Conference held on 10/27/2016 Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (ab) (Entered: 10/27/2016)

10/31/2016

102 RESPONSE to Motion re Telephone Conference Supplemental Authority on Funding the Right to Counsel filed by United States of America (Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 10/31/2016)

02/28/2017

103 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Third Report of the Probation Services Independent Auditor)(Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 02/28/2017)

03/02/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER This Court orders each of the parties to advise the Court by 12 p.m., Friday, March 3, 2017, as to whether this case is still a live controversy or has been settled or is on the verge of settlement. The parties are directed to respond by filing a status report through the ECF system. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 3/2/2017 (CGC) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 104 STATUS REPORT by United States of America (Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017

105 STATUS REPORT by Mississippi Department of Human Services, Mississippi Division of Youth Services (Miracle-State Gov, Douglas) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/02/2017 106 STATUS REPORT by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 03/02/2017)

03/03/2017 107 STATUS REPORT by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 03/03/2017)

04/13/2017

Set Hearings: Telephone Status Conference set for 4/24/2017 01:30 PM before District Judge Henry T. Wingate. Dial-in instructions to follow via email. (hw) (Entered: 04/13/2017)

04/24/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate: Telephone Conference held on 4/24/2017. Counsel for Defendant Judges to submit supplemental briefing on Friday, April 28th through ECF filing system. Counsel for Government to submit response on Tuesday, May 2 through ECF filing system. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. (hw) (Entered: 04/24/2017)

04/28/2017

108 MEMORANDUM in Support re 58 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 04/28/2017)

05/02/2017

109 RESPONSE to Memorandum re 108 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss filed by United States of America (CuncannanFederal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/02/2017)

06/14/2017

TEXT ONLY ORDER This court orders that this matter be set for a status conference on June 27, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. and will resume hearings after lunch if necessary. The status conference is to be in person in Courtroom 6A of the United States District Courthouse in Jackson, MS. The parties will inform this court as to the status of their individually assigned monitoring and settlement compliance efforts.

This court further orders that the parties are to contact their respective monitors and inform them of this status conference. The monitors are permitted to attend in person or via telephone if necessary. The monitors shall independently contact the court at wingate_chambers@mssd.uscourts.gov to confirm their attendance. NO FURTHER ORDER SHALL FOLLOW Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 6/14/2017 (ab) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

Set Hearings: Status Conference set for 6/27/2017 11:00 AM in Courtroom 6A (Jackson) Wingate before District Judge Henry T. Wingate (ab) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/14/2017

110 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Independent Police Auditor's Second Compliance Report by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Interim Compliance Report, # 2 Appendix School-Based Arrest Policy, # 3 Appendix Document itemizing incident reports, # 4 Appendix Training and Signature Logs, # 5 Appendix Document itemizing incident reports, # 6 Appendix MOU, # 7 Appendix Internal Affairs Policy, # 8 Appendix Document itemizing complaint documentation, # 9 Appendix Document itemizing custody orders, # 10 Appendix Document itemizing call for service report, # 11 Appendix Document itemizing call for service report, # 12 Appendix Miranda Rights Card, # 13 Appendix Training Materials, # 14 Appendix CV, # 15 Appendix Community Input Plan, # 16 Appendix Meeting Notice, # 17 Appendix Community Surveys)(Porter-Federal Gov, Forestine) (Entered: 06/14/2017)

06/27/2017

Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Henry T. Wingate: Status Conference held on 6/27/2017. Doug Miracle, counsel for the Attorney General, Mississippi Department of Youth Services, State of Mississippi, and Mississippi Department of Human Services to

submit requested information by the end of the week. Richard Goemann, counsel for the United States, to submit additional briefing within 14 days from the receipt of hearing transcript. Charles Wright, counsel for Judge Coleman and Judge Young, to submit response within 7 days from the United States' brief submission. Court Reporter/Transcriber Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-6084188. (hw) (Entered: 06/27/2017)

06/28/2017

NOTICE: During the Barnhardt open court arguments, this court asked John Compton, the School Board Attorney for the Meridian Municipal Separate School District, to comment, if he would, on the status of the presentation of the MOU before the School Board. He replied that he anticipates it will be on the June agenda, based on emails between the Chief of Police and Superintendent. He said he anticipates it will be approved by the school board on the third Monday of July, 2017. (hw) (Entered: 06/28/2017)

07/11/2017

111 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL EXCERPT OF TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/27/2017 before Judge Henry T. Wingate. Court Reporter Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-6084188. 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 8/1/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 8/11/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/10/2017. (BW) (Entered: 07/11/2017)

07/13/2017

112 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Phone Conference held on October 27, 2016 before Judge Henry T. Wingate. Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601608-4186. 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 8/3/2017. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for

8/14/2017. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 10/11/2017. (CB) (Entered: 07/13/2017)

07/25/2017

113 NOTICE Supplemental Brief on Issues Raised During June 27, 2017 Hearing by United States of America re 65 Memorandum in Support (Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 07/25/2017)

08/01/2017

114 Response in Opposition re 113 NOTICE Supplemental Brief on Issues Raised During June 27, 2017 Hearing by United States of America re 65 Memorandum in Support (Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) filed by Frank Coleman, Veldore Young (Wright, Charles) (Entered: 08/01/2017)

08/02/2017

115 Response in Opposition re 113 NOTICE Supplemental Brief on Issues Raised During June 27, 2017 Hearing by United States of America re 65 Memorandum in Support (Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) filed by County of Lauderdale (Thaggard, Lee) (Entered: 08/02/2017)

09/30/2017

116 Memorandum Opinion and Order: granting 58 MOTION to Dismiss , mooting 57 MOTION to Dismiss Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/30/2017 (cwl) (Entered: 09/30/2017)

09/30/2017

117 FINAL JUDGMENT: that the Complaint be dismissed with prejudice in accordance with this court's Order Granting the Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Defendants are entitled to recover their taxable costs in this action upon filing a Bill of Costs in the time and manner prescribed by the rules. Signed by District Judge Henry T. Wingate on 9/30/2017 (cwl) (Entered: 09/30/2017)

10/16/2017

118 NOTICE by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 4th Report of Probation Services Independent Auditor)(Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 10/16/2017)

11/28/2017

119 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 116 Memorandum Opinion and Order, 117 Judgment, by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 District Court Memorandum and Order, # 2 District Court Final Judgment)(Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 11/28/2017)

12/19/2017

120 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT for dates of 10/7/2015 before Judge Henry T. Wingate, re 119 Notice of Appeal Court Reporter Brenda Wolverton, Telephone Number : 601-6084188. 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 1/9/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/19/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/19/2018. (BW) (Entered: 12/19/2017)

12/21/2017

121 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by United States of America for proceedings held on 4/24/17 before Judge Wingate, (CuncannanFederal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 12/21/2017)

12/28/2017

122 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Phone Conference for dates of April 24, 2017 before Judge Henry T. Wingate, re 119 Notice of Appeal Court Reporter/Transcriber Cherie Bond, Telephone Number : 601-608-4186. 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 1/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/29/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/28/2018. (CB) (Entered: 12/28/2017)

01/08/2018

Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal electronically to US Court of Appeals in re 119 Notice of Appeal. (ND) (Entered: 01/08/2018)

01/11/2018

ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL ACCEPTED : The Court of Appeals has accepted the Electronic Record on Appeal and it is available for attorney access and download at http://http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/docs/defaultsource/forms/instructions-for-electronic-record-download-feature-ofcm.pdf using credentials provided to you by the Clerk of that Court. COUNSEL MUST HAVE AN APPEARANCE FORM ON FILE. If you have not filed it and/or have just filed it, please allow 3-5 days for processing. Requirements: Java 1.7, Adobe Acrobat Reader 11, turn off pop up blockers or add CM/ECF filing system to approved pop up settings. (ND) (Entered: 01/11/2018)

01/16/2018

123 STATUS REPORT Notice of Filing of Independent Police Auditor's Final Compliance Report by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Appendix Signed MOU, # 2 Appendix Arrest reports, # 3 Appendix

CV, # 4 Appendix Training proposal, # 5 Appendix Signature roster, # 6 Appendix Public notice)(Porter-Federal Gov, Forestine) (Entered: 01/16/2018)

03/20/2018

124 ORDER of USCA: granting Motion to withdraw as counsel filed by Mr. Charles W. Wright, Jr. as to 119 Notice of Appeal filed by United States of America (cwl) (Entered: 03/20/2018)

04/02/2018

125 NOTICE Filing of Fifth Report of Probation Services Independent Auditor by United States of America (Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/02/2018)

09/12/2018

126 NOTICE of Filing of United States' First Assessment of City of Meridian's Compliance with Settlement Agreement by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Appendix US compliance letter and assessment)(Porter-Federal Gov, Forestine) (Entered: 09/12/2018)

11/27/2018

127 NOTICE of Filing of Sixth Report of Probation Services Independent Auditor by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment)(Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

03/26/2019 128 Copy of Opinion - USCA in re 119 Notice of Appeal. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter)(ND) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

03/26/2019

129 CERTIFIED COPY OF USCA JUDGMENT/MANDATE as to 119 Notice of Appeal filed by United States of America. It is ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. (Attachments: # 1 USCA Cover Letter)(ND) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

04/15/2019

130 NOTICE of Joint Filing of Transition of Probation Monitor by United States of America (Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 04/15/2019)

05/23/2019

131 Joint MOTION to Terminate Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the City of Meridian by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment US final assessment)(Porter-Federal Gov, Forestine) (Entered: 05/23/2019)

07/17/2019

132 NOTICE of Filing by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Attachment US First Report Regarding Probation Services Agreement Compliance)(Cuncannan-Federal Gov, Jacqueline) (Entered: 07/17/2019)

12/17/2019

Set Telephonic Hearing as to 131 Joint MOTION to Terminate Settlement Agreement Between the United States and the City of Meridian. Motion Hearing set for 12/20/2019 09:00 AM before District

Judge Henry T. Wingate. Email to Follow with Dial-in instructions. (ab) (Entered: 12/17/2019)

02/27/2020

133 NOTICE of Filing by United States of America (Attachments: # 1 Second Report of US-Monitor)(Goemann-Federal Gov, Richard) (Entered: 0

 
 Justice Department Releases Investigative Findings Showing Constitutional Rights of Children in Mississippi Being Violated | OPA | Department of Justice

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Friday, August 10, 2012

Justice Department Releases Investigative Findings Showing Constitutional Rights of Children in Mississippi Being Violated
After Comprehensive Investigation, Lauderdale County Youth Court, Meridian Police Department and Mississippi Division of Youth Services in Meridian, Mississippi, Found to Have Violated Constitutional Due Process Rights of Children
The Justice Department released a letter of findings today determining that the Lauderdale County Youth Court, the Meridian Police Department (MPD), and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services (DYS) are violating the constitutional rights of juveniles in Meridian, Miss. The department’s investigation found reasonable cause to believe that these agencies have violated the constitutional due process rights of children in the city of Meridian and the county of Lauderdale under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The department initiated a comprehensive investigation in December 2011 under Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which prohibits a pattern or practice of deprivation of civil rights for juveniles in the administration of juvenile justice, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance. The Justice Department continues to investigate whether any of the agencies are violating children's rights under Title VI or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The department’s investigation showed that the agencies have helped to operate a school-to-prison pipeline whereby children arrested in local schools become entangled in a cycle of incarceration without substantive and procedural protections required by the U.S. Constitution. The department’s findings show that children in Lauderdale County have been routinely and repeatedly incarcerated for allegedly committing school disciplinary infractions and are punished disproportionately, without constitutionally required procedural safeguards. Children have also been arrested at school for offenses as minor as defiance. Furthermore, children on probation are

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-investigative-findings-showing-constitutional-rights-children[8/16/2016 4:11:13 PM]

Justice Department Releases Investigative Findings Showing Constitutional Rights of Children in Mississippi Being Violated | OPA | Department of Justice

routinely arrested and incarcerated for allegedly violating their probation by committing minor school infractions, such as dress code violations, which result in suspensions. The department’s investigation showed that students most affected by this system are African-American children and children with disabilities.
“The systematic disregard for children’s basic constitutional rights by agencies with a duty to protect and serve these children betrays the public trust,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We hope to resolve the concerns outlined in our findings in a collaborative fashion, but we will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action if necessary.”

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

In its investigation, the Justice Department found a pattern or practice of unconstitutional conduct in several areas, including:
Failure by MPD to adequately assess probable cause that an unlawful offense has been committed prior to arresting children at local schools; Failure by the Lauderdale County Youth Court to provide children with proper procedural due process, including by making untimely and inadequate probable cause determinations; Failure by the Lauderdale County Youth Court and the Mississippi DYS to provide children procedural due process rights in the probationary process, especially with regard to alleged probation violations; and Failure by all entities to ensure substantive due process for children on probation by incarcerating children for school disciplinary offenses without any procedural safeguards.
“The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to seeing the rule of law applied to all citizens fairly and equally,” said Gregory Davis, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. “We hope to be able to resolve the civil rights violations found by the Justice Department in a way that benefits all the people of Meridian and Lauderdale County, including those children who are being treated unfairly by the juvenile justice system.”

This investigation was conducted by the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section, working in conjunction with the Educational Opportunities Section, which has a long-standing school desegregation case against the Meridian Public School District, and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi. For more information on the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt.
Related Materials:
Letter of Findings

12-993

Civil Rights Division Updated October 8, 2014

ABOUT The Attorney General

| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

RESOURCES Forms

CAREERS Legal Careers

JUSTICE.GOV

Archive Accessibility

Social Media For Employees

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-releases-investigative-findings-showing-constitutional-rights-children[8/16/2016 4:11:13 PM]

 
 Justice Department Reaches Settlement Agreements to Address Unconstitutional Youth Arrest and Probation Practices in Meridian, Mississippi | OPA | Department ...

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Friday, June 19, 2015

Justice Department Reaches Settlement Agreements to Address Unconstitutional Youth Arrest and Probation Practices in Meridian, Mississippi
The Justice Department announced today that, jointly with the state of Mississippi and city of Meridian, Mississippi, it has reached settlement agreements to prevent and address unconstitutional youth arrests and probation practices by the Meridian Police Department and the Mississippi Division of Youth Services, and submitted them to the court for approval.  
In 2012, the department filed a lawsuit against the city of Meridian, the state of Mississippi, the Lauderdale County, Mississippi, Youth Court and the Youth Court Judges, alleging systematic violations of youths’ due process rights, in the matter of United States v. City of Meridian, et al. If approved by the U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, the proposed agreements will resolve the department’s claims against the city of Meridian and state of Mississippi. The agreements incorporate and build on reforms the city and state began during the United States’ investigation and subsequent litigation.
The department’s allegations that defendants Lauderdale County and the Lauderdale County Youth Court Judges failed to provide basic due process protections for children have not been resolved, and remain in litigation.
The agreement with the city of Meridian addresses the Meridian Police Department’s prior practice of arresting students referred by the school district without assessing whether there was sufficient probable cause to justify the arrest. The settlement agreement prohibits the city police department from arresting youth for behavior that is appropriately addressed as a school discipline issue, and requires documented probable cause determinations for any youth arrested for criminal offenses. The agreement also requires the city police department to uphold constitutional protections following a youth’s arrest, mandating Miranda warnings as soon as a youth reasonably believes he or she is not free to leave and prohibiting officers from interviewing detained youth unless a guardian or attorney is present.
The agreement with the state of Mississippi addresses the department’s claims of unconstitutional youth probation practices by the Mississippi Division of Youth Services. The settlement agreement

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-agreements-address-unconstitutional-youth-arrest-and[8/16/2016 4:12:35 PM]

Justice Department Reaches Settlement Agreements to Address Unconstitutional Youth Arrest and Probation Practices in Meridian, Mississippi | OPA | Department ...

requires state probation officers to implement measures to protect youths’ privilege against selfincrimination, including providing youths with age-appropriate explanations of their rights and the probationary process. The agreement also includes requirements for the contracts that establish the restrictions and rules that youth on probation must comply with. These contracts must be written in terms that are easily understandable to youths and that prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and include a clear explanation of the youth’s rights. The agreement prohibits probation officers from recommending incarcerating youths for violations of their probation contracts that would not otherwise amount to detainable offenses, unless and until all other reasonable alternatives to incarceration have been exhausted.

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

“We commend the city of Meridian and the state of Mississippi’s Department of Human Services and Division of Youth Services for taking these important steps toward ensuring that school disciplinary issues are not inappropriately criminalized, ” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Civil Rights Division. “Going forward, the Department of Justice expects to work with Meridian and the state of Mississippi to ensure that children’s constitutional rights are protected in police and probation practices.”

“These agreements will help protect the children of Meridian from deprivations of educational opportunity as well as due process,” said U.S. Attorney Gregory K. Davis of the Southern District of Mississippi.

Each agreement will be monitored by an independent auditor who will report publicly to the federal court.

Under the agreements, the city and state will work with the United States and independent auditors to establish community input programs. These programs shall include semiannual open meetings, to be held in a publicly-accessible location, where the state and city will inform the public about progress in implementing the agreements and address community concerns related to the substantive areas covered by the agreements.   

These agreements also build on reforms that the department’s Educational Opportunities Section obtained in a 2013 settlement with the Meridian Public School District to address school discipline claims in a long-standing desegregation case. To see the consent order, visit http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/classlist.php#race.

The department filed this complaint under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which gives the department the authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youths in the administration of juvenile justice. Additional information about the Civil Rights Division is available on its website at www.justice.gov/crt.

The Justice Department will be hosting a telephonic community conference call open to members of the public on Monday, June 22, 2015, at 6:30 p.m., CDT. The purpose of this call is to provide community members with information about the investigation and complaint. To participate in the call, dial the following toll-free number: 877-675-0879. When prompted by the operator, provide your name and the pass code: 4611051.

15-768 Download City of Meridian Agreement Download State of Mississippi Agreement Download Juvenile Justice 6.19.15

Civil Rights Division Civil Rights - Educational Opportunities Civil Rights - Special Litigation
Updated August 4, 2015

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-reaches-settlement-agreements-address-unconstitutional-youth-arrest-and[8/16/2016 4:12:35 PM]

 
 Justice Department Files Lawsuit in Mississippi to Protect the Constitutional Rights of Children | OPA | Department of Justice

Search this site

Search

HOME ABOUT AGENCIES BUSINESS RESOURCES NEWS CAREERS CONTACT Home » Office of Public Affairs

JUSTICE NEWS

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs

SHARE Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Justice Department Files Lawsuit in Mississippi to Protect the Constitutional Rights of Children
Department Seeks Declaratory, Injunctive and Equitable Relief against City of Meridian, Lauderdale County and Mississippi Division of Youth Services
The Justice Department filed a lawsuit today against the city of Meridian, Miss.; Lauderdale County, Miss.; judges of the Lauderdale County Youth Court; and the state of Mississippi alleging that the defendants systematically violate the due process rights of juveniles.

The litigation seeks remedies for violations of the Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The complaint alleges that the defendants help to operate a school-to-prison pipeline in which the rights of children in Meridian are repeatedly and routinely violated. As a result, children in Meridian have been systematically incarcerated for allegedly committing minor offenses, including school disciplinary infractions, and are punished disproportionately without due process of law. The students most affected by this system are African-American children and children with disabilities. The practices that regularly violate the rights of children in Meridian include:
Children are handcuffed and arrested in school and incarcerated for days at a time without a probable cause hearing, regardless of the severity – or lack thereof – of the alleged offense or probation violation.
Children who are incarcerated prior to adjudication in the Lauderdale County system regularly wait more than 48 hours for a probable cause hearing, in violation of federal constitutional requirements.
Children make admissions to formal charges without being advised of their Miranda rights and without making an informed waiver of those rights.

Report a Crime
Get a Job
Locate a Prison, Inmate, or Sex Offender
Apply for a Grant
Submit a Complaint
Report Waste, Fraud, Abuse or Misconduct to the Inspector General
Find Sales of Seized Property
Find Help and Information for Crime Victims
Register, Apply for Permits, or Request Records

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-mississippi-protect-constitutional-rights-children[8/16/2016 4:13:35 PM]

Justice Department Files Lawsuit in Mississippi to Protect the Constitutional Rights of Children | OPA | Department of Justice

Lauderdale County does not consistently afford children meaningful representation by an attorney during the juvenile justice process, including in preparation for and during detention, adjudication and disposition hearings.
“ The department is bringing this lawsuit to ensure that all children are treated fairly and receive the fullest protection of the law,” said Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “ It is in all of our best interests to ensure that children are not incarcerated for alleged minor infractions, and that police and courts meet their obligations to uphold children’s constitutional rights.”

Identify Our Most Wanted Fugitives
Find a Form
Report and Identify Missing Persons
Contact Us

The department issued findings on Aug. 10, 2012 after a comprehensive investigation that began in December 2011. The department found reasonable cause that the defendants were violating Section 14141 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which prohibits a pattern or practice of deprivation of civil rights in the administration of juvenile justice . In its findings letter, the department stated its willingness to engage in meaningful negotiations to remedy the identified violations, but defendants did not timely engage in such negotiations.

“It is disappointing that the local and state government agencies involved in the administration of juvenile justice in Lauderdale County have not worked cooperatively with the Justice Department to resolve these violations,” said Gregory Davis, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. “The U.S. Attorney’s Office is committed to making sure that children in the Lauderdale County juvenile justice system are treated in accordance with the Constitution.”

This investigation was conducted by the Civil Rights Division’s Special Litigation Section, working in conjunction with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi. The Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section also has a long-standing school desegregation case against the Meridian Public School District. The district is currently working cooperatively with the department to resolve issues in that case.

The Justice Department, including U.S. Attorney Gregory Davis and Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin, will be hosting a telephonic community conference call open to members of the public on Thursday, Oct. 25 from 7:30 – 8:30 p.m. CDT. The purpose of this call is to provide community members with information about the investigation and complaint. To participate in the call, dial the following toll-free number: 888-989-9731 and when prompted by the operator, provide your name and the pass code: 7015490.

For more information on the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, please visit www.justice.gov/crt . The public may contact the department generally about this matter by calling toll-free at 1-855-544-5131, or send an email to Community.Meridian@usdoj.gov

12-1281

Civil Rights Division Updated September 15, 2014

ABOUT

| 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001

JUSTICE.GOV

RESOURCES

CAREERS

Archive

Social Media

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-mississippi-protect-constitutional-rights-children[8/16/2016 4:13:35 PM]