Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 1 of 8 PageiD #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

GREENVILLE DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LEFLORE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant.

)
)
) ) )
) Civil Action No. 4:15-CV-059-DMB-JMV
) ) ) ) )

COMPLAINT

The United States of America (the "United States"), by its undersigned attorneys, hereby files this Complaint and alleges upon information and belief:
I. The United States files this Complaint pursuant to the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to enjoin Defendant Leflore County ("Leflore") from depriving children confined in the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center ("Detention Center") of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws ofthe United States.
JURISDICTION, STANDING and VENUE

2. 1345.

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

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 2 of 8 PageiD #: 2
4. Venue in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff is the United States of America. 6. Defendant is Leflore County, Mississippi. 7. Leflore is a governmental authority with responsibility for the administration of
juvenile justice or the incarceration ofjuveniles within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 14141, and it
operates the Detention Center in Greenwood, Mississippi. This action concerns conditions at the Detention Center.
8. Leflore is legally responsible, in whole or in pa1t, for the operation of the Detention Center and for the safety and welfare of the children confined there.
9. Leflore is obligated to operate the Detention Center in a manner that does not. infringe upon the federal rights, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and by other federal law, of children confined at the Detention Center.
I0. At all relevant times, Leflore has acted or failed to act tmder color of state law. FACTS
The Detention Center
11. The Detention Center is a 30-bed short-term facility that Leflore owns and operates for the detention of children. Male and female children between I 0 and 17 years of age are typically detained at the Detention Center for periods ranging from a few hours to more than
2

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 3 of 8 PageiD #: 3
30 days, although the Detention Center has the capability to house children for 90 days. The Detention Center can house hundreds of children each year, with some children returning to the Detention Center multiple times or in quick succession.
12. In addition to detaining children from Leflore, the Detention Center contracts with several other Mississippi counties to detain children. Among the counties that contract with Leflore for juvenile detention are Attala, Bolivar, Calhoun, Carroll, Choctaw, Coahoma, Grenada, Holmes, Humphrey, Leake, Montgomery, Panola, Quitman, Sunflower, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tunica, Yalobusha and Webster.
The United States' Investigation
13. The United States, pursuant to an investigation of the Detention Center, has determined that Leflore, through its acts and omissions, engages in a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the Constitutional and statutory rights of youth at the Detention Center.
14. The United States' findings are outlined in a March 31, 2011 Letter of Findings, which is attached and incorporated here by reference. Specifically, the investigation uncovered "undue use of restraints, arbitrary imposition of punishment, inadequate grievance procedmes, failure to repmt and investigate abuse, inadequate classification systems, inadequate rehabilitative treatment, inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate suicide risk protections, inadequate environmental safety, inadequate staffing, and inadequate educational services."
15. After the release of the Findings Letter, the United States conducted a supplemental on-site inspection in December 2013. The Detention Center had by then ended
3 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 4 of 8 PageiD #: 4
some of its most troubling practices, such as chaining children to fixed objects. However, the 2013 inspection revealed ongoing violations of youth's Fourteenth Amendment rights at the Detention Center, including those described in paragraphs 18-23 below.
16. In the months following the 2013 on-site visit, the United States and Leflore entered into negotiations to resolve the security and facility conditions violations identified in the Findings Letter. The United States and Leflore have reached a settlement to resolve those claims and contemporaneously are filing a "Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement" and "Memorandum Brief in Support of Entry of Settlement Agreement."
17. On September 16, 2013, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant issued a proclamation placing the Leflore county school district (which includes the school at the Detention Center) under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Board of Education ("Board") pursuant to Mississippi law and authorized the Board "to abolish the district and its existing school board and superintendent of schools." As a result, the State and Board provide educational services at the Detention Center school and Leflore claims that it no longer is involved in providing education services at the Detention Center. Thus, the Settlement Agreement between the United States and Leflore does not resolve the United States' findings of violations of children's educational rights at Leflore.
Inadequate Suicide Prevention Practices
18. The Findings Letter warned of suicide hazards in children's cells, including protrusions and tying-otf points that pose a risk of hanging; The Detention Center does not protect children against the risk of suicide and still fails to screen or monitor potentially suicidal
4

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 5 of 8 PageiD #: 5
children. On November 21,2013, a boy at the Detention Center attempted suicide, which demonstrated the failure of the Detention Center's screening and monitoring of potentially suicidal children. The suicide attempt occurred due to conditions that have existed at the Detention Center for years, including failure to eliminate tying-off points, to monitor children and to take suicide precautions.
Unreasonable Risks to Safety and Welfare
19. The Detention Center staff fails to supervise children consistently and appropriately. The Detention Center has experienced serious lapses in security (including concealment of contraband and a successful escape) even after the release of the Findings Letter. These security lapses jeopardize the safety of children and staff.
20. The Detention Center's physical environment poses an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of detained children. Cells and showers are extremely dirty, which exposes children to the risk of disease and infectious agents.
21. The Detention Center's fire safety and emergency planning is inadequate and exposes both children and staff to an unnecessarily high risk of harm, including death. The fire plan for evacuating children and staff is dangerous, and the Detention Center does not have an adequate plan for evacuation in the event of a tornado or other emergency.
Failure to Investigate Abuse
22. The Detention Center is obligated to conduct internal investigations of alleged abuse to keep children reasonably safe. Once an allegQ.tion of abuse has been made, a proper investigation is required to collect evidence to verify or disprove the allegation.
5 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 6 of 8 PageiD #: 6
23. The Detention Center does not follow its own procedures for reporting and investigating allegations of child abuse. Internal investigations are cursory and do not include examination by medical staff, photographs of alleged injuries, or other basic elements of accurate investigations.
Violations of Fourteenth Amendment
24. The United States incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-23 as if fully setforth herein.
25. Let1ore's acts and omissions alleged in Paragraphs 1-23 constitute a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the federal rights of children confined at the Detention Center, as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
26. Unless restrained by this Court, Let1ore will continue to engage in the acts and omissions set forth in Paragraphs 1-23 that deprive children confmed at the Detention Center of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution of the United States, causing irreparable harm to these children.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 27. The Attorney General is authorized, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 14141, to seek equitable and declaratory relief. 
 WHEREFORE, the United States prays that this Court enter an order: 

6 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 7 of 8 PageiD #: 7
a. Declaring that the acts, omissions, and practices of Leflore set forth in Paragraph 1-23 above constitute a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives the children detained at the Detention Center ofthe rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, and that those acts, orriissions, and practices violate the Constitution and laws ofthe United States;
b. Permanently enjoining Leflore, its officers, agents, employees, subordinates, successors in office, and all those acting in concert or participation with .it from continuing the acts, omissions, and practices set forth in Paragraphs 1-23 above, and requiring Leflore to take
such actions as will ensure that lawful conditions of confinement are afforded to children at the
Detention Center; and c. Granting such other and further equitable relief as the Court may deem just and
proper.
7 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1 Filed: 05/12/15 8 of 8 PageiD #: 8

DATE: May 12,2015

FELICIA C. ADAMS

United States Attorney

c»ort~~ District of Mississippi

~0~~
Is/ Ralph M

" " · ••
Dean.

""'~
fiT

RALPH M. DEAN, III, MBN 6010

Assistant United States Attorney

U.S. Attorney's Office

Northern District ofMississippi

Ethridge Building

900 Jefferson Ave.

Oxford, MS 38655

(662) 234-3351 (T)

(662) 234-3318 (F) 


Ralph.Dean@usdoj .gov 


Respectfully submitted,
VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division United States Department of Justice
MARK J. KAPPELHOFF Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section
SHELLEY R. JACKSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section
Is/ Cynthia Coels/
CYNTHIACOE Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division Special Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 353-112l(T) (202) 514-4883 (F) Cynthia.Coe@usdoj .gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff

8 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 1 of 30 PageiD #: 9 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Atto1714J General
: I
)

'Washington. D.C. 20530
MAR 31 2011

The Honorable Robert Moore Chair, Leflore County Board of Supervisors 306 West Market Street Greenwood, Mississippi 38930-4355
Re: Investigation of the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center
Dear Chairman Moore:
I write to report the fmdings of the Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions at the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center ("LCJDC") in Greenwood, Mississippi. On Au.,oust 14, 2009, we notified .Leflore County, Mississippi, of our intent to conduct an investigation of LCJDC pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIPA"), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"). Both CRIPA and Section 14141 give the United States Department ofJustice ("DOJ") authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youth in juvenile justice institutions.
We thank th« staff members at LCJDC for their helpful and professional conduct throughout the course of the investigation. We received complete cooperation and appreciate their receptiveness to our consultants' on-site recommendations. Staff assisted our investigation by providing access to records and personnel and by promptly responding to our requests in a transparent manner. We have every reason to believe that the County and the staff of LCJDC are committed to remedying deficiencies at the facility.
I. SUMMARY OF FINDlNGS
The youth confmed to LCJDC are subjected to conditions that violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Our investigation revealed systemic, egregious, and dangerous abuses perpetuated by a lack of accountability and controls. LCJDC fails to prevent unconstitutional harms, or minimize the risk ofsuch harms, through undue use of restraints, arbitrary imposition of punishment, inadequate grievance procedures, failure to report and investigate abuse, inadeqJlllte classification systems, inadequate rehabilitative treatment, inadequate medical a11d mental health care, inadequate suicide risk protections, inadequate environmental safety, inadequate staffmg, and inadequate educational services. We found that:

l

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 2 of 30 PageiD #: 10

. 2. '

• Youth are dangerously and routinely shackled to metal beds for discipline and 
 punishment; 

• Staff have unfettered discretion to immediately administer punishment, and isolation is used excessively for punishment and control;
• Suicidal youth are not assessed by mental health professionals despite known risks; • Internal investigations dismiss abuse complaints against staff as manipulative; and • No accoriunodations exist for children with learning disabilities.

. These systemic deficiencies exist because generally accepted juvenile justice standards are not followed. We found that LCJDC staff members do not receive minimally adequate 
 training 'and that existing policies and procedures are inadequate to ensure constitutionally 
 · adequate care and custody of the youth confmed to the facility. Staffmembers fail to report 
 allegations of abuse to the State and appear to routinely violate youths' rights with impunity.

The widespread and significant deficiencies at the facility are a result of significant 
 departures :from accepted juvenile justice standards and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's 
 mandate that youth in custody be protected from harm.. In this letter, we provide 
 reco=endations that are minimally necessary to bring.the facility into compliance with the 
 Constitution and federal law. 

II. INVESTIGATION
On November 11-12, 2009; we conducted an on-sire inspeci:iol). ofLCJDC accompanied by expert consultants in the areas of protection :from harm and education. Before, during, and after our tour, we reviewed extensive documentation provided by the County, including policies and procedures, incident reports, unit logs, .and training materials. Additiomilly, we interviewed LCJDC administrators, staff, and youth. We observed youths in a variety of settings, including . their living units, dining areas, and in the facility's only classroom: Consistent with our commitment to conduct a transparent investigation and provide techhical assistance, our expert .consultants conveyed their initial impressions and concerns to the County during exit conferences held at the conclusion of the tour.
m. BACKGROUND

The LCIDC is a 30-bed short-term facility owned and operated by Leflore County for the detention of youth. Male and female youth between 10 and 17 years of age are· detained at LCJDC for periods ranging from a few hours to more than 30 (\ays. In addition to detaining youth :from Leflore County, the facility contracts with 19 other Mississippi counties to detain youth.1 As required by state statute, LCJDC and other juvenile justice facilities in Mississippi are monitored by the State Department of Public Safety's Juvenile Detenti9n Facilities Monitoring Unit on a quarterly basis. Despite the relatively limited bed capacity ofLCJDC, the number of youths detained at the facility, over time, is significant. During the period between

1

The counties that.contract with Leflore County for juvenile detention include Attala, Bolivar, Ca!hmm, 


Carroll, Choctaw, Coahoma, Grenada, Hotmes, Humphrey, Leake, Montgomery, Panola, Quitman, Sunflower, 


Tallahatchie, Tate, Tunica, Yalobusha, and Webster.

· 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 3 of 30 PageiD #: 11

-3­

July 2008 and September 2009,544 different youths were held at the facility. Notably, some of these 544 youths were detained at the facility multiple times during the time period. During our on-site visit in November 2009, the facility had a youth population of seven males and six females who were from eight different counties.

The two-story LCJDC building was converted from a mental health facility to a juvenile

facility in 1995, with the original construction dating back to the 1950s. In addition to LCJDC,.

the building houses the Leflore County Youth Court and offices for the court's counselors. The

·juvenile detention portion of the building consists of two floors and is· outfitted like an adult jail.

The layout is primarily double-bunked cells with metal frame·beds, built-in desks or tables, and

stainless steel toilets and sinks. Each cell has a metal door with a small window, and "lighting is

controlled externally by a sw:\tch near the door. The upper level customarily houses female

youths and includes the facility's only classroom, which is outfitted with books, desks, and an

adjacent computer lab. The lower level ofLCIDC customarily houses male youths and has a
small dayroom for programming in addition to cells. An external door on the'lower level

hallway connects the cells to a very small outdoor "recreation area" that is completely enclosed

by tall brick walls..This outdoor recreation area is designated as the point of egress ·in case of

frre or other emergency.

·

IV. FINDINGS

In violation of their constitutional rights, youth at LCIDC are inappropriately and dangerously restrained, arbitrarily punished, denied adequate medical and mental health care; not protected from suicide risk, inadequately supervised, and inadequately educated. Unsafe conditions ofconfmement, combined with a paucity of meaningful programming, education and other activities, create an environment at LCJDC that is dangerous and detrimental to youth development and well-being. The environment is especially harmful for those youth who spend long periods oftime at LCIDC "or who frequently. return to the facility.

A. LEFLORE COUNTY IS FAILING TO PROTECT YOUTH FROM HARM AT 
 LCJDC 


CRIPA and Section 14141 authorize DOJ to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of . conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory· rights of youth in juvenile justiCe
institutions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997; 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Youth detained at LCIDC are protected by the Fourteenth Amendmttnt and have a substantive due process right to reasonably safe conditions of confmement and freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints. Youngberg v. Romeo, ~57 U.S. 307,315-16 (1982) ("If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily [detained] -who may not be punished at all· in unsafe conditions.").. The Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, applies because the youth are held for detention or rehabilitation,

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 4 of 30 PageiD #: -12

-4­
not punishment. 2 The Mississippi youth delinquency statute's statement cifpwpose provides that "each child coming within the jurisdiction of the youth court ... become a responsible, accountable and productive citizen, and that each such child shall receive such care, guidance and control, preferably in such child's own home as is conducive toward that end and is in the state's and the child's best interest." Miss.·Code Ann.§ 43-21-103,

To detennine whether the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, a balancing test must be applied: "[I]t is necessary to balance 'the liberty of the individual' and 'thll demands of an organized society."' Youngberg. 457 U.S. at 320 (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 542 (1961)). The Youngberg Court went on to hold that "Ifthere is to. be any uniformity in protecting these interests, this balancing cannot be left to the unguided discretion of ajudge or jury." Id. at 321. Instead, the Court held that there is a constitutional violation if detaining officials substantially depart from generally accepted professional standards, and that departure endangers youth in their care. See id. at 314.

As a general matter, the Supreme .Court has held that corrections officials must take reasonable steps to guarantee detainees' safety and provide "humane conditions" of confinement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Hare v. Citv of Corinth, 741;'.3d 633, 639 (5th Cir. 1996) (recognizing a duty to provide detainees with basic human needs including protection
a from harm). In addition, an official's failure to maintain adequate policies, procedures, and
practices for the prevention ofsuicides may violate detainee's due process rights. Silva v. Donley County Texas, 32 F.3d 566, 1994 WL 442404, *5-7 (5th Cir. 1994) (urtpilb!ished) (holding sheriff's failure to establish suicide detection and prevention training for jail personnel, condoning de facto policy of sporadic cell checks, and absence ofa policy for observing "at-risk" detainees may rise to deliberate indifference to known risk of suicide in detention settings).

. Finally, conditions of confinement claims may be based not only upon existing physical

hann to youth, but also on conditions that threaten to cause future harm. Hel!ing v. McKinney,
509 u.s, 25, 33 (1993) (stating "[i]t would be odd to deny [reliefto detainees] who plainly

proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their [facility] on the ground thi!t nothing yet had

happened to them."). In Helling, the court recognized various circuit courts holding that "a

[detainee] n.eed not waituntil he is actually assaulted before obtaining relief' and that the Constitution "protects against sufficiently ilnminent dangers." Id. at 33-34; ~also Hennan v.

Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizmg Helling standard); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d

1291, 1308-11 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that failure to provide adequate systems to protect

inmates against future harm including physical assaults and abuse constituted cruel and unusual

punishment).

·

·

2

In Ingraham v. Wright. the Supreme Couri rejected application of the Eighth Ame11dment deliberative

indifference standard in a non-criminal context. 430 U.S. 651, 669 n.37 (1977) ("Eighth Amendment scrutiny is

appropriate only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal

prosecutions."). In addition, the Court held that the Due Process Clause ofthe Fourteenth Amendment was the

proper constitutional gauge to determine the rights ofl!l!!!!!§' detained by a state, but not yet convicted of any crime.

Bell v. Wolfish. 441 U.S. 520 (1979). Seem Scotty. Moore, 85 F.3d230, 235 (5th Cir. 1996). At a minimum,

youth should be accorded the same constitutional protections.

·

.

Case·: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 5 of 30 PageiD #: 13

- 5­

1. Youth atLCJDC are subjected to undue restraint.

Our investigation revealed munerous uses ofdangerous and unnecessary restraintsat LCJDC. The justifications offered by staff for the use ofthe restraints were ambiguous or clearly inappropriate. Youth are frequently shackled to the bed in their cell in response to non­ dangerous actions and for punislunent. Documentation of the application of restraints failed to adequately describe the reasons for or the duration of the uses ofrestraint.3

Youth at LCJDC may not be unduly restrained or subjected to exce·ssive use of force by

staff. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 316; Morales v. Tunnan, 364 F. Supp. 166, 173 (E.D. Tex.

1973) (issuing a preliminary injunction where the court found that juvenile facilities' widespread

practice of beating, slapping, kicking, and otherwise abusing youth in the absence of exigent

circumstances violated youths' rights). In determining whether a violation exists under the

Eighth Amendment, courts consider whether "force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain

or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpos(l of causing harin" to

determine whether force was excessive. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 6 (1992) (citing

Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320-21 (1986). Prison officials "may take all reasonable steps

to insure proper prison discipline, security and order" but must ensure "that inmates are not

subjected to any punishment beyond that which is necessary for [] orderly administration."

Gates v. Collier. 501 F.2d at 1309. Hence, the use offorce after an irunate has been subdued and

an emergency has dissipated, or which is disproportionate to the force needed to regain control,

vioiates the Eighth Amendment. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002) (leaving an inmate

handcuffed to a post after order had been regained constituted cruel and unusual punishment); .

Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F. 2d 1440, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993) (applying a chokehold on disruptive

inmate who refused to exit cell and striking irunate while handcuffed, kneeling, and non-resisting·

was malicious and sadistic, causing harm)..The use ofmechanical restraints should be limited to

circumstances where a youth presents a clear danger to herself or others. See H.C. by Hewett v.

Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080, 1086 (11th Cir. 1986) (disproportionate response ofguard to juvenile

detainee, which included shackling to bed, "amounted to punishment in violation of due process.

clause").

·

Generally accepted professional standards require. that staff only use physical force or mechanical restraints to the degree and duration necessary to bring a situation under control.' Every application of mechanical restraints - including handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains, or other such restraints - must be fully documented, including the circumstances leading to the application of restraints and the duration that the restraints were applied. Any restrained juvenile should be constantly observed by staff to (lnsure safety.

3 ' The facility's policy manual is ambiguous about the County's expectation for documenting uses of force, One'section states that the ''nse afforce resulting in injury to staff or youth and the use of mechanical restraints will be fully documented and reported," suggesting that only use of force incidents involving injury should be documented. Several pages later, however, the manual states that a ''written report ... will be completed no later than seventy-two (72) hours following the incident depending on the circumstances ofthe incident." There is no explanation ofthe determinative circumstances, and the quote suggests that incident reports are required even where there is no injury. Regardless ofwhich part ofthe policy manual is the County's official policy, neither. is consistent with generally accepted professional standards, which provide that facility staff document all incidents, except for handcuffs used in transportation, in which physical force or mechanical reslraints are used.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 6 of 30 PageiD #: 14
-6­
Examples ofexcessive or undue restraints and lack of adequate documentation at LCJDC include:
• In October 2008, A.A.,4 a 13 year old detainee, began kicking his cell door and cursing. Two officers entered the youth's cell and "chained". A.A. to the bed. There is no documentation of the precise manner or length oftime that the youth was restrained. Staff later entered A.A.'s room to discover that he had defecated and thrown feces on the cell window. He was restrained a third time in November 2008 for 15 minutes as punishment for kicking and beating on the door.
• B.B. was placed in leg restraints' in October 2008 as punishment for flooding the toilet in his cell. He was released once he promised to stop flooding the cell.
was • In February 2009,: C.C: removed from class and isolated in his cell for failure to follow Classroom rules. Once C.C. entered his cell, he began beating on the doors and walls. Two officers then entered the cell and placed C.C. in leg shackles.
• In June 2009, leg irons were placed on D.D. to prevent him from banging'on the cell door. There is no documentation·regarding the duration of this restraint.
· • In May 2010, a youth banged on his door to request hygienic tissue. A detention officer denied the request, and detention staff subsequently went from room to room restraining youths With shackles and handcuffs. One youth·was hogtied to the bed
· after he argued With detention officers, and all youths remained in the restraints for approximately one houi:.
In none of the circumstances described above were the youths a danger to themselves or to others. Banging or kicking doors or walls, cursing, shouting, and flooding a cell are annoying behaviors, but none present a danger. Instead, in each of the incidents described above, · LCJDC's practice of shackling served a primarily punitive purpose. Therefore; each restraint described above was undue and unconstitutional.
Staffmembers at LCJDC·freely admit that they restrain youth to beds. According to facility staff, youth are restrained to the bed when staff carmot de-escalate a youth's misbehavior through talking (although none of the incidents described above evidence. attempts by staff to de­ escalate the situation before restraints were applied). The facility manila! places a time limit of 15 to 30 minutes on the use of restraints. We were also told that staff usually link restraint devices together to provide enough length for youth to use the toilet while shackled to a bed. Neither the purported time constraint nor extending the length of the shackling restraint makes this practice acceptable.
We conclude that the restraint practices ofLCJDC detention'staffviolate the Constitution and egregiously deviate from generally accepted professional standards.
4 . Fictional initials are used throughout the letter to preserve the anonymity ofyouths.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 7 of 30 PageiD #: 15

• 7.

2. LCJDC violates the due process rights of youth by arbitrarily imposing punitive measures.

Our investigation revealed numerous instances where LCJDC staff imposed sanctions without following any disciplinary process. LCJDC must provide youth with procedural due process ifthey are charged with a disciplinary violation while detained. See Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-65 (1974) (fmding that prison disciplinary hearings require due process with respect to presentation of charges, evidence, and witnesses).

There are no processes at LCJDC for notifying youth of facility rules or for unposing discipline. The absence of an established disciplinary system results in an informal system Of control based on the unfettered discretion ofindividual detention officers; sanctions are innnediately imposed by staff for whatever actions staff deem punishable. These practices are unconstitutional. For example: · ·

'

'

• In August 2008, staff recorded'in a facility log that E.E. and F.F. had fought each

other and were therefore not allowed out of their cells for any reason other than·

showering.

· ·

• In September 2008, G. G. allegedly started a fight in class and was therefore isolated in his cell. According to the facility log, the youth was "to not come out of his cell .. . for any reason." It is unclear how long this restriction was in place.

• In November 2008, H.H. reportedly became disruptive and threatened to kill himself

while in court. Two detention officers forcibly removed H.H. from the courtroom .

and placed hlm in his cell. After the youth struck the door of his cell, "disciplinary

actions were taken." We have no indication of what is meant by "disciplinary

actions."

·

·

• In February 2009, some youths were allegedly overheard plotting to !lttaqk a detention officer. Consequently, "alljuventles were disciplined by no showering."

• Thirteen-year-old l.I. stated during our November 2009 iriterviews that one of the detention officers at LCJDC had whipped him with a belt in his room as punishment for being disruptive in class.

The lack of any disciplinary system or due process protections for youth at LCJDC violates their constitutiona) rights. ·

3. LCJDC is unlawfully failing to report and investigate abuse.
LCJDC also unconstitutionally places·youth at risk of repeated harm by failing to · · properly report and investigate abuse by staff. When an allegation of child abuse is made, the allegation should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation. Juvenile justiqe facility staff are typically mandated by statute to report allegations of child abuse to the state's child

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 8 of 30 PageiD #: 16

-8­

protective services agency. In Mississippi, "any person having reasonable cause to suspect that a
· child is a neglected child or an abused child shall came an oral report to be made immediately ,,, to the Department of Human Services" which in turn initiates an investigation. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353 (1) (2010). As such, LCJDC staff must report all instances of alleged abuse, without regard to credibility, to the State Department of Human Services. This is not occurring.

In addition to reporting allegations of abuse to the proper state agency, LCJDC must 
 conduct internal investigations of alleged abuse in order to keep youth reasonably safe. Once an 
 allegation of abuse has been made, a proper investigation is required to protect youth from staff 
 abuse by collecting evidence to verify or disprove the allegation. These investigations are 
 essential to identify staff in need of training and/or discipline, as well as to clear staff who have 
 been wrongfully accused. The investigation process must have reasonable integrity, preserve. all 
 physical evidence (e.g., videotape footage, documentation and photographs of injuries, clothing, 
 . etc.), obtain statements from all youth and staff involved in the incident and those who witnessed .. the incident, and utilize other sources of information to corroborate or refute the allegations (e.g., logbooks, other sources .of facility documentation).

To ensure that youth are provided adequate safety, youth subjected to a use offorce must 
 be seen, and treated if necessary, by a medical professiotial, and all injuries should be 
 documented. Medical staff can also be an avenue for youth to report abuse or mistreatment. 
 Further, even when youth do not report abuse or mistreatment, medical staff members are 
 mandated reporters of child.abuse if abuse is suspected due to the nature of an injury. 


LCJDC unlawfully fails to provide these protections. The facility does not have adequate

procedures for properly reporting and investigating allega:tions of child abuse. When asked

about procedures that staff follow upon receiving an allegation ofabuse, staff members were

unaware of their duty to report abuse allegations to the State, Further, internal investigations are

cursory and do not include examination by medical staff, photographs of alleged injuries, or

other basic elements necessary for accurate investigations. Indeed, it appears that the underlying

assumption of any facility investigation of abuse is that the complaining youth is attempting to

manipulate others. The following examples illustrate the deficiencies with LCJDC · ·

investigations: ·

'

·

• In February 2008, youth J.J, alleged that he was sexUliUY assaulted by a staff member and later attempted suicide at the facility. Facility management conducted an egregiously deficient investigation by speaking with the youth, then speaking with the
. staff member, and then simply concluding that there was no evidence of a sexual
assault. There is no indica,tion that the State was contacted regarding the abuse
allegations. In a memorandum notifying a local police chief of the results of the investigation, LCJDCs director stated that J.J. was "using the system against the . system to gain sympathy" in order to avoid a possible felony charge. The memo concludes with·the exhortation: ''Do not let this troubled young man's false allegations stop [the County] from allowing Leflore County to serving [sic] your Juvenile Detainment Needs.. "

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 9 of 30 PageiD #: 17
-9­
• A.January 2009 memorandum reports the conclusion of the facility's grossly inadequate investigation into youth K.K.' s allegations that he was assaulted by an LCIDC custody officer. The investigation consisted oftbe director and assistant director interviewing the accused officer and the officer's supervisor, both of whom denied the assault. The memorandum notes that K.K. bore no visible signs ofassault . but does nqt contain any alleged details of the incident, including the date it allegedly occurred. The director asserts in the memorandum that "[t]hese juvenile(s) will say and do anything to shift the concerns away from what they did or are doing." There
. is no evidence indicating that these allegations were referred to the State.
We fmd that LCIDC's reporting and inve,stigation of alleged abuse is wholly deficient 
 and unlawfully violates the rights of the young people detained in the facility. 

4. LCJDC's unlawful classification system places youth at great risk.
Youth at LCJDC are not safe due to the facility's inadequate classification system. The Constitution requires that youth be provided a reasonably safe environment. In a juvenile justice facility, a critical piece ofkeeping youth safe tu):nS on a classification system to determine where and with whom a youthshould be housed. The classification should take into account a youth's age, charge offense, history of violence ~d escape, vulnerability to victimization, gang membership or affiliation, health and mental health concerns, and institutional history. .
LCIDC only considers a youth's size, age, and county of residence when making housing assignments. The failure to account for other obviously relevant factors places youth at grave risk ofharm. During our interviews with youth at the facility, for example, we discovered that youths L.L. and M.M. were both arrested and sent to LCIDC for fighting each other but were · inexplicably assigned to share a cell together upon arrival at LCIDC. Jn addition, youths N.N. and 0.0. independently told us that they were sharing a cell despite a conflict between them. Both youths had repeatedly asked staff to separate them but no action had been taken.
We f~d that the lack of an adequate classification system at LCJDC places youth at an 
 unacceptably high risk ofvictimization, does not keep youth reasonably safe, and is therefore 
 unconstitutional. 

5. LCJDC lacks adeauate medical and mental health care.
Reasonable protection of confined youths' physicai and mental safety requires adequate 
 medical treatment, mental health treatment and 5\licide prevention measures. See Youngberg, 
 457 U.S. at 323-24 & 323 n.30; Morales. 364 F. Supp. at 175. Apprppriate care for youths' . 
 ·mental health needs is as important as caring'for their medical needs. Gates y. Cook. 376 F. 3d 323, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of City of Houston. Texas, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986)). Further, providing only medication to youth with psychiatric disabiiities, in the absence of additional or other mental health services, violates their constitutional rights. Gates, 376 F. 3d at 335 (holding that the confmement of inmates with severe mental illness on Mississippi's death raw with no mental health care other ·

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 10 of 30 PageiD #: 18 .

. -10­

than medication was "grossly inadequate" and constituted deliberate indifference in violation of

the Eighth Amendment).

·

While we did not include experts in medical and mental health services in our investigatory tour, the obvious dearth ofeven the most basic medical and mental health care at LCJDC leads us to conclude that the constitutional rights of detained youth to adequate medical and mental health care are being violated.·

a. LCJDC provides inadequate medical screenings and fails to seek appropriate medical treatment, placing youth at significant risk of serious harm.

By failing to properly screen youth for medical conditions, LCJDC remains deliberately

indifferent to potentially serious harm. In accordance with generally accepted juvenile justice

standards, Mississippi state law requires that youth undergo a health screening upon admission to

a juvenile detention center, within one hour or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in order

to obtain information about the juvenile's mental health, suicide risk, alcohol and other drug use

and abuse, physical health, aggressive behavior, family relations, peer relations, social skills,

educational status, and vocational.status. ·See Miss. Code Alm. § 43-21-3 21. This statutory

requirement is acknowledged in LCJDC' s manual, but documentation showed that facility staff

members do not comply with this legal requirement

·

Documentation purported to show that the 13 youth detair\ed at the time of our investigation toui had been screened in compliance with State law with respect to physical health. However, upon close examination, that same documentation noted that four youth entered the facility.at 12:23 p.m. on November 10, 2009 and that medical screening for each of the four youth was also completed at 12:23 p.m. that same day. It is not credible that all four youth were admitted and medically screened within the space of one minute.

We found no evide_nce that LCJDC' s officers are trained by medical professionals on

how to conduct initial medical screenings. Generally accepted professional standards require

that detention officers receive training- froin a health authority on conducting initial medical

screenings of youth. Without proper medical screening by appropriately qualified staff, youth

are subjected to a high risk that medical or mental health problems will be undetected and

. unaddressed at the facility.

·

During individual interviews; our experts specifically noticed two youths, P.P. and Q.Q., who exhibited behaviors consistent with neurological impairments (e.g., Traumatic Brain Injury, tic disorders) and/or other health issues. The records for these two youths did not document these explicit behaviors, and when we asked the facility director about the youths' medical status, he stated he had not noticed these signs. Significantly, P.P. had been detained at LCJDC on multiple occasions without any treatment for the possible disability.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 11 of 30 PageiD #: 19

-11­

Because there are no medical personnel on-site, facility policy requires staff to take youth . to see a physician if a medical. screening indicates a need for emergency care or if a parent,
guardian, or youth court designee makes a written request for medical care. We found that, instead, untralned custody ·officers often provide basic medical care and improperly make decisions on treatment. For example:

• In March 2008, R.R. began vomiting in her room. Custody officers offered an over·

the-counter stomach medication to the resident, but she refuSed. No other medical

action was taken. ·

·

• In June 2008, S.S. reported to a detention officer that he fell in his room and dislodged his tooth. The detention officer and another staff member looked in S. S. 's mouth and reported that "you could see that he pull(ed] the tooth out and he was OK." No further action was taken.

• In December 2008, T.T. complained to facility staffthat he was having chest pains. The youth was takillg lithium, a psychoactive drug often used for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Like many psychoactive drugs, lithium may reach dangerously toxic levels if not appropriately monitored by a medical professional and has a . number ofpotentially serious adverse side effects. We could find no evidence that
E.U. was examined by a medical professional following his complaint of.che.st pai.n.
• In July' 2009, U.U. complained that his stomach was upset on the same day that his mother called and advised the facility that U.U. did not have his asthma medication. The next day, when U.U. complained of chest pain and began throwing up blood, a custody officer reviewed the Unit log and noted that no action had been taken the previous day regarding the youth's illness. U.U. was then taken to the hospital by custody staff and diagnosed with bronchitis.

• In May 2010, a juvenile at the facility was suffering from tooth pain and could not get attention from a detention officer until he began banging on the cell door: One of the detention officers entered the cell and beat the youth until the juvenile was wailing and crying. The youth did not receive medical attention for the tooth.

b. LCJDC is deliberately indifferent to suicide risks and the related serious mental health needs of youth, placing them at significant risk of serious harm.

Among the most dangerous practices at LCJDC is the facility's failure to meaningfully screen or monitor potentially suicidal youth. Youth at great risk ofharm are exposed to · conditions that are not reasonably safe and are therefore unconstitutional.

In order to provide reasonable safety to potentially suicidal youth, all youth placed on 
 suicide precautioiJ,S must be regularly monitored by mental health professionals~ Any staff 
 person may place a youth on suicide precautions initially, but the precautions should only be 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05112115 12 of 30 PageiD #: 20

- 12­

removed following an assessment by a mental health professional. At LCJPC, if a youth's

screening indicates a need for additional assessment, staffmembers are supposed to schedule an

. appointment with the local mental health clinic and transport the youth to the clinic. This does

not occur. Indeed, records demonstrate instances where youth who are placed on suicide

precautions by staff are never assessed by mental health professionals at any time during their

detention.

·

Detention staff should also provide consistent monitoring of youth on suicide precautions

to observe behavior and ensure the youth's safety and welfare. LCJDC does not regularly ·

monitor youth wjrile they are on suicide precautions, and it is unclear who decides when youth

may be removed from precautions. For example:

·

• In May 2008, V.V. was discovered tying a sheet around a pipe in his cell in an attempt to commit suicide. Detention staff monitored the youth and required him to wear only a paper gown. However, despite his suicidal behavior, no mental health
professional ever assessed or treated V.V..

• In June 2008, an officer bribed W.W. and X.X. to keep them quiet about an attempted suicide. W.W. reportedly knocked on her cell door continuously during X.X's attempted suicide in an effort to get the attention ofstaff but was ignored by the two officers on duty, one of whom ("Officer 1") was smoking a cigarette. The officers continued to ignore W.W. until they heard her screaming. Staff discovered that X.X. had tied a blanket tightly around her neck and a railitig on the .ceiling. After the noose was removed by staff, Officer 1 told the·two youths not to tell anyone about the incident, and allowed them to spend several hours eating snacks and playing · computer games. Officer 1 also told the other officer not to tell anyone about the incident, especially the director. The incident was eventually reported and.
· investigated. Despite the facility director's recommendation that Officer 1 be terminated, Officer !remains at LCJDC.

• In September 2008, Y.Y. began banging his head against the cell door and tied his uniform shirt around his neck. Y.Y. 's cellmate notified two detention officers who then entered the cell, removed the shirt, and placed Y.Y. in mechanical restraints. The officers later returned to the cell after. Y.Y. managed to tie a sheet around'his neck despite the restraints. The officers then removed the restraints, "stripped" Y.Y., placed him in a paper gown, and re-applied mechailical restraints. Y.Y. then attempted to tie the paper gown around his neck and stuffed tissue in his nose and mouth. The incident report concludes by stating that the officers took away both the gown and the tissue. No further action was taken.
• . A March 2009 mental health assessment of z.z: described him as "suicidal and
psychotic" and in need of "immediate attention." He was placed in a paper gown and put on suicide watch after the. assessment. Five days later, though still on suicide precautions, Z.Z. was observed in full clothing after staff returned his clothing in

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1·Filed: 05/12/15 13 of 30 PageiD #: 21

-13.

violation of a facility directiv~. It is unclear when or ifZ.Z. was ever removed from. suicide watch during his 18-day detention at LCJDC.

• In May 2009,A.B. was observed in his room crying, with a tom blal)ket tied tightly

around his neck. Detention staff removed the blal)ket and placed A.B. in a suicide

gown, but he was not assessed by a mental health professional until three days later.

A suicide watch Jog purportedly showed that the youth was observed by detention

staff every four minutes while on suicide watch, but the observational times and

detention officer's initials were typed in for the entire shift, calling into question the

veracity of the observations. Given the physical set-up ofthe facility, it i.s highly

unlikely that the detention.officer could have observed A.B. as reported on the suicide

watch Jog and typed in the information every four minutes.

·

• In September 2009, A. C. was placed on suiCide watch after a local mental health professional determined that he e;cpi'essed suicidal ideations, intent to self liarm, and auditory hallucinations. The suicide watch log indicates that a detention officer observed A.C. every four minutes. The veracity of the observations is dubious, however, given that the times and officer's initials are all typed.

Finally, suicide hazards remain in youth cells. While the County has removed exposed· · metal piping iri many of the cells, some protrusions and tying offpoints still remain. In sum, LCJDC's grossly inadeq~te suicide prevention practices violate youths' constitutional rights to l¢equate safety. and adequate mental health care, and place these youths at life-threatening risk.

6. LCJDC's fails to provide adequate programming.

Youth at LCJDC have a constitutional right to adequate treatment. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323; Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130,1146-55 (D. Miss. 1977) (holding tbatjuverule facility must provide adequate treatment, including proper behavior management and recreation programs, among others). That right is abrogated by LCJDC 's failure to provide adequate programming and behavior management.systems. In order to provide constitutional care, juvenile justice facilities must provide rehabilitation programming and treatment while youth are confmed. Thus, generally accepted professional standards require that juvenile justice facilities provide education, recreation, and meaningfUl activities such as group and individual therapy, social skills training, and oth~ programming. LCJDC fails to provide these services, and the lack ofstructure and meaningful programming activity is not only violating the youths' rights but is predictably resulting in behavior problems..

Youth at LCJDC spend an inordinate amount oftime playing cards or dominos while in the small dayroom or while locked in their cells. Besides schooling, the only regularly scheduled activity for youth is a two-hour arts and crafts class held in the evenings twice per week. On weekends, youth are allowed to watch television ifthey have behaved during the week and may attend religious programming on Sundays. However, youth spend most weekend time locked in their cells. Furthermore, recreational logs indicated long gaps between opportunities for youth to engage in large muscle exerCise. Although there is a small outdoor recreation yard outfitted with

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12115 14 of 30 PageiD #: 22

- 14­

a basketball hoop, it appears to be rarely used and was not used during our November 2009 tour. During an interview, youth A.D. stated that he had been permitted outside for recreation only twice during his 36-day period of detention. Without activities to keep youths mentally and . physically occupied, youth at LCJDC create their own activities, including beating and kicking walls and doors, yelling, cursing, picking fights, and other negative behavior.

The problems resulting from the paucity ofprogramming activity are exacerbated by the

lack of a behavior management program at LCJDC. Children and adolescents typically lack

strong impulse control, and youths at juvenile detention facilities are often particularly affected

by their lack of impulse control and lack of an ability to make good choices to control their

behavior. Therefore, it is critical that a juvenile facility have in place a behavior management

system that provides immediate, consistent, and tangible reinforcement of desired behaviors.

Although LCJDC once purchased a behavior management system manual, it was never used.

According to staff, LCJDC officials delayed implementing the system because they expected the

facility to move to a new building.

·

We fmd that LCJDC's failure to provide adequate programming activity- regardless of the facility's physical limitations- contributes to increased risk of suicide, violence and excessive discipline and violates theyouths' constitutional rights.

7. LCJDC fails to provide adequate staffing levels for supervision of youth.

Some of the above described problems appear to have resulted from inadequate staffing. LCJDC' s serious deficiencies in staffing places youth at risk of harm because of reduced accountability, overreliance on restraints, inadequate youth supervision, and inadequate suicide prevention practices. This deficiency contributes to violations of youths' constitutional rights to. reasonably safe conditions of confmement. See Youngberg. 457 U.S. at 324.
LCJDC operates with three detention officers for apopulation of up to twenty-four
youths of both genders. The facility has no means to electronically monitor youth in their rooms in addition to visual checks. With two floors and two control rooms, the current staffing pattern is inadequate for LCJDC, particularly when one or more youths are placed on suicide watch,

8. LCJDC fails to provide youth a reasonably safe living environment.
LCJDC 's physical enviromnent poses an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of
detained youths. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires juvenile justice · facilities to provide youth with conditions of reasonable care and safety. Youngberg. <I-57 U.S. at 324. LCJDC's failure to adequately address the risk of the spread of infectious diseases, coupled with its inadequate fire safety practices, exposes youths detained there to great risks.

Cells are extremely dirty, contain tom mattresses, and the toilets in the cells were not 
 adequately cleaned. The showers were similarly filthy; such environmental considerations are 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/1~ 15 of 30 PageiD #: 23

- 15­

critical in preventing the spread of infectious agents such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus

aureus ("MRSA"). 5

.

.

LCJDC's fJie safety and emergency planning is also inadequate and exposes both youth and staffto an unnecessarily high risk of harm, including death. Documentation showed that although the facility conducts monthly flre drills, the facility's plan for evacuating youth and staff is dangerous. LCJDC's plan is to evacuate everyone to a small outdoor recreation area that is directly adjacent to the detention area and is enclosed with tall brick walls. This would be dangerous in the event of a fJie. LCJDC also fails to have a plan for. evacuation in the event of a tomado or other emergency.

9. LCJDC violates the due process rights of youth by failing to provide a grievance system.

A grievance system provides cktained youth with a mechanism to resolve disputes regarding their detention. Given the arbitrary discipline process and the other deflciencies noted in this letter, the absence ofa grievance process contributes to the unconstitutional conditions in · the facility. LCJDC does not provide any forms for f).ling grievances or any confidential means for filing grievances, such as a locked drop box. According to the facility manual, the grievance process consists of a juvenile writing a statement of his or her grievance and handing that ·statement to the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor then submits the statement to the assistant director, who then conveys it to the facility director. There is nothing confldential about any · aspect of this process.

Youth at LCJDC have a tight to flle grievances with the facility regarding their treatment, . as well as a fight not to be punished for using the grievance system. See Decker v. McDona!Q,
No. 5:09 Civ. 27, 2CHO WL 1424322, *15 (E.D.Tex. Jan. 11, 2010) (noting that the law is well
established that prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate who exercises his right of access to the courts or·use of the grievance system); see also):Iasan v. U.S. Dep't ofLabor, 400 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that, unless frivolous, prisoners' grievances are entitled . to First Amendment protection).

Basic due process and generally accepted professional standards for juvenile facilities require a grievance process that affords youth confidentiality, protects them from retaliation by staff, is unimpeded, and offers a level of review for appeals. At the time of our tour, the director . ofLCJDC had not received a grievance since October 2005- a period of more than four years. The fact that no grievances have been received by the director since October 2005 is testament to

•

MRSA is a highly contagious bacteria commonly found in institutional settings that is resistant to certain

antibiotics, including methicillin. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at

http://wwiv.cdc.gov/ncidodldhqp/ar_mrsa_cayublic.html. The disease presents itself at first as aboil or sore on the

skin, and is easily spread tlrrough contact with an infected person or with a surfuce the. person has touched. ,!4, In

some cases, MRSA can lead to serious complications, including surgical wound infections, bloodstream infections,

and pneumonia. Id.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 16 of 30 PageiD #: 24
- 16­
the inadequacy of the process. We find that LCJDC's grievance process is a contribution factor to unconstitutional conditions.
B. YOUTHS' RIGHTS TO ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ARE BEING VIOLATED AT LCJDC
LCJDC consistently fails to provide youth with adequate general education serviees. Although the County has asserted that complying with the law is difficult due to the transient nature of the youth population and limited resources, these challenges are not unique to this facility and do not excuse the County from providing proper educational services to detained youth. Specifically, Mississippi state law requires that youth receive a minimum of five hours of educational instruction each weekday during the academic year. Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-91(d), . as amended.
The d!'llrlal of education services to detained youth that are comparable to those provided by the State to non-detained youth violates due process and equal protection rights. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 224 (1982) (deprivation ofbasic educational ~ervices must be rationally related to a substantial goal of the state); Donnell C. v. lllinois State Bd. ofEduc., 829 F. Supp. 1016, 1018-19 (N.D. ill. 1993) (a juvenile facility's denial qf education services and provision of education services inferior to those of non-detained youth violated due process and equal protection claims. of youth at the facility).. In cases discussing the provision of education to detained youth, courts have recognized the e~sential function of education. See,~ Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1150-51 (D. Miss. 1977) (holding that juvenile facility must provide sufficient education and vocational training to residents in order to reduce recidivism and promote successful reintegration into society). ·
Furthermore, students with disabilities have federal statutory rights to special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400­ 1482. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310 (i988) (noting that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, as amended by IDEA;"confers .upon disabled students an enforceable substantive right to public education in participating States"). IDEA requires states that accept federal funds to provide educational services to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and, twenty-one years, even if the children have been silspended or expelled from school. 20 U.S. C. § 1412(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the State must provide such services to youth in juvenile justice facilities. See id. (conditioning funds on the availability of services to "all children with disabilities"); 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(l)(iv) (applying IDEA requirements to "all political subdivisions of the State that are involved in the education of children with disabilities, including ... State and local juvenlle and adult correctional facilities"); see also Alexander S. By and Through Bowers v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773, 788 (D.S.C. 1995) (finding IDEA applicable to school-age detainees in juvenile detention facilities). IDEA also requires schools to have procedures for identifYing and testing students with disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(l)(i).
Section 504 ofthe.Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S. C. § 794, similarly obligates the State to provide youth conftned in its institutions with educational services. Section 504 requires that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 17 of 30 PageiD #: 25
- 17­
defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
Although the County is obligated to provide free and appropriate education to qualified students with disabilities under both the IDJ;!A and Section 504, special education services are virtually non-existent at LCJDC. The facility does not appropriately collect and analyze academic and behavioral data for students. Because of this, students at LCJDC often do not receive appropriate special education services as required by IDEA. Specifically, LCJDC is noncompliant with IDEA with respect to: 1) Child Find (see infra, below); 2) general education interventions; 3) Individual Education Programs ("IEPs''); 4) access to the general education curriculum for students receiving special education services; 5) behavioral supports; 6) sta:ffmg; · and 7) transition services.
1. LCJOC violates the due process and equal protection rights of youth confined there by failing to provide them with appropriate general educational services.
Youth at LCJDC do not receive adequ~;~te educationar:services during detention, in violation of their equal protectim:i and due process rights. Under State law, youths are entitled to a minimum of five hours ofeducational instruction each weekday during the academic year, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-91(d), as amended. Students at LCJDC reported receiving instructional class orily Monday througli Wednesday until the week of our November 2009 to.ur. Beginning with the week of our tour, students and staff stated that instruction occurs Monday .through Thursday, with Friday reserved for television or movies. Youth detained at LCJDC are not receiving educational services consistent with the State's mandatory minimum of 5 hours each weekday:
LCJDC fails to maintain any educational records and coursework does not align with that required for a student in the connnunity to obtain a high school diploma. ·nuring classroom observation, one female student in her mid-teens was seen completing a worksheet reviewing
elementary addition (e.g., 2 + 3 =5). Such instruction does not allow students to access grade­
level curriculum available to non-detained youth. Additional inadequacies ofLCJDC's general educational services are mentioned throughout the discussion of speCial educational services below.
2. LCJOC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate Child Find · procedures.
IDEA requires that the State have in effect policies and procedures to identifY, locate, and evaluate youth suspected ofhaving a qualifYing disability that would entitle them to special education services. 34 C.P.R. 71 § 300.11l(a)(l)(i). This is known as "Child Find.~' Child Find can sometimes be as simple as asking a detained youth whether he or she has ever received · special education services at the connnunity school.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 18 of 30 PageiD #: 26

- 1&­

Although a structured intake assessment form exists at LCJDC, Child Find is significantly limited by inadequate or non-existent assessments and faulty scoring. LCJDC's intake forms do not capture data regarding special education status or history. Rather, the basic screening forms are limited to evaluating the educational and vocational status ofyouths. In our individual interviews, we identified two youths, A.B. and A.F., who had previously received . special education services elsewhere but had not been identified by LCJDC as possibly having a disability entitling them to special education services. LCJDC 's intake forms do not capture data regarding special education status or history necessary for Child Find.

Even if an assessment form util~es popular evaluative tools, such as the Massachusetts 
 Youth Screening Instrument Version 2 ("MAYSI-2'') used by LCJDC, such tools are only 
 effective for Child Find if properly analyzed and disseminated in a timely fashion. The current 
 ·evaluative tools fail to satisfy these criteria. Basic scoring of intake assessments is not properly completed, and data: is not used to properly guide instructional accommodations. After a student completes.a basic screening, LCJDC scores the assessments using percentages and not grade level. However, given the nature and purpose of these forms, reporting the assessment as a percentage score is ineffective in guiding the teacher towards determining whether special education modifications are necessary. Moreover, score forms based on the assessments are only completed w)len a student is exiting the facility. Accordingly, even if the assessments were scored in a manner that would allow ):he teacher to make proper adjustments to a youth's curriculum or to evaluate a youth for special education services, the data would be unavailable for this purpose until the student has left the facility. LCJDC 's intake and.screening procedures, therefore, inadequately assist in identifying students in need of special education and related services.

3. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide general instructional and evaluatjve interventions.

Prior to evaluation of a student for special education, IDEA requires that the State review

data-based documentation ofthe student's progress and consider whether the student is being

provided appropriate instruction by a highly qualified teacher. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.309(b)(l)-(2).

The State must further document the student's behavior in that student's learning environment,

including the regular classroom setting.

·

There is no evidence that LCJDC engages in academic or behavioral pre-referral/general education interventions, dafa collection, or observations. Both academic and behavioral pre­ referral/general education interventions shauld·include specific methods for data collection in order to objectively evaluate student progress and the possible need for special education services. LCJDC's data collection processes are inadequate. This incomplete data is particularly troubling for students at the warning level for suicidal ideation, traumatic experiences, or anger. These youths may be entitled to special education services, but they are not being identified at LCJDC. During our tour, 6 ofthe 13 youths tested at the warning level on the facility's tests but were not receiving any special education services.

•.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 19 of 30 PageiD #: 27
- 19­
4. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide Individualized Education Programs for youth in need of special education services.
IDEA requires that each student with a disability have an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") to ensure that the student receives adequate special education services. 34 C.P.R. 71 § 300.323(a). No IEPs were available during our tour, and although several IEPs were provided post-tour, none were for students present at the facility during our visit. During our tour, we discovered a student with special needs who had been housed at LCJDC for 36 days with no IEP. This is a violation of IDEA.
IDEA also requires that LCJDC take reasonable steps to promptly obtain a youth's records, including IEPs or documents relating to,a youth's special education status, from the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled. 34 C.P.R. 71 § 300.323(g)(l). LCIDC was uoable to produce educational records for any student enrolled at the time of our tour, and staff stated that IEPs are often received after a youth has already left the facility. No data concerning student academic and behaviorallEP goals was available while on site, nor was there· any indication that parents/guar(lians and IEP team members had met regarding any student. The 11bsence ofthis.data is a gross violation of IDEA.
In addition, IDEA requires that teachers implement each child's IEP, including specific accommodations, modifications, and supports. 34 C.F.R. 7l § 300.323(c)(2). No instructional adaptations were observed at LCIDC nor were any adaptations listed on lesson plans. Moreover, lesson plans were incomplete, there was no evidence ofacademic or behavioral-related record keeping, and lesson plans did not differentiate assignments for stu(lents at various levels. The inadequacy of lesson plans and instructional adaptati,ons may be partly attribu~d to the failure to .provide the teacher with IEPs until after a youth has left the facility. Without an IEP, it is impossibl~ for the teacher to properly instruct students according to their individual needs as is required under IDEA.
LCIDC's failure to maintain IEPs violates several federal requirements, notably that: 1) adequate records are not obtained at intake or sent out at exit from LCJDC; 2) IEPs are not developed, reviewed, or reevaluated in accordance with federal law; 3) there is a high risk of in~onsistencies between· previous and current levels of special education service for youths; 4) there is a lack of parent/guardian and IEP team signatures; 5) there is a lack ofiEP implementation and data collection; and 6) there is a possible lack of relationship between the disability of an individual youth and the IEP goals. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.320(a)(2)(i-ii).
,{
5. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide access to the general education curriculum for youth in need of special education services.
LCIDC's common practice of segregating youths for discipline problems during school· fails to comply with IDEA's requirement that LCIDC provide comprehensive educational services to students. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.304(b)(l)~ Specifically, no education services are available to students who are sent to their cells for discipline problems. When a student misbehaves, LCIDC routinely returns the youth to his/her cell for the remainder of the day with

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 20 of 30 PageiD #: 28

-20­
no school work, even when the youth's behavior has improved. This is a patent violation of IDEA. During our tour, 13-year-old youth A.H. was in his cell without any schoolwork for the entire school day because he had refused to do schoolwork in the classroom. Our interview with R.S. revealed a calm and compliant youth who should have been returned to the classroom. Pursuant to federal Jaw, educational services should be comprehensive so as to enable youths to continue to participate in the general education curriculum even if they must be temporarily segregated. Where safety or other penalogical interests are involved, LCJDC should make individualized adaptations and return tlie student to class as qilickly as safely possible.
6. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate behavioral supports for youth.
LCJDC fails to provide positive behavioral interventions, supports and other strategies to address negative behavior, as required by IDEA. 34 C.P.R. 71. § 309.324(a)(2)(i). Positive behavioral interventions and supports include interventions for youth at the facility level, secondary interVentions for youth with additional needs, and tertiary interventions for youth who require individualized behavioral interventions.
Although LCJDC employs a school-wide social skills curriculum, the primary approach to behfivioral problems is reactive. As noted above, LCJDC inappropriately segregates students
iri cells for the remainder of the school day rather than correcting problematic behavior in the
classroom. Segregation is inconsistent with IDEA, and there is no evidence that a youth's disability is considered when students are sent back to their cells or in the administration of consequences'for behavioral misconduct. During our tour, we observed an announcement stating: "Any juvenile found to be disruptive to the orderly running ofthis facility will be recommended to 90 days detention or training school." Such reactive and sporadic disciplinary measures fail to adequately remedy or deter problematic behavior and are particularly inappropriate for youth with disabilities. Two out of seven students we interviewed regarding education reported that no reinforcement was provided'as an incentive for positive behavior. Moreover, no rul.es or consequences were posted in the classroom as guideiines for behavior. ·
Perhaps the most egregiouS concern regarding LCJDC's use of segregation is the failure to maintain any data regarding youth segregation; No data is available regarding length oftyne or frequency of segregation; reason for segregation; youth behavior while segregated; or , ' guidelines for use of segregation. Without such data, "manifestation determination" hearings cannot occur.6 Further, failing to chronicle segregation use prevents develop!Ilent of, and · implementation of, modifications to general education interventions and behavior intervention plans ("BIPs"). IDEA requires that LCJDC conduct a manifest determination when it decides to change the placement ofa student with disabilities because of that student's violation ofthe code

6

Manifestation detennination hearings are employed when a student who receives special education services

is considered for suspension, expulsion or any alternative placement due to some behavioral concern. The process is ·

used to detennine if the actions that resulted in the consideration of some disciplinary action against the student

were manifestations ofthe student's disability.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 21 of 30 PageiD #: 29

- 21 ­

of conduct. LCJDC's failure to log this data regarding youth segregation is a patent violation of IDEA.

two Based on our review ofteacher reports, it appears that students who missed up to

days of school per week were allowed to watch movies on Fridays as incentive for positive

behavior. This reward system is problematic because it disengages students from instruction

during the movies and permits an excessive number of absences. LCJDC's system to address

student behavior is ineffective and places youth with disabilities at a significant disadvantage for

maintaining access to the general education curriculum. More specific behavioral

reinforcements should be implemented throughout each day as part of a facility behavior

·management prograril.

·

To adequately address student behavior, LCJDC should implement secondary behavioral interventions for youth who do not need individual programs but need support beyond the
use facility plan. Under IDEA! when a youth's "behavior impedes the child's learning or that of
others, consider the of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior," 34 C.P.R. 71 § 300.324(a)(2)(i). An effective behavioral intervention plan is an intervention that is designed to promote po~itive; pro-social student behayior.

· Pursuant to IDEA, behavior that is a manifestation of a disability should result in a functional behavior assessment and the development or modification of the current behavior
intervention plan. Teachers and staff should be held accountable for consistently and accurately
evaluating student behavior, recording data, and using student behavioral data, as per
individualized programs. At LCJDC, no evidence of any functional behavior assessment or individual behavior pians exists. Further, it is not apparent that teachers and staff are held accountable for consistently and accurately evaluating student be~avior, recording data, and . using student behavioral data.

7. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate educational staffing for youth in need of special education services.

Although the student-teacher ratio at the time ofour tour ofLCJDC was acceptable at 13

students per '1 teacher, the current teacher is neither appropriately licensed nor· qualified, in

violation of IDEA. Additional teachers who are licensed and qualified are needed to ineet the

requirements set forth in IDEA. A staffing plan should be devised and implemented based on

these current needs, and in light offederal requirements.

·

8. LCJDC :violates federal law by failing to provide adeg nate trimsition services for youth in need of special education services.

Although IDEA requires that facilities provide transitional services, none exis~ at LCJDC. IDEA includes two major components in its def!hitionofthe group of activities labeled as · .''transition services." First, transition services should be located within a results-oriented process focused on preparing students for a fruitful life outside ofthe.school context. Second, the

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 22 of 30 PageiD #: 30

-22­

transition services that a given student receives should be based on the individualized needs of that student.

Vocational technology courses may help provide transitional services for youths. We reviewed a LCJDC memorandum about a vocational technology program that was supposedly implemented in Fall2009. The curricula listed classes in automechanics and repair, brick masonry, wood shop, refrigeration and air conditioning; culinary instructions, cosmetology, and computer technology. In rea,lity, however, no vocational education courses exist at the facility. Ifthe facility· had vocational programs, they would need to be offered in accordance with transition services outlined in a student's IEP. Since there were no IEPs available, it is unclear whetht:r some students have vocational education listed on their IEPs.

An additional concern regarding transition services is the lack of comprehei).sive and

farina! information concerning academic progress, which is necessary to report back to a

student's home school upon exiting the facility. Although general transition procedures were

provided, the lack of appropriate education and special education services, as well as academic

and behavioral data, makes communication of youth progress impossible except for very general

statements.

·

V. REMEDJM, MEASURES

at In order to rectify the identified deficiencies and protect the constitutional and federal
statutory rights ofyouth confmed Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center, the County should implement the minimal remedial measures set forth below. Implementation ofthe . measures should comply with generaily accepted professional standards in order to ensure that youths are adequately treated, protected from harm, and provided with appropriate educational
· services.

A. PROTECTION FROM HARM

1. Restraints

Generally accepted professional standards require that restraints never be used to punish youth. Every application of mechanical restraints or use offorce- including handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains, or other such restraints - should be fully documented, including the circumstances leading to the application, effbrts used to de-escalate the situation, the specific manner or technique in which force was applied, and the duration of the incident. The current facility practice of restraining residents to the bed should be immediately stopped. Ai:ly restrained juvenile should be constantly observed by staffto ensure safety.

LCJDC should develop and implement written policies and procedures that establish a graduated set ofinterventions that avoid the use ofphysical force or mechanical restraints. Generally accepted practices for juvenile justice facilities require that physical force be used by staffonly in exceptional circumstances when all other pro-active, non-physical behavior management techniques have been tinsuccessful and the youth presents a danger tci himself or

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 23 of 30 PageiD #: 31

-23­

others. In the limited circumstances when physical force is appropriate, staff should employ only the minimum amount necessary to stabilize the situation and protect the safety ofthe involved juvenile or others.. Therefore, detention staff should be trained in non-physical, verbal interventions to de-escalate potential aggression from youth.

Youth who have been subject to force or mechanical restraints should be assessed bya medical professional following the incident regardless of whether there is a visible injury or the youth denies any injury. Subsequently, management should conduct a formal review of the incident to determine whether staff acted appropriately. The post-incident review should also be utilized to identify any training needs and debrief staff on how to avoid simi!ar incidents through de"escalation.

2. Disciplinary Due Process

Youth detained at juvenile justice facilities have a right to due process protections in the

event that they are subjected to discipline or punishment. LCJDC should establish a disciplinary

system, including notification to all youth ofthe· facility rules, the consequenlies for violating

those.rules, and their rights ifthey are charged with a rule violation. Youth should receive

instruction on the facility rules and the disciplinary prOCI:lBS during orientation. This information

should also be provided in a facility handbook provided to each youth during orientation and

should be displayed in the youths' living and program areas. If a youth is charged with a

violation, minimally adequate due process protections should include: 1) the provision ofwritten

notice of the alleged violation to the detainee/youthlresident at least 24 hours prior to a hearing;

·2) a written statement by the fact-finder(s) as to the evidence relied upon and the reaso;ms for the

disciplinary action taken; and, 3) unless it interferes with institutional safety, the youth should

have the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence at the hearing.

·

·

Administrative and disciplinary segregation should be used appropriately. Adnlinistrative segregation should only be used as an emergency measure to control a youth whose behavior poses an immediate risk of harm to himself or others or who requires protective
custody, either at the youth's request or the facility's assessment. Youths who are placed in
administrative segregation for behavioral reasons should be removed from segregation as soon as their behavior no longer poses an immediate risk ofhann to themselves or others. Youths placed in administrative segregation for behavioral reasons should also be provided with a due process
· hearing every 24 hours any time their segregation exceeds 24 hours. Disciplinary segregation
should only be used as a sanction for a major rule violation, and each youth should receive a due
process hearing prior to being sent to disciplinary segregation. No youth should be placed in segregation for longer than three consecutive days except for protective custody purposes.

~. Renorting & Investigating Abuse

LCJDC should adopt and implement a zero-tolerance policy for staff abuse of youths, aud 
 staff should be consistently held accmintable when policy violations occur. Serious incidents, 
 allegations of abuse, and allegations of staff misconduct should be adequately and timely 
 investigated by neutral investigators with no involvement or interest in the underlying event. 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 24 of 30 PageiD #: 32

• 24.

· Staff conducting these investigations should receive adequate competency-based training on the investigation process, which should be completed in a timely fashion and no later than 30 days after an incident or allegation. In the rare cases where an exception to this time frame is w,arranted, the exception should be documented and not granted oh the basis ofinadequate investigator staffing. LCJDC should also develop and implement a Written process to report resident's allegations of staff abuse to the State as mandated reporters.

4. Classification

LCJDC should develop a written classification policy tl!at takes into account:

1) separation ofolder residents from younger residents; 2) separation of males from females;

3) separation of violent from non-violent yquth; 4) maturity; 5) presence of mental or physical

disabilities; 6) suicide risk; 7) offense; and 8) case-specific information about youth who should

. be separated from each other. The policy should address plans to protect youth who have been

victimized at the facility or who have concerns about their safety.

'

'

5. Medical ·and Mental Health Care

a. Screenings and Treatment

In order to comply with generally accepted professional standards to provide adequate health care services to youths in need of medical and mental health care attention, LCJDC should provide adequate, comprehensive, and reliable screening and assessment services to identify youths with serious medical and mental health needs, both at intake and throughout the youths' .time at LCJDC. All youth should undergo a health screenirig within one hour ofadmission to · LCJDC, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in order to obtain accurate information about the·.youth's medical and mental health. Screenings should include information about, physical health, suicide risk, alcohol and other drug use and abuse, aggressive behavior, family relations, peer relations, social skills, educational status, and vocational statUs. Corrections staff who conduct screenings should be trroned by a health authority. Youth requiring routine, urgent, · or-emergency care should receive timely referrals to qualified health professionals..

A qualified mental health professional should cbmplete an initial mental health
assessment form that summarizes the youth's prior mental health history and includes a current mental status examination, suicide risk inquiry, provisional diagnosis, and treatment plan, if · applicable. Youths should be referred for mental health services where such services are indicated as a result ofthe mental health screening and assessment process, or where a youth demonstrates symptoms ofll).ental illness that significantly interfere with his or her ability to complete the facility's treatment program. Mental health assessments should be adequately documented and, where indicated, should begin dming the youth's tiine in the intake unit and include: pursuit and reView of prior behavioral health records; contact with the youth's family; consultation with facility staff; interviews with the youth; and, where indicated, special~ed testing and medical consultation. Medical and mental health staffmg should be sufficient to provide adequate medical and mental health care services to all youths requiring such services.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 25 of 30 PageiD #: 33
-25­
LCJDC should establish and maintain adequate, formal, individualized treatment planning that articulates specific planned behavioral interventions. At a minimum, interventions should consist ofregularly scheduled individual counseling. LCJDC should attempt to involve families in the treatment planning process, and treatment plans should be periodically reviewed . and revised as appropriate. Treatment plans for youths who are prescribed psychotropic medications should specifY the medication, its target symptoms, and the basis for using it. Qualified mental health professionals should provide and adequately document individual counseling for youths who require counseling. Documentation of counseling sessions should include clinical data regarding the youth's subjective expressions or mental status, problems addressed and the means of addressing them, the clinician's impressions of the youth's progress, and any plan for continuing treatment. LCJDC.should also establish and maintain adequate transition plarming. At a minimum, mental health staff should provide a written summary of the . youth's mental health treatment, .his response to treatment, and a recommendation regarding further care.
The provision of adequate medication management should ensure that: 1) a prescribing professional performs and adeqtiately documents an assessment supporting the prescription; 2) the prescribing professional adequately monitors youths on psychiatric medications by conducting and adequately documenting medication monitoring visits at least monthly, or more frequently as indica~ed; and 3) appropriate cons.ent is obtained prior to starting a youth on a medication.
b. . Suicide Prevention and Related Mental Health Care
In order to comply with generally accepted professional standards to provide adequate services to potentially suicidal yoirths and take appropriate action to prevent youths from engaging in self-injurious behavior, including suicide, the County should establish a comprehei:Jsive suicide prevention program. All staff members who interact with youths should receive at least eight hours of-initial, competency-based suicide prevention training and two hours ofannual competency-based training thereafter. The initial training should cover the following topics: 1) avoiding obstacles to suicide prevention, juvenile suicide research; 2) why facility envirorurients are conducive to suicidal behavior; 3) warning signs and symptoms of suicide; and 4) components of the agency's suicide prevention program. The annual training should review any changes in the facility's suicide prevention policy and update staffon any serious suicides and/or attempts, not simply repeat initial training.
LCJDC should ensure ongoing identification of suicide risk for youths. Illunediately upon their arrival at the facility, newly admitted youths should receive adequate intake screening for suicide risk before leaving the intake area. Any staff member should be able to place a youth on suicide precautions. All potentially suicidal youths should be placed on suicide precautions unless a qualified mental health professional determines, following a face-to-face evaluation, that the youth is not suicidal. Youth who are admitted to segregation should receive a written as.sessment of suicide risk by mental health staffor by medical staffif mental health staff members are unavailable. LCJDC should ensure adequate communication among staff regarding youths' potential suicidality. Correctional, medical, and mental health staff should participate in

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 26 of 30 PageiD #: 34

-26­

treatment team meetings, and all staff should understand facility policies regarding communication.

Potentially suicidal youths.'should be placed in rooms that are free of suicide hazards, 


including protrusions and tying off points, and should not be placed in isolation. ·Removal of 


youths' clothing, other than belts and shoelaces, use of restraints, and suspension of routine 


privileges such as visits, phone calls, and recreation, may only be employed by a qualified 


mental health professional as a last resort if a suicidal youth is engaging :iJi self-destructive 


behavior. LCJDC should.maintain sufficient staffing levels to supervise youths who require 


constant observation.

· 


Youths who are removed from suicide precautions should receive regular follow-up assessments by mental health staff, including individualized treatment'plans for suicidal youths that address relapse prevention and initiate a risk mansgement plan. The risk mansgement plan should describe: the likely signs, symptoms, and circumstances for a recurrence ofsuicide risk, prevention ofsuicidal thoughts, and actions the youth or staff can take in response to the recurrence of suicidal thoughts.

Adequate mortality-morbidity reviews should be conducted, separate from any other 


necessary formal investigations, after a completed suicide or a serious suicide att~mpt. The 


. reviews should include: 1) review of the circumstances surrounding the incident; 2) revie:W of

procedures relevant to the incident; 3) review of all relevant training provided to involved staff; .

4) review of pertinent medical and mental health services/reports involving the youth victim; 5)

review of any possible precipitating factors that may have caused the youth to attempt or commit

suicide; and 6) recommendations, ifany, for changes in policy, training, physical plant, medical

or mental health services, and operational procedures. The mortality-morbidity review team

should be multidisciplinary and include mansgement and line staff from the direct care; medical,

and !lJ,ental health areas. The reviews should focus on the incident and what the facility can learn

to prevent future incidents.

· ·

Furthermore, LCJDC should develop an adequate plan for intervening in suicide attempts, including ensuring that staff members notify emergency medical personnel inun~diately after the discovery of a life-threatening emergency; ensUring that all housing units contain adequate emergency equipment, including rescue tools; and ensuring armual mock drills for suicide attempts and armual competency-based instruction in the use of emergency equipmf)nt for staff. The facility should also establish and maintain an adequate quality assurance program to measure compliance with the facility's. suicide prevention program, including the remedial · measures outlined above.

6. Programming

LCJDC should ensure the availability ofadequate rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, education, counseling, and mental health services. LCJDC should provide for evening and weekend programs and activities that allow youth to engage in meaningful activities. In addition, LCJDC should develop and implement a behavior mansgemei:J.t system

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 27 of 30 PageiD #: 35

-27­
that outlines prohibited behaviors (major and minor) and the sanctions or consequences for these behaviors. Written policies and procedures should allow youth at least one hour of large muscle exercise daily.

7. Staffing and Supervision

LCJDG should ensure that staffmg and supervision levels are appropriate to adequately supervise all youths. The staffing pattern should consider the structural design of the L<;:!JDC, the need to monitor residents on suicide watch, and other day-to-day operations. For youths who .are locked in their cells, staffshould make and document visual checks of the youths at random intervals at least every 15 minutes with youths sufficiently visible to permit staff to verify their well-being. Documentation of monitorillg should be accurate and contemporaneous.
LCJDC should devel~p and implement appropriate training for staff. Newly hired staff should receive the requisite hours of competency-based training and all staff should receive appropriate additional hours of annual training after the first year of employment. All such trainings should include, but should not be limited to, training in use offorce, including safe crisis management and de-escalation techniques; training specific to the supervision of youths, including training on adolescent development; and trainiD.g in identifying and responding to fights, assaults, and sexual aqtivity.

8. Enviromhental Safetv

LCJDC should develop written housekeeping and emergency preparedness plans to ensure that youth are provided reasonable conditions of care and safety. The housekeeping plan should adPI"ess daily cleanliness and sanitation issues. Linens, mattresses and clothing should be routinely inspected and replaced as needed. Written policies and procedures should also be developed to address facility readiness for fires and other emergencies, including modifyitig the ·current evacuation plan to ensure safe egress during emergencies.

9. Grievance System

. ..

· Youths should have an effective and reliable process to l'llise grievances. The process
should protect youth from possible retribution by staff. A grievance coordinator should track, categorize, and tabulate all grievances, which should be reviewed and addressed in a timely·
manner within five days of receipt. Youth$ shl)uld be provided with notification of the final resolution.oftheir grievances, and bureaucratic responses to grievances should be prohibited. .
Grievance forms should be freely accessible in all areas frequented by youths, and youths should
have access to a grievance box from which grievances are retrieved dail¥·

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05112/15 28 of 30 PageiD #: 36

-28­

B. EDUCATION

1. General Education

In order to comply with federal constitutional and state statutory requirements for providing adequate general education services to youths, the County should provide youth in disciplinary confmement with the full range ofeducational services, provide all youth reasonable access to reading and writing materials in their cells, and ensure youths at LCJDC receive the same type and number of daily and weekly instructional minutes as other youths in the State's schools.

2. Child Find Procedures

In order to comply with federal statutory requirements for providing adequate special

education services to youths with disabilities, the County should provide adeqi.Jate screening of

youth for special education needs. This includes obtaiillng prior education records from .school

systems in .a timely fashion.. Special education services should be provided to all youth with

disabilities who are in need of special education and related services after they are identified, .

located, and evaluated in accordance with Child Find. Youths should be asked about previously

offered special education during intake, and LCJDC should ensure documentation of academic

interventions for youths who are struggling.

·

3. General Instructional and Evaluative Interventions

LCJDC should develop, implement, and maintain adequate pre-referral and general education interventions. LCJDC should also collect and maintain comprehensive educational records for all youth at the facility. Prior to eva,luating a youth for special education, LCJDC should determfue whether the youth is being provided appropriate instruction by.a highly qualified teacher and review data-based documentation of the youth's progress, including adequate documentation ofthe youth's behavior in his learning environment and regular classroom setting.

4. Individualized Education Programs

Pursuant to IDEA, LCJDC should develop, implement, and maintain an adequate IEP for each youth who qualifies for an IEP and provide necessary related services. IEPs shouid be updated and/or completed as quickly as possible upon intake and reviewed at least annually. Services provided to youths with IEPs should be comparable to those described in the youth's IEP from his previous agency in the absence ofadequate justification for changes in services. Parents and/or guardians shpuld be included in IEP meetings to the extent possible. IEPs should be adequately implemented and include collection and reporting of data on youth progress and ·individual accommodations.

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 29 of 30 PageiD #: 37

• 29­

5. Access to General Education Curriculum for Youth in Need of Special Education Services

In order to ensure that youths with disabilities have sufficient access to special.education services, LCIDC should provide that: 1) youths are enrolled in school within two days ofintake; 2) youths are provided with access to the general education curriculum; 3) youths with, and at risk for, disabilities are provided with adequate direct instruction using research-based instructional approaches; 4) youths with disabilities receive not less than five hours of instruction daily, the same number of daily and weekly instructional minutes as other youths in the State's schools; 5) youths with disabilities are provided appropriate instructional adaptations; and 6) adequate attendance records are maintained.

6. Behavioral Supports

Youths with disabilities should also receive adequate behavioral supports through a systemic behavior plan thst does not permit the use of segregation and exclusionary settings. Manifestation determination hearings should occur for youths with disabilities who are removed or segregated from their stated appropriate educational setting for disciplinary, administrative, or other reasons, in excess of ten days or in a patternof removals. Secondary interventions should be implemented for youths who do not need individual behavior programs but need behavioral supports beyond those offered in the facility plan.

7. Staffing

LCJDC should provide adequate special education staffing by developing, implementing, and maintaining an education staffing plan and ensuring an adequate number of licensed and highly qualified teachers, as well as qualified substitute teaehers, to provide· instruction in all necessary courses.

8. Transition Services

Results-oriented, individualized, coordioated transition services should be provided for youths with disabilities who are 16 years old or older to facilitate the youths' movement from school to post-school activities.

*****

Please note that this findiogs letter is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil

Rights Division's website. While we Will provide a copy of this letter to any iodividual or

entity upon request, as a matter of courtesy, we will not post this letter on the Civil Rights

Division's website until5 calendar days from the date of this letter.

·

The collaborative approach the parties have taken thus far has been productive. We hope to continue workiog with the County io an amicable and cooperative fashion to resolve our outstanding concerns. Provided thst our cooperative relationship continues, we will

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc#: 1-1 Filed: 05/12/15 30 of 30 PageiD·#: 38

-30­

forward our expert consultants' reports under separate cover. These reports are not public
documents. Although our expert consultants' reports are their work- and do not necessarily represent the official conelusions ofthe Department ofJustice- their observations, analyses, and recommendations provide further elaboration of the issues discussed in tlris letter arid offer practical, teclurical assistance in addressing them. We hope that you will give this information
careful consideration and that it will assist in your efforts at prompt remediation.

We are obligated to advise you that, in the unexpected event that we are unable to reach a

resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General. is authorized to initiate a lawsuit

pursuant to CRIPA after forty-nine days of your receipt of this letter to correct deficiencies ofthe

kind we have identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(l). We would very much prefer, however, to

resolve this matter by working cooperatively with you.

·

Accordingly, the lawyers assigned to this matter will be c~:mtacting the attorney for the

County to discuss next steps in further detail. Ifyou have any questions regarding this letter, ·

please call Jonathan M. Smith, Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at

(202) 514-5401.

.

Sincerely,

Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General
cc: Joyce Chiles·, Esq. Board Attorney Leflore County Board of Supervisors
Robert Fitzpatrick Director Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center
John Marshall Alexander, Esq. Uilited States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 1 of 29 PageID #: 51

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI


________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

LEFLORE COUNTY,

)

MISSISSIPPI,

)

)


Defendant.

) 


________________________________) 


Case No. 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
 THE UNITED STATES AND LEFLORE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI


Plaintiff the United States and defendant Leflore County, Mississippi, have reached agreement regarding the United States’ security and facility conditions claims in this matter and jointly request that this Court enter this settlement agreement (this “Agreement”) as its order.

INTRODUCTION

1. The purpose of this Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) is to remedy findings made by the Department of Justice of constitutional violations concerning security and facility conditions identified by the United States in the findings letter issued by the United States on March 31, 2011. Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center (“LCJDC” or “the Facility”) is an integral part of the public safety system in Leflore County, Mississippi (“Leflore County”). Through the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the conditions in the Facility respect the rights of Youth confined there, encourage rehabilitation and improve the likelihood that Youth will succeed upon release. By ensuring that the conditions in LCJDC are in compliance with the applicable requirements of the United States Constitution, Leflore County will also provide for the safety of staff and promote public safety in the community.

2. On March 31, 2011, the United States issued an investigative findings letter (“Findings Letter”) pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (“CRIPA”), 42 U.S.C. §1997, and the pattern or practice provision of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. §14141 (“Section 14141”). The Findings Letter concluded that certain conditions at LCJDC violated the constitutional and federal statutory rights of Youth housed there. The Findings Letter is attached.

3. The parties to this Agreement are the United States, represented by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and Leflore County, represented by the Leflore County Board of

Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 2 of 29 PageID #: 52
Supervisors and each of their respective agents, employees, designees, and successors in office (consistent with Miss. Code Ann. §§ 19-3-40 and 25-1-47), in their official capacities (collectively, “Parties”). The Parties expressly agree that the director of the LCJDC shall report directly to the Leflore County Board of Supervisors.
4. This Agreement is entered into between the Parties to address conditions of confinement at the Facility. This Agreement shall be filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of Mississippi.
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; 28 U.S.C. § 1345; and 42 U.S.C. §14141. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b).
6. Leflore County is responsible for ensuring that LCJDC takes all necessary and appropriate actions to comply with all provisions contained in this Agreement which are the responsibility of LCJDC. Leflore County is responsible for providing or obtaining all support, including financial resources, necessary to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall require Leflore County to continue to operate the LCJDC or otherwise comply with this Agreement after termination of this Agreement as provided in Section 111.
7. The United States agrees that this Agreement resolves the Section 14141 and CRIPA investigation concerning security and facility conditions conducted by the DOJ, addresses the corrective measures concerning security and facility conditions set forth by the DOJ in its Findings Letter, and represents an adequate voluntary effort by Leflore County to address the alleged constitutional violations described in the Findings Letter. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1997b(a)(2)(B) & 1997g. Through the provisions of this Agreement, the Parties seek to ensure that the security and facility conditions at LCJDC comply with the rights of Youth confined there, and are consistent with generally accepted juvenile justice standards. This Agreement does not address the United States’ findings regarding education services at the LCJDC school and does not require action with respect to such education services except as described in Paragraph 93 of this Agreement.
8. For purposes of this civil action only, and in order to settle this matter, the Parties stipulate that this Agreement complies in all respects with the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a), and may serve as the factual and legal basis of a Court order issued under those provisions. This stipulation and Agreement is limited to the instant civil action and does not apply to any other lawsuit brought by past, current or future juveniles with respect to LCJDF. No person or entity is intended to or shall be a third-party beneficiary of the provisions of this Agreement for purposes of any civil, criminal, or administrative action, and accordingly, no person or entity may assert any claim or right as a beneficiary or protected class under this Agreement. This Agreement is not intended to impair or expand the right of any person or organization to seek relief against Leflore County, its employees, or agents for their past or future conduct; accordingly, this Agreement does not alter any legal standards governing any such claims, including those under any federal or Mississippi law.
2 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 3 of 29 PageID #: 53
9. The Court finds, without a full hearing on the merits, on the basis of the United States’ Complaint and the attached Findings Letter, that all of the prospective relief in this Agreement is narrowly drawn and extends no further than is necessary to correct the violations of the federal rights concerning security and facility conditions as described in the attached Findings Letter and incorporated into this Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement are the least intrusive means necessary to correct the findings of violations of the federal rights concerning security and facility conditions at LCJDC.
10. This Agreement, and attached Findings Letter, shall constitute the entire integrated agreement of the Parties. No prior contemporaneous communications, oral or written, or prior drafts shall be relevant or admissible for purposes of determining the meaning of any provisions here in this litigation or in any other proceeding.
11. Nothing in this Agreement shall prevent Leflore County from modifying or closing LCJDC at any time consistent with Paragraph 111(e) of this Agreement.
DEFINITIONS
12. “DOJ” or “United States” means the United States Department of Justice, which represents the United States in this matter.
13. “Effective Date” means the date the Agreement is signed by the Court.
14. “Isolation” means confining a Youth in a room by himself or herself in any area of LCJDC for current and disruptive behavior that is dangerous to the Youth or others.
15. “LCJDC” or the “Facility” means the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center, currently located on 307 West Market Street, Greenwood, MS 38930-4330, as well as any facility that is built, leased, or otherwise used to replace or supplement LCJDC.
16. “Qualified Medical Professional” means a licensed physician, licensed physician assistant, licensed nurse practitioner, or a registered nurse who is, at the relevant time, currently licensed by the State of Mississippi to deliver those health care services he or she has undertaken to provide.
17. “Qualified Mental Health Professional” or “QMHP” means an individual who, at the relevant time, has a minimum of a masters-level education and training in psychiatry, psychology, counseling, social work or psychiatric nursing and who has either a Mississippi professional license or a Mississippi Department of Mental Health credential as a mental health therapist.
18. “Restraint” means the use of mechanical restraints (e.g., handcuffs, belly chains, leg shackles) to protect a Youth from harming himself, herself or others. The term “Restraint” does not include use of handcuffs or shackles for and during transport or during temporary detention of a Youth outside the Facility before or after transport.
19. “Serious Incident” means alleged use of force; alleged staff misconduct; alleged inappropriate staff relationships with Youth; alleged sexual misconduct between Youth;
3 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 4 of 29 PageID #: 54
alleged Youth-on-Youth violence that results in broken bones, or lacerations, or other injuries that require medical attention; and all serious Youth attempts (whether completed or not) at serious self-harm.
20. “Serious Suicide Attempt” means a suicide attempt that is either potentially lifethreatening or that requires medical treatment for serious harm.
21. “Staff” means all individuals employed by Leflore County at the LCJDC.
22. “Suicide Precautions” means any level of watch, observation, medical treatment or other measures to prevent or mitigate the risk of self-harm to Youth confined in the LCJDC.
23. “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.
24. “Use of Force” or “Force” means any physical contact (e.g. manual holds or take-downs) initiated by a staff person that intentionally restricts or compels the movement of a Youth to protect a Youth from harming himself, herself, or others.
25. “Youth” shall be construed broadly to refer to one or more individuals detained at, or otherwise housed, in the custody of, or confined at LCJDC.
SUBSTANTIVE REMEDIAL MEASURES
I. POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
26. Policy and Procedure Review. Within the time periods set for Section 27 of this Agreement, all existing policies and procedures shall be reviewed and/or revised by Leflore County to ensure compliance with the substantive terms of this Agreement. Where LCJDC does not have a policy in place to comply with a substantive term of this Agreement, LCJDC shall generate such policy. The initial policy and procedures review shall be initiated by LCJDC officials and shall be subject to review by the DOJ.
27. Schedule for Policy and Procedure Review. LCJDC shall complete its policy review and revision within six (6) months of the Effective Date, and shall also complete the implementation of procedures regarding behavior management within six (6) months of the Effective Date. To accomplish this goal, LCJDC shall adhere to the schedule contained in each substantive provision below. Within thirty (30) days after LCJDC completes its initial revision of all policies, LCJDC shall submit the revised policies and procedures to the DOJ for review and approval. As soon as practicable, but in any event, not later than thirty (30) days after the DOJ receives LCJDC’s submission, the DOJ shall submit to LCJDC any suggested revisions to the proposed policies. In the event that the DOJ does not submit to LCJDC proposed revisions to any particular policy within such thirty (30) day period, the policy, as submitted, shall be deemed accepted by the DOJ. Within thirty (30) days after receiving the proposed revisions from the DOJ, LCJDC shall either (a) revise the policies to incorporate the DOJ’s revisions and resubmit the revised procedures to the DOJ for review and approval, such approval not to be unreasonably
4 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 5 of 29 PageID #: 55
withheld or delayed or (b) shall submit to the DOJ alternatives to policies not accepted by the DOJ. 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, if LCJDC asserts that the DOJ’s objections are not well-founded, the Parties will confer on the matter for up to thirty (30) days. If, after conferring for thirty (30) days, the Parties are unable to reach an agreement, either Party may submit a Motion to the Court outlining the disagreement and seeking the Court’s resolution of the disagreement. This review process shall continue until all policies and procedures have been approved by the DOJ or, in lieu of approval by the DOJ, by the Court.
28. Policy Implementation. No later than three (3) months after the DOJ’s final approval of each policy, LCJDC 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, LCJDC shall annually review each policy and procedure and revise as necessary. Any revisions to the policies and procedures shall be submitted to the DOJ for review and approval in the manner provided in Section 27 above. Unless otherwise stated, all new or revised policies and procedures shall be implemented within one year of the Effective Date.
II. PROTECTION FROM HARM
LCJDC shall provide Youth in the Facility with reasonably safe conditions of confinement, by fulfilling the requirements set out below.
A. Intake
The provisions below are designed to create a thorough intake screening and evaluation process, which allows detention Staff to gain essential information regarding incoming Youth and provides those same Youth with valuable information regarding the Facility’s operations. These provisions are also consistent with Mississippi state law, which requires that Youth undergo a health screening upon admission to a juvenile detention center, within one hour or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in order to obtain information about the juvenile’s mental health, suicide risk, alcohol and other drug use and abuse, physical health, aggressive behavior, family relations, peer relations, social skills, educational status, and vocational status. Miss. Code Ann. §43-21-321(1)-(4).
29. Intake Screening. Within one hour, or as soon as reasonably possible but, in any event, within no more than three (3) hours of admission, Staff shall: administer the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-2nd version (“MAYSI-2”) screening tool to identify each Youth’s possible mental health needs; evaluate each Youth’s medical and mental health history; and evaluate Youth for potential suicide risk. LCJDC shall evaluate each Youth for appropriate grade placement on the next school day following the Youth’s intake.
30. Orientation. Within three (3) hours of admission or as soon as reasonably possible, but, in any event, within eight (8) hours after admission, each Youth must receive a written
5 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 6 of 29 PageID #: 56
and/or video orientation. The orientation shall include a clear explanation of the following:
a. Rules Youth must follow while at LCJDC and the consequences of failing to follow the rules;
b. How to obtain medical and mental health care;
c. How to use the LCJDC grievance system;
d. How to report abuse, including information about Youth’s rights and responsibilities to be protected from retaliation for reporting allegations of abuse; and
e. Information pertinent to participation in LCJDC’s school and other daily programs.
31. Posting of Orientation Information. Short summaries of the information described above shall be conspicuously posted in the living areas and classroom.
32. Policies and Procedures. Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, LCJDC shall revise its intake policies and procedures to establish a consistent, orderly admissions intake system that is conducive to: gathering necessary information about Youth; disseminating information to Staff providing services and care for Youth; and maintaining Youth safety. The policy shall address at least the following issues:
a. Mental health;
b. Medical history;
c. Education;
d. Classification; and
e. Orientation.
Within sixty (60) days after the Effective Date, LCJDC shall revise any intake screening tools consistent with the intake policy and Mississippi law, Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-321, and shall submit the revised tool to the DOJ for approval.
33. Quality Assurance. The Facility director shall review the MAYSI-2 screenings each month to ensure that all screenings were conducted in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Each month, the Facility director shall also ensure that each Youth admitted has undergone orientation in accordance with the terms of this Agreement.
B. Classification
The provisions below are designed to create a classification and housing system that is consistent with the Constitutional requirement that Youth be provided a reasonably safe
6 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 7 of 29 PageID #: 57
environment. Under the classification and housing practices described below, the facility will properly consider such factors as the Youth’s charge offense, history of violence and escape, vulnerability to victimization, gang membership or affiliation, health and mental health concerns, and institutional history.
34. Housing and Supervision. Within twenty-four (24) hours of admission to the Facility, all Youth shall be classified and housed in accordance with this Agreement and LCJDC’s revised policies and procedures.
35. Performance Measure. On the final day of each month that is not a Saturday, Sunday or a legal holiday, the Facility director shall review all classifications and provide feedback to Staff to ensure that: all Youth are classified within twenty-four (24) hours of arrival to the Facility; all Youth are placed in housing units consistent with their risk level; and each eligible Youth is reclassified within appropriate timeframes and re-housed accordingly. The Facility director shall document the results of this review each month.
36. Policies and Procedures. Within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall develop policies and procedures, including an instrument to be used during intake, regarding a housing classification system. The policy shall specify the procedures for initial and re-classification, housing assignments, and supervision procedures flowing from the assessment of risk. The policy should include timelines for classification and the events or incidents that trigger reclassification. The policy shall provide for supervision of children according to their classification pursuant to the policy. LCJDC’s classification policy shall address at least the following:
a. Separation of older from younger residents;
b. Separation of males from females;
c. The juvenile’s history of delinquency and charge offense;
d. Vulnerability to victimization;
e. Gang membership or affiliation;
f. Separation of violent from non-violent Youth;
g. Maturity level of Youth involved;
h. Presence of mental or physical disabilities;
i. Suicide risk;
j. Specific information about Youths who need to be separated from each other; and
k. Plans to protect the safety of Youth who have been victimized at a facility or who have concerns about their safety.
7 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 8 of 29 PageID #: 58
37. Quality Assurance. Each month, LCJDC shall aggregate all classification data and ensure that the policies above are followed for each Youth admitted to the Facility. Monthly statistics shall be assembled to allow assessment changes over time. Each monthly report shall include:
a. Each Youth’s initial classification; the date of admission; the date and time each Youth received his or her classification status; any reclassification; and other subsequent housing assignments;
b. Trends and/or patterns regarding the classification data (e.g., frequency of reclassifications and assaults);
c. Specific interventions that have been or will be implemented in response to the underlying conditions that may have contributed to problematic patterns or trends; and
d. Status reports on the effectiveness of interventions undertaken in response to identified trends from previous months.
C. Use of Force
Consistent with Constitutional requirements that detained Youth should be protected from harm and from the serious risk of harm, these provisions are designed to create a comprehensive use of force policy which shall be implemented by Staff who have been properly trained, so that Youth are not subjected to such harm from unwarranted or excessive force by the Staff at the Facility.
38. Policies and Procedures on Use of Force and Restraints, Generally. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall adopt a policy for the Use of Force and Restraints, which shall at least:
a. Ensure that Staff use the least amount of Force appropriate to the risk posed by the Youth to stabilize the situation and protect the safety of the involved Youth and others. As soon as the Youth regains self-control, Staff shall temper their use of physical Force and stop using mechanical Restraints with respect to the Youth involved.
b. Limit Use of Force or Restraint to exceptional situations where the Youth is currently physically violent, poses an immediate danger to self or others, and where LCJDC has attempted and exhausted a graduated set of interventions that avoid or minimize the Use of Force or Restraints and permit only the least restrictive measures to prevent physical harm to the Youth or others;
c. Prohibit the Use of Force or Restraints as punishment or in retaliation for verbal disobedience;
d. Prohibit the use of unapproved forms of Force or Restraint;
8 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 9 of 29 PageID #: 59
e. Require the prompt documentation and reporting of all Uses of Force or Restraint;
f. Require that any attempt at non-physical alternatives be documented in a Youth’s file;
g. Ensure that Staff are held accountable for excessive Force or inappropriate Restraint through a disciplinary process;
h. Ensure that Youth who have been subjected to Force or Restraint are evaluated by Qualified Medical Personnel or transported to a medical emergency facility promptly following the incident if the Youth claims an injury or requests medical attention, or if a reasonable person would believe the Youth has been injured;
i. Require investigation and written documentation of all incidents involving violence, all Uses of Force, use of Restraint and all allegations of abuse;
j. Ensure that no Youth are Restrained to fixed objects;
k. Include verbal and non-verbal de-escalation techniques and a continuum of Restraint techniques;
l. Provide guidance for Staff on using safe alternatives if the authorized techniques are impractical given the circumstances and a description of the manner in which Force or Restraints for control shall be imposed, supervised, terminated, and documented;
m. Provide that Staff follow a graduated set of interventions that avoid the Use of Force or Restraints, employ a range of interventions or actions before using Force or Restraints, permit only the least restrictive measures to prevent physical harm to the Youth or others, and permit Use of Force or Restraints for the minimum amount of time necessary to bring the situation under control; and
n. Provide that only Staff specifically trained in the application of Force and Restraints are permitted to use such techniques or devices, and that Staff only use techniques or devices approved by policy.
39. Training. Staff shall receive regular periodic training in conflict management, de­ escalation of confrontations, crisis intervention, management of assaultive behavior, minimizing trauma involved in the Use of Force, and the Facility’s continuum of methods of control. In addition, Staff shall receive annual training on situations in which Use of Force or Restraints is or is not justified, permitted methods of Force and Restraints, appropriate techniques for application of Force and Restraints, and guidance to Staff in deciding what levels of Force and Restraints to use if that becomes necessary.
40. Elimination of Unsafe Restraint Practices. No later than the Effective Date, LCJDC shall not shackle or restrain Youth to their beds as a disciplinary measure.
9 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 10 of 29 PageID #: 60
41. Quality Assurance. Each month, not later than the tenth (10th) day of the next month, the Facility director shall review all incidents involving use of Force and Restraint to ensure that all Uses of Force and Restraint and reports on Uses of Force and Restraint were done in accordance with this Agreement. The Facility director shall also ensure that appropriate sanctions are imposed on any Staff member who fails to comply with Use of Force policies.
D. Behavior Management
The behavior management provisions below are designed to encourage Youth compliance with facility rules by providing positive incentives, and to provide staff with a variety of disciplinary options in lieu of Isolation.
42. Behavioral Management. Within six (6) months of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall implement a behavior management system that provides positive incentives for changing Youth behavior, and that outlines prohibited behaviors and the consequences for those behaviors. These incentives shall be documented in the Youth’s file following each use and reviewed by shift supervisors to determine the frequency and outcome of any incentive. The behavior management system shall also address the use of Isolation as a response to Youth behavior.
43. Distinction Between Major and Minor Rule Violations. LCJDC shall consult with outside technical assistance (see infra ¶ 102) on developing and incorporating into the behavior management system a distinction between major and minor rule violations. Youth accused of major rule violations shall be accorded the full due process protections set forth below. Youth accused of minor rule violations shall receive a written notice of the alleged violation as soon as reasonably practicable following the incident. The notice shall contain any information that is the basis for LCJDC’s conclusion that the violation has occurred. The behavior management system shall include an informal means for Youth accused of a minor rule violation to contest the violation finding.
44. Quality Assurance. Each month, the Facility director shall examine 20% of Youth files to ensure that all Staff are using the behavior management tool in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. This review shall be documented and available for review.
E. Isolation
The following provisions will ensure that Isolation is used only when Youth pose an immediate threat to themselves or others and that Isolation is not used when a less restrictive method would be more effective. These provisions are also designed to discontinue overreliance on Isolation by implementing a robust behavior management program that both rewards Youth for compliant behavior, and sanctions Youth for violating the facility’s rules.
45. Interim Measure Regarding the Use of Disciplinary Isolation. LCJDC will review the effectiveness of its use of disciplinary Isolation, and will consult with DOJ and technical assistance providers about ways to move toward the elimination of Isolation for disciplinary reasons. A revised policy and procedure on disciplinary Isolation will be promulgated within three (3) months of the Effective Date, with the expectation that
10 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 11 of 29 PageID #: 61
LCJDC will cease using disciplinary Isolation within six (6) months of the Effective Date. In the interim, disciplinary Isolation should only be used as a sanction for a major rule violation, and each Youth should receive a due process hearing prior to being sent to disciplinary Isolation. During this interim period, if disciplinary Isolation is used, LDJDC shall prohibit periods of disciplinary Isolation longer than twenty-four (24) hours, except in extraordinary circumstances and with the express written authorization of the Facility director. Disciplinary Isolation shall be limited to situations when less severe disciplinary measures have proven ineffective.
46. Policies and Procedures. Within six (6) months of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall revise its policies and procedures consistent with the following principles for the use of Isolation:
a. Isolation is only permitted when a Youth’s behavior threatens imminent harm to the Youth or others. LCJDC will no longer use Isolation as a form of discipline or punishment.
b. Prior to using Isolation, Staff shall utilize less restrictive techniques, including talking with Youth to de-escalate the situation and bringing in Staff, QMHPs, family members or other Youth to talk with the Youth. Prior to using Isolation or immediately after placing a Youth in Isolation, Staff shall explain to the Youth the reasons for the Isolation, and the fact that he or she will be released upon regaining self-control.
c. Youth are in Isolation only for the amount of time necessary for the Youth to regain self-control and no longer pose a threat. As soon as the Youth’s behavior ceases to threaten imminent harm to self or others or serious destruction of property, Staff shall release him or her back to routine detention, school or other programming.
d. Staff shall notify the unit supervisor as soon as a Youth is placed in Isolation.
e. During the time that a Youth is in Isolation, Staff shall provide one-on-one crisis intervention and observation. The Staff member should be either in the sleeping room with the Youth or directly outside the sleeping room during the entire period of Isolation providing observation of the Youth and interaction as appropriate. Staff shall document their observations on a time sheet maintained beside the Youth’s room. The observing Staff member shall document the time of the observation and shall initial the time sheet beside the time of the observation.
f. A Qualified Medical Professional or health-trained Staff shall directly monitor any Youth in Isolation at least every fifteen (15) minutes.
g. Youth shall not be held in Isolation for a continuous period longer than one (1) hour. If the LCJDC director determines that a Youth still requires Isolation after one (1) hour, a QMHP or the LCJDC director shall arrange for the Youth to be transported to a local mental health facility or hospital. If transport to a local mental health facility or hospital is not possible due to unavailability of mental
11 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 12 of 29 PageID #: 62
health or medical services, LCJDC shall continue to monitor the Youth under Paragraphs 46(e) and 46(f) until such servicers are available or the Youth regains control and can be released from Isolation.
h. If at any time during Isolation a Qualified Medical Professional or QMHP, believes the level of crisis service needed is not available at LCJDC, the Youth shall be transported to a location where those services can be obtained (e.g., local mental health treatment facility or hospital).
i. Youth in Isolation have reasonable access to water, toilet facilities, and hygiene supplies.
j. All uses of Isolation shall require written justification and authorization by a shift supervisor. All instances of Isolation, all justifications for the use of Isolation, and all authorizations, shall be noted in the Youth’s file.
47. Facility Director Notification of Isolation. The Facility director shall be notified of all periods of Isolation as follows:
a. For all periods of cumulative Isolation extending beyond two hours within a 24­ hour period, notification shall occur within 30 minutes of the cumulative Isolation extending beyond two hours; and
b. For all periods of Isolation wherein Youth are isolated three or more times within one week, regardless of the length of time for each Isolation period, notification shall occur within 30 minutes of the third incident of Isolation.
c. Notification to the Facility director shall include the circumstances and facts related to the Youth’s ongoing imminent threat to self or others and the less severe measures that have been attempted and proven ineffective. The Facility director shall refer the Youth to a QMHP for evaluation and treatment.
48. Services for Youth in Isolation. Youth in Isolation shall continue to receive meals, showers, and educational and recreational services. In addition, Youth in Isolation shall be counseled by a qualified mental health professional and visited by a shift supervisor on a daily basis. Compliance with this provision shall be documented in writing and maintained in the Youth’s file.
49. Data Gathering Regarding Youth in Isolation. For each instance of Isolation, Staff shall log the length of time the Youth remained in Isolation, the reason for the Isolation, and Youth’s behavior while in Isolation. The data shall be maintained in the Youth’s file and shall be reviewed in Quality Assurance assessments.
50. Quality Assurance. Each month, the Facility Director shall aggregate and analyze all data on the use of Isolation and provide feedback to Staff as frequently as needed to ensure that all Isolation episodes meet the requirements of this subsection. Such review, and the monthly accuracy rate, shall be documented. Monthly statistics shall be assembled to allow assessment of changes over time. The Facility director shall review
12 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 13 of 29 PageID #: 63
all Isolation data and provide monthly feedback to Staff to ensure that all Isolation procedures are properly followed.
F. Suicide Prevention and Mental Health Care
These provisions are designed to ensure compliance with Constitutional requirements for adequate mental health treatment and suicide prevention by adopting and implementing treatment and strategies to protect Youth susceptible to suicidal ideation from self-harm. These provisions are consistent with Miss. Code Ann. §43-21-321(6)(m)-(n), which require that Youth have access to counseling and that Youth be referred to other counseling services “when necessary,” including for mental health services and crisis intervention.
51. Tools. Within forty-five (45) days of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall ensure security Staff posts are equipped with readily available, safely secured, suicide cut-down tools.
52. Reporting. All Staff, including administrative, medical, and direct care Staff or contractors, will report all incidents of self-harm by Youth to the Facility director immediately upon discovery.
53. Suicide Risk Assessments at Admission. After intake and admission to the Facility, LCJDC shall ensure that, within 24 hours, any Youth expressing suicidal intent or otherwise showing symptoms of suicide is assessed by a QMHP using an appropriate, formalized suicide risk assessment instrument.
54. Notice to QMHP and Facility Director. Direct care Staff shall immediately notify a QMHP any time a Youth is placed on Suicide Precautions. Direct care Staff shall provide the QMHP with all relevant information related to the Youth’s placement on Suicide Precautions. If a Youth is placed on Suicide Precautions outside of business hours, the Facility director will be notified within 30 minutes, and the Facility director will arrange care consistent with this provision through a mental health facility or QMHP.
55. Orders. LCJDC shall ensure that Staff write orders setting forth the conditions under which Youth placed on Suicide Precautions are held, including allowable clothing, property, and utensils. These conditions shall be altered only on the written instruction of a QMHP, except under emergency circumstances.
56. Supervision of Youth on Suicide Precautions. LCJDC shall ensure that Staff search Youth placed on Suicide Precautions. Staff shall monitor Youth on Suicide Precautions one-on-one on a continuous basis or transfer the Youth to an appropriate mental health treatment facility or hospital. Staff shall document their visual verification of the Youth’s welfare accurately and completely. A supervisor shall conduct and document a review of all documents related to this provision before the end of the shift during which it occurred to ensure compliance with policy and this Agreement.
57. Isolation of Youth on Suicide Precautions. Youth on Suicide Precautions shall not be placed in Isolation unless specifically authorized by a QMHP. Any such Isolation and its justification shall be thoroughly documented in the accompanying incident report, a copy of which shall be maintained in the Youth’s file.
13 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 14 of 29 PageID #: 64
58. QMHP Assessment, Reassessment and Monitoring of Youth on Suicide Precautions. Any Youth placed on Suicide Precautions shall be evaluated by a QMHP no later than one (1) hour after the Youth is placed on Suicide Precautions. In this assessment, the QMHP shall determine the extent of the risk of suicide, write any appropriate orders, and regularly monitor the Youth. The QMHP shall regularly, but no less than daily, reassess Youth on Suicide Precautions to determine whether the level of precaution or supervision should be raised or lowered, and shall record these reassessments in the Youth’s medical chart. Only a QMHP may raise, lower, or terminate a Youth’s Suicide Precaution level or status. Following each daily assessment, the QMHP shall provide direct care Staff with relevant information regarding a Youth on Suicide Precautions that affects the direct care Staff’s duties and responsibilities for supervising the Youth, including at least: known sources of stress for the potentially suicidal Youth; the specific risks posed; and coping mechanisms or activities that may mitigate the risk of harm. If a Youth is placed on Suicide Precautions outside of business hours or cannot be seen by a QMHP on site within one (1) hour, the Facility director will be notified within 30 minutes, and the Facility director will arrange care consistent with this provision through a mental health facility, QMHP or hospital emergency room.
59. Response to Suicide Attempts. LCJDC shall develop and implement a plan for responding to, and intervening in, suicide attempts, including:
a. Ensuring that Staff members notify emergency medical personnel immediately after the discovery of a life-threatening emergency involving self-harm;
b. Ensuring that Staff immediately transfer to a hospital, local mental health center or other appropriate setting any Youth who attempts suicide; and
c. Ensuring annual mock drills for suicide attempts and annual competency-based instruction in the use of emergency equipment for Staff.
This plan shall be submitted, reviewed, adopted and implemented in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 above.
60. Data Management. All suicide attempts shall be recorded in the classification system to ensure that intake Staff will be aware of past suicide attempts if a Youth with a history of suicidal ideations or attempts is readmitted to the Facility.
61. Mortality and Morbidity Review. LCJDC shall ensure that all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding Serious Suicide Attempts and completed suicides are reviewed by a multidisciplinary team. This team shall identify any areas in which Staff performance should improve or Facility procedures should be adjusted to improve the ability to protect Youth from self-harm. LCJDC and Leflore County may seek assistance of community providers in establishing and operating the multidisciplinary team. All reviews shall be documented and shall include the team’s findings, concerns, recommendations and remedial actions.
62. Suicide Prevention Policies and Procedures. Within three(3) months of the Effective Date and consistent with Sections 27 and 28 above, LCJDC shall develop comprehensive
14 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 15 of 29 PageID #: 65
policies and procedures regarding suicide prevention and the appropriate management of suicidal Youth. The policy shall address, at least:
a. Intake screening for suicide risk;
b. Procedures for initiating and terminating precautions;
c. Communication between direct care and mental health Staff regarding Youth on precautions;
d. Suicide risk assessment by the QMHP;
e. Housing and supervision requirements, including minimal intervals of supervision and documentation;
f. Interdisciplinary reviews of all Serious Suicide Attempts or completed suicides;
g. Multiple levels of precautions, each with increasing levels of protection;
h. Requirements for all annual in-service training; and
i. Requirements for mortality and morbidity review.
This policy shall be submitted, reviewed, adopted and implemented in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 above.
63. Suicide Prevention Quality Assurance. Each month, the Facility director shall aggregate and analyze the data regarding self-harm, suicide attempts, and successful suicides. Monthly statistics shall be assembled to allow assessment of changes over time. The Facility director shall review all data regarding self-harm within 24 hours after it is reported and shall ensure that the provisions of this Agreement, and LCJDC policies and procedures, are followed during every incident. Such review shall be documented.
64. Mental Health Services Following Intake. LCJDC shall transport all Youth determined at intake to have a mental health diagnosis to a mental health treatment facility, within twenty-four (24) hours of intake to be evaluated by a QMHP. If the QMHP determines that the Youth requires treatment that is not available at LCJDC, Leflore County shall take all reasonable actions to ensure that the Youth is diverted, in a timely manner, to a setting where the Youth’s needs can be met. If the Youth remains at LCJDC, Leflore County will work with the QMHP to develop and implement a treatment plan for the Youth.
65. Access to a Mental Health Professional During Detention. LCJDC shall provide timely access to a QMHP when a Youth’s symptoms of mental illness indicate a need for such care.
15 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 16 of 29 PageID #: 66
G. Due Process
These provisions are designed to ensure that each Youth is provided with Constitutionally adequate due process protections prior to the imposition of punishment, and to ensure that Youth are provided a grievance system that allows them to confidentially express their concerns to the Facility Director where the grievance involves the Grievance Coordinator or to a Grievance Coordinator designated under Section 69 below. .
66. Due Process, Generally. LCJDC shall ensure that Youth subjected to discipline are afforded due process protections. To facilitate this requirement, Staff shall establish a disciplinary system that includes at least notification to all Youth of: the Facility rules; consequences for violating those rules; and their rights if charged with a rule violation.
67. Due Process Procedures. If a Youth is charged with a major violation of LCJDC rules, the Youth shall:
a. Receive a written notice of the alleged violation within twenty-four (24) hours prior to a hearing;
b. Receive a written statement by the fact-finder as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken; and
c. Unless the Facility director deems it unsafe to do so, have the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence at an evidentiary hearing.
68. Due Process for Isolation. Youth who are placed in administrative isolation for behavioral reasons shall be provided with a due process hearing every twenty-four (24) hours any time their isolation exceeds twenty-four (24) hours. Youth placed in disciplinary isolation shall receive a due process hearing prior to being sent to disciplinary isolation.
69. Grievance Coordinator. LCJDC shall designate one or more Staff members, other than the Facility director, to serve as the Facility’s grievance coordinator. The grievance coordinator shall retrieve grievances daily and shall be the only Staff member to retrieve and review grievances. The grievance coordinator will also investigate and respond to grievances. The grievance coordinator shall track, categorize, and tabulate all grievances every thirty (30) days.
70. Grievance Process. LCJDC shall develop a written grievance process and shall ensure that each Youth has regular access to the grievance system. LCJDC shall adopt and implement procedures by which Youth or the Youth’s parent(s) and legal guardian(s) or legal counsel on the Youth’s behalf can obtain and submit grievance forms confidentially and without having to involve Facility Staff. To facilitate this process, Staff shall:
a. Provide each Youth with a grievance form during the intake process;
b. Ensure that Youth may submit grievances confidentially in a locked grievance box without having to consult a Staff member;
16 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 17 of 29 PageID #: 67
c. Ensure that the grievance box is located in a neutral location, such as the classroom or community room; and
d. Maintain blank grievance forms in classrooms, or in another easily accessible location.
71. Response to Grievances. Within five (5) days of receipt, the grievance coordinator shall review and address all grievances. In that time, Youth shall be notified of the final resolution of the Youth’s grievances and shall be provided with written notification of the final resolution. The Facility director shall take appropriate action to address all valid grievances. All responses, including a copy of the original grievance and all action taken in response to the grievance, shall be maintained in the Youth’s file.
72. Appeals. Each Youth or the Youth’s parent(s), legal guardian(s) or legal counsel shall have the opportunity to appeal the grievance findings to the Facility director. The Facility director shall investigate all appeals and provide written documentation of the resolution within five (5) days of receipt. The Facility director shall take appropriate action to address all valid appeals.
73. Quality Assurance. The Facility director shall interview 20% of the Facility population each month to ensure that all Youth interviewed understand how to use the grievance process and are able to obtain grievance forms confidentially. Following this review, the Facility director shall take all corrective action necessary to ensure that Youth are given access to the grievance process in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Findings of all Youth interviewed, and all corrective action, shall be documented and available for review.
H. Incident Reporting and Investigations
A proper incident reporting and investigative process ensures that Youth have the opportunity for rehabilitation in a safe environment. These provisions ensure that Youth are protected from potential dangers within the Facility posed by the Youth himself or herself, by other Youth and by Staff by ensuring that such incidents are properly and thoroughly reported and investigated.
74. Mandatory Reporting. All Staff shall report any incidents requiring medical attention to the Facility director as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than the end of the shift during which the incident occurred. All Staff shall report Serious Incidents to the Facility director immediately upon discovery. The Facility director shall report all required incidents to the Mississippi Department of Human Services for review.
75. Investigations. All Serious Incidents and other incidents at the discretion of the Facility director shall be investigated by individuals who have no involvement in the underlying event. Each investigation shall include the following:
a. A review of all relevant facts, including when, where, and under what circumstances the incident occurred, and who participated in or witnessed the incident;
17 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 18 of 29 PageID #: 68
b. Interviews of all individuals involved in the incident. The interviews shall be conducted within twelve (12) hours of the incident. A summary of all interviews shall be included in the report;
c. Written statements from any Staff involved in the incident, and all Staff who witnessed the incident. All written statements shall be received before those involved leave the Facility;
d. Review of all physical evidence (e.g., video tapes, rape kits, photographs of injuries, clothing, etc.);
e. A summary of all steps taken during the investigation; and
f. Identification of any training needs or corrective measures to avoid similar future incidents.
76. Investigation Policy. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall promulgate a policy to ensure that individuals who may be subject to criminal prosecution as a result of statements provided during LCJDC investigations are timely advised of their rights and are not compelled to give additional statements against their interests unless LCJDC has consulted with the appropriate prosecutorial officials.
77. Investigation Report. All investigations shall be completed within thirty (30) days and if reasonably feasible prior to the time the Youth involved is released from the Facility and shall be documented in a report. The results of the investigation shall be compiled in an investigation packet and maintained by LCJDC.
78. Supervisory Review. Before the end of each shift, a shift supervisor shall review each investigation packet generated during his or her shift to ensure that each report meets all of the requirements of the incident report policies and content requirements, and that witness statements have been completed consistent with this Agreement’s requirements.
79. Investigative Review. The Facility director shall designate a Staff member to review each investigative report. When available, and if not already provided, the reviewer shall review independent information to corroborate the report. Once all information has been reviewed, the reviewer should determine whether different decisions or choices could have prevented the incident from occurring. The reviewer’s written analysis of these issues must be added to the investigation packet.
80. Performance Measure. Every month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the month, the Facility director shall review the investigation packets for all incidents occurring during the preceding month and provide feedback to Staff to ensure that investigations meet the requirements of this subsection. Such review, and the monthly compliance rate, shall be documented.
81. Incident Investigation Policies and Procedures. Within six (6) months after the Effective Date, the Facility shall develop a policy outlining the specific incidents that
18 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 19 of 29 PageID #: 69
require a comprehensive investigation. The policy shall provide for the investigation of at least the following types of incidents:
a. Use of Force;
b. Youth-on-Staff violence;
c. Youth-on-Youth violence;
d. Allegations of child abuse or neglect, including allegations of inappropriate relationships between Youth and Staff and other allegations of Staff misconduct; and
e. Suicidal behavior, including gestures or attempts.
This policy shall be submitted, reviewed, adopted and implemented in accordance with the provisions of Sections 27 and 28 above.
82. Quality Assurance. Each month, LCJDC shall aggregate and analyze all data regarding incidents occurring at the Facility. Monthly statistics shall be assembled to allow assessment of changes over time. The Facility director shall review all investigations to ensure that all investigation procedures are properly followed, and provide monthly feedback to Staff to ensure that these procedures are followed. Each monthly report shall include:
a. Relevant aggregate data;
b. Trends and/or patterns that appear to contribute to the incident’s occurrence;
c. Specific interventions that have been or will be implemented in response to the underlying conditions that may have contributed to the incident’s occurrence;
d. Status reports on the effectiveness of interventions undertaken in response to trends identified in previous months; and
e. Staff cited or disciplined for violating the Incident Reporting policies. 83. Facility Director Review. Each month, not later than the tenth (10th) day of the next
month, the Facility director shall review all classification, Isolation, suicide, investigation, and grievance data for the subject month. The Facility director shall ensure that all data is maintained consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. In the event that discrepancies are identified, the Facility director shall take appropriate action, including any action necessary to ensure Facility Staff compliance, within fifteen (15) days.
19 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 20 of 29 PageID #: 70
I. Medical Care
The provisions below are designed to ensure that Youth at LCJDC receive Constitutionally adequate medical care and are protected against harm or risk of harm from undiagnosed and untreated medical conditions. These provisions are consistent with Miss. Code Ann. §43-21-321(k) and (l), which require that Youth be provided access to medical care and treatment while in custody.
84. Medical Screenings. In complying with the Youth screening requirements, the Staff member conducting the intake screening shall contemporaneously sign and date the screening form, and a copy of the form shall be maintained in the Youth’s file. Each Youth for whom screening indicates a need for medical attention, including Youth requiring routine, urgent or emergency care, shall be referred to a licensed medical professional for needed medical services. Documentation of the referral shall be included in the Youth’s file.
85. Sick Call. LCJDC shall develop a written sick call process that clearly outlines how Youth should access medical and dental services. All Youth requesting sick call shall see a health professional within 24 hours. Responses to sick call request shall be documented in the Youth’s file.
86. Medical Services. LCJDC will continue to contract with at least one registered nurse to provide medical care and transport Youth to a hospital emergency room for urgent care. Within six (6) months of the Effective Date, LCJDC will contract with a physician to provide on-call routine medical care.
87. Medicine Administration. LCJDC shall ensure that only licensed, authorized, properly trained Staff members, QMHPs or Qualified Medical Professionals administer medication to Youth consistent with Mississippi law.
88. Medical and Mental Health Care Policies and Procedures. Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall review and revise all mental health and medical policies to:
a. Require the administration, by trained Staff, of adequate medical and mental health screenings of all newly admitted Youth;
b. Address the role of Qualified Medical Professionals in supervising medical and mental health care at the Facility, and address how Qualified Medical Professionals shall comply with state and federal regulations regarding procuring, prescribing, dispensing, administering and disposing of pharmaceuticals; and
c. Require that Youth have reasonable and appropriate access to medical, mental health, and dental emergency care services on a 24-hour per day basis.
89. Quality Assurance. Each month, on or before the tenth (10th) day of the next month, the Facility director shall review the medical and mental health intake screenings during that month to determine that the screenings and medicine administration have been conducted
20 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 21 of 29 PageID #: 71
in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. The Facility director shall also ensure, through Facility documentation, that all Youth at the Facility receive a full health assessment soon after, but no later than seven (7) days after admission.
J. Sanitation and Fire Safety
These provisions are designed to ensure that Youth detained at LCJDC are not unduly subjected to sanitation and environmental health conditions that may negatively affect their health.
90. Sanitation and Maintenance of Facility. Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, LCJDC shall revise and implement routine written sanitation plans to ensure the proper routine cleaning of housing, kitchen, recreation, and education areas. LCJDC shall also implement a preventive maintenance plan to respond to routine and emergency maintenance needs.
91. Fire Safety and Emergency Planning. Within ninety (90) days after the Effective Date, LCJDC shall develop and implement plans to prepare for fires and other emergencies, including modifying the current evacuation plan to ensure safe egress during emergencies.
K. Security Staffing
92. Security Staffing. LCJDC shall maintain sufficient security staffing to protect Youth from harm. LCJDC shall submit a staffing plan to the DOJ within six (6) months of the Effective Date.
L. Education
93. The LCJDC School. The Parties enter into this Agreement with the understanding that as of the Effective Date, the State of Mississippi is providing education services for Youth confined at LCJDC pursuant to the Mississippi Department of Education’s September 16, 2013 take-over of the Leflore County School District. The Parties further understand that the Leflore County Board of Supervisors represents that it has no role in providing education services at the Facility as of the Effective Date. The Parties further understand that the State of Mississippi may surrender control of the LCJDC school during the time this Agreement is in effect. If the Leflore County Board of Supervisors becomes involved in the education of children with disabilities at LCJDC during the time this Agreement is in effect, the Parties will confer within thirty (30) days of the surrender to determine what provisions, if any, regarding education should be added to this Agreement. Within thirty (30) days of the conference, the Parties will jointly propose to the Court modifications to this Agreement regarding education services. If the Parties cannot agree on modifications to this Agreement, either the DOJ and/or LCJDC may propose to the Court modifications of this Agreement regarding education services within sixty (60) days of the Parties’ conference for approval and adoption by the Court.
21 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 22 of 29 PageID #: 72
III. TRAINING
Training is an essential tool to ensure that facility staff are effectively implementing facility policies and procedures in a manner consistent with this Agreement.
94. Staff Training. Staff shall receive the following training:
a. Intake Screening. Within seven (7) days after the revised intake screening questionnaire is finalized, all intake Staff shall receive training on its use.
b. Use of Force. Within ninety (90) days of receiving final approval of policies and procedures from the DOJ, all Staff shall receive a minimum of eight hours of competency-based training on the approved Use Of Force curriculum (including the use of verbal de-escalation, physical and Restraints) and two hours of annual refresher training. Both training sessions must include a component in which Staff’s ability to properly and safely implement each physical restraint technique is assessed by a qualified trainer. Detention Staff shall be trained in non-physical, verbal interventions to de-escalate potential aggression from Youth.
c. Behavior Management. Within ninety (90) days of receiving final approval of policies and procedures from the DOJ, all Staff shall receive a minimum of eight hours of competency-based training on the approved behavior management curriculum and two hours of annual refresher training. Both training sessions must include a component in which detention Staff shall be trained in non-physical, verbal interventions to de-escalate potential aggression from Youth.
d. Suicide prevention. Within nine (9) months of the Effective Date, all Staff shall receive a minimum of eight hours of competency-based training on suicide prevention, including the environmental risk factors for suicide, individually predisposing factors, high‐risk periods for incarcerated Youth, warning signs and symptoms, known sources of stress to potentially suicidal Youth, the specific risks posed, and coping mechanisms or activities that may help to mitigate the risk of harm. The training shall also cover the Facility’s suicide prevention procedures, liability issues, a discussion of recent suicide attempts at the Facility, searches of Youth who are placed on Suicide Precautions, mock demonstrations regarding the proper response to a suicide attempt, the proper assessment of intake screening forms for signs of suicidal ideation, avoiding obstacles to suicide prevention, and the use of suicide rescue tools. Each Staff member shall receive four hours of annual refresher training on these same topics. All Staff shall be certified in CPR and first aid. LCJDC shall review and, if necessary, revise the suicide prevention training curriculum to incorporate the requirements of this paragraph.
e. Incident reporting. Within sixty (60) days of receiving final approval of policies and procedures from the DOJ, all Staff shall receive a minimum of four hours of competency-based training on the Incident Reporting Policy and the specific
22 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 23 of 29 PageID #: 73
requirements for timely, accurate, and complete reporting for each incident category and two hours of annual refresher training.
f. Child abuse reporting. Within sixty (60) days of receiving final approval of policies and procedures from the DOJ, all Staff shall receive a minimum of two hours of competency-based training for all Staff on the identification and prevention of custodial misconduct, including physical and sexual abuse, including appropriate reporting and non-retaliation requirements, and one hour of annual refresher training.
g. Medical. Within sixty (60) days of receiving final approval of policies and procedures from the DOJ, all Staff completing medical screenings must be trained on any medical screening assessment instrument. Documentation of their training must be on file at the Facility for review.
95. Mental Health Screening. Any Staff member using the MAYSI-2 to screen Youth for potential mental health needs shall be trained to administer this tool within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date.
IV. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
96. Comprehensive Action Plan. Within two (2) months of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall submit to the United States a comprehensive action plan specifying the measures the County intends to take in order to bring LCJDC into compliance with the substantive requirements of the Agreement, including anticipated timeframes for completion of each measure. The comprehensive action plan shall include all outside technical assistance and training that will be sought and utilized by Leflore County in order to bring LCJDC into compliance with the substantive requirements of the Agreement.
97. Compliance Report. LCJDC shall submit a semi-annual compliance report to the United States, the first of which shall be filed within three (3) months of the Effective Date. Each semi-annual compliance report submitted by LCJDC shall describe the actions LCJDC 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 has not been implemented and is not being implemented, the compliance report shall also describe what actions, including any additional revisions to policies, procedures and practices, LCJDC will take to ensure implementation, and the date(s) by which those actions will be taken.
98. Records. LCJDC shall maintain sufficient records to document that the requirements of this Agreement are being properly implemented.
V. IMPLEMENTATION
99. Implementation. LCJDC shall begin implementing this Agreement immediately upon the Effective Date. LCJDC shall implement all reforms necessary to effectuate this Agreement within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date. If LCJDC cannot fully
23 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 24 of 29 PageID #: 74
implement the reforms required by this Agreement within the allotted time, LCJDC shall notify the DOJ in writing.
100. Alternative Community Placements. Leflore County shall actively explore the development and utilization of alternative community placements for Youth at LCJDC, particularly for Youth with medical or mental health needs that cannot be readily met at LCJDC.
101. Notification. Within two (2) weeks of the Effective Date, LCJDC shall communicate the provisions set forth in this Agreement to officials, employees, agents, and independent contractors who are involved in providing care to the Youth confined at the Facility.
102. Obligation to Seek Technical Assistance. Leflore County and LCJDC commit to seek technical assistance and training to effectuate its obligations under this Agreement. At a minimum, Leflore County and LCJDC will seek out technical assistance on: developing and utilizing alternatives to detention for Youth whose needs cannot readily be met at LCJDC; policy and procedure development; behavior management; use of Isolation; suicide prevention; quality assurance; incident reporting and investigation; and Staff training. At a minimum, Leflore County and LCJDC will explore the receipt of technical assistance from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and from the Annie E. Casey Foundation Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative. DOJ will assist Leflore County and LCJDC in facilitating contacts with potential technical assistance providers.
103. Resolution of Direct Conflict with Forthcoming Statewide Standards. The Parties understand that the state of Mississippi is in the process of revising its Statewide Detention Center Standards pursuant to recommendations of the Juvenile Detention and Alternatives Task Force. In the event that the state of Mississippi adopts statewide requirements pursuant to the Task Force’s recommendations that directly conflict with this Agreement, Leflore County will notify DOJ within ten (10) calendar days. The Parties will confer in an effort to resolve the matter for up to fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of Leflore County’s notice to DOJ. If the Parties cannot agree on whether or how to revise the Agreement, the Parties shall seek a resolution from the Court within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of Leflore County’s notice to DOJ.
104. DOJ’s Access to Facility and Records. To assess LCJDC’s implementation of each substantive provision of this Agreement, the DOJ will regularly conduct compliance reviews to ensure LCJDC’s implementation of this Agreement.
a. The first compliance review will be conducted upon reasonable notice to LCJDC approximately sixty (60) days following the Effective Date. Thereafter, periodic compliance reviews will be conducted upon reasonable notice by the DOJ until this Agreement is terminated. Such routine compliance reviews will assess LCJDC’s compliance with each of the substantive remedial measures set forth above. DOJ shall consult with LCJDC to schedule mutually acceptable dates for the compliance reviews.
24 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 25 of 29 PageID #: 75
b. DOJ may determine that additional compliance reviews are necessary due to emergent issues at the Facility. If the DOJ believes that such additional compliance reviews are necessary, the DOJ shall consult with LCJDC to schedule mutually acceptable dates for such additional compliance reviews.
c. For the purpose of ascertaining compliance with this Agreement and in fulfillment of its law enforcement and oversight functions, the DOJ shall have reasonable access to: Leflore County officials, the buildings and grounds of the Facility; Facility documents and records; Facility officials, employees, agents, and independent contractors; officials, employees, agents, and independent contractors; and Youth residing at the Facility, including the right to meet with Youth privately. Such access shall continue until this Agreement is terminated in accordance with the termination provisions herein.
d. Within ninety (90) days after each compliance review, the DOJ shall provide written evaluation of LCJDC’s compliance.
105. Settlement Agreement Coordinator. LCJDC shall create the position of settlement agreement coordinator, whose duties shall include:
a. Develop reports regarding compliance with this Agreement and provide such reports to the DOJ every six (6) months until this Agreement is terminated. The first report shall be provided three (3) months after the Effective Date.
b. Provide to the DOJ the raw data upon which each compliance report is based, any reports prepared by LCJDC’s technical consultants regarding compliance with this Agreement, and any other reports routinely submitted to the Settlement Agreement Coordinator regarding compliance with this Agreement.
106. Document Development and Revision. LCJDC shall timely revise, and/or develop, policies and procedures, forms, screening tools, blank log forms, and other documents as necessary to ensure that they are consistent with, incorporate, address, and implement all provisions of this Agreement.
107. Document Approval by DOJ. Within ninety (90) days of its receipt of the policies, procedures and other written documents, the DOJ 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 or delayed. If the DOJ does not provide written approval or concerns regarding a document within thirty (30) days of receipt, the document shall be considered approved. LCJDC shall formally adopt and begin implementation of any approved policies, procedures and other written documents within thirty (30) days of DOJ’s final approval. 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. If it is ultimately determined by the Parties that revisions are required in order to make such policies consistent with this Agreement, the Parties shall within ten (10) days agree to a schedule for LCJDC to submit revisions.
25 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 26 of 29 PageID #: 76
108. Response to Questions. Within thirty (30) days of the receipt of written questions from the United States regarding LCJDC’s compliance with this Agreement, LCJDC shall provide the DOJ with written answers and access to any requested documents regarding LCJDC’s compliance with the requirements of this Agreement. If LCJDC objects to DOJ’s request, the parties shall confer in good faith to resolve the objection within thirty (30) days. If the Parties are unable to resolve the objection, either Party may submit a Motion to the Court outlining the disagreement and seeking the Court’s resolution of the disagreement.
109. Notification to the United States of Incidents. LCJDC shall notify the DOJ no later than one (1) business day after LCJDC becomes aware of any Youth death or any Youth injury resulting in transport of the Youth to the emergency room or requiring hospitalization.
a. LCJDC shall timely forward to the DOJ copies of all incident reports and final reports of investigations related to such incidents, as well as any autopsies, mortality reviews, and death summaries.
b. For the purposes of this provision, the requirement to notify the United States is met when LCJDC contacts at least one of the DOJ Special Litigation Section trial attorneys assigned to this matter. On or before the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Special Litigation Section of DOJ will provide LCJDC with the name of the trial attorney to whom notification should be sent, and will update LCJDC when the identified trial attorney contact changes. If the Special Litigation Section of DOJ does not provide a trial attorney contact to LCJDC, the required notification under this Section shall be given to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi.
VI. ENFORCEMENT AND TERMINATION
110. 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 Youth, if the United States believes that LCJDC has failed to substantially comply with any obligation under this Agreement, the United States shall give not less than thirty (30) days written notice of the failure prior to seeking judicial enforcement of the Agreement. The Parties agree to work in good faith to resolve any issues which may arise regarding the County’s compliance with this Agreement prior to bringing the issue to the Court.
111. Termination. This Agreement shall terminate in accordance with the following provisions:
a. This Agreement shall terminate when Leflore County has achieved substantial compliance with all substantive provisions of this Agreement and has maintained that substantial compliance for twelve (12) consecutive months.
b. Leflore County may, at any time during the term of this Agreement, request that the United States certify that LCJDC has maintained substantial compliance with
26 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 27 of 29 PageID #: 77
all provisions of this Agreement for twelve (12) consecutive months. If the DOJ so certifies, this Agreement will terminate in its entirety.
c. Noncompliance with mere technicalities, or temporary failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, shall not constitute failure by LCJDC to maintain substantial compliance. However, intermittent compliance during a period of sustained noncompliance shall not constitute substantial compliance. The DOJ, in its good faith discretion, will determine whether LCJDC has maintained substantial compliance for the one year period and any finding of substantial compliance may not be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned.
d. Subsections of this Agreement pertaining to specific subject matter areas may be terminated separately and independently from the provisions of the Agreement that have not yet reached substantial compliance, if LCJDC maintains substantial compliance in these areas for a period of one year.
e. Leflore County, through its Board of Supervisors, may, at any time, terminate operation of the LCJDC and in the event of such termination of the operation of the LCJDC and upon termination of the operation of the LCJDC any obligations under this Agreement shall terminate. Leflore County shall give the DOJ at least thirty (30) days written notice of the termination of the LCJDC and the resulting termination of this Agreement. The written notice shall include the planned date of LCJDC’s termination of operations and arrangements for the relocation of each Youth remaining at LCJDC when operations terminate.
VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
112. Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on all successors, assignees, employees, agents, contractors, and all others working for or on behalf of Leflore County, provided that this Agreement shall be binding on successors of public officials consistent with Miss. Ann. Code §§ 19-3-40 & 25-1-47.
113. Non-retaliation. Leflore County agrees that it shall not retaliate against any person because that person has provided any information or assistance to the United States, has filed or will file a complaint, or has participated in any other manner in an investigation or proceeding relating to this Agreement. Leflore County agrees that it shall timely and thoroughly investigate any allegations of retaliation in violation of this Agreement and take corrective actions identified through such investigations.
114. Notice. “Notice” under this Agreement shall be provided by electronic mail and overnight delivery and shall be provided to counsel for Leflore County and counsel for the United States.
115. Notification of Unforeseen Circumstances. If any unforeseen circumstance occurs that causes a failure to timely carry-out any requirements of this Agreement, Leflore County shall notify the DOJ in writing within twenty (20) calendar days after Leflore County becomes aware of the unforeseen circumstance and its impact on Leflore County’s ability
27 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 28 of 29 PageID #: 78 to perform under the Agreement. The notice shall describe the cause of the failure to perform and the measures taken to prevent or minimize the failure. Leflore County shall implement all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such failure.
116. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement is declared invalid for any reason by a court of competent jurisdiction, said finding shall not affect the remaining provisions of this Agreement.
117. Release of Litigation Holds. All Parties agree that, as of the date of entry of this Agreement, litigation is not “reasonably foreseeable” concerning the matters described in this Agreement. To the extent that either Party previously implemented a litigation hold to preserve documents, electronically stored information, or things related to the matters described in this Agreement, the Party is no longer required to maintain such a litigation hold. Nothing in this paragraph relieves any part of any other obligations imposed by this Agreement, including the document creation and retention requirements described above.
28 


Case: 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV Doc #: 3-1 Filed: 05/13/15 29 of 29 PageID #: 79

Respectfully submitted, this 13th day of May, 2015.

FOR THE UNITED STATES:

FELICIA C. ADAMS United States Attorney Northern District of Mississippi

VANITA GUPTA Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

RALPH M. DEAN, III Assistant United States Attorney U.S. Attorney’s Office Northern District of Mississippi Ethridge Building 900 Jefferson Ave. Oxford, MS 38655 (662) 234-3351 (T) (662) 234-3318 (F) Ralph.Dean@usdoj.gov

MARK J. KAPPELHOFF Deputy Assistant Attorney General
JUDY C. PRESTON Acting Chief Special Litigation Section
SHELLEY R. JACKSON Deputy Chief Special Litigation Section

/s/ Cynthia Coe____________________ CYNTHIA COE Trial Attorney Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW – PHB Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: 202-353-1121 Facsimile: 202-514-6273 cynthia.coe@usdoj.gov

FOR LEFLORE COUNTY:
/s/Joyce I. Chiles JOYCE I. CHILES Attorney for the Leflore County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 250 Greenwood, Mississippi 38935 (662) 453-1089 (T) joyce_chiles@yahoo.com

29 


 
 Case: 4:15-cv-00059-NBB-JMV Doc #: 9 Filed: 06/18/15 1 of 1 PageID #: 89

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

GREENVILLE DIVISION 


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v.
LEFLORE COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:15-cv-00059-NBB-JMV ) ) ) ) )

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
IT IS ORDERED that the Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement is GRANTED. The Settlement Agreement shall be entered into the record as the Court’s order. Based on the Settlement Agreement of the parties and the record before it, the Court finds that the prospective relief in the Settlement Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3626. The Court will retain jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement.
SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2015. /s/ Neal Biggers NEAL B. BIGGERS, JR. 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


 
 u. S. Department of Jnstice
Civil Rights Division
------------~~~~----------------------------------~

Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D. C. 20530
JAN 12 2016

VIA EMAIL AND U.S. MAIL
The Honorable Phil Bryant Governor State of Mississippi 550 High Street Jackson,MS 39201
The Honorable Jim Hood Attorney General State of Mississippi 550 High Street, Suite 1200 Jackson,MS 39201
Re: Investigation of Compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act at Leflore County, Mississippi, Juvenile Detention Center
Dear Governor Bryant and Attorney General Hood:
We write regarding the United States Department of Justice's ("DOJ") investigation of whether the special education and related services at the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center ("Detention Center") in Greenwood, Mississippi, comply with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482, and regulations promulgated for Part B of IDEA , in 34 C.F.R. § 300, et seq. We find reasonable cause to believe that the provision of special education and related services at the Detention Center school violates the federal rights of children under IDEA in three important respects. First, the Detention Center school lacks appropriate Child Find policies to identify, locate and evaluate children with disabilities. Second, the Detention Center school does not promptly obtain students' Individualized Education Programs ("IEPs") and related records from their horne schools. Third, the Detention Center school does not provide students with the educational services as described in IEPs, which deprives students with disabilities of a free appropriate public education ("FAPE").

2
Our investigation of the Detention Center began in 2009. In addition to our first visit to the Detention Center that year, we visited the Detention Center school in December 2013 and in July 2015. During those visits, we met with the director, teachers and administrators who are responsible for special education, and we spoke with many of the children who were there. We have also reviewed documents received from the Detention Center and from the Mississippi Department of Education.
The Mississippi Department of Education operates the education program at the Detention Center, although Leflore County, Mississippi (“County”) owns and operates the facility. The Detention Center itself is small, with 30 beds, but its impact on Mississippi children is significant. Male and female students between 10 and 17 years of age are typically detained there for periods ranging from a few hours to more than 30 days, although the Detention Center has the capability to house children for 90 days. Children in the Detention Center are from Leflore County as well as 21 other Mississippi counties that contract with the County. Although there may be only a few children at the Detention Center at any one time, it houses large numbers of children each year because children come and go throughout the year. In addition, children are sometimes repeatedly confined in the Detention Center many times in a year or in quick succession.
Throughout our investigation of the Detention Center’s educational program, we received full cooperation from representatives of the Mississippi Department of Education and the Detention Center staff. We appreciate this cooperation, and we are aware that the staff and educators care deeply about the children and are making an effort to improve. Although some positive changes have occurred, some of the significant violations of the IDEA that we identified in 2009 remain unresolved in 2015. Our preferred course of action at this juncture would be to avoid contested litigation through your cooperation to remedy the violations of IDEA that we describe in this letter. We want to be clear, however, that if efforts at voluntary resolution are not successful, the United States is authorized by law to initiate an action for appropriate relief.
IDEA INVESTIGATION
We first provided notice of our investigation to the County in August 2009 under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 42 U.S.C. § 14141 (“Section 14141”), and the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (“CRIPA”). Both CRIPA and Section 14141 give DOJ authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youth in juvenile justice institutions, including violations of federal statutes such as IDEA. We visited the Detention Center in November of 2009. On March 31, 2011, we issued a Findings Letter to the County setting forth the results of our investigation (“Findings Letter”), which is enclosed.
I. IDEA Non-Compliance Findings Against the County During Our Initial Investigation.
When we opened the investigation and conducted our initial onsite tour, education services at the Detention Center school were being provided by the Leflore County school district. In our Findings Letter, we found that the Detention Center school failed to provide

3
special education services to students with disabilities as required by IDEA.1 Specifically, the Detention Center deprived students of their right under IDEA to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) by failing to identify children with disabilities, failing to provide them with the specialized education and related services that IDEA requires, ignoring IDEA’s requirements for student discipline, and leaving students struggling through material inappropriate for their level of achievement under the tutelage of an under-qualified teacher. Findings Letter at 16-22.
In December 2013, we re-visited the Detention Center, accompanied by a special education expert, to determine if the Detention Center had remedied the IDEA violations we found in 2011. We observed that the Detention Center had made little progress in addressing the IDEA violations we identified in our Findings Letter. In December 2013, efforts to identify children with disabilities were still inadequate, the Detention Center did not promptly obtain Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) records from students’ home schools, the Detention Center did not provide education services described in IEPs, disruptive students were sent to their rooms all day without access to instructional materials, no staffing changes had occurred to ensure that a qualified teacher taught core subjects above eighth grade to special education students, and the Detention Center did not provide transition services. At the conclusion of our tour, a Special Litigation Section attorney and our education expert explained to the Detention Center representatives the ongoing deficiencies with the Detention Center’s IDEA compliance.
II. Mississippi’s Take-Over of Responsibility for IDEA Compliance at the Detention Center School.
On September 16, 2013, Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant announced the state’s takeover of the Leflore County schools. The Governor’s proclamation stated that “due to a continued pattern of poor student performance, which jeopardizes the safety, security, and educational interests of the children enrolled in the schools of [Leflore County School District], a state of extreme emergency exists in the Leflore County School District.” The proclamation placed the County school district under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi Board of Education pursuant to Mississippi law and authorized the Board “to abolish the district and its existing school board and superintendent of schools.”2 A Mississippi Department of Education conservator remains in charge of the County schools, which includes the school at the Detention Center. As a result, Mississippi is responsible for IDEA compliance at the Detention Center school.3
1 Our Findings Letter also identified numerous Constitutional violations relating to safety and security. On June 18, 2015, the federal district court for the Northern District of Mississippi entered a consent decree that resolved our safety and security claims against the County. Settlement Agreement and Order Between the United States and Leflore County, Mississippi, United States v. Leflore Cnty., Mississippi, No. 4:15-cv-00059-DMB-JMV, Dkt. # 10 (N.D. Miss. June 18, 2015). The safety and security consent decree did not resolve our IDEA claims, and the state was not a party to the decree.
2 The nine-member Mississippi Board of Education “formulate[s] policies according to law for implementation by the State Department of Education.” Miss. Const. art. VIII, § 203, cl. 2.
3 The effect of the proclamation for IDEA purposes is that Mississippi and the Mississippi Board of Education are now acting as the “local educational agency” for the Detention Center school and other County schools. See 34 CFR §300.227 and 300.175 (Direct services by the SEA). According to the

4
Accordingly on December 19, 2014, pursuant to Section 14141, we expanded our investigation of the Detention Center to include examination of Mississippi’s role in providing special education and related services at this facility. We explained in our notice of the expanded investigation that if we concluded that Mississippi is violating IDEA at the Detention Center, we would inform you of our conclusions.
In response to our expanded investigation, Mississippi acknowledged internally the deficiencies in the Detention Center school’s IDEA compliance. An email describing a January 16, 2015, meeting among Mississippi administrators and the Detention Center director stated, “IDEA compliance is an ongoing issue in a number of specific areas.” On January 22, 2015, Mississippi developed an “Improvement Plan for Students with Disabilities” outlining the “areas of noncompliance identified by the Department of Justice and the proposed corrective actions by the Leflore County School District and Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center.” An undated document entitled “Leflore County School District Efforts to Comply with Corrective Actions Required by the Department of Justice” purported to detail corrective actions taken during 2014-2015.
On March 10, 2015, we participated along with our education expert consultant in a telephone conference with Mississippi education administrators. We discussed our longstanding concerns about the Detention Center’s IDEA compliance. In response, the administrators assured us that they had developed and implemented reforms to address our concerns. Mississippi agreed to and did provide documents we requested concerning its IDEA compliance efforts.
We again visited the Detention Center school on July 15, 2015, accompanied by our education expert. We spoke with the teachers, the teacher’s aide, the Detention Center director, representatives of the Mississippi Department of Education, and several of the students present that day, and we observed several periods of instruction. We also reviewed documents received from Mississippi before and during our visit. On September 28, 2015, our education expert
proclamation, the County school district had administrative control and direction over the Detention Center school. The proclamation, however, vested control of the County schools in the Mississippi Board of Education and effectively made Mississippi the agency responsible for IDEA compliance at the Detention Center school (and other schools in the County).
Even absent the take-over, however, Mississippi is generally responsible under IDEA for ensuring the provision of special education and related services at the Detention Center school. IDEA applies to Mississippi under 34 C.F.R. §300.2(a), and to public agencies within Mississippi, including the “State Educational Agency,” defined as the “State board of education or other agency or officer primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.” 34 C.F.R. §300.2(b)(1)(i), 34 C.F.R. §300.41. State educational agencies are responsible for ensuring: that IDEA requirements are carried out; that each educational program for children with disabilities within the state is under the general supervision of persons at the state level; and that educational programs meet the state’s educational standards, including IDEA requirements. 34 C.F.R. §300.149.

5
joined us in a conference call with an attorney representing the Mississippi Department of Education and informed her of our observations during our tour.4
We have completed our investigation, and we have reached the following conclusions:
• Mississippi violates the IDEA because the Detention Center school has failed to implement appropriate Child Find policies and procedures to identify, locate and evaluate children with disabilities.
• Mississippi violates the IDEA because the Detention Center school does not obtain students’ IEPs from their home schools in a timely fashion.
• Mississippi violates the IDEA by failing to provide students with disabilities a free appropriate public education because the Detention Center school does not provide students with the educational services as described in IEPs.5
VIOLATIONS OF IDEA
Congress enacted the IDEA in 1975 to ensure that children with disabilities have available to them a “free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400(d)(1)(A) and 1412(a)(1)(A). With specific limited exceptions for those incarcerated in adult prisons, ageeligible students with disabilities in detention are entitled to a free appropriate public education under IDEA. 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.101-102, § 300.324 (d)(1)(i).
Children with disabilities who are in detention do not forfeit their right to special education services. See Statement of Interest of the United States, G.F. v. Contra Costa Cnty., No. 3:13-cv-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 2014) at 12 (“The fact that youth have been charged with or convicted of a crime does not diminish their substantive rights, procedural safeguards, and remedies provided under the IDEA to youth with disabilities and their parents.”); see also Dear Colleague Letter on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for Students with Disabilities in Correctional Facilities, Office of Special Educ. and Rehabilitative Serv., U.S. Dep’t of Educ. 1 (Dec. 5, 2014) (“Dear Colleague Letter”). “Every agency at any level of government that is involved in the provision of special education and related services to students in correctional facilities must ensure the provision of [a free appropriate public education].” Dear Colleague Letter at 2.
4 Due to time constraints and scheduling conflicts, we were unable to provide an “exit interview” at the conclusion of our July 2015 visit, or to give a summary of our ongoing concerns prior to our phone call on September 28, 2015. 5 In the context of an investigation in Mississippi’s system for serving children with mental health conditions in the state, we made similar findings regarding Mississippi’s IDEA compliance in state-run psychiatric facilities. See Letter from Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez re: United States’ Investigation of the State of Mississippi’s Service System for Serving Persons with Mental Illness and Developmental Disabilities (Dec. 22, 2011) at 31-32 (finding that Mississippi failed to meet its Child Find obligation and its obligation to serve children in the least restrictive setting appropriate).

6
IDEA explicitly applies to juvenile correctional facilities that “are involved in the education of children with disabilities.” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(1)(iv). See also Handberry v. Thompson, 219 F. Supp. 2d 525 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (requiring that a correctional facility provide children with IDEA-compliant educational services), aff’d in relevant part, 446 F.3d 335 (2d Cir. 2006); Alexander S. v. Boyd, 876 F. Supp. 773, 788 (D.S.C. 1995) (finding IDEA applicable to school-aged detainees in juvenile detention facilities); Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. of Educ., 829 F. Supp. 1016, 1020 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (holding that IDEA applies to children held in pretrial detention). Short-stay facilities are no exception; children in detention facilities for short periods are nevertheless entitled to an IDEA-compliant education. See, e.g., Alexander S., 876 F. Supp. at 801-03 (after finding practical ways to remove obstacles due to stays averaging 21 days, the court expected the correctional facility to come “into strict compliance with the IDEA and Section 504”); Unified Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Connecticut Dep’t of Educ., 780 A.2d 154, 168 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001) (state court case interpreting IDEA and finding that “[a]lthough the volume of short-term residents may be daunting, this factor does not relieve the plaintiff from the burden of upholding the right of a special education student to a free and appropriate public education.”), cert. denied, 782 A.2d 1253 (Conn. 2001).6
I. The Detention Center School Fails to Implement Appropriate and Effective Child Find Policies and Practices.
IDEA requires that SEAs have in effect policies and procedures to “ensure that [a]ll children with disabilities residing in the State . . . and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a)(1)(i); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3) and 1413(a)(1). This is known as “Child Find.” The Child Find requirement imposes an affirmative duty to have in effect policies and procedures to locate and timely evaluate children “who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and who are in need of special education and related services,” including those children who “are advancing from grade to grade[.]” 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.111(a), (c)(1).
The state is responsible for having Child Find policies and procedures in effect; public agencies involved in the education of children with disabilities, including local educational agencies and juvenile correctional facilities, must implement these policies. See Dear Colleague Letter at 3-4, 8, 11. The Child Find duty is triggered “when the local educational agency has reason to suspect a disability coupled with reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability.” El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 918, 949-51 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (school district failed to fulfill Child Find obligations by not referring the child for an evaluation “despite clear signals that an evaluation was necessary and appropriate”).
In the context of a juvenile correctional facility, Child Find responsibilities include students who have never been identified as a student with a disability prior to their entry into the facility. Dear Colleague Letter at 3. The facility may not “assume that a student that enters a correctional facility is not a student with a disability simply because he or she has not yet been
6 Civil actions regarding IDEA may be brought in state courts of competent jurisdiction as well as in federal district courts. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(i)(2)(A).

7
identified as such.” Id. at 11. Students in a correctional setting who are suspected of having a disability must be evaluated in a timely manner, “even if the student will not be in the facility long enough to complete the evaluation.” Id. at 4. Mississippi, which has taken the place of the Leflore County school district, and the correctional facility “must coordinate assessments to ensure that a timely evaluation occurs.” Id; see also 34 C.F.R. §300.304(c)(5).
Our investigation of Mississippi’s compliance with the IDEA at the Detention Center determined that the state does not identify, locate and timely evaluate children to determine whether they are in need of special education and related services. The Detention Center school does not adequately screen children for disability, timely obtain academic records, adequately observe and respond to student performance, or refer children for an evaluation to determine whether they may have a disability when there is reason to believe that the student is struggling in school, is failing or is at risk of poor educational performance. These findings are consistent with violations identified in our 2011 findings letter, and reveal that Mississippi’s efforts to bring the Detention Center into compliance with IDEA Child Find obligations have been unsuccessful.
In response to our expanded investigation, Mississippi explained its Child Find policies and procedures to us in March 2015. For children who are County residents, Mississippi stated that “those detainees who are suspected of having a disability are referred to the school district’s MET [Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team] for action.” For children who reside outside the County, Mississippi told us that the child’s home school is contacted to obtain the IEP. Some schools have IEPs in electronic form, but others do not.
In our July 2015 visit, however, we observed that the Detention Center was still not taking basic steps to identify students who are in need of special education and related services.
First, Mississippi is in violation of IDEA Child Find obligations because the Detention Center fails to adequately screen children for disability or the need for special education and related services. The Detention Center uses an intake form when children first arrive at the Detention Center school, but the form does not gather information about the child’s special education status or needs, or inquire whether the student had received special education services in the past. Instead, the form asks generic questions such as “Did you attend school on a regular basis?”, “Do you like reading books?”, and “How do you learn best?”
Mississippi also does not take adequate steps to determine whether there is a link between a child’s educational deficits and disability. The Detention Center uses a screening test known as Tests of Adult Basic Education (“TABE”) as an indicator of academic performance for new students. TABE can measure a child’s level of achievement, but it does not provide information that explains why the child is achieving at that level. For instance, TABE might assess a student as performing at the ninth grade level, but TABE would provide no information about whether that performance might be due to a disability. For that reason, TABE alone is an insufficient Child Find tool to identify students who may need special education. Cf. D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 250 (3d Cir. 2012) (“a poorly designed and ineffective round of testing does not satisfy a school’s Child Find obligations”).7 The Detention Center School staff admitted that
7 We pointed out similar problems in our 2011 Findings Letter. We observed that the Detention Center had a structured intake assessment form, but Child Find was significantly limited by inadequate or non-

8
if a student performs poorly on the TABE, the staff members take no further steps to determine whether the child has a disability that may require special education and related services.
During our July 2015 visit, we encountered a child who had not been screened for an educational disability and seemed to have fallen through the cracks entirely. We initially encountered 15-year-old A.A.8 sleeping in his cell on July 14 during the school day.9 He had arrived at the Detention Center on June 29, but he could not recall the last time he went to the Detention Center school, although he said he may have been once or twice. He said that when he arrived, no one asked him if he was a special education student, and he did not take an educational assessment. He said he does not have to go to school, it is his choice whether to go to school, and a lot of students stay out of school. Failing to take steps to determine whether a student is in need of special education and related services for weeks does not satisfy the requirements of Child Find
Second, Mississippi’s student records retrieval practices contribute to the ongoing violations of Child Find requirements at the Detention Center. As described more fully below in Section II, we saw no evidence establishing that the Detention Center school obtains the academic records of each student promptly. In addition, the Special Education Director for the Detention Center told us that the Detention Center does not retrieve a student’s educational records from the student’s home school district unless the Detention Center learns the child already has an IEP. As a result, the Detention Center cannot examine a student’s educational records upon or shortly after arrival and identify students suspected of having a disability that would entitle them to an evaluation and if found eligible for special education and related services, an IEP. Because Mississippi attempts to obtain records only of children who have already been identified as eligible for special education and related services, the Detention Center lacks key information that could be relevant in determining whether the child should be evaluated for eligibility.
Third, the Detention Center violates IDEA’s Child Find obligations because it fails to observe and respond to student performance that may indicate that the student has a disability and needs special education and related services. In conducting Child Find in this context, educators generally observe student performance and comprehension of material and consider whether failure to perform adequately may be the result of a disability. See generally El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist., 567 F. Supp. 2d at 951 (based on the child’s record of consecutive failure on standardized tests, his “continuing difficulties in multiple subjects, and the inability of prior
existent assessments and faulty scoring. The intake forms did not capture data regarding special education status or history, and we identified two children who had previously received special education services but the Detention Center had not identified them as possibly having a disability. Findings Letter at 18. 8 To protect the confidentiality of the children in the Detention Center, we will use pseudonym initials. 9 We visited the Detention Center on July 14 and 15, 2015. Our July 14 visit centered upon the safety and security issues embodied in the existing consent decree; our July 15 visit centered on our IDEA investigation. See supra note 1.

9
accommodations to improve his scores,” there was reason to suspect that the child “had a disability and that special education services might be needed to address that disability.”). 10
At the Detention Center, children receive education through the use of instructional computer software called “Grade Results.” Mississippi describes Grade Results as “a central component of the academic program at the Detention Center.” Each child sits at a computer working through the computer program, which has a tutorial followed by an assessment.11 During our July 15 visit, we observed a male student doing a lesson in Grade Results. He did not take the tutorial but instead took the assessment repeatedly for hours, generating failing score after failing score. While this student struggled through the assessment, there were seven other children in the classroom working on their own Grade Results lessons and two teachers.
In this situation, the teacher should notice if a student encounters difficulty and should respond with a general education intervention (such as working with the student to develop an understanding of the material). See generally 34 C.F.R. § 300.309 (qualified professionals may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if “[t]he child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention”). If the student continues to fail, however, the teacher should begin to suspect a disability and should consider referring the student for an evaluation.12 However, for the male student we observed, neither teacher responded to this pattern of failure or, to our knowledge, referred the student for an evaluation.
Finally, Mississippi fails to refer children at the Detention Center for special education evaluations. Mississippi told us that “there have not been any students referred for special education while placed in the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center” since October 2014. Both teachers at the Detention Center said they have not referred a child for special education evaluation for as long as they can remember. It is estimated that between 28 percent and 43 percent of detained and incarcerated youthful offenders have an identified special education disability, with a majority of these being learning disabilities.13 That the Detention Center has
10 See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.310 (a) (for children suspected of having learning disabilities, “[t]he public agency must ensure that the child is observed in the child's learning environment (including the regular classroom setting) to document the child's academic performance and behavior in the areas of difficulty.”).
11 Our concerns about the use of computer-based instruction at the Detention Center are set out in more detail later in this letter, in the discussion of Mississippi’s failure to provide a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities at the Detention Center.
12 Cf. Analysis of Comments and Changes, Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540, 46727 (Aug. 14, 2006) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. Parts 300, 301) (noting in the context of IDEA due process protections for students who have not yet been determined to have a disability that “[s]chool personnel should refer children for evaluation through the agency’s child or special education referral system when the child’s behavior or performance indicates they may have a disability covered under the Act.”).
13 Christopher A. Mallett, Seven Things Juvenile Courts Should Know About Learning Disabilities, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 5 (2011). See generally Elizabeth Cate, Teach

10
not identified any children in need of special education since October 2014 indicates that the Detention Center’s Child Find procedures are ineffective and that children at the Detention Center who are in need of special education and related services are not being identified, located and evaluated.
II. The Detention Center School Does Not Obtain IEPs Promptly.
IDEA entitles students with disabilities to “a free appropriate public education which emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs . . . .” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 309 (1988); see also 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(1). These services are memorialized in an IEP, which is “the central mechanism by which public schools ensure that their disabled students receive a free appropriate education.” Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of the Newburgh Enlarged Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 482 (2d Cir. 2002).
IDEA requires that each student with a disability have an IEP to ensure that the student receives FAPE. A child with an IEP retains the right to FAPE in accordance with an IEP when that child moves from one school district to another school district in the same State and enrolls in a new school in the same school year, including when the new school is in a juvenile detention facility. 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e) (when a student with an IEP transfers from one public agency to another in the state, the new public agency “must provide FAPE to the child (including initially through services comparable to those described in the child’s IEP from the previous public agency”); see also Dear Colleague Letter at 4, 10. The correctional facility “either must adopt and implement the child’s existing IEP or hold an IEP Team meeting to modify the contents of the IEP.” Dear Colleague Letter at 13 (citing 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(e)).
IDEA also requires that the Detention Center take reasonable steps to obtain a child’s records “promptly,” including IEPs and supporting documents and any other records relating to the provision of special education and related services to the child from the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled. 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(g)(1). The Detention Center “must have policies and procedures to ensure that the relevant records of students with disabilities who move to, and from, correctional facilities are transferred as expeditiously as possible.” Dear Colleague Letter at 4, 10; see also id. at 12 (“public agencies [are required to] take reasonable steps to promptly exchange relevant records”). If the IEP cannot be obtained from the parent or from the previous public agency, “the new public agency must, at a minimum, place the student in the regular school program, conduct an evaluation, and make an eligibility determination.” Dear Colleague Letter at 11 (citing 34 C.F.R. §300.323(f)(1)).
We determined that Mississippi does not promptly obtain IEPs for children with disabilities at the Detention Center. Our findings are based in part on the state’s own analysis. A March 31, 2015 audit report of the Mississippi Office of Compulsory School Attendance Enforcement concluded that the Leflore County school district (which was then and remains under the control of Mississippi) “has not met the criteria for appropriately providing educational
Your Children Well: Proposed Challenges to Inadequacies of Correctional Special Education for Juvenile Inmates, 34 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 1, 10 (2010) (noting that approximately nine percent of all students aged six to twenty-one receive special education services nationally, but juvenile offenders qualify for these services at almost four times that rate).

11
services.” The audit recommended that the district “will need to implement protocol for immediate transmission of educational records for students with disabilities’ Individual Education Plan (IEP).” Similarly, a state “Observation Checklist for Detention Center Visits” noted on February 2, 2015 that two children at the Detention Center had IEPs, but that the Detention Center did not retrieve the correct IEP for either child from their home school district.
Mississippi told us that it has now “implemented a process to secure the IEPs from home school districts on each youth detainee within 24 hours of their arrival at the Detention Center.” Each day, an employee of the Mississippi Department of Education is to obtain the daily roster of children at the Detention Center. The employee is to use a computerized system called Mississippi Student Information System (“MSIS”) to locate each student’s records and determine the student’s home school and whether the child has an IEP. If so, the employee is to contact the home school to obtain the IEP, and the home school is to send the IEP to the Detention Center school.
With advance notice to Mississippi, we intended to confirm the state’s claims about its MSIS system during our July 2015 visit. Unfortunately, we found that Mississippi’s system does not result in the prompt retrieval of children’s IEPs. The MSIS system was unavailable during our July 2015 visit. The system was down for maintenance, and we were told that the MSIS system is taken down for maintenance for the entire month of July every year, even though the Detention Center school operates year-round. Consequently, we were not able to inspect and evaluate the effectiveness of the MSIS system in determining whether a student has an IEP. Even if the MSIS system had been functioning, however, it would not have facilitated the receipt of IEPs at the Detention Center. Neither of the teachers nor any other Detention Center staff has MSIS computer access or has been trained to use MSIS. In addition, Mississippi public schools were in summer recess during our July visit, so the Detention Center could not be sure that someone would be available at a student’s home school to respond to a request for an IEP.14 The Special Education Director for the Detention Center told us that the social worker responsible for requesting IEPs left on June 17.
The Detention Center staff should be prepared to obtain IEPs promptly year-round, using alternative means if the MSIS system is unavailable or public schools are in recess, but it was apparent that Mississippi’s current system does not work. 15 When we visited the Detention Center school on July 15, we learned that the Detention Center had not yet obtained the current IEP of B.B., a special education student who had arrived over two weeks earlier on June 30. The Detention Center obtained B.B.’s IEP the day of our visit, but only after our education expert strongly expressed concern about the fact that B.B. was not being provided educational services in accord with an IEP. Similarly, C.C. arrived at the Detention Center on June 24, but the facsimile stamp on her IEP was July 15 -- the date of our visit. This is the same sort of IDEA
15 The Detention Center was able to produce for us some IEPs for students who had already left the Detention Center. These IEPs do not bear fax stamps or other information establishing when the Detention Center received the IEP, so we could not evaluate whether the Detention Center received those IEPs promptly following each student’s arrival.

12
violation documented in our 2011 findings letter, which demonstrates that Mississippi’s efforts to develop a protocol to obtain IEPs promptly have been unsuccessful.16
III. The Detention Center School Does Not Provide Children with Disabilities with a Free Appropriate Public Education.
FAPE includes the provision of special education and related services in conformity with” an IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.17(d). IDEA requires that each public agency must have “in effect,” for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction, an IEP, as defined in §300.320. 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a). Failure to implement the IEP is a denial of FAPE. See Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2000) (IDEA is violated by failures to implement substantial or significant IEP provisions), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 817 (2000); see generally Van Duyn ex rel. Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 822 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a material failure to implement an IEP violates the IDEA); Neosho R–V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 n. 3 (8th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e cannot conclude that an IEP is reasonably calculated to provide a free appropriate public education if there is evidence that the school actually failed to implement an essential element of the IEP that was necessary for the child to receive an educational benefit.”); Williamson Cnty. Bd. of Educ. v. C.K., No. 3:07-0826, 2009 WL 499386, at *19 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 27, 2009) (the school must provide educational benefits that are more than de minimis in order to be “appropriate”). In addition, the child’s IEP must be accessible to the child’s regular education and special education teachers and “any other service provider who is responsible for its implementation.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(d)(1).
We determined that Mississippi fails to provide FAPE to children with disabilities at the Detention Center. A primary cause of the denial of FAPE is the state’s failure to timely obtain IEPs, as described above. Because the school personnel at the Detention Center are unaware of the existence of the IEP or its content, it is self-evident that they cannot implement it. As we explain in more detail below, we also found that the Detention Center’s overreliance on computerized education contributes to the failure to provide FAPE.
On March 23, 2015, Mississippi assured us that the Detention Center was both obtaining and implementing students’ IEPs. The Detention Center Special Education Director wrote that the state had implemented a process not only to obtain IEPs promptly, but to review and revise IEPs as necessary, and to “carry[] the IEP out as adopted” (emphasis added). Just a few days later, however, on March 31, 2015, an audit by the Mississippi Office of Compulsory School Attendance Enforcement revealed that the Leflore County School District “needs to ensure that services are provided to students with special needs in accordance with the students’ IEP.”
16 When we issued our Findings Letter in 2011, the Detention Center did not have an effective system for retrieval of students’ IEPs from their home schools. We noted then that no IEPs were available at the Detention Center school during our 2009 tour. We discovered a student with special needs who had been housed at the Detention Center for 36 days with no IEP. This violated IDEA. Findings Letter at 19.

13
Our July 2015 visit to the Detention Center school revealed significant deficiencies in IEP implementation and the provision of FAPE. Because the Detention Center does not obtain IEPs in a timely fashion, there were no instructional adaptations listed on lesson plans17, IEPs were not used to drive instruction, and children did not receive the special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services and other supports contained in IEPs. We documented similar inadequacies in our 2011 findings letter; our 2015 visit revealed that any measures taken by Mississippi to remedy these problems have been ineffective.18
The Detention Center’s failure to implement IEPs has significant consequences for children with disabilities. The facsimile stamp on C.C.’s IEP indicates she was at the Detention Center for 14 school days without her IEP. Her IEP directed that C.C. should receive her education services in small groups, have test direction read to her, be seated at the front of the room, be allowed a calculator, and receive the “related service” of speech therapy on a weekly basis.19 In anticipation of our July 15 visit, we requested documents concerning related services pursuant to IEPs since April 21, 2015. No documents were provided indicating that a speech therapist provided services to C.C., even though Mississippi produced records demonstrating that the Detention Center has two licensed speech therapists and one licensed occupational therapist available to provide related services to children there.
Similarly, B.B. was at the Detention Center for 10 school days without his current IEP. The IEP, obtained by the Detention Center during our visit, directed that B.B. receive medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder at school by the nurse, be clued to stay on task, be allowed extra time to complete graded activities, and receive speech therapy twice weekly. The IEP also noted that “[d]ue to language deficits, the student needs a quiet location in a small group to learn specific language skills to improve communication.” We observed on July 15 that B.B. was receiving computerized instruction in the same classroom as the other students rather than a quiet location in a small group, even though the Detention Center has a separate classroom where students could receive instruction alone or in small groups. In addition, as with C.C., there was no indication in the documents Mississippi produced that B.B. received speech therapy.
17 Instructional adaptations “support students’ interactions through changes in the presentation, setting, timing or scheduling, and response mode of instruction.” Leanne R. Ketterlin-Geller & Elisa M. Jamgochian, Instructional Adaptations: Accommodations and Modifications that Support Accessible Instruction 131 (Stephen N. Elliott et. al. eds.) (2011); See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.39(b)(3) (under IDEA, special education includes “specially designed instruction,” defined as adapting, as appropriate to the child’s needs, “the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction” to address the child’s unique disability-related needs and to ensure the child’s access to the general curriculum, so that the child can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction of the public agency that apply to all children.)
18 In our 2011 Findings Letter, we noted the Detention Center did not comply with IDEA requirements governing IEPs. IEPs were not available, and thus, they were not implemented. No instructional adaptations were observed at the Detention Center, nor were any adaptations listed on lesson plans. Lesson plans were incomplete, there was no evidence of academic or behavioral-related record keeping, and lesson plans did not differentiate assignments for students at various levels. Findings Letter at 19.
19 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.34 (related services include “such developmental, corrective and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes speech-language pathology and audiology services.”)

14
We also find that the Detention Center’s almost exclusive use of computerized education contributes to the denial of FAPE. Our observations and document reviews revealed that the Detention Center school uses a “one-size-fits all” approach to children’s special education needs, assigning them computerized instruction with little or no consideration of how the child’s disability affects his progress in the general education curriculum, or what special education, related services and supplementary aids and services might allow the child to receive FAPE. Detention Center special education students often had supplementary aids or other services provided on their IEPs that the computerized instruction did not provide. For instance, IEPs that Mississippi provided to us20 contained an array of educational aids and alterations to the curriculum:
• D.D. should receive supplementary aids and services and personnel supports in general education, including “[r]edirect student to the test,” “[r]ead test directions (but not test items) to student or group-repeating and/or paraphrasing directions,” and “[e]xtended time.”
• E.E. needed to be “[clue]d to stay on task.”
• F.F.’s teachers should “shorten assignments and test.”
• G.G. should have all tests and assignments “[r]ead aloud except for when dealing with reading comprehension.”
• H.H. needed a daily “[c]heck for understanding.”
• I.I. needed test directions read to him, needed the teacher to “highlight key words/phrases in directions (e.g. complete sentences, show your work),” needed to be allowed “marking of answers in booklet and transferring of answers from test booklet,” and needed to have a spelling dictionary that showed the correct spelling but did not give definitions.
• J.J. needed to be “[s]eated by himself, away from distractions” but should “take tests in inclusion room.”
To comply with IDEA, the Detention Center must provide each eligible student with a disability with FAPE in conformity with his or her IEP. As noted above, when a child moves to a detention center, the facility must either provide the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services and other supports included in the child’s IEP, or convene an IEP team to develop and implement a new IEP that meets IDEA requirements. 34 CFR §300.323(e)(1)-(2). The Detention Center does not carry out either of these means of providing
20 In response to our document requests in March 2015 and July 2015, Mississippi provided us with several IEPs for students who had been at the Detention Center in the first half of 2015. In most cases, we could not match an IEP with the Detention Center daily roster of children at the facility. When we did find an IEP for a child who appeared on the roster, the IEP often bore no indication as to when it was received.

15
FAPE. Instead, lacking IEPs, it uses computerized tutorials as its predominant mode of instruction. As the above sample of specific, individualized educational aids and instructional alterations shows, however, reliance on a computer software program is no substitute for a teacher who can respond to the child’s needs and exercise professional judgment in implementing the child’s IEP. Furthermore, the Detention Center school should have been able to readily implement the common-sense, practical interventions reflected in these IEPs, given the school’s small size, physical lay-out, and available staff.
REMEDIAL MEASURES
To rectify the identified deficiencies and protect the federal statutory rights of children confined at the Detention Center, Mississippi should implement the minimal remedial measures set forth below.
A. Mississippi Should Use Reliable Screening Methods and Ensure the Timely Evaluation of Children Suspected of Having a Disability.
To comply with IDEA requirements to identify, locate and evaluate children suspected of having a disability who are in need of special education and related services, Mississippi should provide adequate screening of students for special education needs when they enter the Detention Center. Students should be asked about previously offered special education during intake. When feasible, staff at the Detention Center should reach out to staff at sending school districts to discuss whether disability may be the reason for any educational deficits observed in Detention Center students. For children who have previously been detained at the Detention Center, staff should use their own knowledge and, if possible, any Detention Center educational records, in assessing whether these children have a disability.
Once the child is in the Detention Center, Mississippi should require teachers to observe and evaluate student performance and to implement and ensure documentation of academic interventions for students who are struggling academically. If the documented interventions are unsuccessful, the teacher should consider referring the child for a special education evaluation. Mississippi should include in its Child Find practices working with individuals in the community who come into contact with children entering the Detention Center, including social workers, probation officers, law enforcement and medical and mental health professionals and other staff. See Dear Colleague Letter at 9. As these professionals are an initial point of contact for juvenile justice involved children, their ability to identify children suspected of having disabilities may allow these children to be evaluated and served appropriately while in the Detention Center. Mississippi should also provide and ensure documentation of academic interventions for students who are struggling while in the Detention Center School and take steps to determine whether students’ educational difficulties may indicate a disability.
Where the Detention Center suspects that a child may have a disability, the child must be evaluated in a timely manner, even if the child will not be in the Detention Center long enough to complete the evaluation. See Dear Colleague Letter at 3-4, 11. Communication and coordination with the child’s home school district is essential in this process.

16
B. Mississippi Should Obtain Education Records For All Students Entering the Detention Center.
To identify, locate and evaluate children suspected of having a qualifying disability, the Detention Center should obtain prior education records from school systems for all arriving students to identify students who have IEPs and to determine whether the school performance of a child who is not receiving special education indicates that the child may have a disability.
C. Mississippi Should Promptly Obtain IEPs from a Child’s Home School.
To identify, locate and evaluate children suspected of having a disability who need special education and related services and to ensure the provision of a free appropriate public education for eligible students with disabilities at the Detention Center Mississippi should develop an appropriate and reliable system for the Detention Center to promptly obtain IEPs from a student’s home school, including when the computerized MSIS system is unavailable or public schools are in recess.
D. Mississippi Should Provide Individualized Special Education and Related Services to Students with Disabilities.
A free appropriate public education must be provided to all students with disabilities who have been determined to need special education and related services after they are identified, located, and evaluated in accordance with Child Find. The special education and related services provided should be individualized to the child’s specific disability and educational needs and should not be a “one-size-fits all” approach. To the extent that a child’s IEP requires special education, related services or supplementary aids and services that cannot be provided through the Detention Center’s computerized instruction, Mississippi must ensure that the education and services are provided, including through classroom instruction, if necessary. Further, as recommended in the Dear Colleague Letter, in implementing or devising IEPs for children at the Detention Center, Mississippi “should pay particular attention to those related services that are likely to be required for students in correctional facilities – for example, counseling, parent counseling and training, psychological services, transportation, and social work services in schools.” See Dear Colleague Letter at 14 (citing 34 C.F.R. §300.34(c)(2), (c)(8), (c)10, (c)(14), and (c)16)).
E. Mississippi Should Develop, Implement, and Review IEPs for Students with Disabilities.
Pursuant to IDEA, Mississippi must either implement an appropriate IEP for each student at the Detention Center school who is eligible for services under IDEA, and who had an IEP from a previous school district, and provide necessary special education and related services, or develop and implement new IEPs for these students. When the Detention Center develops IEPs for students, the Detention Center must use a properly constituted IEP team, periodically review and if appropriate, revise the IEP as the Detention Center learns new information about each child, and keep the IEP in a place easily accessible to educational staff.

17
F. Mississippi Should Provide the Services Described in a Student’s IEP From the Previous School District.
Once the Detention Center has promptly obtained the child’s IEP, staff should review it and determine how the Detention Center will implement its requirements. FAPE must be provided to students with IEPs who move into new school districts and enroll in new schools in the same school year through services comparable to those described in the student’s IEP from his home school in the absence of adequate justification for changes in services. IEPs must be appropriately implemented and should include collection and reporting of data on student progress.
* * * * *
For children with disabilities who find themselves involved in the criminal justice system, the stakes are high. These children often are “already at the margins,” with the possibility of receiving an appropriate education as an important “means to recast one’s future and enhance life choices.” Buckley v. State Corr. Inst. Pine Grove, 98 F. Supp.3d 704,720 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (finding a denial of a free appropriate public education to an incarcerated youth who was placed in solitary confinement). Nevertheless, children with disabilities, who are already incarcerated at disproportionate rates, often are denied their right to an appropriate education while institutionalized. Id. (noting that even though “these are young people whose own actions have propelled them into correctional custody . . . like all IDEA-eligible students, [plaintiff] was still entitled to an appropriate education”). Children who already suffer the disruption of detention that keeps them from their home school should not also be deprived of their right to a free appropriate public education while detained.
The cumulative effect on children of Mississippi’s non-compliance with IDEA at the Detention Center is significant. The Detention Center is small, but it houses large numbers of children each year because children come and go throughout the year, and they are sometimes repeatedly confined many times in a year or in quick succession. Some confinements cause a child to miss school for weeks or months in his or her home school, and Mississippi’s ongoing failure to provide federally-mandated special education services exacerbates the harm Detention Center children suffer from repeated interruptions in their education. The Detention Center accepts children from 21 other counties in Mississippi, so the effects of its special education services are felt throughout the state.
In the context of a short-stay facility like the Detention Center, reliable IDEA compliance should be a priority. If a child is only at the Detention Center for a short time, an unnecessary delay in obtaining the child’s records from the home school or conducting Child Find can mean that Mississippi misses the opportunity to meet the special education needs of that child. Because children cycle through short-stay facilities repeatedly, Mississippi should develop especially robust and reliable systems to reduce the risk of errors and confusion that can cost a child the special education services to which he or she is entitled.

18
c-------~B()GauBe_tl!e_Stat()-ef~MissiBsippi-and-tl!e-Beard-ef-Edueatien· are-new-aeting-as-the-loeal educational agency for Leflore County, the state has an opportunity to model IDEA compliance for all local educational agencies and other public agencies across Mississippi. Both within the Detention Center, and across Leflore County, the state should take this opportunity to identify children with disabilities who are in need of special education services, develop, review, and as appropriate, revise IEPs to meet their needs, and implement those IEPs to ensure that all children have the opportunity to access educational opportunities. As noted previously in this letter, children with disabilities, particularly children with emotional and behavioral disorders, are disproportionately represented in the juvenile justice system and are therefore at risk of placement in the Detention Center and similar facilities. Providing children with disabilities with the special education, related services and supports that they need in school may prevent them from ever entering the Detention Center's front door.
It is in the best interests of the Detention Center children to resolve the IDEA violations there as expeditiously as possible. We hope you share our view that a collaborative approach by all parties would be most productive, and we are willing to engage in meaningful negotiations to address the Detention Center's IDEA violations. In light ofthe length of our investigation and the continued IDEA violations in spite of repeated notice, however, we cannot unduly delay filing for relief in federal court if a solution cannot be found promptly.
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 Litigalion Section is handling this matter. The Chief of the Special Litigation Section, Steven H. Rosenbaum, may be reached at 202-514-4713, and Deputy Chief Shelley Jackson may be reached at 202-305-3373. Trial Attorney Ryan Wilson will be your primary contact, and he can be reached at 202-305-9937.
Sincerely,
Vanita Gupta Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Enclosure (20 II Findings Letter)
cc: Raina Anderson Lee Special Assistant Attorney General Counsel for the MS Department of Education P.O. Box 771 Jackson, MS 39205-0771

19
Joyce I. Chiles Attorney for the Leflore County Board of Supervisors P.O. Box 250 Greenwood, MS 38935
Jerome C. Hafter Attorney for the Leflore County Board of Supervisors Phelps Dunbar LLP 4270 I-55 North Jackson, MS 39211
Robert Fitzpatrick Director Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center P.O. Box 1438 Greenwood, MS. 38935-1438
Felicia C. Adams United States Attorney Northern District of Mississippi Ethridge Building 90 Jefferson Ave. Oxford, MS 38655
Taylor D. August Director, Dallas Office Office for Civil Rights U.S. Department of Education 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 1620 Dallas, TX 75201-6810

 
 Case: 4:15-cv-59 As of: 01/11/2018 10:09 AM CST 1 of 2
CLOSED,LC−LLW
U.S. District Court Northern District of Mississippi (Greenville Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:15−cv−00059−NBB−JMV

United States of America v. Leflore County, Mississippi Assigned to: Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers Referred to: Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 05/12/2015 Date Terminated: 06/19/2015 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

United States of America

represented by Cynthia Coe U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW SPL / 601 D Street Washington, DC 20530 202−353−1121 Fax: 202−514−6903 Email: cynthia.coe@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph M. Dean U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 900 Jefferson Avenue Oxford, MS 38655−3608 (662) 234−3351 Email: ralph.dean@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Shelley R. Jackson U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Rights Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW SPL / 601 D Street Washington, DC 20530 202−−305−3373 Fax: 202−514−6273 Email: shelley.jackson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Leflore County, Mississippi

represented by Jerome C. Hafter PHELPS DUNBAR LLP − Jackson P.O. Box 16114 Jackson, MS 39236−6114 (601) 352−2300 Email: hafterj@phelps.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joyce I. Chiles CHILES & ASSOC. P.O. Box 884 Itta Bena, MS 38941−2701 662−822−5940

Case: 4:15-cv-59 As of: 01/11/2018 10:09 AM CST 2 of 2
Email: joyce_chiles@yahoo.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John M. Stephens , IV PHELPS DUNBAR LLP P.O. Box 16114 Jackson, MS 39236 601−352−2300 Email: stephenm@phelps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert Gregg Mayer PHELPS DUNBAR LLP − Jackson P.O. Box 16114 Jackson, MS 39236−6114 601−352−2300 Fax: 601−360−9777 Email: mayerg@phelps.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 05/12/2015 05/12/2015 05/13/2015 05/13/2015 05/14/2015
05/14/2015 05/14/2015 05/14/2015 05/18/2015
06/18/2015 06/18/2015

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT,, filed by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet) (tab)
NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Debra M. Brown and Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden. (tab)
2 Joint MOTION for Settlement by United States of America. (Dean, Ralph)
3 MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT re 2 Joint MOTION for Settlement . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Settlement Agreement) (Dean, Ralph)
4 NOTICE OF ENDORSEMENT by Joyce I. Chiles on behalf of Leflore County, Mississippi re 3 Memorandum in Support, 2 Joint MOTION for Settlement (Chiles, Joyce)
5 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jerome C. Hafter on behalf of Leflore County, Mississippi (Hafter, Jerome)
6 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Gregg Mayer on behalf of Leflore County, Mississippi (Mayer, Robert)
7 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by John M. Stephens, IV on behalf of Leflore County, Mississippi (Stephens, John)
8 ORDER OF RECUSAL. District Judge Debra M. Brown recused. Case reassigned to Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers for all further proceedings. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 5/18/15. (jtm) (Entered: 05/19/2015)
9 ORDER granting 2 Joint Motion for Entry of Settlement Agreement. Signed by Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers on 6/18/2015. (llw)
10 Settlement Agreement and Order re 9 Order Granting Motion for Settlement. Signed by Senior Judge Neal B. Biggers on 6/18/2015. (llw)

 
 u.s. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division

Office of the Assistant Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

MAR 31 2011
The Honorable Robert Moore Chair, Leflore County Board of Supervisors 306 West Market Street Greenwood, Mississippi 38930-4355
Re: Investigation ofthe Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center
Dear Chairman Moore:
I write to report the fmdings ofthe Civil Rights Division's investigation of conditions at the Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center ("LCJDC") in Greenwood, Mississippi. On August 14, 2009, we notified Leflore County, Mississippi, of our intent to conduct an investigation of LCJDC pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1997 ("CRIPA"), and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994,42 U.S.C. § 14141 ("Section 14141"). Both CRIPA and Section 14141 give the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youth in juvenile justice institutions.
We thank the staff members at LCJDC for their helpful and professional conduct throughout the course of the investigation. We received complete cooperation and appreciate their receptiveness to our consultants' on-site recommendations. Staff assisted our investigation by providing access to records and personnel and by promptly responding to our requests in a transparent manner. We have every reason to believe that the County and the staff of LCJDC are committed to remedying deficiencies at the facility.
I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The youth confmed to LCJDC are subjected to conditions that violate their constitutional and federal statutory rights. Our investigation revealed systemic, egregious, and dangerous abuses perpetuated by a lack of accountability and controls. LCJDC fails to prevent unconstitutional harms, or minimize the risk of such harms, through undue use of restraints, arbitrary imposition of punishment, inadequate grievance procedures, failure to report and investigate abuse, inadequate classification systems, inadequate rehabilitative treatment, inadequate medical and mental health care, inadequate suicide risk protections, inadequate environmental safety, inadequate staffmg, and inadequate educational services. We found that:

-2 -
• Youth are dangerously and routinely shackled to metal beds for discipline and punishment;
• Staff have unfettered discretion to immediately administer punishment, and isolation is used excessively for punishment and control;
• Suicidal youth are not assessed by mental health professionals despite known risks; • Internal investigations dismiss abuse complaints against staff as manipulative; and • No accoITunodations exist for children with learning disabilities.
These systemic deficiencies exist because generally accepted juvenile justice standards are not followed. We found that LCJDC staff members do not receive minimally adequate training and that existing policies and procedures are inadequate to ensure constitutionally adequate care and custody of the youth confined to the facility. Staff members fail to report allegations of abuse to the State and appear to routinely violate youths' rights with impunity.
The widespread and significant deficiencies at the facility are a result of significant departures from accepted juvenile justice standards and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's mandate that youth in custody be protected from harm. In this letter, we provide recommendations that are minimally necessary to bring the facility into compliance with the Constitution and federal law.
ll. INVESTIGATION
On November 11-12,2009, we conducted an on-site inspection of LCJDC accompanied by expert consultants in the areas of protection from harm and education. Before, during, and after our tour, we reviewed extensive documentation provided by the County, including policies and procedures, incident reports, unitlogs,and training materials. Additionally, we interviewed LCJDC administrators, staff, and youth. We observed youths in a variety of settings, including their living units, dining areas, and in the facility's only classroom. Consistent with our commitment to conduct a transparent investigation and provide technical assistance, our expert consultants conveyed their initial impressions and concerns to the County during exit conferences held at the conclusion of the tour.
Ill. BACKGROUND
The LCJDC is a 30-bed short-term facility owned and operated by Leflore County for the detention of youth. Male and female youth between 10 and 17 years of age are detained at LCJDC for periods ranging from a few hours to more than 30 days. In addition to detaining youth from Leflore County, the facility contracts with 19 other Mississippi counties to detain youth. 1 As required by state statute, LCJDC and other juvenile justice facilities in Mississippi are monitored by the State Department of Public Safety's Juvenile Detention Facilities Monitoring Unit on a quarterly basis. Despite the relatively limited bed capacity of LCJDC, the number of youths detained at the facility, over time, is significant. During the period between
The counties that contract with Leflore County for juvenile detention include Attala, Bolivar, Calhoun, Carroll, Choctaw, Coahoma, Grenada, Holmes, Humphrey, Leake, Montgomery, Panola, Quitman, Sunflower, Tallahatchie, Tate, Tunica, Yalobusha, and Webster.

..• --~.-.--~~-.---=~.~------~.~====~============~

-3 -

July 2008 and September 2009, 544 different youths were held at the facility. Notably, some of these 544 youths were detained at the facility multiple times during the time period. During our on-site visit in November 2009, the facility had a youth population of seven males and six females who were from eight different counties.

The two-story LCJDC building was converted from a mental health facility to a juvenile

facility in 1995, with the original construction dating back to the 1950s. In addition to LCJDC,

the building houses the Leflore County Youth Court and offices for the court's counselors. The

juvenile detention portion of the building consists of two floors and is outfitted like an adult jail.

The layout is primarily double-bunked cells with metal frame beds, built-in desks or tables, and

stainless steel toilets and sinks. Each cell has a metal door with a small window, and lighting is

controlled externally by a switch near the door. The upper level customarily houses female

youths and includes the facility's only classroom, which is outfitted with books, desks, and an

adjacent computer lab. The lower level ofLCJDC customarily houses male youths and has a small dayroom for programming in addition to cells. An external door on the'10wer level

hallway connects the cells to a very small outdoor "recreation area" that is completdy enclosed

by tall brick walls. This outdoor recreation area is designated as the point of egress in case of

fire or other emergency.

.

IV. FINDINGS

In violation of their constitutional rights, youth at LCJDC are inappropriately and dangerously restrained, arbitrarily punished, denied adequate medical and mental health care; not protected from suicide risk, inadequately supervised, and inadequately educated. Unsafe conditions of confinement, combined with a paucity of meaningful programming, education and other activities, create an environment at LCJDC that is dangerous and detrimental to youth development and well-being. The environment is especially harmful for those youth who spend long periods of time at LCJDC or who frequently return to the facility.

A. LEFLORE COUNTY IS FAILING TO PROTECT YOUTH FROM HARM AT LCJDC

CRIPA and Section 14141 authorize DOJ to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youth in juvenile justice institutions. 42 US.C. § 1997; 42 U.S.C. § 14141. Youth detained at LCJDC are protected by the Fourteenth Amendm~nt and have a substantive due process right to reasonably safe conditions of confmement and freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982) ("If it is cruel and unusual punishment to hold convicted criminals in unsafe conditions, it must be unconstitutional to confine the involuntarily [detained] - who may not be punished at all- in unsafe conditions."). The Fourteenth Amendment, rather than the Eighth Amendment, applies because the youth are held for detention or rehabilitation,

--_ - . - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - _._._-

..

-----.----~.-

..

-.-- ... - - -
--.----~-.-

-- ---- ---

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

- -.. -

-

-

-

-

-

-

-. . _- .-

-

- - -~ - - - -

-4-

not punishment. 2 The Mississippi youth delinquency statute's statement of purpose provides that "each child coming within the jurisdiction of the youth court ... become a responsible, accountable and productive citizen, and that each such child shall receive such care, guidance and control, preferably in such child's own home as is conducive toward that end and is in the state's and the child's best interest." Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-103.

To determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment was violated, a balancing test must be applied: "[I]t is necessary to balance 'the liberty of the individual' and 'the demands of an organized society.'" Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 320 (quoting Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 542 (1961)). The Youngberg Court went on to hold that "If there is to be any uniformity in protecting these interests, this balancing cannot be left to the unguided discretion of a judge or jury." Id. at 321. Instead, the Court held that there is a constitutional violation if detaining officials substantially depart from generally accepted professional standards, and that departure endangers youth in their care. See id. at 314.

As a general matter, the Supreme Court has held that corrections officials must take reasonable steps to guarantee detainees' safety and provide "humane conditions" of confmement. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832 (1994); Hare v. City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633,639 (5th Cir. 1996) (recognizing a duty to provide detainees with basic human needs including protection from harm). In addition, an official's failure to maintain adequate policies, procedures, and practices for the prevention of suicides may violate a detainee's due process rights. Silva v. Donley County Texas, 32 F.3d 566, 1994 WL 442404, *5-7 (5th Cir. 1994) (unpublished) (holding sheriffs failure to establish suicide detection and prevention training for jail personnel, condoning de facto policy of sporadic cell checks, and absence of a policy for observing "at-risk" detainees may rise to deliberate indifference to known risk of suicide in detention settings).

Finally, conditions of confmement claims may be based not only upon existing physical

harm to youth, but also on conditions that threaten to cause future harm. Helling v. McKinney,

509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993) (stating "[i]t would be odd to deny [relief to detainees] who plainly

proved an unsafe, life-threatening condition in their [facility] on the ground that nothing yet had

happened to them."). In Helling, the court recognized various circuit courts holding that "a

[detainee] need not wait until he is actually assaulted before obtaining relief" and that the

Constitution "protects against sufficiently imminent dangers." Id. at 33-34; see also Herman v.

Holiday, 238 F.3d 660 (5th Cir. 2001) (recognizing Helling standard); Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d

1291, 1308-11 (5th Cir. 1974) (holding that failure to provide adequate systems to protect

inmates against future harm including physical assaults and abuse constituted cruel and unusual

punishment).

.

2

In Ingraham v. Wright, the Supreme Court rejected application of the Eighth Amep.dment deliberative

indifference standard in a non-criminal context. 430 U.S. 651, 669 n.37 (1977) ("Eighth Amendment scrutiny is

appropriate only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal

prosecutions."). In addition, the Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was the

proper constitutional gauge to determine the rights of adults detained by a state, but not yet convicted of any crime.

Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (1979). See also, Scott v. Moore, 85 F.3d 230,235 (5th Cir. 1996). At a minimum,

youth should be accorded the same constitutional protections.

-5-
1. Youth at LCJDC are subjected to undue restraint.
Our investigation revealed numerous uses of dangerous and unnecessary restraints. at LCJDC. The justifications offered by staff for the use of the restraints were ambiguous or clearly inappropriate. Youth are frequently shackled to the bed in their cell in response to nondangerous actions and for punishment. Documentation of the application of restraints failed to adequately describe the reasons for or the duration of the uses of restraint.3
Youth at LCJDC may not be unduly restrained or subjected to excessive use of force by staff. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 316; Morales v. Turman, 364 F. Supp. 166, 173 (B.D. Tex. 1973) (issuing a preliminary injunction where the court found that juvenile facilities' widespread practice of beating, slapping, kicking, and otherwise abusing youth in the absence of exigent circumstances violated youths' rights). In determining whether a violation exists under the Eighth Amendment, courts consider whether "force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm" to determine whether force was excessive. Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1,6 (1992) (citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312,320-21 (1986). Prison officials "may take all reasonable steps to insure proper prison discipline, security and order" but must ensure ''that inmates are not sUbjected to any punishment beyond that which is necessary for [ ] orderly administration." Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d at 1309. Hence, the use of force after an inmate has been subdued and an emergency has, dissipated, or which is disproportionate to the force needed to regain control, violates the Eighth Amendment. Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730, 738 (2002) (leaving an inmate handcuffed to a post after order had been regained constituted cruel and unusual punishment); Valencia v. Wiggins, 981 F. 2d 1440, 1447 (5th Cir. 1993) (applying a chokehold on disruptive inmate who refused to exit cell and striking inmate while handcuffed, kneeling, and non-resisting was malicious and sadistic, causing harm). .The use of mechanical restraints should be limited to circumstances where a youth presents a clear danger to herself or others. See H.C. by Hewett v. Jarrard, 786 F.2d 1080, 1086 (l1th Cir. 1986) (disproportionate response of guard to juvenile detainee, which included shackling to bed, "amounted to punishment in violation of due process clause").
Generally accepted professional standards require that staff only use physical force or mechanical restraints to the degree and duration necessary to bring a situation under controL Every application of mechanical restraints - including handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains, or other such restraints - must be fully documented, including the circumstances leading to the application of restraints and the duration that the restraints were applied. Any restrained juvenile should be constantly observed by staff to ensure safety.

3 •

The facility's policy manual is ambiguous about the County's expectation for documenting uses offorce.

One section states that the "use of force resulting in injury to staff or youth and the use of mechanical restraints will

be fully documented and reported," suggesting that only use offorce incidents involving injury should be

documented. Several pages later, however, the manual states that a "written report ... will be completed no later

than seventy-two (72) hours following the incident depending on the circumstances of the incident." There is no

explanation of the determinative circumstances, and the quote suggests that incident reports are required even where

there is no injury. Regardless of which part of the policy manual is the County's official policy, neither is consistent

with generally accepted professional standards, which provide that facility staff document all incidents, except for

handcuffs used in transportation, in which physical force or mechanical restraints are used.

-6-
Examples of excessive or undue restraints and lack of adequate documentation at LCJDC include:
• In October 2008, A.A.,4 a 13 year old detainee, began kicking his cell door and cursing. Two officers entered the youth's cell and "chained" A.A. to the bed. There is no documentation of the precise manner or length of time that the youth was restrained. Staff later entered A.A. 's room to discover that he had defecated and thrown feces on the cell window. He was restrained a third time in November 2008 for 15 minutes as punishment for kicking and beating on the door.
• B.B. was placed in leg restraints in October 2008 as punishment for flooding the toilet in his cell. He was released once he promised to stop flooding the cell.
• In February 2009, C.C. was removed from class and isolated in his cell for failure to follow classroom rules. Once C.C. entered his cell, he began beating on the doors and walls. Two officers then entered the cell and placed C.C. in leg shackles.
• In June 2009, leg irons were placed on D.D. to prevent him from banging on the cell door. There is no documentation' regarding the duration of this restraint.
• In May 2010, a youth banged on his door to request hygienic tissue. A detention officer denied the request, and detention staff subsequently went from room to room restraining youths with shackles and handcuffs. One youth was hogtied to the bed after he argued with detention officers, and all youths remained in the restraints for approximately one hour.
In none of the circumstances described above were the youths a danger to themselves or to others. Banging or kicking doors or walls, cursing, shouting, and flooding a cell are annoying behaviors, but none present a danger. Instead, in each of the incidents described above, LCJDC's practice of shackling served a primarily punitive purpose. Therefore, each restraint described above was undue and unconstitutional.
Staff members at LCJDC freely admit that they restrain youth to beds. According to facility staff, youth are restrained to the bed when staff cannot de-escalate a youth's misbehavior through talking (although none of the incidents described above evidence attempts by staff to deescalate the situation before restraints were applied). The facility manual places a time limit of 15 to 30 minutes on the use of restraints. We were also told that staff usually link restraint devices together to provide enough length for youth to use the toilet while shackled to a bed. Neither the purported time constraint nor extending the length of the shackling restraint makes this practice acceptable.
We conclude that the restraint practices of LCJDC detention staff violate the Constitution and egregiously deviate from generally accepted professional standards.

4

Fictional initials are used throughout the letter to preserve the anonymity of youths.

-7 -
2. LCJDC violates the due process rights of youth by arbitrarily imposing punitive measures.
Our investigation revealed numerous instances where LCJDC staff imposed sanctions without following any disciplinary process. LCJDC must provide youth with procedural due process if they are charged with a disciplinary violation while detained. See Wolffv. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-65 (1974) (finding that prison disciplinary hearings require due process with respect to presentation of charges, evidence, and witnesses).
There are no processes at LCJDC for notifying youth of facility rules or for imposing discipline. The absence of an established disciplinary system results in an informal system of control based on the unfettered discretion of individual detention officers; sanctions are immediately imposed by staff for whatever actions staff deem punishable. These practices are unconstitutional. For example: .
• In August 2008, staff recorded in a facility log that E.E. and F.F. had fought each
other and were therefore not allowed out of their cells for any reason other than showering.
• In September 2008, G.G. allegedly started a fight in class and was therefore isolated
in his cell. According to the facility log, the youth was "to not come out of his cell .. . for any reason." It is unclear how long this restriction was in place.
• In November 2008, H.H. reportedly became disruptive and threatened to kill himself
while in court. Two detention officers forcibly removed H.H. from the courtroom and placed him in his cell. After the youth struck the door of his cell, "disciplinary actions were taken." We have no indication of what is meant by "disciplinary actions."
• In February 2009, some youths were allegedly overheard plotting to attack a
detention officer. Consequently, "all juveniles were disciplined by no showering."
• Thirteen-year-old I.!. stated during our November 2009 interviews that one of the
detention officers at LCJDC had whipped him with a belt in his room as punishment for being disruptive in class.
The lack of any disciplinary system or due process protections for youth at LCJDC violates their constitutional rights.
3. LCJDC is unlawfully failing to report and investigate abuse.
LCJDC also unconstitutionally places youth at risk of repeated harm by failing to . properly report and investigate abuse by staff. When an allegation of child abuse is made, the allegation should be reported to the proper authorities for investigation. Juvenile justice facility staff are typically mandated by statute to report allegations of child abuse to the state's child

-8-
protective services agency. In Mississippi, "any person having reasonable cause to suspect that a child is a neglected child or an abused child shall cause an oral report to be made immediately ... to the Department of Human Services" which in turn initiates an investigation. Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-353 (1) (2010). As such, LCJDC staff must report all instances of alleged abuse, without regard to credibility, to the State Department of Human Services. This is not occurring.
In addition to reporting allegations of abuse to the proper state agency, LCJDC must conduct internal investigations of alleged abuse in order to keep youth reasonably safe. Once an allegation of abuse has been made, a proper investigation is required to protect youth from staff abuse by collecting evidence to verify or disprove the allegation. These investigations are essential to identify staff in need of training and/or discipline, as well as to clear staffwho have been wrongfully accused. The investigation process must have reasonable integrity, preserve all physical evidence (e.g., videotape footage, documentation and photographs of injuries, clothing, . etc.), obtain statements from all youth and staff involved in the incident and those who witnessed the incident, and utilize other sources of information to corroborate or refute the allegations (e.g., logbooks, other sources of facility documentation).
To ensure that youth are provided adequate safety, youth subjected to a use of force must be seen, and treated if necessary, by a medical professional, and all injuries should be documented. Medical staff can also be an avenue for youth to report abuse or mistreatment. Further, even when youth do not report abuse or mistreatment, medical staff members are mandated reporters of childabuse if abuse is suspected due to the nature of an injury.
LCJDC unlawfully fails to provide these protections. The facility does not have adequate procedures for properly reporting and investigating allegations of child abuse. When asked about procedures that staff follow upon receiving an allegation of abuse, staff members were unaware of their duty to report abuse allegations to the State. Further, internal investigations are cursory and do not include examination by medical staff, photographs of alleged injuries, or other basic elements necessary for accurate investigations. Indeed, it appears that the underlying assumption of any facility investigation of abuse is that the complaining youth is attempting to manipulate others. The following examp~es illustrate the deficiencies with LCJDC investigations:
• In February 2008, youth lJ. alleged that he was sexually assaulted by a staff member and later attempted suicide at the facility. Facility management conducted an egregiously deficient investigation by speaking with the youth, then speaking with the staff member, and then simply concluding that there was no evidence of a sexual assault. There is no indication that the State was contacted regarding the abuse allegations. In a memorandum notifying a local police chief of the results of the investigation, LCJDC' s director stated that J.J. was "using the system against the system to gain sympathy" in order to avoid a possible felony charge. The memo concludes with the exhortation: "Do not let this troubled young man's false allegations stop [the County] from allowing Leflore County to serving [sic] your Juvenile Detainment Needs."

-9-
• AJanuary 2009 memorandum reports the conclusion of the facility's grossly inadequate investigation into youth K.K. 's allegations that he was assaulted by an LCJDC custody officer. The investigation consisted of the director and assistant director interviewing the accused officer and the officer's supervisor, both of whom denied the assault. The memorandum notes that K.K. bore no visible signs of assault but does not contain any alleged details of the incident, including the date it allegedly occurred. The director asserts in the memorandum that "[t]hese juvenile(s) will say and do anything to shift the concerns away from what they did or are doing." There is no evidence indicating that these allegations were referred to the State.
We fmd that LCJDC's reporting and investigation of alleged abuse is wholly deficient and unlawfully violates the rights of the young people detained in the facility.
4. LCJDC's unlawful classification system places youth at great risk.
Youth at LCJDC are not safe due to the facility's inadequate classification system. The Constitution requires that youth be provided a reasonably safe environment. In a juvenile justice facility, a critical piece of keeping youth safe turns on a classification system to determine where and with whom a youth should be housed. The classification should take into account a youth's age, charge offense, history of violence and escape, vulnerability to victimization, gang membership or affiliation, health and mental health concerns, and institutional history.
LCJDC only considers a youth's size, age, and county of residence when making housing assignments. The failure to account for other obviously relevant factors places youth at grave risk of harm. During our interviews with youth at the facility, for example, we discovered that youths L.L. and M.M. were both arrested and sent to LCJDC for fighting each other but were inexplicably assigned to share a cell together upon arrival at LCJDC. In addition, youths N.N. and 0.0. independently told us that they were sharing a cell despite a conflict between them. Both youths had repeatedly asked staff to separate them but no action had been taken.
We find that the lack of an adequate classification system at LCJDC places youth at an unacceptably high risk of victimization, does not keep youth reasonably safe, and is therefore unconstitutional.
5. LCJDC lacks adequate medical and mental health care.
Reasonable protection of confined youths' physicai and mental safety requires adequate medical treatment, mental health treatment and suicide prevention measures. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 323-24 & 323 n.30; Morales, 364 F. Supp. at 175. Appropriate care for youths' mental health needs is as important as caring for their medical needs. Gates v. Cook, 376 F. 3d 323, 332-33 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing Partridge v. Two Unknown Police Officers of City of Houston, Texas, 791 F.2d 1182, 1187 (5th Cir. 1986)). Further, providing only medication to youth with psychiatric disabilities, in the absence of additional or other mental health services, violates their constitutional rights. Gates, 376 F. 3d at 335 (holding that the confinement of inmates with severe mental illness on Mississippi's death row with no mental health care other

· - 10 -
than medication was "grossly inadequate" and constituted deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth Amendment).
While we did not include experts in medical and mental health services in our investigatory tour, the obvious dearth of even the most basic medical and mental health care at LCJDC leads us to conclude that the constitutional rights of detained youth to adequate medical and mental health care are being violated.
a. LCJDC provides inadequate medical screenings and fails to seek appropriate medical treatment, placing youth at significant risk of serious harm.
By failing to properly screen youth for medical conditions, LCJDC remains deliberately indifferent to potentially serious harm. In accordance with generally accepted juvenile justice standards~ Mississippi state law requires that youth undergo a health screening upon admission to a juvenile detention center, within one hour or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in order to obtain information about the juvenile's mental health, suicide risk, alcohol and other drug use and abuse, physical health, aggressive behavior, family relations, peer relations, social skills, educational status, and vocationalstatus. See Miss. Code Ann. § 43-21-321. This statutory requirement is acknowledged in LCJDC's manual, but documentation showed that facility staff members do not comply with this legal requirement.
Documentation purported to show that the 13 youth detained at the time of our investigation tour had been screened in compliance with State law with respect to physical health. However, upon close examination, that same documentation noted that four youth entered the facility at 12:23 p.m. on November 10,2009 and that medical screening for each of the four youth was also completed at 12:23 p.m. that same day. It is not credible that all four youth were admitted and medically screened within the space of one minute.
We found no evidence that LCJDC' s officers are trained by medical professionals on how to conduct initial medical screenings. Generally accepted professional standards require that detention officers receive training from a health authority on conducting initial medical screenings of youth. Without proper medical screening by appropriately qualified staff, youth are subjected to a high risk that medical or mental health problems will be undetected and unaddressed at the facility.
During individual interviews, our experts specifically noticed two youths, P.P. and Q.Q., who exhibited behaviors consistent with neurological impairments (e.g., Traumatic Brain Injury, tic disorders) and/or other health issues. The records for these two youths did not document these explicit behaviors, and when we asked the facility director about the youths' medical status, he stated he had not noticed these signs. Significantly, P.P. had been detained at LCJDC on multiple occasions without any treatment for the possible disability.

- 11 -
Because there are no medical personnel on-site, facility policy requires staff to take youth to see a physician if a medical screening indicates a need for emergency care or if a parent, guardian, or youth court designee makes a written request for medical care. We found that, instead, untraIned custody officers often provide basic medical care and improperly make decisions on treatment. For example:
• In March 2008, R.R. began vomiting in her room. Custody officers offered an overthe-counter stomach medication to the resident, but she refused. No other medical action was taken. .
• In June 2008, S.S. reported to a detention officer that he fell in his room and dislodged his tooth. The detention officer and another staff member looked in S. S. 's mouth and reported that "you could see that he pull[ed] the tooth out and he was OK." No further action was taken.
• In December 2008, T.T. complained to facility staff that he was having chest pains. The youth was taking lithium, a psychoactive drug often used for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Like many psychoactive drugs, lithium may reach dangerously toxic levels if not appropriately monitored by a medical professional and has a number of potentially serious adverse side effects. We could find no evidence that B.V. was examined by a medical professional following his complaint ofchest pain.
• In July 2009, V.V. complained that his stomach was upset on the same day that his mother called and advised the facility that V.V. did not have his asthma medication. The next day, when V.V. complained of chest pain and began throwing up blood, a custody officer reviewed the unit log and noted that no action had been taken the previous day regarding the youth's illness. V.V. was then taken to the hospital by custody staff and diagnosed with bronchitis.
• In May 2010, a juvenile at the facility was suffering from tooth pain and could not get attention from a detention officer until he began banging on the cell door. One of the detention officers entered the cell and beat the youth until the juvenile was wailing and crying. The youth did not receive medical attention for the tooth.
b. LCJDC is deliberately indifferent to suicide risks and the related serious mental health needs of youth, placing them at significant risk of serious harm.
Among the most dangerous practices at LCJDC is the facility's failure to meaningfully screen or monitor potentially suicidal youth. Youth at great risk of harm are exposed to conditions that are not reasonably safe and are therefore unconstitutional.
In order to provide reasonable safety to potentially suicidal youth, all youth placed on suicide precautions must be regularly monitored by mental health professionals. Any staff person may place a youth on suicide precautions initially, but the precautions should only be

- 12 -
removed following an assessment by a mental health professional. At LCIDC, if a youth's screening indicates a need for additional assessment, staff members are supposed to schedule an appointment with the local mental health clinic and transport the youth to the clinic. This does not occur. Indeed, records demonstrate instances where youth who are placed on suicide precautions by staff are never assessed by mental health professionals at any time during their detention.
Detention staff should also provide consistent monitoring of youth on suicide precautions to observe behavior and ensure the youth's safety and welfare. LCIDC does not regularly monitor youth while they are on suicide precautions, and it is unclear who decides when youth may be removed from precautions. For example:
• In May 2008, V.V. was discovered tying a sheet around a pipe in his cell in an attempt to commit suicide. Detention staff monitored the youth and required him to wear only a paper gown. However, despite his suicidal behavior, no mental health professional ever assessed or treated V.V.
• In June 2008, an officer bribed W.W. and X.X. to keep them quiet about an attempted suicide. W.W. reportedly knocked on her cell door continuously during X.X's attempted suicide in an effort to get the attention of staff but was ignored by the two officers on duty, one of whom ("Officer 1") was smoking a cigarette. The officers
continued to ignore W.W. until they heard her screaming. Staff discovered that x.x.
had tied a blanket tightly around her neck and a railing on the ceiling. After the noose was removed by staff, Officer 1 told the two youths not to tell anyone about the incident, and allowed them to spend several hours eating snacks and playing computer games. Officer 1 also told the other officer not to tell anyone about the incident, especially the director. The incident was eventually reported and investigated. Despite the facility director's recommendation that Officer 1 be terminated, Officer 1 remains at LCJDC.
• In September 2008, Y.Y. began banging his head against the cell door and tied his uniform shirt around his neck. Y.Y.'s cellmate notified two detention officers who then entered the cell, removed the shirt, and placed Y.Y. in mechanical restraints. The officers later returned to the cell after Y.Y. managed to tie a sheet around his neck despite the restraints. The officers then removed the restraints, "stripped" Y.Y., placed him in a paper gown, and re-applied mechanical restraints. Y.Y. then attempted to tie the paper gown around his neck and stuffed tissue in his nose and mouth. The incident report concludes by stating that the officers took away both the gown and the tissue. No further action was taken.
• A March 2009 mental health assessment of Z.Z. described him as "suicidal and psychotic" and in need of "immediate attention." He was placed in a paper gown and put on suicide watch after the assessment. Five days later, though still on suicide precautions, Z.Z. was observed in full clothing after staff returned his clothing in

- 13 -
violation of a facility directive. It is unclear when or if Z.Z. was ever removed from suicide watch during his 18-day detention at LCJDC.
• In May 2009, A.B. was observed in his room crying, with a tom blanket tied tightly around his neck. Detention staff removed the blanket and placed A.B. in a suicide gown, but he was not assessed by a mental health professional until three days later. A suicide watch log purportedly showed that the youth was observed by detention staff every four minutes while on suicide watch, but the observational times and detention officer's initials were typed in for the entire shift, calling into question the veracity of the observations. Given the physical set-up of the facility, it is highly unlikely that the detention officer could have observed A.B. as reported on the suicide watch log and typed in the information every four minutes.
• In September 2009, A.C. was placed on suicide watch after a local mental health professional determined that he expressed suicidal ideations, intent to self harm, and auditory hallucinations. The suicide watch log indicates that a detention officer observed A.C. every four minutes. The veracity of the observations is dubious, however, given that the times and officerls initials are all typed.
Finally, suicide hazards remain in youth cells. While the County has removed exposed metal piping in many of the cells, some protrusions and tying off points still remain. In sum, LCJDC's grossly inadequate suicide prevention practices violate youths' constitutional rights to adequate safety. and adequate mental health care, and place these youths at life-threatening risk.
6. LCJDC's fails to provide adequate programming.
Youth at LCJDC have a constitutional right to adequate treatment. Youngberg, 457 U. S. at 323; Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1146-55 (D. Miss. 1977) (holding that juvenile facility must provide adequate treatment, including proper behavior management and recreation programs, among others). That right is abrogated by LCJDC's failure to provide adequate programming and behavior management systems. In order to provide constitutional care, juvenile justice facilities must provide rehabilitation programming and treatment while youth are confined. Thus, generally accepted professional standards require that juvenile justice facilities provide education, recreation, and meaningful activities such as group and individual therapy, social skills training, and other programming. LCJDC fails to provide these services, and the lack of structure and meaningful programming activity is not only violating the youths' rights but is predictably resulting in behavior problems.
Youth at LCJDC spend an inordinate amount of time playing cards or dominos while in the small dayroom or while locked in their cells. Besides schooling, the only regularly scheduled activity for youth is a two-hour arts and crafts class held in the evenings twice per week. On weekends, youth are allowed to watch television if they have behaved during the week and may attend religious programming on Sundays. However, youth spend most weekend time locked in their cells. Furthermore, recreational logs indicated long gaps between opportunities for youth to engage in large muscle exercise. Although there is a small outdoor recreation yard outfitted with

- 14 -
a basketball hoop, it appears to be rarely used and was not used during our November 2009 tour. During an interview, youth A.D. stated that he had been permitted outside for recreation only twice during his 36-day period of detention. Without activities to keep youths mentally and physically occupied, youth at LCJDC create their own activities, including beating and kicking walls and doors, yelling, cursing, picking fights, and other negative behavior.
The problems resulting from the paucity of programming activity are exacerbated by the lack of a behavior management program at LCJDC. Children and adolescents typically lack strong impulse control, and youths at juvenile detention facilities are often particularly affected by their lack of impulse control and lack of an ability to make good choices to control their behavior. Therefore, it is critical that a juvenile facility have in place a behavior management system that provides immediate, consistent, and tangible reinforcement of desired behaviors. Although LCJDC once purchased a behavior management system manual, it was never used. According to staff, LCJDC officials delayed implementing the system because they expected the facility to move to a new building.
We find that LCJDC' s failure to provide adequate programming activity - regardless of the facility's physical limitations- contributes to increased risk of suicide, violence and excessive discipline and violates the youths' constitutional rights.
7. LCJDC fails to provide adequate staffing levels for supervision of youth.
Some of the above described problems appear to have resulted from inadequate staffing. LCJDC's serious deficiencies in staffing places youth at risk of harm because of reduced accountability, overreliance on restraints, inadequate youth supervision, and inadequate suicide prevention practices. This deficiency contributes to violations of youths' constitutional rights to reasonably safe conditions of confinement. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324.
LCJDC operates with three detention officers for a population of up to twenty-four youths of both genders. The facility has no means to electronically monitor youth in their rooms in addition to visual ch~cks. With two floors and two control rooms, the current staffing pattern is inadequate for LCJDC, particularly when one or more youths are placed on suicide watch:
8. LCJDC fails to provide youth a reasonably safe living environment.
LCJDC's physical environment poses an unreasonable risk to the safety and welfare of detained youths. The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause requires juvenile justice facilities to provide youth with conditions of reasonable care and safety. Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 324. LCJDC's failure to adequately address the risk of the spread of infectious diseases, coupled with its inadequate fire safety practices, exposes youths detained there to great risks.
Cells are extremely dirty, contain tom mattresses, and the toilets in the cells were not adequately cleaned. The showers were similarly filthy; such environmental considerations are

- 15 -
critical in preventing the spread of infectious agents such as methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus ("MRSA,,).5
LCJDC's fire safety and emergency planning is also inadequate and exposes both youth and staff to an unnecessarily high risk of harm, including death. Documentation showed that although the facility conducts monthly fire drills, the facility's plan for evacuating youth and staff is dangerous. LCJDC's plan is to evacuate everyone to a small outdoor recreation area that is directly adjacent to the detention area and is enclosed with tall brick walls. This would be dangerous in the event of a fire. LCJDC also fails to have a plan for evacuation in the event of a tornado or other emergency.
9. LCJDC violates the due process rights of youth by failing to provide a grievance system.
A grievance system provides detained youth with a mechanism to resolve disputes regarding their detention. Given the arbitrary discipline process and the other deficiencies noted in this letter, the absence of a grievance process contributes to the unconstitutional conditions in . the facility. LCJDC does not provide any forms for filing grievances or any confidential means for filing grievances, such as a locked drop box. According to the facility manual, the grievance process consists of a juvenile writing a statement of his or her grievance and handing that statement to the shift supervisor. The shift supervisor then submits the statement to the assistant director, who then conveys it to the facility director. There is nothing confidential about any . aspect of this process.
Youth at LCJDC have a right to file grievances with the facility regarding their treatment, as well as a right not to be punished for using the grievance system. See Decker v. McDonald,
No. 5:09 Civ. 27, 2010 WL 1424322, *15 (B.D.Tex. Jan. 11,2010) (noting that the law is well
established that prison officials may not retaliate against an inmate who exercises his right of access to the courts oruse of the grievance system); see also Hasan v. U.S. Dep't of Labor, 400 F.3d 1001, 1005 (7th Cir. 2005) (holding that, unless frivolous, prisoners' grievances are entitled to First Amendment protection).
Basic due process and generally accepted professional standards for juvenile facilities require a grievance process that affords youth confidentiality, protects them from retaliation by staff, is unimpeded, and offers a level of review for appeals. At the time of our tour, the director of LCJDC had not received a grievance since October 2005 - a period of more than four years. The fact that no grievances have been received by the director since October 2005 is testament to

5

MRSA is a highly contagious bacteria commonly found in institutional settings that is resistant to certain

antibiotics, including methicillin. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dhqp/ar_mrsa_ca-'public.html. The disease presents itself at fIrst as a boil or sore on the

skin, and is easily spread through contact with an infected person or with a surface the person has touched. Id. In

some cases, MRSA can lead to serious complications, including surgical wound infections, bloodstream infections,

and pneumonia. Id.

- 16 -
the inadequacy of the process. We find that LCJDC's grievance process is a contribution factor to unconstitutional conditions.
B. YOUTHS' RIGHTS TO ADEQUATE EDUCATIONAL SERVICES ARE BEING VIOLATED AT LCJDC
LCJDC consistently fails to provide youth with adequate general education services. Although the County has asserted that complying with the law is difficult due to the transient nature of the youth population and limited resources, these challenges are not unique to this facility and do not excuse the County from providing proper educational services to detained youth. Specifically, Mississippi state law requires that youth receive a minimum of five hours of educational instruction each weekday during the academic year. Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-91(d), ' as amended.
The denial of education services to detained youth that are comparable to those provided by the State to non-detained youth violates due process and equal protection rights. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 224 (1982) (deprivation of basic educational services must be rationally related to a substantial goal ofthe state); Donnell C. v. Illinois State Bd. ofEduc., 829 F. Supp. 1016, 1018-19 (N.D. Ill. 1993) (a juvenile facility's denial of education services and provision of education services inferior to those of non-detained youth violated due process and equal protection claims of youth at the facility). In cases discussing the provision of education to detained youth, courts have recognized the essential function of education. See, e.g., Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130, 1150-51 (D. Miss. 1977) (holding that juvenile facility must provide sufficient education and vocational training to residents in order to reduce recidivism and promote successful reintegration into society).
Furthermore, students with disabilities have federal statutory rights to special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. §§ 14001482. See Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 310 (1988) (noting that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, as amended by IDEA,·"confers upon disabled students an enforceable substantive right to public education in participating States"). IDEA requires states that accept federal funds to provide educational services to all children with disabilities between the ages of three and twenty-one years, even if the children have been suspended or expelled from school. 20 U.S.c. § 1412(a)(1)(A). Accordingly, the State must provide such services to youth in juvenile justice facilities. See id. (conditioning funds on the availability of services to "all children with disabilities"); 34 C.F.R. § 300.2(b)(1)(iv) (applying IDEA requirements to "all political subdivisions of the State that are involved in the education of children with disabilities, including ... State and local juvenile and adult correctional facilities"); see also Alexander S. By and Through Bowers v. Boyd, 876 F. SUpp. 773, 788 (D. S.C. 1995) (fmding IDEA applicable to school-age detainees in juvenile detention facilities). IDEA also requires schools to have procedures for identifying and testing students with disabilities. 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 (a)(1)(i).
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, similarly obligates the State to provide youth confined in its institutions with educational services. Section 504 requires that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as

- 17 -
defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
Although the County is obligated to provide free and appropriate education to qualified students with disabilities under both the IDEA and Section 504, special education services are virtually non-existent atLCJDC. The facility does not appropriately collect and analyze academic and behavioral data for students. Because of this, students at LCJDC often do not receive appropriate special education services as required by IDEA. Specifically, LCJDC is noncompliant with IDEA with respect to: 1) Child Find (see infra, below); 2) general education interventions; 3) Individual Education Programs ("IEPs"); 4) access to the general education curriculum for students receiving special education services; 5) behavioral supports; 6) staffing; and 7) transition services.
1. LCJDC violates the due process and equal protection rights of youth confined there by failing to provide them with appropriate general educational services.
Youth at LCJDC do not receive adequate educational services during detention, in violation of their equal protection and due process rights. Under State law, youths are entitled to a minimum of five hours of educational instruction each weekday during the academic year, Miss. Code Ann. § 37-13-91(d), as amended. Students at LCJDC reported receiving instructional class only Monday through Wednesday until the week of our November 2009 tour. Beginning with the week of our tour, students and staff stated that instruction occurs Monday through Thursday, with Friday reserved for television or movies. Youth detained at LCJDC are not receiving educational services consistent with the State's mandatory minimum of 5 hours each weekday.
LCJDC fails to maintain any educational records and coursework does not align with that required for a student in the community to obtain a high school diploma. During classroom observation, one female student in her mid-teens was seen completing a worksheet reviewing
elementary addition (e.g., 2 + 3 = 5). Such instruction does not allow students to access grade-
level curriculum available to non-detained youth. Additional inadequacies of LCJDC's general educational services are mentioned throughout the discussion of special educational services below.
2. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate Child Find procedures.
IDEA requires that the State have in effect policies and procedures to identify, locate, and evaluate youth suspected ofhaving a qualifying disability that would entitle them to special education services. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.111(a)(1)(i). This is known as "Child Find.:' Child Find can sometimes be as simple as asking a detained youth whether he or she has ever received special education services at the community school.

- 18 -
Although a structured intake assessment form exists at LCJDC, Child Find is significantly limited by inadequate or non-existent assessments and faulty scoring. LCJDC's intake forms do not capture data regarding special education status or history. Rather, the basic screening forms are limited to evaluating the educational and vocational status of youths. In our individual interviews, we identified two youths, A.E. and A.F., who had previously received special education services elsewhere but had not been identified by LCJDC as possibly having a disability entitling them to special education services. LCJDC's intake forms do not capture data regarding special education status or history necessary for Child Find.
Even if an assessment form utilizes popular evaluative tools, such as the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument Version 2 ("MAYSI-2") used by LCJDC, such tools are only effective for Child Find if properly analyzed and disseminated in a timely fashion. The current evaluative tools fail to satisfy these criteria. Basic scoring of intake assessments is not properly completed, and data is not used to properly guide instructional accommodations. After a student completesa basic screening, LCJDC scores the assessments using percentages and not grade level. However, given the nature and purpose ofthese forms, reporting the assessment as a percentage score is ineffective in guiding the teacher towards determining whether special education modifications are necessary. Moreover, score forms based on the assessments are only completed when a student is exiting the facility. Accordingly, even if the assessments were scored in a manner that would allow the teacher to make proper adjustments to a youth's curriculum or to evaluate a youth for special education services, the data would be unavailable for this purpose until the student has left the facility. LCmC's intake and screening procedures, therefore, inadequately assist in identifying students in need of special education and related services.
3. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide general instructional and evaluative interventions.
Prior to evaluation of a student for special education, IDEA requires that the State review data-based documentation of the student's progress and consider whether the student is being provided appropriate instruction by a highly qualified teacher. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.309(b)(1)-(2). The State must further document the student's behavior in that student's learning environment, including the regular classroom setting.
There is no evidence that LCJDC engages in academic or behavioral pre-referral/general education interventions, data collection, or observations. Both academic and behavioral prereferral/general education interventions should include specific methods for data collection in order to objectively evaluate student progress and the possible need for special education services. LCJDC's data collection processes are inadequate. This incomplete data is particularly troubling for students at the warning level for suicidal ideation, traumatic experiences, or anger. These youths may be entitled to special education services, but they are not being identified at LCJDC. During our tour, 6 of the 13 youths tested at the warning level on the facility's tests but were not receiving any special education services.

- 19 -
4. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide Individualized Education Programs for youth in need of special education services.
IDEA requires that each student with a disability have an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") to ensure that the student receives adequate special education services. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.323(a). No IEPs were available during our tour, and although several IEPs were provided post-tour, none were for students present at the facility during our visit. During our tour, we discovered a student with special needs who had been housed at LCJDC for 36 days with no :rEP. This is a violation of IDEA.
IDEA also requires that LCJDC take reasonable steps to promptly obtain a youth's records, including :rEPs or documents relating to. a youth's special education status, from the previous public agency in which the child was enrolled. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.323(g)(1). LCJDC was unable to produce educational records for any student enrolled at the time of our tour, and staff stated that :rEPs are often received after a youth has already left the facility. No data concerning student academic and behavioral :rEP goals was available while on site, nor was there any indication that parents/guardians and:rEP team members had met regarding any student. The absence of this data is a gross violation of IDEA.
In addition, IDEA requires that teachers implement each child's IEP, including specific accommodations, modifications, and supports. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.323(c)(2). No instructional adaptations were observed at LCJDC nor were any adaptations listed on lesson plans. Moreover, lesson plans were incomplete, there was no evidence of academic or behavioral-related record keeping, and lesson plans did not differentiate assignments for students at various levels. The inadequacy of lesson plans and instructional adaptations may be partly attributed to the failure to provide the teacher with IEPs until after a youth has left the facility. Without an IEP, it is impossibl~ for the teacher to properly instruct students according to their individual needs as is required under IDEA.
LCJDC's failure to maintain :rEPs violates several federal requirements, notably that: 1) adequate records are not obtained at intake or sent out at exit from LCJDC; 2) :rEPs are not developed, reviewed, or reevaluated in accordance with federal law; 3) there is a high risk of inconsistencies between previous and current levels of special education service for youths; 4) there is a lack of parent/guardian and:rEP team signatures; 5) there is a lack ofIEP implementation and data collection; and 6) there is a possible lack of relationship between the disability of an individual youth and the:rEP goals. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.320(a)(2)(i-ii).
5. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide access to the general education curriculum for youth in need of special education services.
LCJDC's common practice of segregating youths for discipline problems during school· fails to comply with IDEA's requirement that LCJDC provide comprehensive educational services to students. 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.304(b)(1). Specifically, no education services are available to students who are sent to their cells for discipline problems. When a student misbehaves, LCJDC routinely returns the youth to hislher cell for the remainder of the day with

- 20-
no school work, even when the youth's behavior has improved. This is a patent violation of IDEA. During our tour, 13-year-old youth A.H. was in his cell without any schoolwork for the entire school day because he had refused to do schoolwork in the classroom. Our interview with R.S. revealed a calm and compliant youth who should have been returned to the classroom. Pursuant to federal law, educational services should be comprehensive so as to enable youths to continue to participate in the general education curriculum even if they must be temporarily segregated. Where safety or other penalogical interests are involved, LCJDC should make individualized adaptations and return the student to class as quickly as safely possible.
6. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate behavioral supports for youth.
LCJDC fails to provide positive behavioral interventions, supports and other strategies to address negative behavior, as required by IDEA. 34 C.F.R. 71. § 300.324(a)(2)(i). Positive behavioral interventions and supports include interventions for youth at the facility level, secondary interventions for youth with additional needs, and tertiary interventions for youth who require individualized behavioral interventions.
Although LCJDC employs a school-wide social skills curriculum, the primary approach to behavioral problems is reactive. As noted above, LCJDC inappropriately segregates students in cells for the remainder of the school day rather than correcting problematic behavior in the classroom. Segregation is inconsistent with IDEA, and there is no evidence that a youth's disability is considered when students are sent back to their cells or in the administration of consequences for behavioral misconduct. During our tour, we observed an announcement stating: "Any juvenile found to be disruptive to the orderly running of this facility will be recommended to 90 days detention or training school." Such reactive and sporadic disciplinary measures fail to adequately remedy or deter problematic behavior and are particularly inappropriate for youth with disabilities. Two out of seven students we interviewed regarding education reported that no reinforcement was provided as an incentive for positive behavior. Moreover, no rules or consequences were posted in the classroom as guidelines for behavior.
Perhaps the most egregious concern regarding LCJDC's use of segregation is the failure to maintain any data regarding youth segregation; No data is available regarding length of time or frequency of segregation; reason for segregation; youth behavior while segregated; or ""guidelines for use of segregation. Without such data, "manifestation determination" hearings cannot occur.6 Further, failing to chronicle segregation use prevents development of, and implementation of, modifications to general education interventions and behavior intervention plans ("HIPs"). IDEA requires that LCJDC conduct a manifest determination when it decides to change the placement of a student with disabilities because of that student's violation of the code

6

Manifestation determination hearings are employed when a student who receives special education services

is considered for suspension, expulsion or any alternative placement due to some behavioral concern. The process is

used to determine if the actions that resulted in the consideration of some disciplinary action against the student

were manifestations ofthe student's disability.

- 21 -
of conduct. LCJDC's failure to log this data regarding youth segregation is a patent violation of IDEA.
Based on our review of teacher reports, it appears that students who missed up to two days of school per week were allowed to watch movies on Fridays as incentive for positive behavior. This reward system is problematic because it disengages students from instruction during the movies and permits an excessive number of absences. LCJDC's system to address student behavior is ineffective and places youth with disabilities at a significant disadvantage for maintaining access to the general education curriculum. More specific behavioral reinforcements should be implemented throughout each day as part of a facility behavior management program.
To adequately address student behavior, LCJDC should implement secondary behavioral interventions for youth who do not need individual programs but need support beyond the facility plan. Under IDEA, when a youth's "behavior impedes the child's learning or that of others, consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior," 34 C.F.R. 71 § 300.324(a)(2)(i). An effective behavioral intervention plan is an intervention that is designed to promote positive, pro-social student behavior.
Pursuant to IDEA, behavior that is a manifestation of a disability should result in a functional behavior assessment and the development or modification ofthe current behavior intervention plan. Teachers and staff should be held accountable for consistently and accurately evaluating student behavior, recording data, and using student behavioral data, as per individualized programs. At LCJDC, no evidence of any functional behavior assessment or individual behavior plans exists. Further, it is not apparent that teachers and staff are held accountable for consistently and accurately evaluating student behavior, recording data, and. using student behavioral data.
7. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate educational staffing for youth in need of special education services.
Although the student-teacher ratio at the time of our tour of LCJDC was acceptable at 13 students per 1 teacher, the current teacher is neither appropriately licensed nor qualified, in violation of IDEA. Additional teachers who are licensed and qualified are needed to meet the requirements set forth in IDEA. A staffing plan should be devised and implemented based on these current needs, and in light of federal requirements.
8. LCJDC violates federal law by failing to provide adequate transition services for youth in need of special education services.
Although IDEA requires that facilities provide transitional services, none exist at LCJDC. IDEA includes two major components in its definition of the group of activities labeled as "transition services." First, transition services should be located within a results-oriented process focused on preparing students for a fruitful life outside of the school context. Second, the

- 22-
transition services that a given student receives should be based on the individualized needs of that student.
Vocational technology courses may help provide transitional services for youths. We reviewed a LCJDC memorandum about a vocational technology program that was supposedly implemented in Fall 2009. The curricula listed classes in auto mechanics and repair, brick masonry, wood shop, refrigeration and air conditioning, culinary instructions, cosmetology, and computer technology. In re8;lity, however, no vocational education courses exist at the facility. If the facility had vocational programs, they would need to be offered in accordance with transition services outlined in a student's IEP. Since there were no IEPs available, it is unclear whether some students have vocational education listed on their IEPs.
An additional concern regarding transition services is the lack of comprehensive and formal information concerning academic progress, which is necessary to report back to a student's home school upon exiting the facility. Although general transition procedures were provided, the lack of appropriate education and special education services, as well as academic and behavioral data, makes communication of youth progress impossible except for very general statements.
V.REMEDIAL MEASURES
In order to rectify the identified deficiencies and protect the constitutional and federal statutory rights of youth confined at Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center, the County should implement the minimal remedial measures set forth below. Implementation of the measures should comply with generally accepted professional standards in order to ensure that youths are adequately treated, protected from harm, and provided with appropriate educational services.
A. PROTECTION FROM HARM
1. Restraints
Generally accepted professional standards require that restraints never be used to punish youth. Every application of mechanical restraints or use of force - including handcuffs, leg shackles, belly chains, or other such restraints - should be fully documented, including the circumstances leading to the application, efforts used to de-escalate the situation, the specific manner or technique in which force was applied, and the duration of the incident. The current facility practice of restraining residents to the bed should be immediately stopped. Ally restrained juvenile should be constantly observed by staffto ensure safety.
LCJDC should develop and implement written policies and procedures that establish a graduated set of interventions that avoid the use ofphysical force or mechanical restraints. Generally accepted practices for juvenile justice facilities require that physical force be used by staffonly in exceptional circumstances when all other pro-active, non-physical behavior management techniques have been Unsuccessful and the youth presents a danger to himself or

........._. ____ .. ___.-e===
- 23 -
others. In the limited circumstances when physical force is appropriate, staff should employ only the minimum amount necessary to stabilize the situation and protect the safety of the involved juvenile or others. Therefore, detention staff should be trained in non-physical, verbal interventions to de-escalate potential aggression from youth.
Youth who hav'e been subject to force or mechanical restraints should be assessed by a medical professional following the incident regardless of whether there is a visible injury or the youth denies any injury. Subsequently, management should conduct a formal review of the incident to determine whether staff acted appropriately. The post-incident review should also be utilized to identify any training needs and debrief staff on how to avoid similar incidents through de:.escalation.
2. Disciplinary Due Process
Youth detained at juvenile justice facilities have a right to due process protections in the event that they are subjected to discipline or punishment. LCJDC should establish a disciplinary system, including notification to all youth of the facility rules, the consequences for violating those rules, and their rights if they are charged with a rule violation. Youth should receive instruction on the facility rules and the disciplinary process during orientation. This information should also be provided in a facility handbook provided to each youth during orientation and should be displayed in the youths' living and program areas. If a youth is charged with a violation, minimally adequate due process protections should include: 1) the provision of written' notice of the alleged violation to the detainee/youth/resident at least 24 hours prior to a hearing; 2) a written statement by the fact-finder(s) as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken; and, 3) unless it interferes with institutional safety, the youth should have the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence at the hearing.
Administrative and disciplinary segregation should be used appropriately. Administrative segregation should only be used as an emergency measure to control a youth whose behavior poses an immediate risk of harm to himself or others or who requires protective custody, either at the youth's request or the facility's assessment. Youths who are placed in administrative segregation for behavioral reasons should be removed from segregation as soon as their behavior no longer poses an immediate risk of harm to themselves or others. Youths placed in administrative segregation for behavioral reasons should also be provided with a due process hearing every 24 hours any time their segregation exceeds 24 hours. Disciplinary segregation should only be used as a sanction for a major rule violation, and each youth should receive a due process hearing prior to being sent to disciplinary segregation. No youth should be placed in segregation for longer than three consecutive days except for protective custody purposes.
3. Reporting & Investigating Abuse
LCJDC should adopt and implement a zero-tolerance policy for staff abuse of youths, and staff should be consistently held accoUntable when policy violations occur. Serious incidents, allegations of abuse, and allegations of staff misconduct should be adequately and timely investigated by neutral investigators with no involvement or interest in the underlying event.

- 24-
Staff conducting these investigations should receive adequate competency-based training on the investigation process, which should be completed in a timely fashion and no later than 30 days after an incident or allegation. In the rare cases where an exception to this time frame is warranted, the exception should be documented and not granted on the basis of inadequate investigator staffing. LCIDC should also develop and implement a written process to report resident's allegations of staff abuse to the State as mandated reporters.
4. Classification
LCJDC should develop a written classification policy that takes into account: 1) separation of older residents from younger residents; 2) separation of males from females; 3) separation of violent from non-violent youth; 4) maturity; 5) presence of mental or physical disabilities; 6) suicide risk; 7) offense; and 8) case-specific information about youth who should be separated from each other. The policy should address plans to protect youth who have been victimized at the facility or who have concerns about their safety.
5. Medical and Mental Health Care
a. Screenings and Treatment
In order to comply with generally accepted professional standards to provide adequate health care services to youths in need of medical and mental health care attention, LCIDC should provide adequate, comprehensive, and reliable screening and assessment services to identify youths with serious medical and mental health needs, both at intake and throughout the youths' .time at LCJDC. All youth should undergo a health screenmg within one hour of admission to LCJDC, or as soon thereafter as reasonably possible, in order to obtain accurate information about the youth's medical and mental health. Screenings should include information about, physical health, suicide risk, alcohol and other drug use and abuse, aggressive behavior, family relations, peer relations, social skills, educational status, and vocational status. Corrections staff who conduct screenings should be trained by a health authority. Youth requiring routine, urgent, or emergency care should receive timely referrals to qualified health professionals.
A qualified mental health professional should complete an initial mental health assessment form that summarizes the youth's prior mental health history and includes a current mental status examination, suicide risk inquiry, provisional diagnosis, and treatment plan, if applicable. Youths should be referred for mental health services where such services are indicated as a result of the mental health screening and assessment process, or where a youth demonstrates symptoms of mental illness that significantly interfere with his or her ability to complete the facility's treatment program. Mental health assessments should be adequately documented and, where indicated, should begin during the youth's time in the intake unit and include: pursuit and review of prior behavioral health records; contact with the youth's family; consultation with facility staff; interviews with the youth; and, where indicated, specialized testing and medical consultation. Medical and mental health staffmg should be sufficient to provide adequate medical and mental health care services to all youths requiring such services.

------~--~--=-==-== ---=~=~~~
- 25 -
LCJDC should establish and maintain adequate, formal, individualized treatment planning that articulates specific planned behavioral interventions. At a minimum, interventions should consist of regularly scheduled individual counseling. LCIDC should attempt to involve families in the treatment planning process, and treatment plans should be periodically reviewed and revised as appropriate. Treatment plans for youths who are prescribed psychotropic medications should specify the medication, its target symptoms, and the basis for using it. Qualified mental health professionals should provide and adequately document individual counseling for youths who require counseling. Documentation of counseling sessions should include clinical data regarding the youth's subjective expressions or mental status, problems addressed and the means of addressing them, the clinician's impressions of the youth's progress, and any plan for continuing treatment. LCJDC should also establish and maintain adequate transition planning. At a minimum, mental health staff should provide a written summary of the youth's mental health treatment, his response to treatment, and a recommendation regarding further care.
The provision of adequate medication management should ensure that: 1) a prescribing professional performs and adequately documents an assessment supporting the prescription; 2) the prescribing professional adequately monitors youths on psychiatric medications by conducting and adequately documenting medication monitoring visits at least monthly, or more frequently as indicated; and 3) appropriate consent is obtained prior to starting a youth on a medication.
h. Suicide Prevention and Related Mental Health Care
In order to comply with generally accepted professional standards to provide adequate services to potentially suicidal youths and take appropriate action to prevent youths from engaging in self-injurious behavior, including suicide, the County should establish a comprehensive suicide prevention program. All staff members who interact with youths should receive at least eight hours of initial, competency-based suicide prevention training and two hours of annual competency-based training thereafter. The initial training should cover the following topics: 1) avoiding obstacles to suicide prevention, juvenile suicide research; 2) why facility environments are conducive to suicidal behavior; 3) warning signs and symptoms of suicide; and 4) components of the agency's suicide prevention program. The annual training should review any changes in the facility's suicide prevention policy and update staff on any serious suicides and/or attempts, not simply repeat initial training.
LCJDC should ensure ongoing identification of suicide risk for youths. Immediately upon their arrival at the facility, newly admitted youths should receive adequate intake screening for suicide risk before leaving the intake area. Any staff member should be able to place a youth on suicide precautions. All potentially suicidal youths should be placed on suicide precautions unless a qualified mental health professional determines, following a face-to-face evaluation, that the youth is not suicidal. Youth who are admitted to segregation should receive a written assessment of suicide risk by mental health staff or by medical staff if mental health staff members are unavailable. LCJDC should ensure adequate communication among staff regarding youths' potential suicidality. Correctional, medical, and mental health staff should participate in

- 26-
treatment team meetings, and all staff should understand facility policies regarding communication.
Potentially suicidal youths·should be placed in rooms that are free of suicide hazards, including protrusions and tying off points, and should not be placed in isolation. Removal of youths' clothing, other than belts and shoelaces, use of restraints, and suspension of routine privileges such as visits, phone calls, and recreation, may only be employed by a qualified mental health professional as a last resort if a suicidal youth is engaging iIi self-destructive behavior. LCJDC should maintain sufficient staffing levels to supervise youths who require constant observation.
Youths who are removed from suicide precautions should receive regular follow-up assessments by mental health staff, including individualized treatment plans for suicidal youths that address relapse prevention and initiate a risk management plan. The risk management plan should describe: the likely signs, symptoms, and circumstances for a recurrence of suicide risk, prevention of suicidal thoughts, and actions the youth or staff can take in response to the recurrence of suicidal thoughts.

Adequate mortality-morbidity reviews should be conducted, separate from any other

necessary formal investigations, after a completed suicide or a serious suicide attempt. The

reviews should include: 1) review of the circumstances surrounding the incident; 2) review of

procedures relevant to the incident; 3) review of all relevant training provided to involved staff;

4) review of pertinent medical and mental health services/reports involving the youth victim; 5)

review of any possible precipitating factors that may have caused the youth to attempt or commit

suicide; and 6) recommendations, if any, for changes in policy, training, physical plant, medical

or mental health services, and operational procedures. The mortality-morbidity review team

should be multidisciplinary and include management and line staff from the direct care, medical,

and mental health areas. The reviews should focus on the incident and what the facility can learn

to prevent future incidents.

.

Furthermore, LCJDC should develop an adequate plan for intervening in suicide attempts, including ensuring that staff members notify emergency medical personnel immediately after the discovery of a life-threatening emergency; ensuring that all housing units contain adequate emergency equipment, including rescue tools; and ensuring annual mock drills for suicide attempts and annual competency-based instruction in the use of emergency equipment for staff. The facility should also establish and maintain an adequate quality assurance program to measure compliance with the facility's suicide prevention program, including the remedial measures outlined above.

6. Programming

LCJDC should ensure the availability of adequate rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, education, counseling, and mental health services. LCJDC should provide for evening and weekend programs and activities that allow youth to engage in meaningful activities. In addition, LCJDC should develop and implement a behavior management system

- 27-
that outlines prohibited behaviors (major and minor) and the sanctions or consequences for these behaviors. Written policies and procedures should allow youth at least one hour of large muscle exercise daily.
7. Staffing and Supervision
LCJDC should ensure that staffing and supervision levels are appropriate to adequately supervise all youths. The staffing pattern should consider the structural design of the LGJDC, the need to monitor residents on suicide watch, and other day-to-day operations. For youths who are locked in their cells, staff should make and document visual checks of the youths at random intervals at least every 15 minutes with youths sufficiently visible to permit staffto verify their well-being. Documentation of monitoring should be accurate and contemporaneous.
LCJDC should develop and implement appropriate training forstaff. Newly hired staff should receive the requisite hours of competency-based training and all staff should receive appropriate additional hours of annual training after the first year of employment. All such trainings should include, but should not be limited to, training in use of force, including safe crisis management and de-escalation techniques; training specific to the supervision of youths, including training on adolescent development; and training in identifying and responding to fights, assaults, and sexual activity.
8. Environmental Safety
LCJDC should develop written housekeeping and emergency preparedness plans to ensure that youth are provided reasonable conditions of care and safety. The housekeeping plan should address daily cleanliness and sanitation issues. Linens, mattresses and clothing should be routinely inspected and replaced as needed. Written policies and procedures should also be developed to address facility readiness for fires and other emergencies, including modifying the current evacuation plan to ensure safe egress during emergencies.
9. Grievance System
Youths should have an effective and reliable process to raise grievances. The process should protect youth from possible retribution by staff. A grievance coordinator should track, categorize, and tabulate all grievances, which should be reviewed and addressed in a timely· manner within five days of receipt. Youths should be provided with notification of the final resolution of their grievances, and bureaucratic responses to grievances should be prohibited. Grievance forms should be freely accessible in all areas frequented by youths, and youths should have access to a grievance box from which grievances are retrieved daily.

- 28-
B. EDUCATION
1. General Education
In order to comply with federal constitutional and state statutory requirements for providing adequate general education services to youths, the County should provide youth in disciplinary confinement with the full range of educational services, provide all youth reasonable access to reading and writing materials in their cells, and ensure youths at LCJDC receive the same type and number of daily and weekly instructional minutes as other youths in the State's schools.
2. Child Find Procedures
In order to comply with federal statutory requirements for providing adequate special education services to youths with disabilities, the County should provide adequate screening of youth for special education needs. This includes obtaining prior education records from school systems in a timely fashion. Special education services should be provided to all youth with disabilities who are in need of special education and related services after they are identified, located, and evaluated in accordance with Child Find. Youths should be asked about previously offered special education during intake, and LCJDC should ensure documentation of academic interventions for youths who are struggling.
3. General Instructional and Evaluative Interventions
LCJDC should develop, implement, and maintain adequate pre-referral and general education interventions. LCJDC should also collect and maintain comprehensive educational records for all youth at the facility. Prior t6 evaluating a youth for special education, LCJDC should determine whether the youth is being provided appropriate instruction by a highly qualified teacher and review data-based documentation of the youth's progress, including adequate documentation of the youth's behavior in his learning environment and regular classroom setting.
4. Individualized Education Programs
Pursuant to IDEA, LCJDC should develop, implement, and maintain an adequate IEP for each youth who qualifies for an IEP and provide necessary related services. IEPs should be updated and/or completed as quickly as possible upon intake and reviewed at least annually. Services provided to youths with IEPs should be comparable to those described in the youth's IEP from his previous agency in the absence of adequate justification for changes in services. Parents and/or guardians should be included in IEP meetings to the extent possible. IEPs should be adequately implemented and include collection and reporting of data on youth progress and individual accommodations.

- 29-
5. Access to General Education Curriculum for Youth in Need of Special Education Services
In order to ensure that youths with disabilities have sufficient access to special education services, LCJDC should provide that: 1) youths are enrolled in school within two days of intake; 2) youths are provided with access to the general education curriculum; 3) youths with, and at risk for, disabilities are provided with adequate direct instruction using research-based instructional approaches; 4) youths with disabilities receive not less than five hours of instruction daily, the same number of daily and weekly instructional minutes as other youths in the State's schools; 5) youths with disabilities are provided appropriate instructional adaptations; and 6) adequate attendance records are maintained.
6. Behavioral Supports
Youths with disabilities should also receive adequate behavioral supports through a systemic behavior plan that does not permit the use of segregation and exclusionary settings. Manifestation determination hearings should occur for youths with disabilities who are removed or segregated from their stated appropriate educational setting for disciplinary, administrative, or other reasons, in excess of ten days or in a pattern of removals. Secondary interventions should be implemented for youths who do not need individual behavior programs but need behavioral supports beyond those offered in the facility plan.
7. Staffing
LCJDC should provide adequate special education staffing by developing, implementing, and maintaining an education staffing plan and ensuring an adequate number of licensed and highly qualified teachers, as well as qualified substitute teachers, to provide instruction in all necessary courses.
8. Transition Services
Results-oriented, individualized, coordinated transition services should be provided for youths with disabilities who are 16 years old or older to facilitate the youths' movement from school to post-school activities.
* * * * *
Please note that this findings letter is a public document. It will be posted on the Civil Rights Division's website. While we will provide a copy of this letter to any individual or entity upon request, as a matter of courtesy, we will not post this letter on the Civil Rights Division's website until 5 calendar days from the date of this letter.
The collaborative approach the parties have taken thus far has been productive. We hope to continue working with the County in an amicable and cooperative fashion to resolve our outstanding concerns. Provided that our cooperative relationship continues, we will

- 30-
forward our expert consultants' reports under separate cover. These reports are not public documents. Although our expert consultants' reports are their work - and do not necessarily represent the official conclusions of the Department of Justice - their observations, analyses, and recommendations provide further elaboration of the issues discussed in this letter and offer practical, technical assistance in addressing them. We hope that you will give this information careful consideration and that it will assist in your efforts at prompt remediation.
We are obligated to advise you that, in the unexpected event that we are unable to reach a resolution regarding our concerns, the Attorney General is authorized to initiate a lawsuit pursuant to CRIPA after forty-nine days of your receipt of this letter to correct deficiencies of the kind we have identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997b(a)(1). We would very much prefer, however, to resolve this matter by working cooperatively with you.
Accordingly, the lawyers assigned to this matter will be contacting the attorney for the County to discuss next steps in further detail. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call Jonathan M. Smith, Chief of the Civil Rights Division's Special Litigation Section, at (202) 514-5401.
Sincerely,
Thomas E. Perez Assistant Attorney General
cc: Joyce Chiles, Esq. Board Attorney Leflore County Board of Supervisors
Robert Fitzpatrick Director Leflore County Juvenile Detention Center
John Marshall Alexander, Esq. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Mississippi