Issues Arising in Institutional Litigation, part 1of 8: Classification

This post discusses the numerous issues that commonly arise in institutional litigation on behalf of confined youth. Together the issues can be referred to using the acronym CHAPTERS. This acronym is an easy way to remember the following eight major areas of institutional considerations:

Classification and separation issues.

Health and mental health care.

Access to counsel, the courts, and family members.

Programming, education, and recreation.

Training and supervision of institutional staff.

Environment, sanitation, overcrowding, and privacy.

Restraints, isolation, punishment, and due process.

Safety issues for staff and confined youth.

Classification

Litigation on classification issues has addressed the separation of, or failure to separate, adult and juvenile inmates under a number of conditions, including segregation of violent or aggressive adult inmates, separation by age (e.g., the JJDPA sight and sound separation requirements), improper separation by gender or race, and separation of inmates with infectious diseases.

Separation of Individuals with Violent Propensities

Much of the case law on classification involves claims by young or vulnerable adult inmates who were physically or sexually assaulted by inmates known to be criminally sophisticated, dangerous, violent, or aggressive. Adult inmates have the right to be protected from the threat of violence and sexual assault. If officials know of an inmate's vulnerability, they have an obligation not to act with deliberate or reckless indifference to that vulnerability. Counties or supervisory officials, as well as institutional staff, may be liable if their policies or customs (e.g., on jail overcrowding or handling of particular categories of inmates) amount to deliberate indifference to inmates' security needs (see Smith v. Wade, Withers v. Levine, Woodhouse v. Virginia, Stokes v. Delcambre, Nelson v. Overberg, Redman v. County of San Diego, and Hale v. Tallapoosa County).The same principles apply to incarcerated youth who have the right to be free from unreasonable threats to their physical safety. Facilities must have a system for screening and separating aggressive juveniles from more passive ones and for determining appropriate levels of institutional classification (see Alexander S. v. Boyd). The failure to protect children from the sexual aggressiveness of other confined juveniles may result in liability (see Guidry v. Rapides Parish School Board).

Sight and Sound Separation/Removal of Children from Adult Jails/Deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders

JJDPA requires sight and sound separation of juveniles held under state juvenile court jurisdiction (and juveniles younger than age 18 under federal court jurisdiction) from adults in jails and lockups. The act does not apply to youth in adult facilities who are being prosecuted as adults in state court. In many adult facilities, impermissible contacts occur during admission to the facility, transportation to court, mealtime, and cleaning of living units. Ironically, jails that separate juveniles from adults may run afoul of other constitutional protections because juveniles are typically isolated for long periods, without access to institutional programs and services. This situation led Congress to amend the act in 1980. Thus, federal regulations permit delinquent children to be held in lockups for only a limited number of hours before and after court hearings.

Separation by Gender

Classification and separation of adult inmates may not be used to justify unequal program opportunities for one gender. Thus, educational, recreational, and vocational training programs for female inmates must be equivalent to those available to males (see Glover v. Johnson, Mitchell v. Untreiner, Cantarino v. Wilson, and Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia).

Compliance with this requirement is often a problem in institutions that house more men than women and that do not adequately provide for females' participation in courses, work opportunities, and recreational programs. Similar situations arise in juvenile facilities housing both female and male youth.

Separation by Race

Classification, housing assignments, and job assignments that result in patterns of racial disparity may violate the 14th amendment (see Santiago v. Miles). Although facilities may take racial tensions into account when maintaining security, discipline, and order, they may not simply segregate the populations based on race (see Lee v. Washington, Jones v. Diamond, and White v. Morris).

Segregation of Inmates for Health Reasons

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that, at the end of 1994, approximately 2.4 percent of male inmates and 3.9 percent of female inmates in adult correctional facilities were HIV positive. There are limited statistical data on the numbers of confined youth who are HIV positive, but the incidence of high-risk, unprotected sexual activity and intravenous drug use suggests that the rate may be even higher for detained youth.

Not surprisingly, a growing interest in classification litigation involves the treatment of inmates who are HIV positive. Issues commonly litigated include segregation (specifically the right to equivalent programming, access to the outside world, and services if segregated), mandatory testing, confidentiality, and medical treatment for HIV/AIDS (see Harris v. Thigpen and Anderson v. Romero).

Although existing case law helps to describe the relevant issues relating to HIV/AIDS, the decisions from various jurisdictions are inconsistent (compare Camarillo v. McCarthy and Moore v. Mabus, which found that segregation of inmates who are HIV positive violates the constitution; and Zaczek v. Murray, which affirmed a lower court holding that segregation and mandatory testing are not required by the constitution, with Doe v. Coughlin, which found that segregation of inmates who are HIV positive violates constitutional privacy rights). Soler (1993) offers a discussion of recent case law. To some degree, these decisions reflect the evolving state of medical knowledge on the treatment of HIV/AIDS and corresponding changes in public health policy about confidentiality, testing, and practices for reducing the risk of transmission. Juvenile detention centers must have thoughtful policies on all aspects of confining persons who may be HIV positive.