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.

Legal Issues Relating to Conditions of Confinement for Youth in Adult Facilities

Youth detained in adult facilities under criminal court jurisdiction have the right to humane treatment, mental health & medical care, education, due process protection, and access to their families and the courts. These rights extend to children who are confined in juvenile detention centers, training schools, adult jails and prisons, and other secure institutions. These rights emanate from the U.S. Constitution and federal laws, including the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act; from state constitutions and laws; and from court interpretations of these laws. This provides a summary of the major legal cases that guide the care of juveniles in correctional facilities. 

      Conditions for convicted adult prisoners, and juveniles convicted under adult court jurisdiction only violate the U.S. Constitution where they amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the eighth amendment (see Rhodes v. Chapman). Adult facilities must provide for basic needs, including adequate food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and protection from violence. To determine whether a particular condition or practice is cruel or unusual in an adult institution, courts evaluate whether the condition poses a substantial risk of serious harm and whether officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the rights of the inmate (see Wilson v. Seiter and Farmer v. Brennan).

      Youth may be entitled to additional protection under state laws or regulations. For example, most states have laws giving children a right to treatment and rehabilitation. In addition, many states have laws that require that children be placed in the least restrictive environment consistent with public safety needs or that prohibit the detention of children under juvenile court jurisdiction in adult facilities. Also, some states have laws or regulations setting standards for maximum inmate population sizes, building conditions, health and safety requirements, and programming mandates for facilities where children are detained.

      The determination of whether a condition or practice violates the constitution or other laws depends on the particular case and the specific legal issue raised. Cases do not have identical circumstances. Thus, to assess the risk of lawsuits, correctional authorities must be knowledgeable about the cases most analogous to their situation and must realize that slight differences in facts could change the ruling. For this reason, the case law citations included in this overview as a starting point for research should not be taken as the definitive authority for cases involving similar issues. Also, this overview provides citations only to published cases—that is, cases appearing in the official court reports.

Many issues considered here have also been taken up by the American Bar Association Standards on Interim Status, American Correctional Association Standards for Juvenile Correctional Facilities, National Commission on Correctional Health Care Standards, and U.S. Department of Justice Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice. Professional standards reflect the collective wisdom of professionals in the field, and courts often use them as a guide for determining whether laws have been violated.

Complying with professional standards does not insulate facilities from liability. Many facilities have been successfully sued, even though they complied with the standards of a professional organization. This situation may occur when the standards do not address a particular issue or when the standards require only that there be an institutional policy on the issue without specifying its contents. The shortcomings of many commonly used standards prompted the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to call for the development of performance-based standards that specify the outcomes facilities should achieve (Parent and Leiter, 1994).

The constitutional standard for measuring violations under the due process clause, commonly used for children and pretrial detainees, is whether the detainees are being held under conditions that “amount to punishment” (see Gary H. v. Hegstrom and Bell v. Wolfish). These standards give more protection to children than would be afforded to convicted adult prisoners under the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the eighth amendment. In adult prison cases, inmates must show that the deprivation was sufficiently serious to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in that it involves the “unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain” and that the official acted with “deliberate indifference” (see Wilson v. Seiter and Farmer v. Brennan). The due process clause is a less rigorous standard and broadens the rights of juveniles.



This overview focuses primarily on federal civil rights litigation. State laws may create additional liabilities, eliminate certain defenses (such as immunity) for defendants, and determine who will be reimbursed or indemnified in damage cases. For example, lawsuits may be filed under state tort law or other specific statutes such as the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.

Conditions of Confinement

Numerous studies have examined the conditions of confinement & issues faced by juveniles in adult facilities. Research has shown that juveniles in adult facilities are at much greater risk of harm than youth housed in juvenile facilities. The suicide rate for juveniles held in jails is five times the rate in the general youth population & 8 times the rate for adolescents in juvenile detention facilities (Community Research Center, 1980).

      Forst & colleagues (Community Research Center 1989) reported that, although youth in adult and juvenile facilities were equally likely to be victims of property crime while incarcerated, juveniles in adult facilities were more likely to be violently victimized. In 1988, 47% of juveniles in prisons (compared with 37% of youth in juvenile facilities) suffered violent victimization, including violence at the hands of staff. Sexual assault was 5 times more likely in prison, beatings by staff nearly twice as likely, & attacks with weapons were almost 50% more common in adult facilities. Clearly, safely housing juveniles in adult facilities & protecting younger inmates from predatory, older inmates are important issues for correctional administrators.

Policy Issues Addressed by the Study

      The growing number of juveniles admitted to adult facilities raises a number of important questions for correctional administrators & policymakers. This research provides key information for decision makers by documenting the number & profiles of youth in adult facilities, the legal & administrative processes by which they are waived to the adult court system, the issues faced by adult correctional systems handling juveniles, & those faced by juveniles who are confined in adult facilities. The specific questions to be answered by this project are as follows:

• What is the extent of confinement of juveniles in federal, state & local facilities? What is the legal basis for allowing juveniles convicted as adults to be committed directly to the adult system?

      An updated national census is presented of those states permitting juveniles to be charged & convicted as adults, housed during pretrial status in adult pretrial facilities (jails), & sentenced to adult facilities (prisons or jails). Moreover, a summary of recent legislation adopted by the states is provided.

• What types of adult facilities are used to house juveniles & what is the legal basis for such commitments?

      Juveniles are confined in a wide variety of adult facilities. Juveniles, if charged as adults (and for other reasons), can be housed in adult facilities awaiting the court’s disposition. As shown earlier, a far greater number of juveniles are admitted to jails than to state & federal prison facilities. Youth may be placed in jails because they are being prosecuted as adults or because the jurisdiction does not have a juvenile facility for those who require secure confinement while awaiting the court’s final disposition of the charges. Distinctions in the legal basis for placing juveniles in adult correctional facilities are discussed.

• What happens to juveniles in the adult system? Are they placed in separate areas or allowed to be housed with adults?

Sight & sound separation of adults & juveniles at all stages of judicial processing is mandated by Congress for all states under the Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) of 1974, as amended. This report examines to what degree & under what circumstances this mandate is adhered to when minors are sentenced as adults. Further, the ability of mixed-age facilities to provide required programs & services to minors while maintaining separation from adults is discussed.

• Do juveniles in adult facilities receive unique treatment, education, job skills training, & other services?

      Despite being placed in adult facilities, minors retain special civil rights to education, vocational training, & other services that may require additional or special programs. These rights have consequences in staffing & access to appropriate programs that are responsive to the developmental, physical, social, psychological/emotional, educational, & family needs that are unique to adolescents.

• Does the presence of minors in a mixed-age facility pose unique management problems with respect to disciplinary incidents?

Practitioners have often asserted that younger offenders are more difficult to manage than older inmates. In some jurisdictions, attempts have been made to house youth with older inmates who will provide a calming influence on juveniles, especially those with long sentences. However, research has shown that juveniles in adult populations are more likely to commit suicide & to be victims of violence & sexual assaults. Transferred juveniles create new problems for the adult corrections system, including development of treatment & reintegrative services & protection from predatory inmates. The way in which these disciplinary issues are managed is a key discussion.

• What are the alternative strategies for housing juvenile offenders sentenced to long terms in adult facilities?

Some juveniles convicted of violent crimes are now facing extremely long, life, or death sentences. This bleak future may create additional disciplinary & mental health issues that must be managed by correctional administrators & staff.