In 1980, Congress enacted the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) authorizing the Attorney General of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to conduct investigations and litigation relating to conditions of confinement in government operated institutions such as prisons, jails, residential mental health facilities, residential facilities for the developmentally disabled, and juvenile correctional facilities. CRIPA allows DOJ to take action following findings of patterns or practices of violations of the rights of residents in confinement. CRIPA does not establish substantive rights; rather, it creates a vehicle for the DOJ to enforce existing constitutional and statutory rights.
A CRIPA State investigation begins with a letter from DOJ to the Governor and other state officials, informing them of their intent to investigate. Once their findings and recommendations have been completed and approved, a "findings letter" is compiled and sent to that Governor. Negotiations with the intended result of a mutual agreement follow. However, if an agreement is not reached, or if the State does not to comply with the agreement, the DOJ can file a lawsuit.
On April 9, 2004, DOJ issued a findings letter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1997 (a)(1), which concluded that certain longstanding conditions at Cheltenham and Hickey violated the constitutional and federal statutory rights of juveniles confined there. The DOJ letter notifying the State of Maryland of the results of its investigation and on June 30, 2005, the DJS entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to implement key reforms to strengthen services for youths at Cheltenham and Hickey. On August 7, 2006, the United States issued a findings letter regarding the conditions at the Baltimore City Juvenile Justice Center (BCJJC) and on May 17, 2007, the parties amended the Settlement Agreement to incorporate BCJJC into its terms.
At the end of the three year term of the original agreement, both Hickey and Cheltenham had made tremendous progress towards compliance and came into substantial compliance with the provisions required of them. DOJ "applauded the State's efforts" and both facilities ceased being monitored due to their successful outcomes. Because of this, on June 23, 2008, the settlement agreement was amended again to remove both Hickey and Cheltenham from federal oversight. In doing so, BCJJC was extended for an additional year. Though progress was substantial in just one year, more time was needed to ameliorate all of the outstanding issues at that facility.
Under the amended settlement agreement, BCJJC was monitored and reports were issued twice each year by a federal monitor. In the summer of 2010, the federal monitor indicated that BCJJC was in substantial compliance with all provisions of the settlement agreement. The monitor's report indicated that BCJJC's youth-on-youth assault numbers were reflecting a "stable downward trend" and that the efforts of the State had "significantly improved the security of the facility, and the safety of the youth and staff who live and work there." Consequently, on August 19, 2010, a final order of dismissal of the case was signed by a federal court judge and BCJJC was successfully released from federal oversight. Links to all BCJJC reports, as well as the final report on Hickey and Cheltenham, are provided below:
6th and FINAL Hickey and Cheltenham Report (883k)
First BCJJC
Monitors' Report (310k)
Second BCJJC
Monitors' Report (325k)
Third BCJJC
Monitors' Report (250k)
Fourth BCJJC
Monitors' Report (143k)
Fifth BCJJC
Monitors' Report (251k)
Sixth BCJJC
Monitors' Report (189k)
Final BCJJC
Monitors' Report (173k)
|
