|
|
Support HRW |
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright © October 1995 by Human Rights Watch.
All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
ISBN 1-56432-159-2
LCCCN 95-80837
Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project
The Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project was established in 1994 to monitor and promote the human rights of children around the world. Lois Whitman is the director and Mina Samuels is a consultant.
Human Rights Watch conducts regular, systematic investigations of human rights abuses in some seventy countries around the world. It addresses the human rights practices of governments of all political stripes, of all geopolitical alignments, and of all ethnic and religious persuasions. In internal wars it documents violations by both governments and rebel groups. Human Rights Watch defends freedom of thought and expression, due process and equal protection of the law; it documents and denounces murders, disappearances, torture, arbitrary imprisonment, exile, censorship and other abuses of internationally recognized human rights.
Human Rights Watch began in 1978 with the founding of its Helsinki division. Today, it includes five divisions covering Africa, the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, as well as the signatories of the Helsinki accords. It also includes five collaborative projects on arms transfers, children's rights, free expression, prison conditions, and women's rights. It maintains offices in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, London, Brussels, Moscow, Dushanbe, Rio de Janeiro, and Hong Kong. Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization, supported by contributions from private individuals and foundations worldwide. It accepts no government funds, directly or indirectly.
The staff includes Kenneth Roth, executive director; Cynthia Brown, program director; Holly J. Burkhalter, advocacy director; Robert Kimzey, publications director; Jeri Laber, special advisor; Gara LaMarche, associate director; Lotte Leicht, Brussels office director; Juan Méndez, general counsel; Susan Osnos, communications director; Jemera Rone, counsel; Joanna Weschler, United Nations representative; and Derrick Wong, finance and administration director.
The regional directors of Human Rights Watch are Peter Takirambudde, Africa; José Miguel Vivanco, Americas; Sidney Jones, Asia; Holly Cartner, Helsinki; and Christopher E. George, Middle East. The project directors are Joost R. Hiltermann, Arms Project; Lois Whitman, Children's Rights Project; Gara LaMarche, Free Expression Project; and Dorothy Q. Thomas, Women's Rights Project.
The members of the board of directors are Robert L. Bernstein, chair; Adrian W. DeWind, vice chair; Roland Algrant, Lisa Anderson, Peter D. Bell, Alice L. Brown, William Carmichael, Dorothy Cullman, Irene Diamond, Edith Everett, Jonathan Fanton, Jack Greenberg, Alice H. Henkin, Harold Hongju Koh, Jeh Johnson, Stephen L. Kass, Marina Pinto Kaufman, Alexander MacGregor, Josh Mailman, Andrew Nathan, Jane Olson, Peter Osnos, Kathleen Peratis, Bruce Rabb, Orville Schell, Sid Sheinberg, Gary G. Sick, Malcolm Smith, Nahid Toubia, Maureen White, and Rosalind C. Whitehead.
Addresses for Human Rights Watch
485 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6104
Tel: (212) 972-8400, Fax: (212) 972-0905, E-mail: hrwnyc@hrw.org
1522 K Street, N.W., #910, Washington, DC 20005-1202
Tel: (202) 371-6592, Fax: (202) 371-0124, E-mail: hrwdc@hrw.org
10951 West Pico Blvd., #203, Los Angeles, CA 90064-2126
Tel: (310) 475-3070, Fax: (310) 475-5613, E-mail: hrwatchla@igc.apc.org
33 Islington High Street, N1 9LH London, UK
Tel: (171) 713-1995, Fax: (171) 713-1800, E-mail: hrwatchuk@gn.apc.org
15 Rue Van Campenhout, 1040 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: (2) 732-2009, Fax: (2) 732-0471, E-mail: hrwatcheu@gn.apc.org
Gopher Address://gopher.humanrights.org:port5000
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii
FREQUENTLY USED ABBREVIATIONS viii
INTRODUCTION 1
AN OVERVIEW OF CHILDREN IN CONFINEMENT 6
INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 6
U.S. STANDARDS 7
U.S. GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT 9
SECURE CONFINEMENT IN LOUISIANA 12
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 14
East Baton Rouge-Louisiana Training Institute 15
Bridge City-Louisiana Training Institute 17
Monroe-Louisiana Training Institute 17
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth 18
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON PHYSICAL CONDITIONS 20
DISCIPLINE 23
PHYSICAL ABUSE 27
East Baton Rouge-Louisiana Training Institute 28
Monroe-Louisiana Training Institute 32
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth 33
Bridge City-Louisiana Training Institute 33
COMPLAINT PROCESS 34
FOOD 36
EDUCATION AND PROGRAMMING 37
THE PRINCIPLE OF NORMALIZATION AND TREATMENT 40
RECOMMENDATIONS 43
To the state of Louisiana 43
To the Federal government 45
APPENDIX I
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD 47
APPENDIX II
UNITED NATIONS RULES FOR THE PROTECTIONOF JUVENILES DEPRIVED OF THEIR LIBERTY 76
APPENDIX III
UNITED NATIONS STANDARD MINIMUM RULES
FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
(THE BEIJING RULES) 97
APPENDIX IV
UNITED NATIONS GUIDELINES FOR THEPREVENTION OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY 129
Research for this report was undertaken in Louisiana by Mina Samuels, a consultant to the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project and Michelle India Baird, then counsel to the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project. It was written by Mina Samuels and jointly edited by Lois Whitman, director of the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project, Jeri Laber, senior advisor to Human Rights Watch and Juan Mendez, general counsel to Human Rights Watch. Arvind Ganesan provided invaluable production assistance.
We wish to express our gratitude to the many organizations and individuals in Louisiana and other parts of the United States who helped make this report possible. We would like to thank Cecile Guin in Lousiana and Mark Soler, President of the Youth Law Center, for reviewing drafts of the report. Special thanks are due to the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Richard Stalder, and his staff for their cooperation during our visit to Louisiana and thereafter as we prepared the report. We would also like to express our thanks to the many children who spoke to us of their experiences in confinement. Unfortunately we cannot thank them by name, as their anonymity must be preserved.
ACA American Correctional Association
ARP Administrative Remedy Procedure
CRC Convention on the Rights of Child
DPSC Department of Public Safety and Corrections
EBR East Baton Rouge
GED Graduate Equivalency Degree
HRW Human Rights Watch
JRDC Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center
LTI Louisiana Training Institutes
OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
TCCY Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
All my ribs were purple at EBR-LTI. A new boy came in and I tried to help him so he wouldn't get beaten up and then a guard pulled us both up and he slapped both of us and then he told me to raise my arms and he beat my ribs until they were purple and blue and I didn't tell my mom cause I knew she would start something.1
EBR, that's a messed up place. The guards will beat you. One of them named Mr.O, he has a thing called a 'house party'. If you work on weekends he wakes you up at 5 A.M.. He calls you in the back where we take showers and beats you for a whole hour. When we go to the mess hall to eat we have to count, and he tells you to come see, then he calls you into the washroom and beats you up and another sergeant comes to beat you. It has only happened two times to me ... I would change EBR. [I would] fire all the workers cause they are just dirty. "New jacks" come in talking, and they beat them up for nothing. This boy at EBR with me, a guard broke his arm with a broom ... [there were] boys lying on the floor and the sarge picked up his chair and threw it at him and hit him. If you tell a counselor, all it's going to do is make it worse.2
In March and May 1995, the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project conducted an investigation in Louisiana into the conditions in which children3 are confined in that state, examining the human rights aspects of their incarceration. We found that substantial numbers of children in the state training institutions are regularly physically abused by guards, are kept in isolation for long periods of time, and are improperly restrained by handcuffs.
The state of Louisiana is by most standards one of the poorest states in the U.S. It has one of the highest rates in the country of children living in poverty and children not in school or working. Large numbers of children, especially black children, are suspended from school each year, sometimes for the whole year. Louisiana also has one of the highest rates of incarceration among U.S. states.4 Approximately 1,500 children are confined in secure correctional facilities each year. The circumstances which lead to their incarceration are not within the scope of this report, nor are due process problems, such as adequate representation of the children. Human Rights Watch confined its investigation to the conditions in which children are confined in the Louisiana institutions.
In Louisiana all acts committed by a person over the age of seventeen are tried in adult court, but children over the age of fourteen may be waived by the district attorney into the adult court system for certain enumerated violent crimes. All other children between the ages of eleven and seventeen are under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Children's Code5 and are adjudicated by special juvenile courts, or district and parish courts with original juvenile jurisdiction. Children under the age of eleven are not subject to criminal adjudication. Certain enumerated acts, such as first and second degree murder and aggravated rape, that are not waived into the adult court, carry the potential adjudication by the court of juvenile jurisdiction of a juvenile life sentence. Under a juvenile life sentence a child is committed to a correctional facility until the age of twenty-one for an act committed before the age of eighteen. That means that children between the ages of eleven and twenty-one are confined in the four post-adjudication correctional facilities. These four correctional facilities are currently operating under a Federal court stipulation and consent decree, described below, that governs population limits and staffing levels.
During the course of its investigations Human Rights Watch conducted interviews with more than sixty children incarcerated in all four long-term secure juvenile facilities in the state.6 In addition we spoke with lawyers, judges, staff of the juvenilefacilities, former and current Louisiana state government officials, private individuals working on contract in the juvenile justice system both in Louisiana and in the U.S. in general, and individuals employed at the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) and the Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. During our first visit to Louisiana we visited two detention facilities and two state correctional facilities. At the correctional facilities we were not allowed to speak with children. After a substantial exchange of letters requesting permission to interview children we were given permission by the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections in Louisiana (DPSC) to visit all four of the secure correctional facilities, generally called Lousiana Training Institutes (LTI), and to speak with children incarcerated at those facilities. Human Rights Watch enjoyed a high level of cooperation from state government officials on its second visit to Louisiana and thereafter in its correspondence with the Secretary of the DPSC and his staff. We were able to interview children chosen by us from the roster of children housed at each facility. The interviews were conducted in private rooms separated by sight and sound from any staff at the facility.
This report is in two parts. The first provides an overview of children in confinement. It outlines and describes the standards, both international and national, which apply to children in confinement, and the U.S. government's involvement in the juvenile justice system. The second section describes the conditions found at the four correctional facilities in the State. At the beginning of each sub-section of the second part of the report the relevant international standards will be referred to, and outlined briefly, to provide guidance in identifying violations of the standards. The international standards appear in full in the appendices to this report.
One of the most disturbing findings made by the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project in its investigation of the conditions in which children are confined in Louisiana was that physical abuse of the children is pervasive in the system of correctional facilities. Although there were complaints of physical abuse at all of the facilities, we received the most complaints about the East Baton Rouge-LTI (EBR-LTI).7 Most of the children interviewed at EBR-LTI told us that they had either experienced or witnessed physical abuse. Many of the children interviewed were so inured to the physical abuse that they expected it as a matter of course. The problemis compounded by the fact that there is no functioning complaint system by which the children may bring these abuses to the attention of higher authorities. Human Rights Watch recommends that the physical abuse of the children be strictly prohibited and punished. Moreover, a functioning and effective complaint system should be instituted to enable the children to seek redress for instances of abuse.
Another serious problem is in the area of discipline. The Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project found that discipline is administered in an arbitrary manner. As punishment, children are often confined in isolation cells for substantial periods of time without access to reading materials, emerging from the cells only once a day to take a shower. This is contrary to both the substance and the purpose of the international standards and U.S. constitutional law which clearly require that isolation be used only where children pose an immediate threat to themselves or others and further state that the confinement of children is for the purpose of treatment, not punishment. There is also an excessive use of restraints. Handcuffs are used regularly to restrain children after a fight until they are placed in isolation. Furthermore, many of the children told us that they were beaten while handcuffed. Human Rights Watch recommends that the institutions stop the use of disciplinary isolation. Human Rights Watch further recommends that the use of restraints be prohibited except where all other control methods have been exhausted and have failed and only in order to prevent the children from hurting themselves or others.
In response to the question,"what would you most like to change here?", virtually every child at all of the facilities, except for Bridge City-LTI, responded that they would like the guards to stop hitting them and that they would like more food. The inadequacy of the portions of food served to the children was alleged in almost all the interviews. Children consistently told us that they were hungry. Human Rights Watch recommends that the portions of food served to the children be increased.
The physical conditions in which the children are confined offer no privacy. The children sleep in large dormitories and must take care of all their physical needs in full view of others. Human Rights Watch believes that the failure to accord the children even a small amount of privacy strips them of the basic sense of respect and dignity that is essential to their treatment and reintegration into society. Human Rights Watch recommends that the physical environment in which children are confined be changed so as to afford children privacy while using the toilet facilities.
The common problem of overcrowding, and the sanitary and violence problems associated with overcrowding and inadequate staffing, generally do not exist at the Louisiana institutions. The juvenile institutions in Lousiana are governed by a Federalcourt ordered stipulation and consent decree which sets out maximum population limits, mandates staffing levels and requires compliance with all state health and fire rules.
Human Rights Watch's detailed recommendations appear at the end of this report.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child8 (CRC) is the most important international document concerning children's rights. The CRC deals directly with confinement conditions in: section 37 which sets out the right to be free from torture and, when detained, to be treated with humanity. Other relevant provisions of the CRC that do not deal specifically with childen who are detained include: the right to maintain contact with parents, the right of free expression, the right to health and the right to education.
Five other international documents are relevant to children in confinement: the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty (U.N. Rules);9 the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules);10 the U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines);11 the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Prisoners' Rules);12 and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Principles).13 These standards, except for the Prisoners' Rules, have been recognized by the international community by adoption as General Assembly resolutions. The Prisoners' Rules were approved by the Economic and Social Council by resolutions in 1957 and 1977. The Prisoners' Rules and Principles are standards applicable to adults and incorporated by reference into the standards applicable to children. The adult standards are never more rigorous thanthose applicable to children and are frequently less onerous.14 The U.N. Rules, the Beijing Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines are applicable exclusively to children in the justice system. The first deals most thoroughly with conditions of confinement and will be referred to most often in the body of this report. All of the international standards stress throughout that children in confinement are entitled to rehabilitative treatment and that states are obliged to provide such treatment. The objective of the treatment is to facilitate a successful reintegration into society.
Applicable international standards will be outlined at the beginning of each descriptive section in the second part of the report. The full texts of all of the standards pertaining specifically to children appear in the appendix to this report.
When a government takes someone into its custody, it has an obligation to ensure that the conditions in which the person is confined do not violate the person's human rights and that, at the very least, minimal standards of decency are guaranteed.
The U.S. federal government has not established standards for the treatment of children in confinement in the U.S.
The U.S. courts have established standards under the United States Constitution. The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution protects adult prisoners from conditions that amount to "cruel and unusual punishment." Children are entitled to a higher standard of care, as they are not "convicted" of crimes. U.S. constitutional law protects incarcerated children from conditions that "amount to punishment"15 under thefourteenth Amendment.16 Although children used to have a right to rehabilitation and treatment,17 the obligation to provide treatment has been overturned. Now children are only protected from "unreasonable restraint." There is no right to treatment, except to the extent that it is necessary to prevent unreasonable restraint.18
The American Correctional Association (ACA) is the leading source of standards for juvenile and adult detention and correctional institutions in the U.S. The ACA describes itself as a "private, nonprofit organization that administer[s] the only national accreditation program for all components of adult and juvenile corrections." Its purpose is to "promote improvement in the management of correctional agencies through the administration of a voluntary accreditation program and the ongoing development and revision of relevant, useful standards."19 Facilities in the corrections system apply to the ACA for accreditation and are subject to a lengthy application process which includes an on-site review of the facilities' compliance with the applicable standards. The accreditation is strictly voluntary. The standards are detailed. Many of the standards require facilities to develop policies regarding, for example, suicide prevention or medical emergency responses, but do not address the effectiveness of the implementation of those policies. All of the Louisiana state juvenile correctional facilities are ACA-accredited and the one private secure facility is required by its contract with the Department of Corrections to become accredited. The ACA standards do not comply in all regards with international law or U.S. constitutional law.20
The OJJDP has granted funds to Abt Associates, Inc. to develop performance-based standards for institutions detaining juveniles. The project is in the preparatory stages.
Two departments within the U.S. Department of Justice are concerned with the conditions in which children in the justice system are confined.
The first, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), was established in 1974 under the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (the Act).21 The mandate of the Act is extremely broad. Its stated purposes include: providing for evaluation of federally assisted juvenile justice and delinquency prevention programs; developing national standards for the administration of juvenile justice; and assisting state and local governments in improving the administration of justice. States that are assisted under the formula grants program under the Act used to be monitored by the OJJDP to ensure that status offenders are not held in secure confinement and that children are not held with adults. Since the Reagan administration, compliance with these requirements has been verified essentially through self-reporting by the states. The reports of the states are not monitored by the OJJDP.22 There is no general monitoring of the conditions in which children adjudicated delinquent are confined.
The OJJDP itself has not established standards for the conditions in which children are confined. The Act does, however, prohibit the incarceration of status offenders23 in secure facilities and requires that children adjudicated as juveniles are not confined with adults. The office is authorized under the Act to make grants and to enter into technical assistance contracts. The funds are allocated on an annual basis among the states according to the relative population of children.
In 1995 Louisiana will receive $1,128,000 from the OJJDP. In earlier years the allocation was less than one million dollars. An official with the state advisory group24 told Human Rights Watch that the funds allocated to Louisiana were never sufficient to enable the state to carry out the Act's mandates effectively. In an attempt tostreamline the efforts to carry out the Act's mandate, the state advisory group has determined that OJJDP funds will be used only for pre-adjudication programs or alternative programs, leaving all secure facilities to the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC). The only funding given to the DPSC is an annual allocation of $25,000 for the parenting program at Monroe-LTI. This parenting program will be referred to in more detail in the section on education and programming below.
In August 1994 the OJJDP published a research report commissioned by it and prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. entitled "Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities." The report set out the findings of a major research effort into the conditions in which juveniles are incarcerated around the U.S. In assessing the conditions Abt Associates, Inc. referred to five nationally recognized sets of standards, but used the ACA standards as its primary resource.25 The report found substantial deficiencies in institutions around the country in the areas of living space, security, control of suicidal behavior and health care. In the area of living space the report found a systemic problem of overcrowding. The most serious security issues found were the high escape rate and the number of injuries from violence despite adequate staffing. Prevention of suicide planning was found to be uncoordinated and insufficient. Finally, in the area of health care, health screenings were not being done promptly after a child's commitment to a facility. The other areas investigated by the researchers were: food, clothing and hygiene, living accomodations, sanitation, fire and life safety, education, recreation, mental health services, access to the community and limits on staff discretion. The report found some deficiencies in all areas.
The second department involved with the children in the justice system is the Civil Rights Division - Special Litigation Section, which operates under a mandate toenforce the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (Institutionalized Persons Act).26 The Special Litigation Section also has the authority to enforce the right to special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)27 and has used that act to enforce educational rights of children with disabilities in confinement. However, most of the IDEA litigation is undertaken by private organizations and law firms at the instigation of the aggrieved individuals. Under the authority of the Institutionalized Persons Act, the Special Litigation Section is given the right to bring actions for equitable relief, such as injunctions and court orders, against any state or political subdivision of a state, or any official of the state, that is violating the constitutional rights of persons or any other federal laws protecting the rights of institutionalized persons. Essentially the act provides an enforcement mechanism for the constitutional rights of children in confinement outlined earlier. The mechanism appears to be under-used on behalf of children in confinement. The Department of Justice only uses its power responsively, bringing suits where there have been substantial complaints about a facility. One attorney with the Department of Justice told us that in her opinion the Department of Justice was ignoring children, partly because there was very little sympathy in the current and former administrations for prisoner's rights, in particular for child prisoners. Mark Soler, President of the Youth Law Center, described the Department of Justice's record on protecting confined children as "mixed" and said that "for years there have been problems with the follow through at the Department of Justice."28
3
SECURE CONFINEMENT IN LOUISIANA
There are four secure correctional facilities for children in Louisiana. Correctional facilities house children between the ages of eleven and seventeen29 adjudicated as offenders and ordered by the court to be confined in a state facility. The state-run facilities are called the Louisiana Training Institutes (LTI). They are: the East Baton Rouge-LTI (EBR),30 Monroe-LTI and Bridge City-LTI. The EBR-LTI campus is also the site for the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center (JRDC). All children in Louisiana subject to incarceration in an LTI, whether the institution is specified by the court or not, are sent first to JRDC. The average length of stay at JRDC is about four weeks. During that time the children are evaluated for mental and physical health, educational ability and risk factors, such as aggressivity, to determine where they should be most appropriately placed in the system. The LTI's are ostensibly designed to care for different classes of children. Bridge City-LTI is the least secure environment and is where the children who are considered emotionally fragile or who have displayed low aggressivity are generally sent.31
The fourth facility that houses children for the state is the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth (TCCY). The facility is run by TransAmerican Development Associates, Inc. and was built on contract with the town of Tallulah. The location was chosen for economic development purposes.32 The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) pays a per diem for each child incarcerated at TCCY on behalf of the state. TCCY opened in November 1994.
The racial composition of the children incarcerated at the institutions is predominantly African-American. On August 24, 1995, the percentage of African-American children at the institutions was as follows: EBR-LTI -84 percent; Monroe-LTI - 88 percent; Bridge City-LTI - 73 percent and TCCY - 80 percent.33 The racial composition of the staff at the institutions is also predominantly African-American. On August 24, 1995, the percentage of African-American staff at the institutions was as follows: EBR-LTI -87 percent; Monroe-LTI - 69 percent; Bridge City-LTI - 83 percent and TCCY - 78 percent.34
Conditions in the three LTI's are monitored under a Federal court order, administered by Judge Frank Polozola, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. The court's order arose out of litigation started in 1971 surrounding the conditions at the Lousiana State Penitentiary at Angola. In 1981, the court extended its jurisdiction to include conditions in all state penitentiaries, parish prisons, and other penal institutions, including juvenile institutions. In 1983 the court set interim population levels for the five then existing juvenile institutions operated by the DPSC, pending a report by the DPSC on the conditions at the institutions. Finally, in 1984, the DPSC entered into a consent decree and stipulation with the court35 pursuant to which the DPSC agreed to maintain conditions, limitations and standards at the juvenile institutions under its supervision and control as set out by the court.
The court set population limits and minimum staffing requirements for the institutions which could be modified only by application to the court. The court also required that the facilities comply with all applicable health and fire rules and any other regulations adopted pursuant to Louisiana law which affect the health and safety of offenders. Finally the court required that an annual report be submitted to it by each institution setting out the populations, staffing levels and the number of violent incidents in certain categories, including assaults and suicides. The court continues to exercise its jurisdiction over the juvenile institutions to the present time. A court-appointed expertmonitors the institutions, receiving complaints and reports on occurrences at the institutions.
The conditions at TCCY are also monitored by Judge Polozola. The facility was opened pursuant to a stipulation and consent decree dated November 15, 1994, setting a population limit and requiring that TCCY begin the process of securing ACA accreditation. TCCY encountered significant problems maintaining control of the children housed at the facility during November and December. During the period from November 16, 1994, to December 29, 1994, there were eighty reports of assault incidents between the children.36 As a result of the problems at TCCY the court declared a state of emergency at the facility on December 22, 1994, and has been closely monitoring the situation at TCCY since then. A motion by the DPSC to vacate the state of emergency was denied on June 22, 1995.
PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty and the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners set out detailed specifications of the physical environment in which children can be confined. These standards, although non-binding, have been recognized by the international community by adoption as General Assembly resolutions. They are an authoritative statement of the international community's agreement on the minimum standards that should be adhered to in the confinement of children by the state.
Rules 27 to 37 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty deal specifically with the physical environment that should be created by facilities which detain children in the justice system. The U.N. Rules generally require that the physical environment promote health and human dignity and to that end the design of the facilities is to be in keeping with the rehabilitative aim of the juvenile justice system. The requirements call for small-scale facilities, and where possible facilities with no or minimal security measures. Closed facilities are required to be small enough to enable individualized treatment. Sleeping should be in small dormitories or individual rooms and sanitary installations should afford the children privacy. The right to privacy includes the basic right to the possession of personal effects. Children also have the right to wear their own clothing to the extent possible.
Rule 60 of the U.N. Rules gives children the right to receive regular and frequent visits, at minimum once a month, but preferably once a week. Rule 61 of the U.N. Rules entitles children to write letters or telephone at least twice a week.
Because U.S. constitutional law also protects children from conditions that amount to punishment, courts have found that children are entitled to greater privacy than adults. Some courts have required single rooms, other courts have set limits on the number who may be housed in a dorm and have required privacy in toilet areas.37
The physical environment and conditions in each facility will be described below.
East Baton Rouge-Louisiana Training Institute
The East Baton Rouge-LTI38 has a court-approved capacity of 580. On the first day that Human Rights Watch visited the facility in March 1995, 496 boys and eighty-four girls were housed on the campus. EBR-LTI is the only institution that houses girls. On the first day Human Rights Watch was at the facility, nine of the eighty-four girls were pregnant. On the second day that Human Rights Watch visited in May 1995, the population count for the girls was eighty-three, seven of whom were pregnant. According to Superintendent Lewis at EBR-LTI, the average length of stay at the facility is seventeen months. In the JRDC it is four weeks, although an official with the DPSC told HRW that JRDC processing could be done in five days.39 The facility is located outside of Baton Rouge, about a twenty-minute drive from the city. It is located on the edge of an industrial district; there is no visible residential district in the area. The grounds of the facility are enclosed by a high chain-link fence with intermediate size razor wire coiled on the top of the fence. There are large open green spaces interspersed throughout the campus, including an outdoor playing field. Thereare very few trees on the property . All of the buildings, except the building which houses the large indoor gymnasium, are either red or yellow brick. The gymnasium building appears to be grey aluminum siding. There are two condemned buildings on the grounds. The JRDC is located on the same campus, but is separated from the main campus by a chain-link fence. The physical environment at JRDC is virtually the same as the main campus; however, the children are not provided with any education and their recreational and work options are restricted. It is, therefore, more punitive to remain at JRDC for a longer period of time, and it denies children the right to be educated while confined.40
The dormitories house between forty and fifty children. Each dormitory is in a separate brick building. The buildings are one or two stories high and have a sleeping room, a common room and a bathroom area. The common rooms are generally bare except for a television set, some chairs and on occasion some magazines or a deck of cards. The sleeping rooms are generally furnished with metal double-bunk beds with thin plastic-covered mattresses that run along the perimeter of the room, spaced approximately two and one-half feet apart. There are windows in the room. The children are provided with pillows and blankets, and HRW was told by staff that children are given fresh linen each day. There is a bathroom area adjacent to the sleeping room which has three showers and four toilets. None of these are enclosed to provide privacy in any way. There are three toilets in a small room off the common area; the toilets are set side by side against a wall with no dividing partitions. There is a pay phone and a water fountain in the common room. The dormitories were clean on the day Human Rights Watch visited the facility, and none of the children interviewed indicated that sanitary conditions were a problem.
Other problems were identified with the physical environment. TD,41 age fifteen, said that she was told when to go to the bathroom and that when she asked permission to go to the bathroom, her request was only granted "sometimes".
The children are issued jeans, t-shirts, sweatshirts, underwear, socks, a pair of running shoes, rubber boots and a rain jacket. The jeans have 'LTI' printed down one leg. Children are not allowed to wear their own clothing. Children who earn privileges at Monroe-LTI are able to wear some of their own clothing which suggests that there isno security reason for denying this right. Children may wear their own shoes if the medical staff certifies that it is necessary for health reasons.
Bridge City-Louisiana Training Institute
The Bridge City-LTI is located five minutes out of a residential district in Bridge City, which is located a half hour drive from New Orleans. The facility has a court-approved capacity of 150 children. On the first day that Human Rights Watch visited in March 1995, 144 children were on campus. The facility houses only boys. The facility has large outdoor spaces, a playing field and trees; flowers are planted each spring by children on a work detail at the facility. The buildings are for the most part brick; much of the facility was originally part of a religious girls school.
The dormitories house forty children per sleeping room. There are two sleeping rooms in each of the buildings that house children. The children sleep on metal double-bunk beds that are arranged along each of the long walls with two foot lockers underneath each bed. There are windows along the same wall. The children are provided with blankets and pillows and fresh linen weekly, more often if necessary. The bathroom off of the sleeping room has three showers, one toilet and one urinal. There are no dividing or privacy partitions in the bathroom area. There is a water fountain against the wall. In the recreation room there is a water fountain and a bank of phones against the wall and an adjoining bathroom with one toilet and one urinal.
The children are issued jeans, t-shirts, sweatshirts, running shoes, socks, underwear and jackets, and for Sundays they are issued khaki pants and shirts and black dress shoes. Their hair is shaved to a short stubble. They are neither able to wear their own clothing, nor wear longer hair. None of the other facilities require the children to shave their hair. It is a practise that enhances the harsh atmosphere, contrary to international standards which specify rehabilitation and treatment, not punishment.
Monroe-Louisiana Training Institute
The Monroe-LTI is located in a residential area of the city of Monroe, next to a hospital. Monroe is in the north of Lousiana, approximately three and a half hours from Baton Rouge by car. It has a court-approved capacity of 356. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited in May 1995, it was below capacity but waiting for the arrival of children being sent from other facilities for disciplinary purposes. The facility houses only boys. When the campus was first built it was simply integrated into the surrounding neighborhood without fences. As a result the campus has createda normal environment with named city streets running through it, large open green spaces, a playing field, trees, flowers and even sidewalks. The buildings are almost all red or yellow brick of varying sizes.
In the early 1980s the closed campus was created. Monroe-LTI is composed of an open and a closed campus, although both campuses are secure. The closed campus is separated from the open campus by an extra fence. All entrances to the closed campus from the open campus are secured by correctional officers. Children from all of the LTI's and TCCY who are judged by the facilities to be incorrigible are sent to the Monroe-LTI closed campus. The closed campus has four dormitories and also maintains twenty-four isolation cells in another dormitory. Confinement to the closed campus is administered in stages as part of a three-level behavior program, beginning with a child's assignment to an isolation cell and graduating to the dormitories as his behavior is judged to be modified appropriately. The chain-link fence around the whole facility was erected in 1984, and in 1993 all of the fences were topped with large size coiled razor wire at the direction of the then new Governor Edwin Edwards's correctional administration.
The dormitories are spread throughout the campus and house between thirty-four and forty-four children each. The buildings vary between single-story, two-story and three-story buildings. The three-story dormitory has one floor of administrative offices. The children sleep in metal double- bunk beds arranged around the perimeter of the room. There is one toilet and one urinal in the sleeping room itself. The adjoining bathroom has no partitions between the showers, toilets and urinals. The numbers of each vary with the size of the dormitory. In one dormitory housing thirty-four children there were five showers, two urinals and three toilets.
The children are issued sweatshirts, t-shirts, jeans and running shoes, as at the other LTI's. At Monroe-LTI, however, there is also a point system that rewards good behavior under which a child may be entitled to get some of his own clothes sent to him for use at the facility. Monroe-LTI is the only facility that operates such an incentive system.
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth is located in the town of Tallulah in the north of Louisiana, about a half hour drive from Monroe and three and a half hours from Baton Rouge. The facility has a court-approved capacity of 396. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited in May 1995, there were 395 children on the campus. There are plans to expand the facility by 350 beds, 240 of which will be single cellisolation and administrative segregation cells. Although the ground has been broken for the new building, progress has been held up due to the state of emergency declared by the federal court, described earlier.
All the buildings look alike, with gray siding and concrete floors; they are placed close together. The buildings are connected by concrete walkways, and the dormitories are enclosed by high chain-link fences. There is no grass on the property and no playing field. The gymnasium consists of a concrete floor and a roof held up by posts. This is also the visiting area. The whole facility appears to be cramped, institutional and drab, particularly in comparison to the open green spaces of the state-run facilities.
All the dormitories are identical: one-room buildings with concrete floors. Forty children live in each dormitory. Twenty double-bunk beds are arranged in two rows along one wall in each. Underneath each bed are two unlocked foot lockers. Each dormitory has three long grey tables with long benches on either side and a television in the corner nearest the tables. There is a water fountain and four pay phones. Four toilets are separated from the showers by a partition and there is a low partition between the toilets. There are two urinals and six showers.
The children wear unmarked t-shirts, sweatshirts, jeans and sneakers. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited the facility, it was raining heavily. The children were not wearing rain jackets. Some of the children interviewed told Human Rights Watch that a confrontation early in the winter was sparked partly by the fact that the children were not issued coats for the colder weather. The children are not allowed to wear their own clothing.
When TCCY first opened, on November 16, 1994, there were significant problems in the operation of the facility. The staff hired by TransAmerican Develpment Associates, Inc. were unable to keep control of the children. Some children told HRW that they were moved to the facility without being told where they were going and once at the facility were given conflicting information about the length of time they would spend at TCCY and the nature of their program. Two children who had been confined at the facility since the opening described being awoken at 3:00 A.M.. at EBR-LTI and being told to take off all their clothes and to put on the new ones issued from TCCY. They were then bused up to TCCY in the middle of the night without being told where they were being taken.
The DPSC assumed operational authority of the facility on December 29, 1994, pursuant to a Federal court-declared state of emergency at TCCY, on December 22,after an accumulation of disturbances made it clear to the court that order could not be maintained under the administration of the private management services corporation.42 Until the court declared a state of emergency authorizing the DPSC to assume operational control, there had been no indication that the DPSC would involve itself in a resolution of the problems. Human Rights Watch was told by Superintendent Goodwin at TCCY that the security system has been brought under control and that the administration of the facility is now operated more effectively. There was, however, a confrontation between the staff and the children in a dormitory on April 19, 1995, which suggests that the security system is still not as effective as it should be and that the children do not have sufficient respect for the security system.
Although the reasons for the disturbance are not clear, the children in one dormitory were reported to be "loud, unruly and causing chaos" all evening.43 The situation escalated when the children began throwing shoes and deodorant at the correctional officers. The correctional officers set off "Clear Out," a chemical agent, and left the dormitory. The children began "destroying" the dormitory, "knocking the T.V. down, pulling the water fountain off the wall, pulling sinks and urinals off the wall [and] overturning bunks." More Clear Out was set off and several of the children put towels, sheets and pillowcases around their faces. The situation was brought under control, and the children were removed and restrained within one hour. The forty-one children in the dormitory were dispersed to be housed as follows: "Nineteen were placed in segregation (the total count of this unit is twenty), fourteen were placed in the ward in the infirmary (this ward normally holds up to six offenders), eight were placed in the intake room in the segregation unit, and three were placed in the isolation rooms in the infirmary." There were no significant injuries to staff or children. HRW does not have sufficient information to determine whether the response to the riot was appropriate.
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON PHYSICAL CONDITIONS
The facilities described above fail to comply with international standards in many respects. Although contrary to both international law standards and ACA standards,the state facilites in Louisiana use large dormitories exclusively. All of the standards recommend the use of single cells or at minimum small dormitories.44 The large dormitories and the open bathrooms afford the children absolutely no privacy at any time in their daily lives. Large dormitories have also been found to be directly and positively linked to child-on-child injury and the increased use of isolation to control juvenile behavior.45 Many children told HRW about getting into fights in their dormitories, or being picked on by other children in their dormitories. During the period from July 1994 to July 1995, there were 614 incidents of child-on-child assaults at Monroe-LTI, 545 incidents at EBR-LTI and eighty-three at Bridge City-LTI.46 Frequently physical abuse by the correctional officers (which will be described later in the report) occurs in the process of breaking up a fight between children in a dormitory.
The physical environment of all the facilities, but EBR-LTI and TCCY in particular, is punitive. The size of the facilities precludes individualized treatment to a large extent. Staff and children at the facilities told Human Rights Watch that isolation cells are often used to control the behavior of a child. The isolation cells are small and bare except for a bed, a toilet and a sink. There are generally no windows; where there are windows, they are so small that no significant natural light is let in, and they are covered by wire mesh. The doors have small windows for observation and slots through which food is passed at mealtimes. At Bridge City-LTI the isolation cells are painted a dark color on the walls, floors and ceilings. Placement in a dark cell andclosed or solitary confinement is absolutely prohibited by Rule 67 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.
The U.N. Rules also encourage contact between confined children and their families and communities. Rules 59-61 require regular visits, preferably once a week but at minimum once a month, and a right to twice weekly telephone calls and letter writing. All of the facilities have visiting day only once a month. They are contact visits which usually occur in a large open room or space at the facility, generally the gymnasium or a similar location. Parents are not permitted to bring food for their children on visiting day. Because of the size of the facilities there is no attempt to locate facilities in the communities from which the children come. A substantial percentage of the children come from the urban areas, in particular Orleans Parish. Yet Bridge City-LTI, the closest facility to the parish, is the smallest and least secure facility. Because of the travel distances to the facilities, many of the children never receive visitors, and most do not have visitors every month.
Telephone calls are generally permitted every night from the pay phones in the common rooms in the dormitories. Many children told HRW that their parents cannot afford to pay the collect phone charges, so they do not speak with their parents on a regular basis. At Monroe-LTI the counsellors are required to make a phone call to the parents of each child in their care once a month at the facility's expense.47 This system ensures that the children speak with their parents at least once a month.
The children said they are unable to call their lawyers because the lawyers will not accept the collect charges. There is also no privacy when making the phone calls, as the phones are located on a wall in the common room. Some children told us that they were denied the opportunity to make phone calls by other children in their dormitory. Others said that the length of time they were given to use the phone was restricted by the staff to between three and eight minutes. When the children are placed in disciplinary segregation, there does not appear to be any opportunity to use the telephone, as the children are not permitted to leave the isolation cell except once a day to take a shower. Human Rights Watch, however, was not told of any specific rule that prevented the children from using the telephone while segregated from the rest of the population.
Writing paper and stamped envelopes are not uniformly or regularly supplied to the children. Many of the children said that they get writing paper, pencils and stampsfrom their parents. It is an article commonly included in the packages sent to the facilities by parents. There does not appear to be any institutional encouragement to write letters.
The location of the institutions, the overall environment of monthly visits, shortened telephone calls, if any are made at all, and irregular letter writing do not foster contacts between the children and their families. Children at all the facilities told Human Rights Watch that they rarely saw their counsellors, whose role it is to provide guidance, counselling and individual attention to the children. Strengthening contacts with family and other persons in their home community and individual attention from a counsellor are considered by international standards to be an integral part of creating a treatment environment.48
DISCIPLINE
Children are subject to different disciplinary standards than those that apply to adults, because under international standards the purpose of a child's confinement is not punishment but rehabilitation and treatment.49 U.S. Constitutional law protects children from conditions that amount to punishment.50
Rule 67 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It specifically prohibits corporal punishment and the use of solitary confinement under any circumstances. Rule 68 of the U.N. Rules requires that clear rules set out the conduct that constitutes a disciplinary offense and the sanction that will be imposed. Rule 24 of the U.N. Rules requires that upon admission to a facility, all children be given a copy of the governing rules of the institution.
U.S. Constitutional law cases have found that children may not be placed in isolation for purely disciplinary purposes; rather they "may only be placed in isolation whenthey pose immediate threats to themselves or other people."51 Moreover, isolation should be for as short a period of time as is necessary to enable a child's violent mood to subside. Giving a child books and writing materials in isolation reinforces its non-punitive nature.
When children are placed in isolation in LTI's52 they are not able to participate in any of the programming at the facilities. They are let out only to have a shower each day. They are not provided with anything to do, no books, no paper and pencil, no television. They are simply given nothing to occupy their time.
According to the ACA standards, disciplinary isolation may last a maximum of five days. This is the standard purportedly followed by the LTI's. This does not comply with the international standards set out above, nor does it appear to comply with the U.S. constitutional law decisions which restrict the use of isolation to instances where children pose an immediate threat to themselves or others, referred to above. Most children interviewed at all the institutions, except Bridge City-LTI, confirmed that disciplinary isolation generally lasted a maximum of five days. There were exceptions, however: TA at EBR-LTI told us that she had spent nine consecutive days in disciplinary lockdown. She also said that the guards sometimes refuse to let children out of the cells during the isolation period.
None of the children interviewed at Bridge City-LTI had been in lockdown, nor had they ever heard of anyone placed in lockdown. The lockdown log book at Bridge City-LTI confirmed that no child had been in the cells since November 1994. Human Rights Watch was told by Superintendent Harris that when isolation is used it is only for one hour at a time to bring a child's behavior under control.
Children are, however, placed in what the institutions call "protective custody", or administrative segregation, for longer periods of time than five days at all the facilitiesexcept Bridge City-LTI.53 The administrative segregation cells are identical to the isolation cells and frequently located in the same building. The use of administrative segregation gives the institutional administration a power which is open to abuse and arbitrary use. There is no clear monitoring system or system of review at the correctional facilities to ensure that this power is not abused or over-used. Institutions use administrative segregation excessively.
At TCCY, 240 of the 350 new beds being built will be single cells for use as administrative segregation cells and isolation cells.54 At EBR-LTI, the staff uses what is called "pre-disciplinary detention" in the isolation cells. A child can spend up to three days in an isolation cell, prior to a determination that disciplinary isolation is required.
Children reported that isolation is used frequently. UB, at EBR-LTI, said that on the day before she talked with us, she had been placed in isolation for seven hours simply for dancing. OK, age eighteen, at EBR-LTI, said that he was put in isolation for a "couple of hours" just for talking in the dining hall. At Monroe-LTI, one child alleged there was corruption in the isolation practices:
C KJ, age eighteen, said: "Some of the guards are crooked, they ask for your money or else it's lockdown. [It's] cold [and] they take everything away from you and [you have] just your pj's."
Several children reported that isolation cells were cold. At TCCY children in isolation prior to disciplinary hearings are provided with a mattress at all times, however, once a child is found "guilty" of a violation, the mattress is taken away between the hours of 6:00 A.M.. and 9:00 P.M. during his time in isolation. Human Rights Watch was not told about the use of this practice at any of the other facilities.
Human Rights Watch was told by each of the superintendents of the facilities that the use of restraints was confined to circumstances where children needed to be brought under control or where they were being transported. None of the children interviewed said that they had either experienced or witnessed the application of handcuffs orshackles as punishment. However, a number of children told Human Rights Watch that they had either experienced or witnessed correctional officers placing handcuffs on a child to restrain him and then proceeding to beat him while he was restrained. In other instances where the use of restraints was described, it was unclear whether the restraints were a necessary security measure or an abuse of the power to restrain the children. DM, age nineteen, who had escaped from Monroe-LTI in 1993, told us that he is forced to wear shackles at all times, except when he is confined to his room. He was wearing shackles when HRW spoke with him. This unnecessary and cruel use of shackles is contrary to the international standards cited above.
The international standards require that on admission children be given a copy of the rules and that the information contained in the rules be conveyed to them in a "manner enabling full comprehension."55 Many of the children told us that they had not received a rule book upon arrival at the facility in which they were incarcerated. Being given a copy of the rules does not in itself guarantee that the rules will be applied fairly as written. Both children who had received a copy of the rules, and those who had not, told us that the "real" rules were created and applied at the discretion of the staff on duty. UB, at EBR-LTI, said that she got a copy of the rules, "but I didn't read them, because they don't run the institutes by the rules book." KM, age twenty, at EBR-LTI, said, "rules change every day."
Human Rights Watch has reviewed the book of rules. It is drafted in complex language that is difficult to understand. It is unlikely that a reading of the rule book would provide adequate notice to the children of their rights and obligations, given the language in which it is written.56 Secretary Richard Stalder of the DPSC told us that he wanted to change the language of the rules to make them more accessible to both staff and children.57
International law is clear and consistent in its prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The prohibition is contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child at article 37(a).58 The U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice prohibit corporal punishment in Article 17.3, and Rules 63 and 64 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty prohibit the use of restraints or force in any case unless all other control methods have been exhausted and failed.59 A violation of any of these provisions is physical abuse. In accordance with the ACA standards, the DPSC has adopted a standard operating procedure that specifically restricts the use of physical force to instances of justifiable self-defense, protection of others, protection of property, and prevention of escapes, and then only as a last resort. Under the DPSC procedure, physical force is never justifiable as punishment.60
HRW received complaints of physical abuse at all of the facilities we examined. The frequency of abuse varied between the facilities. At the Bridge City-LTI only one child complained to us of abuse by a guard.61 The problem of physical abuse by security staff at the facilities is more serious at Monroe-LTI and TCCY; at EBR-LTI physical abuse is pervasive. Children told us that they had been beaten for just "looking at someone wrong." A former staff person of the DPSC told Human Rights Watch that correctional officers have told him that the abuse problem is worsening,but that they will not report the problem because they are afraid of losing their jobs and of the repercussions in their relations with other correctional officers.
Allegations of abuse varied widely from institution to institution. Secretary Stalder of the DPSC told Human Rights Watch that there is no systematic record of the number of allegations of abuse of children by staff.62
East Baton Rouge-Louisiana Training Institute
Children interviewed about the conditions at EBR-LTI said the following things about the physical abuse problem:
C EC, age seventeen, said : "[The] night shift don't like me ... one of my friends was beaten up. They are beating people like us because we look at them, a lot of people are fighting ... I got hit in the head with handcuffs three weeks ago ... [the guard] hit me with a basketball. I asked him why and he pressed against me and I stepped back because I thought that he was going to swing and the other guard held me down and hit me with handcuffs and kicked me."63
C BA, age sixteen, said: "[I have] been beaten up once by the guards, [he] used [his] fists. I was sitting on a bench and [he] said I was talking and hit me and gave me a [disciplinary] ticket and two days later I went to the [disciplinary] committee and they gave me work detail."
C DR, age fifteen, said: "I got in trouble with one of the guards, I was talking and watching TV [around] bedtime and said I hope that they send me to Tallulah or Bridge City so I can go home. A guard came from behind and jumped on my back and started kicking and punching me with his hands. I went to court the next day. I told mama and the judge called here and told them to put me in C wing [protective custody]. My eye was swollen and my lip busted, so mama knew. I couldn't fight back. It happened so quick. I didn't know what hit me."
C BN, age sixteen, said: "The guards round here beat you up. They use handcuffs and whatever they get their hands on ... Counsellors will let the guards beat you up."
C OK, age sixteen, said: "[Two weeks ago]my friend got hit with handcuffs over not moving a picnic table. He had a cut up by his eye, it was bleeding and left a scar, but he didn't have to get stitches ... We get mace thrown in our eyes when they try to break up fights."
C EJ, age seventeen, said: "They hit you for any reason, with handcuffs, with hands. I've been hit with hands twice because I messed up the count by accident. He pulled me to the side and smacked my head two times. I've lots of times seen people hit. [In] April [I saw] two guards sure beating [another boy]. One was holding him and one was beating him ... they bust his nose all up, there was a lot of blood, they sent him to Delta lockdown."
C UD, age seventeen, said: "In area one the guards beat you up with their hands...they beat CS up bad. They beat him up ... Sergeant G is the one who really beats you up. He beats you up for calling him Sergeant. [Sergeant G] slapped [CS] and cursed him. He asked to go to the infirmary and he said no ... [Sometimes] we be up in the dorm in the back; if you miss the count or talk in the dormitory they beat you up for that and if you get up to get water. [Sergeant G] is just doing it for the fun of it...One time the dorm was sick, we had a virus, and he beat us up for coughing. My friend, they took his mattress and made him sleep in the shower because of his coughing ... They rush for you to eat your food. If you don't rush they take your fork away and throw it away. They beat you if you are too slow. You have about three minutes to eat."
C ED, age sixteen, said: "I had a fight with a couple of them, they be hitting on you with handcuffs. I got hit in the head and had my teeth knocked out. It happened a lot."
C BA, age sixteen, said: "A couple of nights ago I was talking and got slapped across the face for it ... for messing the count up they punched me in the side of the face ... Mr. K jumped on me, put some black cut-off gloves on and [was] beating on me ... they said if we find out, you rat, then we'll come back after you ... the next morning I peed blood because he kicked me in the wrong spot ... he took me in a little room to beat me, a room on the side ofthe dormitory. [He said] "you seem to have a little problem" and then they just beat on you ... the guards break you up, and they beat you to break it up, sometimes they hit you with the handcuffs or the shackles and then put them on you and take you to infirmary."
C TM, age seventeen, described an incident in which he was not familiar with the shower rules and neglected to stand naked against the wall waiting for everyone to finish their showers. When he went to get his clothes, he said the guard,"hit me in the head, I fell down and he kicked me a couple times and then when I got up he hit me again." On another occasion TM said he witnessed two guards taking turns beating up two boys who had been fighting. He said, "they wrote a report saying that his black eye was caused by the other boy...[the guards] hit the fat boy in the head and stomach and stomped on him ... they did this right in front of everybody, then made us all go to bed early."
C TS, age nineteen, said: "One time he tried to get another guard to help beat me up ... in the dining hall, but not in front of everyone, in the little entrance way. First he put cuffs on, then started hitting me in the face and kicking me."
C KJ, age eighteen, said: "My first day there they had some suicide precaution, so I tried to say I was suicidal, so a guard asked me if I wanted to kill myself, so I said yeah so I could leave, but he just kicked me and hit me full in the side of the face. I was in full shackles and fell down and he kicked me out and so I shut up after that."
C UD said: "That's how come I came up here from EBR because a guard beat me and another guy up with a broom. It's going to court, but they say I was in a fight and he beat us up with a broom and got a few minor bruises."
C ED said: "I got hit one time by a sergeant with a book cause we weren't supposed to talk and I giggled and he made me get on my knees and he hit me on my head and my face."
C EM, age fifteen, said: "EBR, that's a messed up place. The guards will beat you. One of them named Mr.O, he has a thing called a 'house party', if you work on weekends, he wake you up at 5 A.M. . He calls you in the back where we take showers and beats you for a whole hour. When we go to mess hall to eat we have to count, and he tells you to come see, then he calls youinto the washroom and beats you up and another sergeant comes to beat you. It has only happened two times to me ... I would change EBR. [I would] fire all the workers cause they are just dirty. "New jacks" come in talking, and they beat them up for nothing. This boy at EBR with me, a guard broke his arm with a broom ... [there were] boys lying on the floor and the sarge picked up his chair and threw it at him and hit him. If you tell a counselor, all it's going to do is make it worse."
C KN, age fourteen, said: "That place [EBR] was the worst place ever. I wasn't used to it. They slapped me cause I shared food and a guard walked up and came up and slapped me in the face and then took me into the laundry room and hit me again. Guards call us rats and stuff and people are stupid. Even if they don't talk they get hit."
C BG, age eighteen, said: "All my ribs were purple at EBR. A new boy came in and I tried to help him so he wouldn't get beaten up, and then a guard pulled us both up and he slapped both of us and then he told me to raise my arms and he beat my ribs until they were purple and blue and I didn't tell my mom cause I knew she would start something."
C UB said: "Every day ... they be hitting on pregnant girls. [On Sunday] the pregnant girls didn't want to go in for bed rest, they were pushing and shoving them, [the guards] carry them, just holding them by their arms and legs, and [they] picked one of them up over their shoulders, [there were] probably five guards, one man dropped a girl on her back."
Ms. Gagneaux, the head nurse on staff at EBR-LTI,64 told Human Rights Watch that the most common illnesses for which children came to the infirmary were orthopedic injuries such as broken jaws, broken hands and broken noses. She said that there were a lot allegations of abuse made, and sometimes they were followed up, and that there were cases where children did not report the source of their injury to the nurse on duty. She also said that many of the allegations are found by staff to be unfounded. Human Rights Watch was not told of any systematic reporting of suspected cases of abuse by the medical staff.
Monroe-Louisiana Training Institute
Children interviewed about conditions at Monroe-LTI had the following things to say about physical abuse:
C ED, age sixteen, said: "They don't hit on you with handcuffs, but they hit you with their hands and they kick you with their boots. I haven't been hit here yet, not yet. I saw a guard punch a guy with his fist last Saturday. He went to the infirmary, his eye was swole."
C GD, age seventeen, said: "Stay your distance [from the guards]. People get hit every day, all the time. They use their hands and handcuffs."
C KJ, age eighteen, said: "In the past they were hitting. I've had my share of bruises and footprints on my face, but they are better."
C UD said: "Mr. X hit him in the face with a radio, and he hit CA with his fist and broke his nose. They be slapping you every now and then. Mr. Y, he hits people while they are asleep; somebody might talk, and he hits them."
C LJ, age sixteen, said: "I've been beat up a lot of times. I can't count, it be so many. They get some handcuffs and hit you up the side of the head and cut your head. They stomp on you when you fall down. A couple of days ago Mr. X hit a guy in the face with a radio ... they beat you up, they call you out where other offenders can't see you, in some room somewhere."
C RR, age seventeen, said: "When you fight, they bust you in the head with [handcuffs]. I've seen that about, I believe it was Friday, two dudes fighting, [the guard] put handcuffs over his fingers and put the key in to make a fist, then he hit them over the head; they complained, and they got their lawyers." Several other children told us about the same incident. Human Rights Watch was told by the children that the incident was under investigation. We were told by Superintendent Robert Dunavant that a recent abuse incident was under investigation, but we have heard nothing further on the matter.
A few of the children told Human Rights Watch that the guards at Monroe-LTI sold contraband to some of the other children. They said that nobody talked about it, and the children were not prepared to give the names of the guards involved. The court expert appointed by Judge Polozola confirmed that she had received similar complaints but that there was never enough evidence to pursue the complaints.
Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth
The children confined at TCCY made fewer complaints about physical abuse. Where abuse was reported, it was attributed to the DPSC security staff.
The children interviewed about conditions at TCCY said the following about physical abuse:
C BG, age eighteen, said: "It used to be alright but the DPSC came in and has to do their own thing. They beat you up and stuff ... they got a pack, three of them, and they run around and beat people up. My mama wants to check. [One time when there were] no white people in the cafeteria, so [the man serving the food] skipped me three times and then started punching me and others joined and said this be for 300 years ago what you did to my people."
C SC said: "I had my eardrum bust, March 22nd, the dormitory they stuck me out because I was the only one from Baton Rouge, the rest are from New Orleans, and the lieutenant punched me in the ear and busted my eardrum. I went to Conway hospital in Monroe ... I reported the ear drum. The nurse said she wrote it up, but you can't always listen to them and nothing happened."
A few children who had been at both TCCY and EBR-LTI commented that the security staff at TCCY were more understanding and more willing to talk rather than hit as compared to EBR-LTI.
Bridge City-Louisiana Training Institute
Of the children interviewed at Bridge City-LTI, only one mentioned physical abuse. The rest of the children interviewed said that they had never experienced physical abuse, nor had they witnessed it, at that facility. CM, age thirteen, said, "the guards here are better. They take their time with you, explain things." This sentiment was expressed by several children who told us that they liked the fact that the guards talked to them.
However, the abuse described by the one child at Bridge City-LTI was very serious:
C KG, age fourteen, said, "What had happened is this guard was walking around with a broomstick and he made a line of people and he hit guys ontop of the head and they fell down. The other day they were punishing us by making us hold our hands out for thirty minutes and one guy dropped his fingers and they came over and beat him up and threw a chair at him. Another punishment is thinking position. They make you hold up your weight on your elbows for ten minutes even if its only one guy who messed up; the skin rips off your arms and elbows ... one guard, he hits you with a cable wire, he wets your hand and arm and whips you."
U.N. Rules 75 and 76 provide that children should have the opportunity to make complaints and to be informed of the response without delay.
The Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) under which children in the Louisiana correctional facilities are entitled to complain to the superintendent about physical abuse is virtually never used. During the period from July 1994 to March 1995, the summary of ARPS65 prepared by each institution showed that there were no complaints of abuse at Bridge City-LTI and only one complaint of abuse at EBR-LTI. At Monroe-LTI, where, according to Superintendent Dunavant, the ARP system is functioning much more effectively, there were seventy-seven complaints of abuse during the same period of time. The number of complaints per month dropped dramatically after the first three months of the period reported. There is no reporting by TCCY.
The children we spoke to universally had no confidence in the system. Complaints are rarely made as a result of this lack of confidence, and when they are made there is frequently no response at all. Many of the children told us that when they wrote complaints they were ripped up by the guards when they gave the paper to them, or that the complaints were never passed on to the captain in charge. There is a strong fear of reprisal among the children.
C LJ, age sixteen, said: "If you write them up and they find out, they are away for a couple of days, and then they try to hit you up for anything you do."
Despite the existence of the ARP, Superintendent Elijah Lewis at EBR-LTI told us that he had no way of knowing how many children in total complained of abuse66 and how many staff members had been disciplined for abusing children. However, after our visit, he reported to Secretary Stalder that there had been ninety-two reported cases of alleged abuse; six of the cases had been confirmed and disciplinary action had been taken. There was no indication what the disciplinary action was.67 Three days after Human Rights Watch's second visit to EBR-LTI, a child complained that he had received lacerations to the head area and the correctional officer named was placed on forced leave. An investigation was conducted, and the complaint was substantiated. The correctional officer received an emergency verbal suspension.68
The children we talked to had the following to say about the ARP:
C EC, age seventeen, said: "I wrote a complaint and told the truth and the officer came and got me and we started fisting. Sometimes they tear them up...every time someone in the dormitory files a complaint, nothing has ever happened."
C DM, age nineteen, said: "They use physical force but when it goes down everything comes up clean, like nothing happens."
C BC, age twenty, said: "The guards write reports and say that the offenders hit first, that's why nobody did nothing about it."
C EK, age eighteen, said: "You can't beat their words. I wrote them up a couple times and I never got no response."
Rule 37 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty provides that children must receive food of a quality and quantity to satisfy the standards of health and hygiene.
Virtually every child interviewed at all the facilities, except Bridge City-LTI, told Human Rights Watch that he was hungry. At Bridge City-LTI the children said that they received better quality food than at the other facilities and a sufficient quantity of food. At the other facilities the portions of food served are inadequate according to the children.
The children consistently made the following kinds of statements about the quantity of the food served:
C UB told Human Rights Watch that she had lost 31 lbs. since her arrival at the LTI.
C EC, age seventeen, said: "They don't feed us enough."
C BA, age sixteen, said: "The food tastes like soap."
C BN, age sixteen, said: "No taste to it. Don't get enough. Can't get full."
C OK, age sixteen, said: "Don't be enough."
The breakfasts and lunches served at the LTI's are funded by the federal government's school lunch program. In a meeting with the secretary of the DPSC, Human Rights Watch raised the issue of inadequate portions of food. The secretary agreed that there was a possibility that the portion sizes specified for the school lunch program might not be fixed with a view to the appetites of sixteen and seventeen-year-old boys. However, the secretary was of the opinion that all health and nutritional standards were met by the meals served at the LTI's.69 In response to Human Rights Watch's expressed concern, Superintendent Dunavant of Monroe-LTI offered to look into the possibility of increasing the portion sizes, noting that the portion specifications were a minimum requirement, not a maximum requirement. Human Rights Watch was not told whether the DPSC authorized any increase in portion size.
Although the quantities were said to be insufficient, there were fewer complaints about the quality of the food. Human Rights Watch was told by children who had been in several facilities that the quality of the food at EBR-LTI and JRDC was significantly worse than at the other two state-run facilities. There were complaints of meat and chicken being rare or raw in the middle. Some of the children complained about the sanitary conditions in the kitchens. KJ, age eighteen, who works in the dining hall at Monroe-LTI, said, "the cooks up here are dirty. They drop food on the floor and pick it up and serve it up." UM, age fourteen, said, "one day they dropped food on the floor and then picked it back up and gave it to us."
We had meals at both EBR-LTI and Monroe-LTI. We found the food to be adequate, though it lacked seasoning, particularly, we were told, to the Louisiana palate which is accustomed to salt. Human Rights Watch was also told by some children that the food on days that visitors came was invariably much better quality than on other days.
Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children have a right to education and that primary education must be compulsory and free. The right to education is reiterated in U.N. Rule 38. U.N. Rules 39 through 46 detail the parameters of the right to education, vocational training and work. The right includes education for children of compulsory school age and access to further education for children above compulsory school age. Article 26.6 of the Beijing Rules provides that children should not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage. U.N. Rule 47 sets out the children's right to a daily period of recreation, outdoors if possible, and additional daily time for leisure activities , like arts and crafts.
All of the facilities, except the JRDC section at EBR-LTI, have a school program and some time set aside each day, usually about one hour, for recreation. In general children attended school either in the morning or in the afternoon for three hours. There is no school for children housed at the JRDC. Since many of the children are found to be at a grade level below the one corresponding to their age, most of the schooling programs are alternative education programs. Many of the children interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that they had not been in school right before they were admitted to the institutions. The school provides basic education in math and literacy and builds on the child's education as he or she progresses.
The teachers are, for the most part, drawn from the school system in the area in which the institution is located. There is provision for special education at all the facilities, to some extent. Monroe-LTI appears to have the most highly developed staff ofteachers in the area of special education. Most of the children commented relatively favorably on school, saying that it was an acceptable way to pass time and was sometimes interesting.
All of the facilities provide classes to prepare children for their Graduate Equivalency Degree (GED). However, once a child achieves a GED there are no further educational opportunities. At Monroe-LTI, KJ, age eighteen, who wanted to take college courses, said, "If you are smarter, you don't get good education. It pays to be stupid, you get rewarded." Superintendent Dunavant told HRW that one child at Monroe-LTI did a teleconference course from Northeast University in Louisiana in 1994, but that college courses were not generally available. He also told us that when a child wants to go to college his approach is to try to convince a court to let the child out to attend college. Secretary Stalder of the DPSC told HRW that college courses were not possible because of lack of funds. The institutions have no policy of facilitating the pursuit of higher education .
Human Rights Watch visited each of the facilities on a weekday, at an hour during which the children, or at least some of them, would normally be in school. At every facility there were empty classrooms at the time the visit occurred and a substantial proportion of the children were not in school. At Bridge City-LTI most of the teachers were gone on the first day Human Rights Watch visited, apparently on training programs, but no one that Human Rights Watch spoke to was quite sure of where the teachers were.
EBR-LTI, but not JRDC, is fortunate enough to have the Model Continuum of Rehabilitative Care (MCRC) program, which is funded by a grant from the federal Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). The program includes interaction with the parents, substance abuse treatment, aftercare, job placement and a large educational component. Children learn on computers, using a specially designed computer program which includes the Job Skills Education Program (JSEP). That program gives children the foundation for at least 350 different job prescriptions. The children who were participating in this program expressed satisfaction with the program, particularly the sense that the interactive computer program was like having their own personal tutor. Bridge City-LTI and Monroe-LTI recently received funding from the DPSC to set up the computer job training portion of the MCRC program.
Recreation at the facilities is inconsistently provided from facility to facility. Some of the children told HRW that during the recreational period at EBR-LTI they are often made to sit on the floor in the gym and do nothing for the entire hour; for outside recreation time the children said that they are often made to sit on the sidewalk. OK,age eighteen, said, "yesterday, I'm a dormitory rep, I go to a meeting and tell them the dormitory needs some outside rec, the man ain't letting us out, he come ready to hit because I told he didn't give us outside rec."
Many of the children at TCCY said that there was not enough to do at the facility and that there was more to do at EBR-LTI. The children at Monroe-LTI and Bridge City-LTI, except those in isolation, of course, generally said that they had lots of things to do and that the activities were interesting and, in some cases, enjoyable. At Monroe-LTI there is a "boys club" which operates a canteen and has various activities including pottery, pool and weights. The children interviewed at Monroe-LTI commented favorably on the club activities.
The three LTI's all provide vocational training. Monroe-LTI has the most highly developed vocational training program. It includes working as apprentices to various trades. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited, two children were helping to set up an air conditioning system in the school. The regular vocational programs focus on small engine repair, upholstery and carpentry.
There are also parenting skills programs, to differing degrees, at each of the LTI's. At Monroe-LTI the parenting program is operated on an annual grant of $25,000 from the state formula grant money distributed by the OJJDP and awarded through the State Advisory Group. The parenting program started out as a comprehensive program that included an overnight visit component. A small house was assigned for use by the program and set up to mimic a home. As part of the program the confined children's babies were able occasionally to spend an entire weekend in this monitored "home" situation with their parents. Human Rights Watch was told by an official who requested anonymity that although no problems ever occurred, the administration of Governor Edwards stopped the overnight visit component of the program, citing liability risks. Bridge City-LTI also has a parenting program, and EBR-LTI provides some parenting skills training to girls who are pregnant. When a girl has a child during her term at the LTI, the baby is taken from her immediately after delivery and placed in the care of a family member or put into foster care.
At Bridge City-LTI there is a program called the Short Term Offender Program (STOP). STOP is for children, boys only, who are generally first time property offenders. The boys are required to serve only ninety days in the program, which includes components on substance abuse and victim impact awareness. TCCY ostensibly has a Louisiana Intensive Training and Education Program, the "LITE" program, which is for boys serving shorter sentences, and a regular LTI program. The "LITE" program is supposed to be a boot camp program. The children interviewedsaid that there did not seem to be any difference between the two programs, and many were given conflicting information on which program they were participating in. Human Rights Watch was unable to discern the difference between the programs, and none of the children interviewed said that they were participating in boot camp type activities beyond some drills. However, Bridge City- LTI, which does not purport to be a boot camp, has an atmosphere more akin to a boot camp. At Bridge City -LTI the children's heads are shaved close and they are required to do marching style drills for at least one hour every day, often more, and sometimes for as much as four hours on the weekend.
International standards clearly enunciate the principle that children who are incarcerated are to be cared for and treated. The goal of the incarceration is to prepare children for their return to society. Incarceration is not for punishment, but rather for treatment. To that end the international standards develop the concept of "normalization." "Normalization" requires an institution to minimize the differences between life inside and life outside the institution. International standards encourage interaction between the children and their community, treatment with respect and dignity and the development of alternatives to incarceration.
The physical surroundings of the four correctional facilities foster intimidation and punishment. The programming and counselling are inadequate to provide a full treatment program and on the days Human Rights Watch visited, there was little evidence that the children were being treated with respect and dignity at most times. The total lack of privacy magnifies the punishment atmosphere of the institutions.
A judge in Orleans parish who did not want to be named said, "people may mouth treatment, but they don't mean it," and another judge in Jefferson parish told Human Rights Watch that the State was just "warehousing kids" in the LTI's and that he "did not have much confidence in the LTI's...I only send kids to LTI's as a last resort; you can't count on good, effective treatment." Even Superintendent Dunavant, of Monroe-LTI, told Human Rights Watch that keeping children in the LTI's until they are twenty-one years old means that when they are released, they cannot function as adults in society.70
Some children in the institutions told us that they are not getting treatment or preparation for reintegration into society. JK, age eighteen, who had been at Monroe-LTI for three and a half years said, "I'm somewhat institutionalized. When they keep you a long time it just makes it worse. If they would have some type of rehab. courses, it would be better."
EK, age nineteen, at Monroe-LTI, summed up the systemic and societal problems that are carried over to the LTI's, saying, "They just slap you up...I came from a family like that, that's all I had to go through all my life, being locked up ain't changing me...when they slap us up, it ain't doing nothing but pumping up anger in me...I mostly grew up in the system...since everyone telling me how it was, I knew I would be at LTI someday."
This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Cecile Guin who has worked in the field of juvenile justice in Louisiana for eighteen years. She said, "No one cares enough to rock the boat so that the system can be changed ... Once the youth enters a juvenile institution, his or her chances of becoming a productive member of society are significantly decreased ... It is more likely that the youth has serious educational deficiencies that are not addressed during incarceration, is brutalized one way or another through the system and is released at a full term date with little or no preparation for reintegration into society ... Louisiana has never really implemented a comprehensive treatment program in the state."
A particular issue that is symptomatic of the general treatment accorded to the children is that many are not even given the fundamental right to know when they are to be released from the facility, or they are given an adjudicated date of release by the court, but it is somehow modified or let to pass without formal extension of the date. According to the children we spoke with this is due to the fact that an aftercare plan has not yet been prepared for the child,71 or that there is no space yet in the alternative or aftercare program for which the child is slated, or that the child is simply not able to contact his or her lawyer before a court date so that he or she is then unable to make arrangements to attend court. The problem is particularly acute for the children from Orleans parish because of the large number of children from the parish who need an aftercare program and the lack of resources of the parish.
KN, age fourteen, said, "I seen a lot of people here that are supposed to go home but they never leave, it worries me because they take so long." At TCCY, SC said his release date was supposed to be March 7 (he was interviewed on May 3) but that he had heard nothing about his release and he could not get in touch with anyone because all the phone calls are collect and the lawyers do not accept the calls.
The overall atmosphere of the institutions, in particular EBR-LTI and TCCY, is one of hostility and anger. Very little appears to be done to assist children in their reintegration into society. Among the people Human Rights Watch spoke to in the institutions and outside of them, there seemed to be little hope that the children at the secure facilities would stay out of trouble once released.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
Human Rights Watch offers the following recommendations regarding the human rights aspects of the confinement of children in Louisiana.
To the state of Louisiana:
C The Louisiana state government should develop mandatory standards that at minimum comply with international standards on the conditions of confinement for children and that are applicable to all public and private facilities.
C Physical abuse by staff against children should be strictly prohibited. Staff found to have abused children should be appropriately disciplined, including dismissal. Where appropriate, criminal charges should be brought against the staff. Staff should be fully informed of the rules and consequences concerning physical abuse of children.
C The Administrative Remedy Procedure should be made accessible and effective. The ARP should be written in clear language that can be easily understood and should be fully explained to children upon their arrival at an institution. Steps should be taken to ensure that the ARP is readily accessible, including the availability at all times of the proper forms on which to file a complaint. At each institution the ARP should be administered by a person independent of the institutional administration who can receive complaints without the involvement of security staff. Complaints should be responded to and thoroughly and promptly investigated.
C Health care personnel should be employees of the Department of Health or other entity separate from the DPSC in order to have the independence required to report suspected abuse.
C Isolation should never be used as a disciplinary measure.
C Administrative segregation should be used only where absolutely necessary for the protection of a child. A decision to place a child in administrative segregation should be promptly and systematically reviewed.
C Pre-disciplinary isolation should never be used, as it is punishment without benefit of due process.
C Instruments of restraint like handcuffs or shackles should be used only where all other control methods have been exhausted and failed, and only where necessary to prevent the child from causing self-injury or injury to others.
C Handcuffs and shackles should never be used as punishment. Handcuffs and shackles should not be used a means of preventing escape unless all other control methods have been exhausted and failed and where is no less intrusive method is available.
C Denial of access to reading matter should never be used as a disciplinary measure.
C Denial of outdoor time should never be used as a disciplinary measure. Children should be allowed at least one hour of daily outdoor exercise.
C The use of large dormitories should be phased out.
C The physical environment in which children are confined should be changed so as to afford children privacy while using the toilet facilities. Ideally each institution should contain single person rooms with toilet facilities contained within the room, as preferred by both international and national standards. As an interim measure, toilet facilities should be partitioned.
C In any future construction of correctional facilities for children, the DPSC should build smaller facilities and should make every effort to confine children as close to their homes as possible to facilitate the maintenance of family bonds, important to the social development and reintegration of the child in society.
C TCCY should be required to provide conditions which at minimum are consistent with the conditions at the state facilities.
C Children should be released on the date specified by the court. Children should be told in advance of their release dates and should be given the opportunity to contact their lawyer at the expense of the facility in advance of the court date.
C The institutions should develop a policy and practice of facilitating the pursuit of higher education by children who have completed their Graduate Equivalency Degrees.
C Education should be provided to children at the JRDC.
C The processing at JRDC should be completed within a reasonable time and, in any event, children should stay at JRDC for no longer than seven days.
C The institutions should provide adequate programming and educational instruction to ensure that the children are not spending their time without any activity. The purpose of the programming and education is to prepare the child for a successful reintegration into society.
C Children should be treated by staff with respect and dignity.
To the Federal government:
C The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention should, in accordance with the stated purposes of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, develop mandatory standards for the administration of juvenile justice. These standards should at minimum comply with international standards on the conditions of confinement for children and be applicable to all public and private facilities.
C The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention should, in accordance with the stated purposes of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, assist state and local governments in improving the administration of justice.
C The Office of Juvenile Justice and Deliquency Prevention should, in accordance with the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act, monitor the states that participate in the formula grants program to ensure that status offenders are not held in secure confinement and that children are not held with adults.
C Congress should pass legislation expanding the mandate of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to include a requirement to monitor the actual conditions of confinement for children in the justicesystem and states' compliance with U.S. constitutional law in the conditions of confinement for children.
C
The Department of Justice, in accordance with the mandate of the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, should regularly initiate investigations into the conditions in which children are confined to determine that they are in compliance with U.S. constitutional law.
Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. res. 44/25, annex, 44 U.N. GAOR Sup
p. (No. 49) at
167, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989).
PREAMBLE
The States Parties to the present Convention,
Considering that, in accordance with the principles proclaimed in
the Charter of the United Nations, recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of
the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace
in the world,
Bearing in mind that the peoples of the United Nations have, in
the Charter, reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights
and in the dignity and worth of the human person, and have
determined to promote social progress and better standards of
life in larger freedom,
Recognizing that the United Nations has, in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenants on
Human Rights, proclaimed and agreed that everyone is entitled to
all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without
distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,
religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin,
property, birth or other status,
Recalling that, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the
United Nations has proclaimed that childhood is entitled to
special care and assistance,
Convinced that the family, as the fundamental group of society
and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all
its members and particularly children, should be afforded the
necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume
its responsibilities within the community,
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious
development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family
environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and
understanding,
Considering that the child should be fully prepared to live an
individual life in society, and brought up in the spirit of the
ideals proclaimed in the Charter of the United Nations, and in
particular in the spirit of peace, dignity, tolerance, freedom,
equality and solidarity,
Bearing in mind that the need to extend particular care to the
child has been stated in the Geneva Declaration of the Rights of
the Child of 1924 and in the Declaration of the Rights of the
Child adopted by the General Assembly on 20 November 1959 and
recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (in
particular in articles 23 and 24), in the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (in particular in article
10) and in the statutes and relevant instruments of specialized
agencies and international organizations concerned with the
welfare of children, '
Bearing in mind that, as indicated in the Declaration of the
Rights of the Child, "the child, by reason of his physical and
mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including
appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth",
Recalling the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Legal
Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children,
with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption
Nationally and Internationally; the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (The
Beijing Rules) ; and the Declaration on the Protection of Women
and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict,
Recognizing that, in all countries in the world, there are
children living in exceptionally difficult conditions, and that
such children need special consideration,