Case Study of the Response of the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act Consent Decree.

摘要

Department of Justice of correctional facilities (Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Summary, 2008). During investigations, the Special Litigation Section of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) may enter into consent decrees or file motions of contempt in order to gain compliance on the part of a state agency found to be in violation of the CRIPA standards. A total of 430 agencies in 49 states have been investigated for severe misconduct and poor conditions, yet not a single study has examined the process or impact of these decrees. Examinations into the process of federal intervention into state agencies are important because they allow for an understanding of how state institutions respond to and enforce policy recommendations even after investigations have concluded. The study of these changes is even more compelling owing to the recent severe budget cutbacks in many states that may have had an impact on the extent to which compliance has been maintained. One such state agency experiencing a recent federal intervention is the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections (ADJC). Leading up to 2002, numerous reports surfaced that the ADJC was deficient in providing supervision, education, mental health treatment, safety, and suicide prevention to youths in their care. Such deficiencies were highlighted by a multiple suicides occurring within ADJC facilities (CRIPA Investigation Report, 2004). Following a DOJ investigation finding that the facilities violate (d) the constitutional and federal statutory rights of the youth residents,a consent decree was entered into between the DOJ and the State of Arizona. Changes were required to safeguard the rights and safety of youths in ADJC custody, including improvements in suicide prevention, numbers of trained direct care staff, mental health services and medical care. The consent decree ended in 2007 after the ADJC made the changes required by the Memorandum of Understanding. The goal was to transform the organizational culture so as to sustain gains made during the implementation period after the Department of Justice concluded its work.A key feature of our work was to examine the organizational culture and to determine if the changes were institutionalized after DOJ involvement.