Jones v. Wittenberg

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DON J. YOUNG, District Judge.

This cause came to be heard upon the First Report of the Special Master evaluating the compliance of the defendants with this Court’s order of July 30, 1971, as modified throughout the course of this litigation. The report was filed pursuant to the Court’s Order of December 17, 1976. No objections having been filed by any of the parties, the Court being fully advised in the premises, it is ORDERED that the report is in all respects confirmed. Said report is attached hereto as an Appendix, incorporated herein by reference, and made a part hereof as fully for all intents and purposes as if set forth at length herein.

To the extent the First Report of the Special Master deals with ¶ 11 concerning the interpretation of the Court’s order of July 6, 1973, with regard to finding of a pre-trial bail release program, the Court adds the following clarification.

In order to effect compliance with the prior orders of the Court with regard to funding of the aforesaid program, the Defendant County Commissioners must provide such funds as are necessary to support a viable program to meet the goals recognized in ¶ 11.

In the July 6, 1978 Order, the Court recognized that funding of at least $14,000 per year is required to meet this end. This figure was not set, however, as a limitation on the obligation of said defendants to provide such funds as are necessary for the program. The Court therefore adopts the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are not in compliance with the provisions of ¶ 11. In confirming the First Report of the Special Master, the Court adopts the findings with respect to the state of compliance in all other aspects of the case as well.

THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE APPEARING,

it is

FURTHER ORDERED that all of the named defendants, as well as their subordinates, proceed at once to effectuate full compliance with the July 30, 1971, Order of this Court, as modified by subsequent orders of the Court; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that all steps taken by the defendants and their subordinates to effectuate full compliance with that order, as modified, be supervised, coordinated, and approved by the Special Master, acting for the Court.

In this connection, the Special Master shall have the authority to state to the defendants, their subordinates, and all persons acting in concert with them, or any of them, the actions required to be taken by them, or any of them, to effectuate full compliance, and to seek orders from the Court requiring any or all of said defendants, their subordinates, and persons acting in concert with them, or

*64

any of them, to show cause why they should not be punished as for contempt for failure to carry out such actions required;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, because of the disclosures of noncompliance contained in the First Report of the Special Master, that the Special Master shall continue to investigate the defendants’ state of compliance with the July 30, 1971, order of this Court, as modified, and shall make supplemental reports to the Court in the event that further or continuing instances of noncompliance are discovered.

For this purpose, the Special Master shall have all of the authority granted to him by the December 17, 1976, order of this Court;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the prior order of the Court filed on July 30, 1971, is modified in the following respects:

(1) The words “awaiting trial” in line 3 of the introductory statement to ¶ 6 are deleted.

(2) ¶ 7 is deleted.

(3) The words “and provisions for limitation or removal of visiting privileges for disciplinary purposes, or for abuse of visiting privileges” are deleted from subparagraph 17(h);

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT the defendants, their employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all those in concert therewith are ENJOINED FROM:

(1) Incarcerating more than one prisoner in any cell originally designed for single occupancy and from incarcerating more than a total of 226 prisoners in the housing modules containing cells on the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floors of the Lucas County Correction Center.

These limits shall not be exceeded unless there shall exist an extreme emergency where the protection of the public demands immediate confinement of a large number of persons and then the limits may be exceeded for not more than twenty-four (24) hours;

(2) Employing the attorney/client booths in the Lucas County Correction Center for use in attorney/client visits until the booths are modified as ordered herein unless the visiting attorney requests in writing a non-contact visit;

and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the defendants, their employees, agents, successors, assigns, and all those in concert therewith are ENJOINED TO:

(1) Remove the dividing wall in each of the attorney/client booths as well as to provide soundproof doors, adequate ventilation in the booths, and such furnishings as are necessary for attorney/client visits.

(2) Employ the multipurpose rooms for use in attorney/client visits until the aforesaid modifications in the attorney/client booths are completed.

(3) Provide adequate attorney/client visiting facilities on the second floor of the correction center.

(4) Either install toilets and sinks in the two cells on the first floor of the correction center which do not contain toilet facilities (these cells are numbered 1074 and 1078 and are designated on architectural drawings as “psychiatric cells”) or remove the doors to the cells to render them unusable for occupancy by prisoners.

The defendants shall notify the Court in writing within ten (10) days of the filing of this order which alternative they elect to follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

*65

APPENDIX

FIRST REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER ON THE DEFENDANTS’ STATE OF COMPLIANCE

Submitted by Vincent M. Nathan *

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction.......-............................-..................------------- 66

Paragraph 1 — Overcrowding....................................................... 71

Findings Relating to Compliance................................................. 73

Paragraph 2 — Use of Space in Jail.................................................. 74

Findings Relating to Compliance....................................-............ 75

Paragraph 3 — Lighting System of Jail................................................ 75

Findings Relating to Compliance.......................................-......— 77

Paragraph 4 — Food Service ......... — .........—.......-.............—....... 77

Minimum N utritional Standards............ — ...................-.............. 77

Temperature, Freshness, and Variety of Food...................................... 79

Sanitary Conditions..........-................................................ 81

Food Service Personnel-----------------------------------.....-......-.....— 83

Inspection by Public Health Authorities........................................... 84

Findings Relating to Compliance..................................... — ......... 85

Paragraph 5 — Medical Facilities---------------------------------------------------86

Findings Relating to Compliance................................................. 88

Paragraph 6 — Communication Rights of Pre-Trial Prisoners.............................. 89

Outgoing Mail------------------------------------------------- — ------------ 89

Incoming Parcels and Letters -...... — ......................................... 90

Availability of Writing Materials and Postage-------------------------------------- 91

Telephone Privileges---------------- 91

Findings Relating to Compliance —-------------------------------------------— 92

Paragraph 7 — Communication Rights of Sentenced Inmates------------------------------ 93

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 95

Paragraph 8 — Attorney/Client Visiting Facilities------------------------------------— '95

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 97

Paragraph 9 — Physical Alterations and Repairs---------------------------------------- 98

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 100

Paragraph 10 — Library Services and Censorship---------------------------------------- 100

Library Services-------------------- 100

Censorship---------------------- 102

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 103

Paragraph 11 — Pre-Trial Release Program-------------------------------------------- 103

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 106

Paragraph 12 — Purchase of Jail Food------------------------------------------------ 107

Findings Relating to Compliance------------------------------------------------- 108

Paragraph 13 — Medical Services--------------------------------------------------— 108

Findings Relating to Compliance---------------------------------------------- — 113

Paragraph 14 — Guard Surveillance---------------------------------------------------113

The Old Jail_________________________________________________________________ 114

The Lucas County Correction Center--------------------------------------------- 116

The R.P.U. Reevaluation ------------------------------------------------------- 119

The Staffing Consultants-------------------------------------------------------122

Occupancy of the Lucas County Correction Center-----------------------------------127

Findings Relating to Compliance-----------------------------------------------— 129

Order of May 8, 1974 — Inmate Offense Reports ------------------------------------— 129

Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________ 133

*66

Paragraph 15 — Programmed Instruction for Jail Personnel-------------------------------134

Findings Relating to Compliance-------------------------------------------------135

Paragraph 16 — Selection and In-Service Training of Jail Personnel —---------------------136

Findings Relating to Compliance.............. — --------------------------------139

Paragraph 17 — Programming-------------------------------------------------1-----139

Classification and Diagnostic Procedures..........................................140

Work/Study Release............. 143

Group and Individual Counseling------------------------------------------- 144

Educational Programs------------------ 146

Recreation ------- 148

Religious Programs------------- 150

Work Programs--------------------------------------------------------------152

Visiting Programs_____________________________________________________________153

Findings Relating to Compliance-------- 158

Paragraph 18 — Daily Cleaning------1-----------------------------------------------159

Findings Relating to Compliance--------------- 160

Paragraph 19 — Linens, Clothing, and Toilet Articles---------- 160

Findings Relating to Compliance----------------- 161

Paragraph 20 — Punishment of Inmates Awaiting Trial-----.............. 161

Findings Relating to Compliance------------- 162

Paragraph 21 — Use of Isolation_________________________ 162

Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________164

Paragraph 22 — Discipline------------------------------------- 165

Findings Relating to Compliance_________________________________________________166

Conclusion------------------------------- 167

Appendices------------------- 170

* Professor of Law, The University of Toledo

INTRODUCTION

On January 21, 1977, the Court issued an order appointing a Special Master in this case; shortly thereafter, the Special Master employed a second year law student, Fraser McAlpine, to serve as his assistant. The report which follows, as well as the negotiation, research, and investigation which underlie it, constitute a joint effort on the part of the Special Master and his assistant, the latter’s contribution to the project having been invaluable.

During the six months which have passed between the appointment of the Special Master and the filing of this report, a very substantial amount of time has been devoted to meetings between the Special Master and the defendants with regard to the evacuation of the old Lucas County Jail and the occupancy of the new Lucas County Correction Center. It was not until April 22,1977, that agreements reached in the course of these meetings resulted in the occupancy of the third floor of the new facility by female inmates and selected male inmates. On May 18, 1977, all inmates were transferred from the old jail.

During the course of the negotiations which occurred prior to the occupancy of the new facility, the Special Master raised a number of matters which he believed required resolution before the new facility could be occupied. These related to correctional officer staffing levels, lighting in the cells, the nature of the booths provided for attorney/client visits, and the unfinished and unusable state of the outdoor exercise decks on the housing floors of the facility. The first related directly to the safety of inmates housed in the new jail, and the others raised the prospect of physical alterations which might interfere with occupancy of the facility. The results of negotiations with respect to all of these matters are described fully in the report which follows. During the time that these negotiations were occurring, the final stages of construction of the new jail were being completed and the Special Master and his

*67

assistant were attempting to gather the data and information necessary for this report.

It is with regret that the Special Master must report that his efforts to develop the required data and information were impeded by the repeated failure of the Correction Administrator and his staff to provide routine information and documentation. In the course of his first meetings with the Correction Administrator (the chief administrative officer of the jail) the Special Master asked that certain material be forwarded to him on a weekly or monthly basis. These requests are summarized in a letter written by the Special Master to the Correction Administrator on February 28,1977. As materials failed to arrive, the Special Master both orally and in writing repeated his requests and indicated the nature of the material which was not being received. As this report is being written, the Special Master has failed to receive all of these records although most are maintained routinely and are required for the internal operation of the jail. Although the Special Master requested “reports of all incidents of physical or sexual assault of inmates, attempted suicides, and any other incidents resulting in injury to an inmate or staff person,” he is personally aware of a number of such incidents which have not been reported to him. The same can be said with respect to “reports of all plumbing problems resulting from inmate misbehavior.” Of particular importance, the Special Master requested copies of all Inmate Offense Reports (grievances) filed by inmates. The Special Master has obtained several such reports from inmates and is aware of the existence of others which have not been forwarded to him by the Correction Administrator.

Difficulties have been encountered as well in obtaining cooperation in the posting of required notices. In his letter of February 28, 1977, to the Correction Administrator, the Special Master made the following statement:

. it is absolutely essential that we take steps immediately to see to it that the notice of my appointment (the revised edition) be posted at all times in all ranges in the jail as well as in the medical cells and the juvenile ward.

On the occasion of numerous visits to the old jail, the Special Master noted that these notices were not posted and brought this matter to the attention of the Correction Administrator and other members of the staff. With the move to the new facility, these notices came to be posted only sporadically if at all. On the occasion of a tour of the jail held on June 13, 1977, the Special Master was unable to locate a single copy of the notice of his appointment in any of the housing areas. The absence of these notices has impeded severely communication between inmates and the Special Master.

1

Much of what has been described above, in the opinion of the Special Master, reflects less any deliberate effort on the part of the Correction Administrator to impede investigation than it does the simple failure to recognize the need to assign a high priority to compliance with the Court’s order. Six years of litigation have not yet impressed upon all of the principals that the Court’s order is something to be taken seriously, let alone a matter of overriding importance.

In addition, it must be said that the general inefficiency and absence of clear lines of communication encountered in the jail by the Special Master have interfered with the development of information and data required for this report. On too many occasions written policies and actual practice do not coincide. Indeed in a number of in

*68

stances, high ranking administrators are in disagreement about what the policies of the institution actually are. The problem is compounded by the absence of written records which could be used to verify what procedures in fact are followed. A careful effort has been made in this report to distinguish between policy and actual practice and to provide verifying data when it has been available.

Before moving to a description of the organization of this report, the Special Master must comment upon the new physical facility which is the focus of this litigation. In its second opinion in this case, the Court made the following observation:

. if a beautiful brand new jail were built and operated the way the present jail is operated, there would be little improvement in the difficulties at first, and what improvement there was would very rapidly disappear.

Jones v. Wittenberg,

330 F.Supp. 707, 712 (N.D.Ohio 1971).

The Court’s observation was indeed prophetic. While the construction of a new jail has eliminated, at least for the time being, the worst of the problems of overcrowding, separation of prisoners, and filth, this large and complicated structure has created a complex set of new problems to be overcome if adequate services, programming, and surveillance are to be accomplished. To say that the new structure is an improvement over the old Lucas County Jail, which was built in the last decade of the 19th century, is not to say very much. A better standard against which to measure the new facility is that provided by the National Sheriffs’ Association:

a. To provide decent and humane care for inmates

b. To protect the public by securely detaining persons who present a danger to the community or to themselves

c. To meet the correctional needs of the inmates by providing services which will help overcome their handicaps and permit them to live law-abiding lives after their release.

2

After acknowledging these to be the purposes of the Lucas County Correction Center, the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit summarized its opinion of the new facility in the following terms:

It is our opinion and the opinion of the experts we have consulted that on the whole, the new Lucas County Jail is an excellent facility which the entire community can be proud of.

3

With this statement the Special Master and the experts he has consulted respectfully disagree.

In the course of his tour of the new facility, Dr. F. Warren Benton, the Director of the Oklahoma Department of Correction, observed to the Special Master that the new jail is based primarily upon 19th century conceptions of correctional architecture, the only exceptions being those areas which are more reminiscent of the 18th century.

Mr. William G. Nagel of the American Foundation’s Institute of Corrections, in a report received by'the Special Master, likened the new Lucas County Jail to one described in Mr. Nagel’s highly regarded study of American correctional facilities,

The New Red Barn :

Our first impression of almost all the jails inspected was that they were designed in hypocrisy. Often built as part of a criminal justice complex or civic center, they are frequently, on the exterior, inoffensive and even attractive structures. The approaches are attractively landscaped, sometimes even including fountains and reflection pools. One Warden proudly noted that no bars are visible to outsiders — a now frequent ploy. The overwhelming impression once inside is that the modern American jail, like its prede

*69

cessor of the last century, is a cage that has changed only superficially. The concepts of repression and human degradation are remarkedly intact.

Mr. Nagel commented at several points in his report about the difficulties of inmate movement which would be experienced in the new institution:

My experience has been that high-rise institutions operating off an elevator core, with doors and elevators remotely controlled, do not lend themselves to any ease of movement from the house modules to the recreation area. And as a result, the recreation areas are used much less frequently and under much more structured restrictions than are necessary or desirable.

The fact that provisions have been made for classrooms and for a library are both very positive, but my same reservations exist relative to their use because highrise elevator core institutions, remotely controlled, do not lend themselves to movement from housing units to central activity space such as classrooms and libraries.

Finally, Mr. Nagel summarized his observations in the following words:

I would say that the design of the Lucas County Jail has many imperfections, including its overemphasis on steel and electronic devices. I think it is designed as the most restrictive alternative for the untried, rather than the least restrictive alternative. I think its visiting arrangements are archaic, as are its holding cells on the first floor and maximum security blocks on the top floor.

Mr. Anthony S. Kuharich, a jail consultant employed by the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit to submit a report on the staffing requirements of the new jail, characterized the new jail as “essentially a maximum security . facility.”

Mr. Wayne Patterson, the Director of Corrections for the City and County of Denver, Colorado, acknowledged that:

There are many aspects of the facility which fall short of the ideal, both in the efficient use of space and consolidation of services provided.

While Mr. Patterson went on to describe the new facility as “pleasantly appointed” and “painted in appropriate decor,” the Special Master fails to understand how the fixed tables and backless stools, which constitute the only furnishings in. the housing areas, can be described as pleasant appointments. Even the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit has recommended that:

Each living module (dayroom) should be provided with additional seating of a comfortable nature. The additional chairs should be well spaced to provide for effective utilization of existing space. Such seating should be designed to withstand heavy use. We believe this recommendation is directly related to inmate safety and offer the following quote from Dr. Hartung in this regard:

“Men are in forced contact but they do not want to be in forced contact all the time. A good deal of bickering or conflict will be avoided if other seating is provided so they can sit by themselves when they wanted.” (sic)

4

As, to Mr. Patterson’s reference to the appropriateness of the choice of color, the Special Master is more in agreement with Mr. Nagel’s observation concerning the sixth floor, which is intended to house the most dangerous and aggressive prisoners in the jail:

The sixth floor should be repainted before any inmates are placed in it. It has been painted in a red-orange, the very color that psychologists have found to be the most provocative in terms of aggressive responses.

Finally, the Special Master has noted the following observation made by Mr. Robert Christensen, Correctional Services Administrator for the North Central Regional Of

*70

fice of the United States Bureau of Prisons, another consultant employed by the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit:

The emphasis on the floor plan is to provide as little physical contact between staff and prisoners as possible. The facility lends itself well to this concept by providing several observation points and television coverage.

The Special Master agrees that the architectural design of the housing floors “lends itself well” to providing “as little physical contact between staff and prisoners as possible,” but does not believe that this is a desirable architectural feature of the new facility.

Returning to the basic functions of a jail enumerated by the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Special Master acknowledges that he does not possess sufficient expertise to comment extensively upon the physical security of the new facility. Apparently, a number of experts who toured the new jail for the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit believe the institution to be secure. Experience which has been gained already, however, indicates that inmates can open windows in their cells for the purpose of passing contraband and can enter the ventilating duct shafts located in the housing areas. In addition, one inmate almost removed his entire cell window with little more than his bare hands. Because the Court’s order is not related directly to these security aspects of the new facility, the Special Master has not attempted to obtain the benefit of expert opinion in this area.

What is clear to the Special Master, however, is that little emphasis was given to the provision of “decent and humane care for inmates.” The Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit has pointed out, with respect to prisoners incarcerated in the Lucas County Jail, that “the vast majority of these persons (70%) have not been convicted or sentenced for any crime.” When this fact is taken into account, the steel cages containing small windowless cells on the sixth floor, the failure to provide any semblance of comfortable seating in the dayroom areas, the failure to install adequate light for reading, the construction of archaic and dehumanizing visiting facilities, and the provision of padded cells without sinks or toilets for inmates who are mentally disturbed are all the more inexcusable.

With respect to meeting “correctional needs of the inmates by providing services,” it is true that the new jail, as originally designed, contained four classrooms. All of these were converted to other non-educational uses within the first few weeks of occupancy of the new facility. It is true that the new jail contains what Mr. Nagel described as “probably the largest indoor recreation space I’ve seen in any County jail in the United States,” a library, a chapel area, multipurpose rooms, and medical facilities. The problem is that use of these facilities may be minimized (and in some cases rendered impossible) by the core elevator concept unless the jail’s administration is willing to develop creative and innovative solutions to this problem. In addition, as will be described in greater detail in this report, the presence of visiting facilities, and therefore visitors, on the housing floors will make simultaneous programming and visitation very difficult. The programming and service facilities which have been constructed fail to reflect the input and advice of those who will use them. The Food Service Director has described to the Special Master the failure of the planners and designers of the facility to accept his advice with respect to the configuration and arrangement of the new kitchen. Suggestions of the doctor as well as those of the Medical Director were ignored when the medical area was designed, with the result that this area is deficient in a number of important respects which are described in later portions of this report. Outside citizens groups such as the Jail Action Improvement League were not even permitted to have input in the design of the new facility, and the recommendations of a committee of the Toledo/Lucas County Correction Council, an organization whose mem

*71

bers are possessed of substantial correction expertise, were largely if not completely ignored.

In assessing the capacity of the new jail to “provide decent and humane care for inmates” and “to meet the correctional needs of the inmates by providing services which will help overcome their handicaps and permit them to live law-abiding lives after their release,” one should consider the restatement of these objectives by Professor Hans W. Mattick, the Director of the Center for Research in Criminal Justice at the University of Illinois Chicago Circle, who reported his observations of the new jail:

At the

minimum,

a jail should not do any harm to its staff or inmates, i. e., it should not expose the staff or inmates to dangerous or unhealthy conditions and it should not contribute to the further maladjustment of persons remanded or sentenced there. At the

optimum,

a jail should provide the opportunity for the staff (as representatives of the community) to have a constructive influence on the lives of the inmates and thereby increase the probability of their successful re-integration into the community upon their release.

In the opinion of the Special Master, a substantial amount of ingenuity and skill on the part of the jail’s administration will be required to meet the minimum, let alone the optimum objective set forth by Professor Mattick. One’s sense that more could and should have been done in planning and designing the new jail to promote humane care and adequate programming is accentuated by the fact that this new facility will stand for 75 to 100 years. As Dr. Benton said in his report, however:

Since the facility is completely constructed, the County should seek to do the best with what it has.

All of these observations concerning the physical design of the new Lucas County Correction Center have not been put forward by the Special Master in order to carp; nor should they be taken as implying undue criticism of all of the defendants in this case, several of whom assumed their official positions too recently to be in a position to affect the design of the structure. As much of the remainder of this report will make clear, however, the physical configuration of the new jail is directly related to the achievement of a state of compliance with a number of the provisions of the Court’s order. Thus, at the outset one must be aware that full compliance with the Court’s order will require some alteration of the physical facility as well as the development of policies, procedures, and practices on the part of the jail’s administration and staff.

In its opinion of July 9, 1971, the Court ordered counsel for the plaintiffs to prepare and submit an order expressive of the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in that opinion. That order was submitted to and approved by the Court. The report which follows measures the conduct of the defendants against the language of that order and against that contained in modifications subsequently approved by the Court. The references to numbered paragraphs of the Court’s order correspond to numbers utilized in that final order. Each provision of the Court’s order is discussed, and findings with respect to compliance have been made by the Special Master in each instance. As a general rule, the Special Master has not attempted to propose plans for obtaining compliance in those areas in which findings of noncompliance have been made. In a few such instances, however, specific recommendations have been made. These recommendations relate primarily to matters which have been the subject of lengthy discussion and negotiation between the Special Master and the defendants in this case. Upon the Court’s adoption of the findings of the Special Master contained in this report, the process of developing additional compliance plans can commence.

PARAGRAPH 1

WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS OF THIS ORDER, REDUCE THE INMATE POPU

*72

LATION OF THE LUCAS COUNTY JAIL TO NO MORE THAN TWO PERSONS PER CELL. THIS LIMIT SHALL NOT BE EXCEEDED UNLESS THERE SHALL EXIST AN EXTREME EMERGENCY WHERE THE PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC DEMANDS IMMEDIATE CONFINEMENT OF A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONS AND THEN THE LIMIT MAY BE EXCEEDED FOR NOT MORE THAN TWENTY-FOUR (24) HOURS EXCEPT THAT:

(a) IF A PROGRAM OF REMODELL-ING TAKES PLACE WHICH REQUIRES THE TEMPORARY VACATION OF SOME CELL BLOCKS, THE LIMITATION OF TWO PERSONS PER CELL MAY BE EXCEEDED DURING SUCH REMO-DELLING.

(b) IF SUCH PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE CONVERTED FROM CELL HOUSING TO OPEN DORMITORY HOUSING, THIS ORDER MAY BE MODIFIED UPON APPLICATION.

As applied to the former Lucas County-Jail, Paragraph 1 established an inmate population limit of 162. This figure is based upon the existence of 51 cells in three large cellblocks, 29 cells in six small cell-blocks and one cell used for juvenile offenders. This total of 81 cells permitted a population of 162 assuming double occupancy. For the purpose of determining the capacity of the old jail, two medical cells on the third floor of the facility have been excluded. Since these cells were intended to house physically ill prisoners, they could not be considered in computing the number of cells available for the regular inmate population. The same is true of a single “isolation” cell in one of the small cellblocks on the first floor of the jail, which cell was designated for occupancy by mentally disturbed and violent inmates.

Daily population reports maintained by the jail administration from February 4, 1977 through April 22, 1977, reflected an average daily population of 180.4. During this period the lowest daily population was 167 and the highest was 197. Thus more than 162 inmates were housed in the facility on every day for which population reports were submitted to the Special Master.

During the period covered by these reports, there was no “extreme emergency” requiring protection of the public and constituting a justification for deviation from the population limit imposed by the Court. No program of remodelling took place during that period and no portions of the structure were converted to open dormitory housing.

On April 22,1977, 30 inmates were moved to the newly constructed Lucas County Correction Center. From this date until May 18, 1977, when the old structure was totally evacuated, the daily population level in the old jail remained within the limit established by. the Court.

During the period of overcrowding observed by the Special Master after his appointment, no more than two inmates were assigned to any cell. Inmates unable to be accommodated in cells were given beds in the dayroom areas adjoining the cells. On several occasions persons serving weekend sentences and other inmates were provided with nothing more than a mattress on the floor, and on one weekend, female inmates were moved to a conference room on the third floor of the jail where they slept on mattresses on the floor. This situation was alleviated only when the American Red Cross agreed to provide cots for several days until releases could be effected to reduce the population level. On virtually all occasions observed by the Special Master, four persons were incarcerated in the room designated for juvenile offenders.

Although written with the old facility in mind, Paragraph 1 has obvious ramifications for the administration of the new Correction Center. Almost all regular housing cells on the third, fourth, and fifth floors of the new facility contain 72.1 square feet. One cell in each of the four person modules on these floors contains 92.6 square feet. Sixth floor “maximum security” cells contain 50.6 square feet. It is

*73

clear that all cells in the facility, apart from three 15 person holding areas on the first floor, were designed for single cell occupancy.

5

Only one bunk is attached to the wall of each cell and fixed furnishings in the dayroom areas provide seating for only one inmate per cell. In designing cells for single occupancy, the planners of the Lucas County Correction Center were complying with current correctional standards relating to construction of new facilities. The American Correctional Association recommends single cell occupancy,

6

and the minimum standards for local criminal detention facilities proposed by the Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice prohibit construction of multiple occupancy cells.

7

The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals recommends maintenance of single occupancy cells containing at least 80 square feet.

8

Any effort to house more than one inmate in the regular housing cells in the new facility will raise a serious constitutional question. In the recent case of

Wolfish v. United

States, 428 F.Supp. 333 (D.C.N.Y.1977), Judge Marvin Frankel held unconstitutional the practice of double celling in cells originally intended for single occupancy. Many of the cells involved in that litigation contained a total floor space of 75 to 77 square feet; others varied from slightly less than 115 square feet to almost 123 square feet. In the course of his opinion, Judge Frankel cited six recent opinions condemning double celling as unconstitutional.

In the opinion of the Special Master, the purposes of Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order were to relieve an intolerable state of overcrowding in the old jail and to provide housing facilities which would meet at least minimal constitutional requirements. In view of current correctional and legal standards requiring single cell occupancy in new facilities, this paragraph should be interpreted to forbid multiple occupancy of all cells in the Lucas County Correction Center which were constructed for occupancy by only one inmate. As the remainder of this report makes clear, compliance with numerous provisions of the Court’s order will be difficult enough in the absence of overcrowding; double celling, in the opinion of the Special Master, will render full compliance virtually impossible.

On the basis of single occupancy, 226 inmates can be housed on the regular housing floors of the new jail. This figure does not take into account the existence of 14 cells on the second floor which are intended for inmates requiring medical attention and ten cells which are intended to hold unclassified inmates awaiting transfer to a regular housing module upon completion of the classification process. It also' ignores the presence of 20 cells and three 15 person rooms on the first floor of the facility designed to hold incoming inmates for a period of no more than 12 hours prior to their removal to the classification area on the second floor. Finally, the total of 226 does not include those inmates who will be housed in dormitories on the second and fifth floors. The Work Release dormitories located on the second floor will accommodate approximately 80 inmates and the trusty dormitory on the fifth floor held 24 trusties as of June 29, 1977.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants were in a state of

*74

noncompliance with Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order during the period of observation described above in the former Lucas County Jail. It is the further finding of the Special Master that the purposes of Paragraph 1 apply with full force to the new Lucas County Correction Center and that such purposes will be thwarted by multiple occupancy of any cell in the new facility other than the three 15 person holding areas on the first floor and the dormitories located on the second and fifth floors.

PARAGRAPH 2

TERMINATE THE USE OF SPACE IN THE JAIL BUILDING FOR ANY PURPOSE NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN JAIL OPERATIONS AND MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO FIT ALL USABLE SPACE IN THE JAIL BUILDING TO JAIL USE.

In the course of numerous inspections of the old Lucas County Jail, the Special Master observed that all space in the building was being used for activities directly involved in the operation of the facility. Like Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order, Paragraph 2 was designed to alleviate to the extent possible the condition of extreme overcrowding which existed in the facility in 1971. In addition, effectuation of that provision of the Court’s order created at least limited space for recreation and other program activities. The construction of the n'ew Correction Center has addressed and to a large extent eliminated the problems of overcrowding and lack of space for programming dealt with by this paragraph. In the event that overcrowding or space limitations affecting programming should develop, however, Paragraph 2 will have obvious and direct application to the new facility

All space on the third through the sixth floors of the recently opened Correction Center has been allocated for inmate housing and for program activity. For reasons which appear later in this report, however, certain space on these floors is not usable at this time. Because of the inadequacy of the small booths which have been provided for attorney/client visits, more fully described in that portion of this report relating to Paragraph 8 of the Court’s order, these areas cannot be regarded as usable. Likewise, the failure to provide a secure outer perimeter has rendered eight exercise decks on these floors unusable. As is pointed out in the Special Master’s discussion of subparagraph 17(e) of the Court’s order, these decks are necessary for the development of an adequate recreation program.

The second floor of the new facility is devoted to a number of functions directly involved in jail operations. The southern half of the floor is assigned to the medical department and to inmate classification. Large areas on the north and east sides of the floor are being utilized by the Work Release Program. Administrative offices and a library occupy the remainder of the space on this floor.

Large open lobby areas on the second, through the sixth floors of the new jail constitute severely underutilized space. These lobbies, each containing more than 4000 square feet, are used only for inmate, staff, and other movement on each floor. These spaces are potentially usable for other activities and may well be needed in order to remedy shortcomings discussed in this report with respect to inmate food service and the visiting program.

The booking and incoming inmate holding areas occupy roughly the northern third of the first floor. Directly adjoining are the center lobby area and the main control room for the facility. The remainder of the first floor is devoted to administrative offices for the Sheriff and employees working the Sheriff’s Department. While some of these offices are used for purposes not directly involved in the operation of the jail, the assignment of this space to activities relating to the overall administration of the Sheriff’s Department is appropriate and does not interfere in any way with the functioning of the jail itself.

All space on the basement floor of the new facility is either unassigned or relates

*75

directly to jail operations. This floor contains the kitchen, staff dining room, laundry facility, and other maintenance rooms.

The subbasement floor contains a multipurpose recreation room, a chapel area, staff lockers, other staff support areas, and offices for the Criminal Justice Training and Education Center which will be responsible for training incoming jail staff. One large area on this floor remains unassigned.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants were in a state of compliance with Paragraph 2 of the Court’s order during the period of the Special Master’s observation of the former Lucas County Jail. In addition, all space assigned in the new facility either relates directly to jail operations or is being used for purposes which do not interfere with the operation of the facility. Unusable space represented by the present attorney/client visiting booths and the unfinished exercise decks, because these are necessary for activities mandated by other provisions of the Court’s order, must be altered. Failure on the part of the defendants to accomplish these necessary changes will constitute noncompliance with Paragraph 2 of the Court’s order.

PARAGRAPH 3

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF THIS ORDER PRESENT A PLAN TO THIS COURT TO CORRECT THE LIGHTING SYSTEM OF THE JAIL SO AS TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMITY WITH SECTION VII, § 7.04 OF REGULATION Al-68 OF THE TOLEDO DISTRICT' BOARD OF HEALTH. THE PLAN SHALL TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT EACH SEPARATE CELL IS A HABITABLE ROOM WITHIN THE MEANING OF SAID REGULATION AND EACH LIGHT FIXTURE SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT FOOT-CANDLE (LUMEN) ILLUMINATION IN EACH CELL TO PERMIT THE READING OF A NEWSPAPER ACCORDING TO ACCEPTED STANDARDS.

Section 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health, referred to in the text of this paragraph of the Court’s order, reads as follows:

Where there is electric service available from power lines which are not more than 300 feet away from a dwelling, every habitable room of such dwelling shall contain at least two separate floor or wall-type electric convenience outlets or one such convenience outlet and one supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture; and every water closet compartment, bathroom, laundry room, furnace room and public hall shall contain at least one supplied ceiling or wall-type electric light fixture. Every such outlet and fixture shall be properly installed, shall be maintained in good and safe working condition, and shall be connected to the source of electric power in a safe manner. Ceiling and wall-type fixtures shall be properly switched.

Inspection by the Special Master of the old Lucas County Jail disclosed the presence of a supplied ceiling-type electric light fixture in each of the cells in that facility. In addition, fixtures had been installed in the dayroom areas, although a number of these had been destroyed by inmates and had not been replaced at the time of these inspections. No cell or dayroom area in the former facility contained a wall-type electric convenience outlet. Because of the imminence of the opening of the new Lucas County Correction Center at the time of the appointment of the Special Master, no effort was made to determine the degree of illumination provided by light fixtures installed in the cells or the dayroom areas.

Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order constituted a clear mandate to planners to provide adequate lighting in the cell and day-room areas of the new jail. The quoted Board of Health regulation required each such area to be designed to include at least one ceiling-type electric light fixture capable of providing sufficient illumination to permit normal reading activity and one wall-type electric convenience outlet. Each cell in the new facility is provided with at

*76

least one electric light fixture. All cells on the first floor are provided with one ceiling-type fixture, while cells on the second through the fifth floors and ten cells on the sixth floor are provided with one ceiling-type fixture and one wall-type fixture. Forty-eight cells on the sixth floor are provided with one wall-type fixture. Thus it is apparent at the outset that the new structure fails to comply with the requirement that “every habitable room . . . contain at least . . . one supplied

ceiling-type

electric light fixture” (emphasis added). There are no convenience outlets in any of the cells in the new structure.

The light fixtures which have been installed in the cells are recessed and contain a three-part covering retarding illumination. The first of these covers is a sheet of transparent tempered glass. Over this glass has been installed a sheet of smoked lexan. Finally, the fixture is covered by a steel plate containing small holes through which the light is diffused. The result is that the cells, in the absence of natural light, are in a state of semi-darkness.

Light meter readings taken by a lighting consultant employed by the architects for the new Center disclosed an illumination level ranging from zero to occasionally as many as eight to ten footcandles. Because of the location and the limited area of diffusion of the fixtures, the illumination level is extremely uneven in all of the cells. Common experience makes it clear that the lighting is insufficient for the purpose specified in Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order.

Section BB-59-28 of Chapter BB-59 of the Ohio Building Code provides that all cells in newly constructed correctional facilities must have “not less than 15 footcandles of artificial light”. The Special Master has been told by the architects that the original lighting specifications for the building “implicitly required” fixtures which would provide this level of illumination. Accepted industry standards, however, require a substantially higher level of illumination. The Illuminating Engineering Society recommends that 30 footcandles of illumination be provided in jail cells.

9

That same level of illumination is recommended for the reading of books, magazines, and newspapers in other types of structures. A recent report of conditions in the Cook County Jail in Chicago, Illinois, prepared by two environmental health specialists for the United States Department of Justice, contained the following observation:

A minimum of 30 footcandles is necessary for maximum speed of seeing (for reading), for prevention of eye fatigue and eye strain. Higher levels of illumination are necessary for inmates with poor vision or eye defects, which are common health problems for those in lower socioeconomic classes. The majority of the incarcerated offenders are in this class.

10

The parties entered into a stipulation regarding the provision of adequate lighting in the new facility, which stipulation was approved by the Court and filed on April 13, 1977. The pertinent portion of that stipulation reads as follows:

That lighting fixtures sufficient to provide an illumination level of 30 footcandles per cell will be obtained and installed as promptly as possible in the new Lucas County Correction Center.

On May 10,1977, the architects issued Field Bulletin No. 9 listing contemplated changes in the lighting of cells, and on May 11,1977, the architects informed counsel for the defendant County Commissioners that an appropriate fixture had been located. The proposed fixture has been evaluated by the architects and their lighting consultant and has been used with apparent success at other correctional facilities, including the Los Angeles County Jail and the Illinois Mental Health Center at Chester, Illinois. The proposed fixture, which will contain three 40 watt flourescent bulbs and a %

*77

inch tempered lens with a diffuser to prevent glare, has been observed by the Special Master’s assistant during a demonstration in the Lucas County Correction Center. These fixtures will be surface mounted on the ceiling of each cell and appear to provide 30 or more footcandles of illumination throughout most of the cell including the areas most likely to be used for reading. Illumination provided by these fixtures will be more even throughout the cell area, less heat will be produced by their use, and lower maintenance expenses will be incurred. As of the date of this report, however, no steps have been taken to install the new fixtures.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the artificial lighting system of the new Lucas County Correction Center is not in compliance with Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order. When new lighting fixtures are installed in accordance with the stipulation agreed to by the parties and approved by the Court, each cell will contain a ceiling-type electric light fixture as required by § 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health, which fixture will provide sufficient footcandle illumination in each cell to permit the reading of a newspaper according to accepted standards. Replacement of fixtures in all cells must be expedited, however, in accordance with the terms of the parties’ stipulation.

Because Paragraph 3 of the Court’s order relates to “the lighting system of the jail,” it is the finding of the Special Master that the Court’s reference to § 7.04 of Regulation Al-68 of the Toledo District Board of Health does not require the installation of a wall-type electric convenience outlet as specified by that section. Such an outlet is not necessary in order to provide sufficient illumination in the cell and thus does not appear to be required in order to bring about a state of compliance with this provision of the Court’s order.

PARAGRAPH 4

IMMEDIATELY, TAKE STEPS TO INgERE THAT FOOD AND FOOD SERyjEE AT THE JAIL MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS AND STANDARDS:

(a) MINIMUM NUTRITIONAL STANDARDS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AS DISCLOSED BY THE TESTIMONY OF MRS. M. DeOLIVEIRA AND THE EXHIBITS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;

(b) FOODS SHALL BE SERVED AT THE PROPER TEMPERATURES, FRESH, AND IN REASONABLE VARIETY;

(c) SERVING METHODS SHALL MEET MINIMUM HEALTH AND SANITARY STANDARDS FOR FOOD SERVICE IN RESTAURANTS;

(d) KITCHEN, KITCHEN EQUIPMENT, FOOD STORAGE, AND SANITATION SHALL MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESTAURANTS;

(e) ALL PERSONS, WHETHER PRISONERS OR EMPLOYEES, WORKING IN AND AROUND THE KITCHEN AND THE HANDLING AND SERVING OF FOOD IN THE JAIL SHALL MEET THE APPLICABLE RESTAURANT HEALTH REQUIREMENTS;

(f) THE JAIL KITCHEN AND FOOD SERVICE SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES ON THE SAME BASIS AS RESTAURANTS SERVING THE PUBLIC, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR REQUIREMENTS MADE BY THE PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES AS THE RESULT OF SUCH INSPECTIONS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED BY THE DEFENDANTS WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED THEREFOR BY SAID PUBLIC HEALTH AUTHORITIES.

*78

Minimum Nutritional Standards.

On several occasions following the filing of the final order in this case, nutritionists employed by the City of Toledo Board of Health have visited the jail. What follows is a brief description of these visits and the evaluative comments contained in various reports submitted by the nutritionists. The first such visit occurred on April 18, 1972. While the nutritionist did discuss food service operation with the jail’s food service supervisor, the report of that meeting states, “The nutritionist did not in any way evaluate the program.”

A second visit by nutritionists occurred on June 27, 1972. On the occasion of this visit they met with the institution’s Food Service Director and evaluated cycle menus for the months of July, August, and September. Based upon standards recommended by the National Research Council, the nutritionists made the following findings with respect to the adequacy of these menus:

Nutrients Food Value

Calories Adequate

Protein Adequate

Riboflavin Adequate

Niacin Adequate

Iron Adequate

Calcium Adequate

Thiamin Adequate

Vitamin A Probably adequate if fortified margarine is used

Vitamin C Inadequate

In explaining the finding of adequacy of calorie content in the menus which were evaluated, the nutritionists established a range of 2,400 to 3,000 calories needed by a male between the ages of 18 and 75 years of age depending upon age, height, and weight. The nutritionists’ findings with respect to the adequacy of food value in these menus assumed males weighing between 130 and 154 pounds and standing between 67 and 69 inches in height. The evaluation assumed a needed calorie range of 1,700 and 2,300 for females between the ages of 18 and 75 depending upon age, height, and weight and was based upon the needs of females weighing between 119 and 128 pounds and standing between 62 and 64 inches in height.

In conclusion, the nutritionists made the following observation:

From this evaluation, it appears that the menus are nutritionally adequate, except for Vitamin C,

if the food items and size servings (as noted on menus) are served to the residents

(emphasis added).

With respect to the inadequate provision of Vitamin C, the nutritionists recommended the serving of one of the following food servings daily:

1 medium orange or V2 cup juice

1 grapefruit or V2 cup juice

2 medium tomatoes or 1 cup juice

V2

large cantaloupe

1 cup strawberries % cup broccoli

IV2

cups cabbage, raw/shredded

Finally, the nutritionists recommended less frequent repetition of certain food items, greater consideration of color, textures, temperatures, consistencies, and combinations in planning menus, and serving of eggs three times per week. They pointed out that they would require additional information concerning the food service operation in order to make “a more complete evaluation.”

The next evaluation of jail menus by nutritionists occurred on June 27, 1973. In a report of that meeting dated July 17, 1973, the nutritionists stated that they were unable to evaluate menus for Vitamin C content because they did not know the Vitamin C content of fruit drinks being served to inmates. They indicated that the menus were deficient in calcium content unless inmates were receiving two glasses of milk per day. The average daily calorie content of menus over a three week period was 1,973 and thus deficient. (In this report the nutritionists recommended a daily caloric intake of 2,400 to 2,800 calories for inactive men ranging in age from 18 to 55.)

On July 2, 1973, the nutritionists again visited the jail and their findings are re

*79

ported in the document dated July 17, 1973 and referred to above. On the occasion of this visit, the nutritionists actually observed the serving of food at the noon meal and were served the same meal which was provided to inmates. They found their meal to be “well prepared, tasty, and adequate as to amounts.” In the course of their report of this visit, the nutritionists made the following recommendation:

A three or five week seasonal menu cycle would be beneficial for both ordering and preparing food. This should be submitted to the nutritionists for reviewing before menus are served.

The next instance of involvement by nutritionists with the jail’s food service operation is reflected by a report of June 7,1977, containing an evaluation of four menus submitted by the jail’s Food Service Director. These menus are attached as Appendix A, page 170

infra.

Based upon standards recommended by the National Research Council for adult males and females, ages 18 to 75 years, the nutritionists made the following findings with respect to these menus:

Nutrients Food Value

Calories (average approximate 2,550) Adequate

Protein Adequate

Riboflavin Adequate

Niacin Adequate

Iron Adequate

Calcium Adequate

Thiamin Adequate

Vitamin A Probably adequate if fortified margarine is used. It is also recommended that a dark yellow or dark green vegetable be served every other day.

Vitamin C Inadequate

Roughage Inadequate

The nutritionists concluded their statement of findings with the following observation:

Thus, it appears that the menus are nutritionally adequate except for Vitamin C and roughage,

if the food items and size servings (as noted on menus) are served to the residents

(emphasis added).

In the course of this report, the nutritionists expressed concern about the temperature of the food which was served and about the size of portions actually served. They repeated their recommendation with respect to the serving of certain specified foods on a daily basis in order to provide adequate Vitamin C content. In. order to meet the roughage requirement, they recommended the serving of raw fruits or vegetables on a daily basis. Finally, the nutritionists repeated their recommendation that “color, taste combination, and texture of foods be taken into consideration in meal planning.”

The criticisms contained in these reports parallel closely the observations of Mrs. M. DeOliveira in the testimony which she gave in this case at a hearing held on February 10 and 11, 1971. Mrs. DeOliveira testified to a Vitamin C deficiency in menus which she evaluated (TR. 233). She testified as well that “calcium is low in these menus.” (TR. 233). Her evaluation indicated that protein content in some menus was approximately 10 grams below normal (TR. 233) and that fruits and vegetables were served too infrequently (TR. 233, 234). Mrs. DeOliveira recommended an average daily calorie intake of between 2,400 and 2,500 calories for a sedentary young man of “average or more than average size.” (TR. 253).

Useful as they are, all of these evaluations by nutritionists are of limited value in view of the fact that

none of them have been in a position to determine the actual quantity and quality of specific foods served to inmates.

Any finding of nutritional adequacy will require evaluation of meals and foods actually served as opposed to merely that of written menus.

Temperature, Freshness, and Variety of Food.

In their report of July 17, 1973, the nutritionists who visited the jail expressed their concern that “electric carts that are at the blocks were not plugged in, and it appeared that they were not being used properly.” They repeated their concern about

*80

the temperature of food served in the jail in their report of June, 1977. (In an earlier report of July 26, 1972, the nutritionists indicated that they would need to know the temperature of foods when they reached the residents in order to “make a more complete evaluation.”) With respect to variety of foods, the nutritionists made the following observation in their report of June 17, 1977:

The nutritionists have not commented on the menus as to food selection and acceptability. First, they have not observed the serving and consuming of these meals and second, they feel that Mr. Coleman (the institution’s Food Service Director) is a better judge of his residents’ likes and dislikes than they are.

Finally, at no time have the nutritionists reported on the freshness of food served in the jail.

As was the case in the old jail, the food service operation in the new Lucas County Correction Center makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for food to remain at proper temperatures when it reaches all inmates. Food which is prepared in the jail kitchen on the basement level is put into serving containers which then are placed in warming carts used for delivery of the food to the various housing floors. Although the Food Service Director attempts to maintain the practice of plugging in and thus warming up these units at least one hour before serving, the inside of the unit remains only mildly warm to the touch after the warmup period. After they are filled with food, the carts are delivered by elevator to the various housing units. Because the elevator used for food delivery is used by numerous other staff members for other purposes, substantial delays are encountered sometimes in placing the food carts on the elevator.

Two such food carts service a given floor. When the carts arrive on the floor, they are taken by correctional officers who are responsible for dishing out and serving the meal. The Special Master observed this operation on the fourth floor of the institution at the time of the serving of the noon meal on June 13, 1977. The serving of the trays consumed a period of slightly more than 45 minutes. By the time the last inmate was served, the hot food remaining on the carts had cooled to a considerable extent, although it was still reasonably warm. The problem of food temperature control is exacerbated by the failure of correctional officers to plug in the warming units during serving. Although outlets exist for this purpose in the observation booths from which food is served, the Special Master has observed that the carts often are not connected to these outlets. Indeed, those instances in which the Special Master has observed that a cart has been plugged in have been exceptional.

All that has been said with respect to serving hot food applies with at least equal force to the serving of cold food. There is no chilling unit on the carts which are used for delivery of food and the temperature of cold foods will be affected by the delay in serving resulting from the current food delivery system.

The Food Service Director places a large food order every week, generally on Wednesday. Foodstuffs which are ordered generally arrive on the following Saturday or Monday. Thus fresh foods do not appear to be held in the jail for a period of more than one week and adequate facilities for refrigeration and freezing do exist. Canned vegetables and fruits are used, thus avoiding the problem of freshness which would result from use of unpreserved products.

In order to accomplish reasonable variety in the foods served to inmates, the Food Service Director has developed four cycle menus for three month periods during the year. These cycle menus are utilized as a starting point in creating weekly menus. The weekly menus which have been developed avoid the phenomenon of serving the same meals week after week as well as the

*81

problem of particular foods appearing regularly on specific days of the week.

Sanitary Conditions.

Sanitary standards with respect to the serving of food relate to requirements contained in Paragraph 18 of the Court’s order concerning daily cleaning, mopping, scrubbing, and washing of the housing areas of the jail. This relationship results from the fact that food is served in the dayrooms adjoining the inmates’ cells. Food trays prepared by correctional officers are passed through a slot in the wall separating each housing module from the observation booth where the officer prepares the trays. The food then is taken by inmates to tables in the dayroom area where it is consumed. As far as the Special Master is able to determine, inmates may take their trays to their individual cells. There does not appear to be any policy prohibiting this practice, and in any event correctional officers on the housing floors are sufficiently busy during the times of meal service that they realistically could not enforce such a policy. The serving of meals in prisoner housing areas creates extraordinary problems of sanitation and contravenes accepted standards of practice in correctional institutions. The 1970 Manual on Jail Administration published by the National Sheriffs’ Association contains the following standard with respect to food services:

The dining areas. A dining area should be provided outside the cells.

In a report submitted to the Special Master on May 7, 1977, Dr. F. Warren Benton, the Director of the Department of Correction of the State of Oklahoma, made the following observation concerning the food service procedure projected for the new jail:

The lack of dining facilities will necessitate either feeding in the cells, which is inherently staff-intensive and filthy; or feeding in the dayrooms, which will create practically as many difficulties. Staff will have to be especially attentive to contraband passage, food games by the inmates, and housing unit sanitation. The sanitation problems in the housing units will be severe.

Dr. Benton’s prediction has been borne out by ample evidence which has accumulated since April 22, 1977, when the new facility was occupied. Remains of meals have been evident on the floors of a number of the dayroom areas and dirty trays have been left on the floors of dayroom areas until they could be retrieved by correctional officers. On June 13, 1977, inmates in one of the modules on the fourth floor threw their food trays into the vestibule area separating the dayroom from the center lobby. When asked, a correctional officer reported that it was not at all unusual for this to occur. On the sixth floor in particular, but in other areas as well, inmates have thrown food which has adhered to television cameras, walls, bars, and floors. Although some efforts have been made to clean up some of these areas, these efforts have by no means been altogether successful. In a report of an inspection made on May 24, 1977, officials of the Bureau of Consumer Health Protection of the Toledo Board of Health made the following observation:

If the conditions of sanitation in the sixth floor (or other floors) cannot be controlled due to food being served and allowed in cell areas, we strongly suggest other methods of serving food be studied. One recommendation would be a centralized feeding area. Also, stricter regulations should be enforced on snacks and other food allowed in the cells, etc. It is our feeling that if existing conditions continue they will worsen to the extent that an unhealthy, unsafe and unallowable state will exist!

Other problems of sanitation exist with respect to the serving of food in the institution. The service elevator which is used to convey food carts from the kitchen to the various housing floors is often unclean. In the report of their inspection of May 24, 1977, representatives of the Toledo Board of Health instructed the defendants to “clean

*82

floors, walls and ceiling surfaces in this elevator with ‘detergent sanitizer’.” Other problems affecting sanitation in the housing areas (and thus relating to food service in those areas) noted by the inspectors included the need to “remove the accumulation of garbage, dirt, food splatter, food, debris from walls, floors, bars, light fixtures throughout the sixth floor cellbloeks.” Finally, the inspectors noted that a number of plastic food trays used for food service were damaged badly by cigarette burns and scratches and needed to be removed from service.

The problem of food service sanitation is exacerbated by the fact that food is handled by a large number of correctional officers in the various housing areas. During routine inspections of the facility, the Special Master has noted that correctional officers do not wash their hands before beginning to serve a meal. Although a plastic glove is provided for use by the correctional officer, the Special Master has observed that such gloves are not used on all occasions. According to the Director of Administrative Services of the Sheriff’s Department, correctional officers receive no health examination before or after they are hired to work in the jail.

An additional sanitation problem is created by the issuance to each inmate of a cup and spoon at the time of his admission to the institution. This cup and spoon are retained by the inmate and are the only utensils provided to him for use at meals. Various liquids are served to the inmate in his cup and no provisions are made for cleaning the cup and spoon apart from whatever efforts the inmate makes on his own behalf. The temperature of water provided in the housing areas is not sufficiently hot to permit sterilization of these implements.

All of these conditions make it clear that the sanitary standards for food service in the institution fall far below the standards required for service in restaurants. Such requirements are contained in regulations promulgated by the Ohio Department of Health. The basic requirement imposed

by

that Department is contained in Regulation HE-21-04-A.

Structure, Cleanliness, and Repair.

Every food service operation and all parts thereof and places appurtenant to the food service operation shall be maintained in good repair and shall be kept thoroughly clean and free from any accumulation of filth, garbage, rubbish, or other waste.

Another regulation of the Ohio Department of Health which is relevant to the serving of food in the housing areas of the jail is Regulation HE-21-04-L which provides as follows:

All food shall be so . . . served as to be reasonably protected from dust, flies, vermin depredation, and pollution by rodents, poisonous insecticides, poisonous rodenticides, unnecessary handling, droplet infection, overhead leakage and other contaminations.

A third regulation of the Ohio Department of Health which has direct bearing upon the serving of food in the housing areas of the jail is Regulation HE-21-04-0 which contains the following provisions:

In food service operations hereafter constructed or extensively altered, there shall be no direct opening between rooms where food is stored or prepared or served to the public, and rooms used for living and sleeping quarters.

It is clear that food service sanitation in the new facility does not meet the requirements of these regulations. Unless corrective action is taken very quickly, the conditions of filth and vermin infestation which. characterized the former jail and which played a large role in the determination to spend more than $12,000,000 on a new facility will be prevalent in the Correction Cen

*83

ter. In order to eliminate the practice of serving food in the dayroom areas, physical alteration of the facility will be required. Specific suggestions to this effect are contained in that portion of this report dealing with the visitation program required by subparagraph 17(h) of the Court’s order.

Sanitation standards in the centralized kitchen area where food is stored and prepared can be maintained more easily. Inspections of the new facility were conducted by representatives of the Bureau of Consumer Health Protection of the Toledo Board of Health on February 15,1977, May 17, 1977, and May 24, 1977. In the course of their reports, these officials have recommended a number of changes in the kitchen area and have commented upon the lack of cleanliness of toilet rooms off the kitchen. In general, however, it appears that the kitchen facility, kitchen equipment, and the food storage areas conform to the requirements of the Board of Health and a food service operation license was issued to the Center on May 17, 1977. According to the Food Service Director, the assignment of inadequate numbers of trusties to assist in kitchen operations has made the tasks of cleaning and of maintaining an orderly storeroom more difficult. Unfortunately, the problem of food storage sanitation was increased when quantities of food were moved from the old institution to the new Center in spite of warnings by public health authorities and others that such food was highly likely to be contaminated by vermin.

Additional problems with respect to sanitation in the kitchen and food storage areas include the placement of stock against walls and directly on the floor of the food storage room. This prevents the spraying of insecticides in areas where vermin are likely to develop. In addition, a crack exists between the wall and the ceiling above the baking section in the kitchen and this crack must be caulked in order to avoid insect infestation. The absence of a daily pickup of garbage and refuse contributes further to the insect problem. At the present time, the facility is serviced for insect control by an outside contractor. The kitchen area is serviced once per week and the other areas of the jail are serviced twice a month. The exterminator has already noted the presence of “a few” cockroaches in or about the kitchen area.

Food Service Personnel.

The following regulations of the Ohio Department of Health relate to personnel working in and around the kitchen of the Correction Center:

Regulation HE-21-04-M,

Cleanliness of Employees.

All employees shall wear clean garments and shall keep their persons clean and neat at all times while engaged in handling food or utensils. No employee engaged in preparing or serving food shall use tobacco in any form.

Regulation-HE-21-04-N,

Hair Control of Food Handlers.

All employees shall wear their hair clean and neat and under control at all times so that:

(1) There shall be no undue handling of hair.

(2) Hair shall not come into contact with food or food contact surfaces.

(3) Loose Hair shall be prevented from falling into food or onto food contact surfaces.

Regulation HE-21-06,

Health of Employees.

A. Responsibility.

(1) No person affected with a disease in a communicable form, or who is a carrier of a communicable disease shall work in any food service operation.

(2) No operator shall employ any person knowing him to be suspected of having or knowing him to be a carrier of a communicable disease.

(3) The operator shall notify the Health Commissioner immediately, if he has reason to believe that any em

*84

ployee has a disease of a communicable form or has become a carrier of a communicable disease.

Because civilian and inmate employees work in and about the kitchen area of the new jail, these requirements apply with equal force to both categories of employee. At the present time, it does not appear that civilian kitchen employees submit to any regular health examinations. Although the Food Service Director indicated that such employees are required to undergo a post-hire physical checkup and regular re-examination every three years, he acknowledged that these procedures have not been followed on a regular basis. Inmate employees receive no special physical examination other than that which is administered at the time of their initial admission to the institution. Although the inmate employees do receive a daily change of clothing to be worn while working in the kitchen, a number of these trusties have reported to the Special Master that they are not able to shower regularly because their dormitory, a converted classroom, has no shower facilities. Kitchen personnel, both civilian and inmate, do not wear head coverings which may be necessary in order to meet the ■ requirements of Regulation HE-21-04-N cited above.

Inspection by Public Health Authorities.

According to records maintained by the Toledo Board of Health, city sanitation officials have made a number of inspections of the jail kitchen since 1972. Two such inspections occurred in 1973, two in 1974, four in 1975, and two in 1976. Records for 1977 indicate that two inspections of the former jail and three inspections of the new facility have occurred. At least one inspection per year is required by § 3732.05 of the Ohio Revised Code and it appears that this minimum standard has been met since the issuance of the Court’s order in this case. This requirement for an annual inspection notwithstanding, officials of the Toledo Board of Health have recommended that the Lucas County Correction Center be inspected three times a year. In the opinion of the Special Master, even more frequent inspections during the first year of the operation of the new facility should be conducted in order to control problems of kitchen and general sanitation.

It appears that numerous orders by officials of the Board of Health to effectuate cleaning and fumigation programs were complied with throughout 1975 and 1976. Unfortunately, however, according to the exterminator presently employed by the defendants to control vermin in the jail, recent provisions of the Environmental Protection Act have rendered many of the more potent insecticides unusable. This factor, combined with the propensity of certain insects — particularly cockroaches — to adjust to chemicals contained in pesticide products, makes maintenance of the cleanest possible conditions even more critical. In the most recent two reports with respect to food sanitation conditions in the new facility, public health authorities ordered a number of actions which were not taken promptly. The following chart indicates the substance of such requirements, the date of the order, and the degree of compliance achieved by June 16, 1977:

Nature of Action Required * Date of Toledo Health Department Order Degree of Compliance

1. Reseal the wall surface on center post (of kitchen) in back of G.E. grill to provide an impervious, cleanable surface. 5-17-77 None

2. Seal the underside “lip” on hood over the cooking bank to provide a cleanable surface. 5-17-77 Complete

3. Provide a “back” on the Blodgett Oven. 5-17-77 None

*85

4. Provide a “doorstop” on the walk-in 5-17-77 freezer door to prevent damage to the storm drainpipe. None

5. Provide off floor storage for all food 5-17-77 items in storage room. Partial

6. Make arrangements that all food items 5-17-77 are stored away from the wall. Partial

7. Suggest that food items be moved to 5-17-77 opposite side of room and this area be partitioned. None

8. Remove the accumulation of garbage, 5-24-77 dirt, food splatter, food, debris from walls, floors, bars, and light fixtures throughout the 6th floor cell blocks. Partial

9. Remove the hanging sheets from cell 5-24-77 blocks; remove newspapers from inspection windows. Complete

10. Replace the burnt plastic light diffuser 5-24-77 on the 6th floor. None

11. Inmate shower (north, NW module) out 5-24-77 of service. Complete

12. Empty waste containers as frequently as 5-24-77 necessary. Complete

13. Provide an adequate flow of hot water 5-24-77 at all hand washing sinks on the 5th floor. None

14. Clean and maintain each trusties toilet 5-24-77 room. None

15. Clean and maintain the toilet rooms off 5-24-77 kitchen; suggest a designation of cleaning responsibilities. None

16. Plastic food trays badly damaged by cig- 5-24-77 aret burns and scratches are to be removed from service. Suggest tray racks for proper storage. None

17. Clean floors, walls, and ceiling surfaces 5-24-77 in the food service elevator with “detergent sanitizer.” None

* These items were taken directly from reports of the health officials.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that meals served to inmates do not comply with minimal nutritional standards required by Paragraph 4 of the Court’s order. In addition, improved efforts must be made to serve foods at proper temperatures and in reasonable variety. Based upon all the information which the Special Master has been able to obtain, foods served in the jail appear to be fresh.

It is the finding of the Special Master that serving methods do not meet minimum health and sanitary standards for food service in restaurants and that such standards cannot be achieved so long as food is served in the dayroom areas adjoining inmates’ cells.

The’ Special Master finds that kitchen, kitchen equipment, food storage and sanitation standards in and about the kitchen fail to meet standards required by the public health authorities.

*86

The Special Master further finds that kitchen employees, both civilian and inmate, fail to meet all applicable restaurant health department requirements relating to kitchen employees. In particular, the failure to administer routine health examinations before and during employment increases the likelihood that civilian employees and inmates who work in the kitchen may be infected by contagious disease. If correctional officers are to continue to serve food to inmates, they too should be examined before and during the course of employment.

Finally, the Special Master finds that while the jail kitchen and food service have been regularly inspected by public health authorities, increased numbers of inspections are necessary. Although some of the recommendations of these authorities have been implemented by the defendants, all such recommendations and requirements have not been followed or met.

PARAGRAPH 5

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO THIS COURT FOR IMPROVING THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES WITHIN THE JAIL RELATING TO MEDICAL ATTENTION TO PROVIDE, AS A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING:

(a) AMPLE AND ADEQUATE ROOMS AND EQUIPMENT FOR CONDUCTING PHYSICAL EXAMINATION OF INMATES AND ENTERING PRISONERS.

(b) AMPLE AND ADEQUATE ROOMS AND EQUIPMENT FOR TREATMENT OF MEDICAL EMERGENCIES, AND MINOR INJURIES AND ILLNESSES.

(c) QUARTERS FOR INMATES WHO ARE TOO ILL TO REMAIN SAFELY AS PART OF THE GENERAL POPULATION OF THE PRISON, BUT NOT SUFFICIENTLY ILL TO REQUIRE HOSPITALIZATION.

(d) ADEQUATE FACILITIES FOR DENTAL EXAMINATIONS AND TREATMENT, BOTH CURATIVE AND PREVENTIVE.

There is little to be gained from a detailed description of the inadequacy of rooms in the former Lucas County Jail for conducting physical examinations, treatment of medical emergencies, minor illnesses and injuries, and for dental examinations and treatment. One small examination/treatment room was provided on the third floor of that facility together with a small office for medical staff and a closet-size drug storage area. Two cells were available for isolation of inmates with medical problems. The general state of decay which characterized the entire facility was prominent in this small and inadequate medical service area. A dental treatment and examination room was located on the second floor.

With the construction of the new Correction Center, much more adequate examination, treatment, and housing facilities have been made available for use by the medical department. Separate and adequately sized rooms have been provided on the second floor of the facility for physical examinations, treatment, drug storage, and dental examination and treatment. In addition, a waiting room, administrative office, and nurses’ station have been provided. The medical area contains 14 cells and a bathroom containing a bathtub. Small rooms are designated for x-ray, film development and supplies, although the former two apparently will be used for other purposes. The small area originally intended for x-ray equipment has been converted to a dayroom in order to permit patient/inmates to spend some limited time out of their cells.

Although facilities are generally adequate, several serious problems appear to have been built into the medical services area. One of these is the presence of a board containing call lights which are activated by inmates housed in the hospital cells and desiring aid. The location of the call board is both remote and isolated and cannot be monitored given the present level of medical staff employed in the jail. Thus,

*87

inmates in need of assistance must shout or bang on their doors in order to attract the attention of medical personnel who are frequently far removed from the perimeter cell area.

According to the Medical Director, the supply room is too small to hold an adequate quantity of medical supplies, and the location of the drug dispensary is insecure due to its placement adjoining the treatment room. The absence of adequate day-room space prevents exercise and recreation for ambulatory inmates. Cell doors are constructed in such a way that neither food nor medication can be passed to an inmate without opening the door. Doors cannot be opened automatically, and security personnel must accompany nurses on their rounds to dispense medication. Other shortcomings include the failure to provide electrical outlets in all but one of the medical cells thus making more difficult certain lifesaving and other medical treatments. Cell doors are only 27 inches in width, and it is impossible to roll a hospital bed into or out of these cells. The result is that an inmate must be moved into and out of such cells on a stretcher unless he is ambulatory, and the configuration of the cell together with the narrow hallway outside the cell area make it difficult (although not quite impossible) to move an inmate into or out of a cell by stretcher without tipping it to a dangerous degree. The failure to install a shower in the bathroom which serves as many as fourteen inmates housed in the medical area creates a problem of sanitation.

These and other shortcomings described to the Special Master by medical personnel employed in the facility are the result of the failure on the part of the planners and designers of the Correction Center to solicit input from professionals who would be using these medical facilities and the refusal to accept suggestions from these sources when they were proffered. Unfortunately, many of these design defects cannot be corrected without major structural changes; others, while correctable, would require substantial expense. Thus while the physical facilities are not entirely inadequate, they are in several respects and they do not reflect the degree of thoughtful planning which one would expect in a new facility costing more than $12,000,000.

The only other physical facility designated for medical treatment is a small room in the holding area on the first floor of the jail which is described as a first aid room. As of the time of the writing of this report, however, no clear policy has been established in the institution as to the responsibilities of regular medical personnel with respect to incoming inmates held on the first floor. Thus it remains to be seen whether the first aid room will be used for medical purposes.

In order to determine the adequacy of equipment available in the Correction Center for conducting physical examinations and treating medical emergencies, minor injuries, and minor illnesses, the Special Master obtained a copy of a recommended equipment list for medical services in the jail prepared by Mr. William Greene, Assistant to the President of the Medical College of Ohio. The following chart lists the equipment recommended by Mr. Greene and indicates whether or not such equipment is presently available in the Correction Center:

Presently Recommended Equipment. on Hand

14 hospital beds (manual with attachments for IV poles) Yes

14 hospital bed mattresses Yes

Cabinets for laboratory, pharmacy, and supply storage room Yes

Cabinets for X-ray room No

Cabinets for dental treatment room Yes

Cabinets for examination room Yes

Cabinets for treatment room Yes

Cabinets for first aid room (first floor) No

X-ray machine (mobile unit) No

EKG machine — portable—to be purchased with adequate stand or built-in legs No

Centrifuge Yes

Microscope No

*

*88

2 refrigerators Yes

1 small sterilizer No

2 examination tables with wheels Yes

3 dressing/treatment cabinets Yes

1 portable dressing table No

**

1 examination lamp Yes

2 goose neck lamps Yes

1 infrared lamp ’ Yes

1 medicine cart — portable for dispensing medications on all floors Yes

3 suction machines Yes

3 Mayo-type instrument stands Yes

1 Whirlpool tub on motor for use in permanent facility tub No

1 portable Sitz bath Yes

3 air spring stools Yes

2 large IV poles with wheels Yes

4 IV poles — hospital bed attachment type Yes

2 wheelchairs Yes

3 stretchers Yes

1 bed pan hopper No

1 linen cart Yes

12 sandbags — assorted sizes Yes

2 sets of traction equipment No

6 sets of bed boards No

24 sets/sizes of shock blocks No

6 sets of restraints Yes

2 vaporizers, cold air type Yes

24 bed pans, plastic disposable Yes

12 pitchers Yes

6 portable oxygen tanks 8 purchased

24 emesis basins Yes

24 plastic urinals Yes

24 plastic wash basins Yes

3 stethoscopes Yes

3 sphygmomanometers Yes

2 otoscopes Yes

1 ophthalmoscope Yes

1 portable emergency kit to include 1 laryngoscope with adequate sizes of interchangeable blades Yes

1 set of disposable endotracheal tubes — assortment of adult sizes Yes

2 ambu bags with assortment of mask sizes Yes

1 tracheotomy emergency kit Yes

1 supply of emergency drugs, tubing, bandage supplies Yes

6 disposable suture kits Yes

2 six inch stainless probes Yes

12 sponge bowls — % quart size Yes

2 sponge bowls — 1 quart size Yes

6 dressing jars — 1 quart size Yes

6 catheter trays with lids Yes

2 forcep jars — 4% inch size Yes

2 forcep

jars

— 7% inch size Yes

In addition to these items of medical equipment, Mr. Greene recommended certain furniture for the waiting room and other items of office equipment. Virtually all of these furnishings and other items have been obtained. Mr. Greene recommended as well the purchase of one transcribing unit and three portable dictating units to be used by the medical staff. These have not been purchased and are needed by the medical staff. The only x-ray service available in the jail is provided by a person who comes into the jail twice a week to make x-rays on a portable machine. The machine which is used cannot make a picture of the complete spine and is not capable of taking chest x-rays. It can make a picture of broken ribs, arms, or legs. It is the opinion of the Medical Director as well as Mr. Greene that a more adequate x-ray machine should be installed in the facility.

In the opinion of the Medical Director, other items on Mr. Greene’s list which have not been obtained are needed. In addition, there is no utility sink for filling pails with water for cleaning purposes, and the absence of any sink whatsoever in the drug room requires that large utensils used for measuring and dispensing medication be washed in the bathtub located in the inmate bathroom.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

Although the rooms provided in the new jail for physical examination, treatment, and examination of inmates are much superior to the equivalent facilities in the former jail, serious deficiencies exist which should be corrected. Chief among these is the inaccessible and unmonitored location of the inmate call board. Other defects which can be remedied without substantial struc

*89

tural change are the absence of a shower in the inmate bathroom, the failure to provide a utility sink for cleaning purposes, and the lack of an adequate basin sink in the drug storage room. In addition, the Special Master recommends that a statement of other deficiencies described above be submitted to the architects in order for them to determine whether corrective action can be taken without undue expense.

It is the further finding of the Special Master that the defendants are in noncompliance with the requirement of Paragraph 5 that adequate equipment be purchased for the medical services area in their failure to obtain certain equipment recommended by Mr. Greene and regarded as necessary by the Medical Director.

PARAGRAPH 6

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER SUBMIT A PLAN TO THIS COURT FOR GRANTING COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGES TO INMATES AWAITING TRIAL UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

(a) THERE SHALL BE NO CENSORSHIP OF OUTGOING MAIL.

(b) THERE SHALL BE NO LIMITATION ON THE PERSONS TO WHOM OUTGOING MAIL MAY BE DIRECTED.

(c) THERE SHALL BE NO CENSORSHIP OF INCOMING LETTERS FROM THE PRISONER’S ATTORNEY, OR FROM ANY JUDGE OR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

(d) INCOMING PARCELS OR LETTERS MAY BE INSPECTED FOR CONTRABAND, BUT LETTERS MAY NOT BE READ.

(e) PROPER ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO INSURE THAT PRISONERS MAY FREELY OBTAIN WRITING MATERIALS AND POSTAGE.

(f) INDIGENT PRISONERS SHALL BE FURNISHED, AT PUBLIC EXPENSE, WRITING MATERIALS AND ORDINARY POSTAGE FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE IN DISPATCHING A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) LETTERS PER WEEK.

(g) PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE FOR AS MANY TELEPHONE CALLS AS ARE NECESSARY FOR A PERSON WHO IS WITHOUT COUNSEL TO OBTAIN COUNSEL.

(h) PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE FOR PRISONERS TO MAKE LOCAL TELEPHONE CALLS DURING REASONABLE HOURS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEFENDANTS.

(i) PRISONERS’ TELEPHONE CALLS SHALL NOT BE MONITORED.

Outgoing Mail.

Outgoing mail is collected by hand by correctional officers assigned to supervise the housing units throughout the institution. This mail is then delivered to the control booth located on the housing floor. From that point, the outgoing mail is collected by a member of the counseling staff and, if it has postage on it, delivered to the main control room on the first floor. Outgoing mail deposited in the main control room is given to the U. S. mail carrier at the time that incoming mail is delivered to the jail. In the event that the outgoing letter requires postage which must be provided under subparagraph 6(f), the Director of Inmate Services is responsible for taking the letter to the Lucas County Court House where it will be run through a postage meter. The Special Master has found no evidence indicating censorship of such outgoing mail.

According to the Correction Administrator, there are no limitations respecting the persons to whom outgoing mail may be sent and to the knowledge of the Special Master no outgoing letter has been intercepted because of the nature of the addressee. One statement in the newly drafted

Policies and Procedures Manual,

11

however, raises some

*90

question about possible limitation on persons to whom outgoing mail may be directed. The

Manual

provides that

Inmates will be permitted to correspond with professional personnel, officers of the courts, attorneys, and other officials participating in his (sic) defense. This will include all courts, and the Attorney General, Legal Aid, prosecuting attorney, and law enforcement agencies. No limitations are imposed as to the amount of letters that an inmate may write to professional personnel or officials. Sealed letters may be written to the Sheriff and Correction Administrator.

Such a policy should not be necessary if in fact there are no limitations on the persons to whom outgoing mail may be directed. Furthermore, the reference to “sealed letters” implies that there may be censorship of outgoing mail directed to persons other than those listed in the statement.

Incoming Parcels and Letters.

According to the institution’s policy on mail and correspondence

No package will be . accepted for delivery to an inmate without prior approval of the Correction Administrator or his assignee. Inmates desiring to . receive a package must submit a special request, specifying the items to be . received, and forward the request to the Director of Inmate Services. Unauthorized packages addressed to inmates will be returned to the sender at the sender’s expense. Packages received by the U. S. Mail or by other means will not be held for storage in the property area.

Thus it appears that the receipt of a package by an inmate is intended to be an extraordinary occurrence.

At the same time, the present practice in the Lucas County Correction Center is to permit individuals to bring certain items to inmates on designated days twice a month. Such “parcels” are inspected for contraband by a member of the counseling staff at the main control center on the first floor. According to an order issued by the Correction Administrator on May 25, 1977, the only items approved for male inmates are the following:

3 sets of underwear

3 T shirts

3 pairs of socks

1 wedding band

1 religious medal with chain (small)

1 rosary beads

1 soft plastic comb

1 soft plastic pic

1 dictionary and educational correspondence course textbooks (sic)

1 pair plastic or rubber thongs or 1 pair slippers

1 pair athletic sneakers

1 quiet game (Monopoly, Chess, Checkers, etc. • — must be in sealed package as provided by the manufacturer)

1 small, pocket-size transistor radio (battery operated only with ear piece)

2 batteries for transistor radio

Family photographs (no metal, glass, or plastic frames allowed)

Additional items which may be received and kept in the property room for the use of inmates for court appearances include the following:

1 pair of pants

1 shirt

1 belt

1 tie

1 coat, jacket, or sweater

Items approved for female inmates are the following:

6 pair underpants

3 slips

3 bras

1 robe

1 pair pajamas

1 pair shoes, or plastic or rubber thongs or slippers or athletic sneakers

1 pair earrings (post type and modest only)

1 religious medal with chain

1 radio 3 x 6 or less (batteries qnly) (2 batteries for transistor radio)

2 Family photographs (no metal, glass or plastic frames allowed)

*91

The following items are kept in the property room for court appearances by female inmates:

1 pair shoes

1 dress or slacks & blouse

1 jacket or coat or sweater

1 lipstick

1 wig or 1 hairpiece

Incoming letters are received by correctional officers in the first floor control room from the office of the Sheriff where the mail is first received. An employee in the Sheriff’s office separates inmate from non-inmate correspondence and forwards the former to the main control room. At this point, a correctional officer sorts, identifies, and marks each letter with the housing unit of the inmate/addressee. At some point later in the day the incoming mail is picked up by a counselor or correctional officer and delivered to the floor control center on each housing floor. A counselor or a correctional officer then delivers the mail to individual inmates.

According to the policy of the Correction Center, only the floor counselor is authorized to open incoming mail addressed to inmates and then only in the presence of the inmate/addressee. According to correctional officers interviewed, however, the practice in fact is that such mail may be opened and inspected by a correctional officer in the first floor control room or by a correctional officer on the housing floor. While the Special Master has not obtained any evidence that such incoming mail is read by any person, the obvious intent of the institution’s stated policy is to prevent such reading from occurring. Although the policies and procedures do not deal specifically with reading of mail, an order issued by the defendant Sheriff on May 3,1976, reiterates the provision of the Court’s order that “letters may be inspected for contraband but letters may not be read.”

It appears that incoming letters from attorneys, judges, or other elected public officials are treated in the same manner as other incoming mail. That is to say, such mail will be opened and inspected for contraband at some point by a correctional officer or a counselor, but the policy of the institution is that such correspondence will not be read.

Availability of Writing Materials and Postage.

Stationery, pens, pencils, and stamped envelopes are available for purchase in the commissary maintained for inmates in the Correction Center. Although these items do not appear on the list for approved items for either male or female inmates, they apparently are permitted. In addition, the policy of the institution is that “postage stamps received in the mail will be forwarded to the concerned inmate.”

The Correction Center has adopted a policy that “indigent inmates shall be furnished, at public expense, writing materials and ordinary postage for their personal use in dispatching a maximum of 5 letters per week.” Although it is the understanding of the Correction Administrator that these sheets of paper and envelopes, together with a pen or pencil, are contained in a package of materials furnished to indigent inmates, the practice of providing these items to inmates appears to be uneven at best. According to inmates interviewed by the Special Master, requests for’ these writing materials must be made to a counselor and substantial delays may be encountered before they are received. On at least one occasion an inmate reported that he was not permitted to have more than one sheet of paper at County expense. It does appear that free postage is provided for a maximum of 5 letters per week but this service too depends upon the availability of a counselor to deal with the inmate’s request.

Telephone Privileges.

Inmates received in the booking area are permitted one completed telephone call to reach an attorney or a family member. The telephone is located immediately adjacent to the control booth in that area. Inmates are allowed one evening telephone call during the time they are housed in the classification area on the second floor.

According to a policy promulgated by the Correction Administrator on June 1, 1977,

*92

all inmates in the Correction Center other than those in the holding area are supposed to be permitted one half hour of phone time per day. Calls are placed on telephones located immediately outside the dayroom area in each living unit. According to a memorandum issued by the Director of Security on June 7, 1977, inmates in the second floor medical section use a telephone located in the classification area. Long distance calls are permitted on Monday and Tuesday evenings only. Such calls are made with the permission of the floor counselor and must be made on a collect basis. The inmate is permitted 30 minutes on the telephone for a long distance call and the call counts as his time for the day.

The limited and controlled telephone policy in operation in the new facility is in marked contrast with the system which prevailed in the old Lucas County Jail. In that facility telephones were located inside the dayroom area adjoining each cellblock. These telephones were operative from 9:00 a. m. to 11:00 p. m. and inmates were allowed to make as many calls as they wished. This system, while providing greater access to the telephone than is permitted in the new jail, created problems which the Correction Administrator wishes to avoid in the new jail. On some occasions powerful inmates coerced others to give up their telephone calls. In addition, the telephone was a source of dispute among inmates on many occasions and led to violent confrontations on others.

Under the system prevailing in the new facility, however, the telephone serving the 12 person housing modules will be used no more than six hours per day. Thus it appears that a more liberal telephone policy could be adopted without moving the telephones into the modules and permitting unsupervised use. It is clear that emerging standards with respect to telephone privileges, at least of pre-trial detainees, are substantially more liberal than those in operation in the new jail. For example, the Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice has promulgated a standard which provides that “detainees shall be allowed to make any reasonable number of calls at any reasonable time.”

12

The Special Master has found no evidence that prisoners’ telephone calls are monitored in any way. The location of the telephones in the vestibule area adjoining inmate housing modules makes simple audio monitoring by correctional officers in the vicinity unlikely because of the presence of a solid lexan door between the inmate speaking on the telephone and the correctional officer in the outside lobby area. According to officials of Ohio Bell Telephone Company contacted by the Special Master, these inmate telephones are not connected to any other instrument which could be utilized for monitoring.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are in basic compliance with subparagraphs 6(a) and 6(b) of the Court’s order, but that the written policies of the Correction Center relating to mail and correspondence should be amended to make it clear that outgoing mail will not be opened under any circumstances and that there are no limitations on persons to whom such mail may be directed.

The Special Master finds that the defendants are in compliance with subparagraphs 6(c) and 6(d) of the Court’s order, but that the institution’s policy that only a counselor is authorized to open inmates’ incoming mail in the presence of the inmate/addressee is not being followed. In order to assure continued compliance with the requirement that incoming mail be neither read nor censored, this policy must be enforced by the administration of the Correction Center. The Special Master finds that the institution’s policy of permitting incoming packages to be delivered to the jail only twice

*93

per month does not contravene the provisions of paragraph 6(d); nor does the institution’s policy which prohibits receipt of any package through the United States Mail without prior approval of the Correction Administrator or his designee.

The Special Master finds that the defendants are in compliance with subparagraph 6(e) in that writing materials and postage are freely available in the commissary which serves inmates. On the other hand, it is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are in noncompliance with subparagraph 6(f) in that no regular and reliable procedure has been adopted which assures that indigent prisoners will be furnished writing materials and postage on a regular basis.

The Special Master finds that the defendants are in compliance with subparagraph 6(g), for inmates are allowed to complete a call to counsel or to family while in the booking area.

The Special Master finds that the defendants are in noncompliance with subparagraph 6(h) in that additional telephone time can be allowed without interfering with the legitimate interests of the administration of the institution. The Special Master does find, however, that the institution is in full compliance with subparagraph 6(i) in that inmates’ telephone calls are not monitored in any way.

PARAGRAPH 7

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO THIS COURT FOR GRANTING COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGES TO SENTENCED INMATES UNDER THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

(a) THERE SHALL BE NO CENSORSHIP OF OUTGOING MAIL.

(b) THERE SHALL BE NO CENSORSHIP OF INCOMING LETTERS FROM THE PRISONER’S ATTORNEY, OR FROM ANY JUDGE OR ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIAL.

(c) PROPER ARRANGEMENTS SHALL BE MADE TO INSURE THAT PRISONERS MAY FREELY OBTAIN WRITING MATERIALS AND POSTAGE.

(d) INDIGENT PRISONERS SHALL BE FURNISHED AT PUBLIC EXPENSE WRITING MATERIALS AND ORDINARY POSTAGE FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE IN DISPATCHING A MAXIMUM OF FIVE (5) LETTERS PER WEEK.

(e) REASONABLE LIMITATION MAY BE PLACED UPON THE NUMBER OF LETTERS DISPATCHED.

Paragraph 7 of the Court’s order, applying only to sentenced inmates, appears to permit the defendants to limit the persons to whom outgoing mail may be directed, read incoming letters, and deny all telephone privileges to this class of inmate. In addition, it provides specifically that a reasonable limitation may be placed upon the number of letters dispatched by sentenced inmates. Otherwise, Paragraph 7 requires that sentenced inmates be given all of the privileges required by Paragraph 6 of the Court’s order with respect to inmates awaiting trial.

The written policies and procedures of the Lucas County Correction Center, as well as the actual practices within the new jail, do not distinguish between sentenced and non-sentenced inmates respecting communication privileges. Thus all of the procedures described in the discussion of Paragraph 6,

supra,

are relevant to sentenced inmates. In adopting this attitude of equal treatment, the defendant Sheriff and the Correction Administrator are to be commended. While accepted correctional standards permit some distinction between sentenced and pre-trial inmates with respect to communication privileges, there is general agreement that there should be no limitation with respect to persons to whom outgoing mail may be directed by either class of inmates. For example, the Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice has adopted the following

*94

standard with respect to

all

inmate mail: “An inmate may send mail to or receive mail from whomever he wishes.”

13

The

Model Rules and Regulations on Prisoners’ Rights and Responsibilities

prepared by the Center for Criminal Justice at Boston University School of Law provide that “inmates may send letters to any person, including inmates in other institutions.”

14

The Joint Committee of the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association has proposed the following standard with respect to outgoing inmate communications:

There should be no restrictions on the length, language or content of letters, or on persons to whom a prisoner may write, except as provided in general laws.

15

Likewise, correctional standards which have emerged in recent years provide that incoming inmate mail should not be read. The National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has published the following standard which applies to sentenced as well as pre-trial inmates:

Correctional authorities should have the right to inspect incoming and outgoing mail, but neither incoming nor outgoing mail should be read or censored.

16

The same position is taken in the

Model Rules and Regulations on Prisoners’ Rights and Responsibilities:

No incoming letters shall be read, even in the cases where they may be opened except upon showing of probable cause and obtaining of a warrant from a court of law.

17

Finally, the Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice has proposed that

Facility staff shall have the right to inspect incoming but not outgoing mail, and neither incoming nor outgoing mail shall be read or censored.

18

Although the need for counsel may be less critical in the case of a sentenced inmate, an inmate without counsel wishing to pursue an appeal or to challenge the conditions of his incarceration should have telephone privileges which will permit him to obtain counsel. Likewise, at least some other local telephone privileges should be made available to sentenced inmates. The Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice, for example, has proposed the following standard:

Convicted inmates may be subject to any reasonable rules on phone calls. At a minimum, however, such rules must permit the inmate to make at least two phone calls per week.

19

Telephone privileges for sentenced inmates are also required by

Washington State Jail Standards

§§ 303-395 (calls at all reasonable times) and the

Model Rules and Regulations on Prisoners’ Rights and Responsibilities

(two calls per week).

20

Finally, current correctional standards prohibit limitations on the number of letters which may be dispatched by sentenced as well as unsentenced inmates. The Nebraska State Bar Association Committee on Correctional Law and Practice has proposed the following standard:

Facility personnel shall not limit the volume of mail to or from an inmate.

21

*95

The

Model Rules and Regulations on Prisoners’ Rights and Responsibilities

provide that

There shall be no restrictions upon the number of letters that may be written, the length of any letter, or the language in which the letter may be written.

22

Finally, the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals has adopted the following standard:

Correctional authorities should not limit the volume of mail to or from a person under supervision.

23

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

The findings made by the Special Master in connection with Paragraph 6, pages 91-92,

supra,

apply with equal force to those provisions of that paragraph which reappear in Paragraph 7. In addition, the Special Master finds that no limitation is placed upon the number of letters which may be dispatched by sentenced inmates.

In view of the practice of the administration of the Lucas County Correction Center extending equal communication privileges to sentenced and pre-trial inmates, and in view of standards of correctional practice which have been cited above, it is the recommendation of the Special Master that Paragraph 7 be deleted from the Court’s order and that the provisions of Paragraph 6 be amended by deleting the words “awaiting trial” in the introductory statement of the paragraph.

PARAGRAPH 8

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO THIS COURT FOR PROVIDING PHYSICAL FACILITIES IN WHICH PRISONERS MAY CONSULT PRIVATELY WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS, AND WITH THEIR WITNESSES WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE ACCOMPANIED BY ATTORNEYS.

(a) SAID FACILITIES SHALL BE SUFFICIENT IN NUMBER TO ACCOMMODATE A MINIMUM OF THREE SEPARATE VISITATIONS AT ONE TIME.

(b) EACH SEPARATE VISITING AREA SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY SOUNDPROOF SO THAT CONVERSATIONS THEREIN MAY NOT BE OVERHEARD, PROPERLY ILLUMINATED, PROPERLY VENTILATED, EQUIPPED WITH CHAIRS AND A WRITING DESK, OR TABLE AND SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY LARGE TO ACCOMMODATE A MAXIMUM OF FOUR PERSONS.

This paragraph of the Court’s order has been a source of substantial difficulty since April 22, 1977, when the first inmates were moved to the new Correction Center. In the former jail, a booth with an area of 64 square feet was provided on each of the three floors of the facility for private consultation between inmates and their attorneys. These visiting facilities were soundproof, illuminated, and equipped with at least some of the necessary furnishings. They were sufficiently large to accommodate four persons. Thus the defendants were in substantial compliance with this provision of the Court’s order in the old facility.

Special attorney/client visiting booths have been provided on each of the regular housing floors of the new institution. All modules apart from the four person modules on the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth floors adjoin one of these booths. The booth contains two doors. One connects to the security vestibule between the dayroom area and the open lobby and is used by the inmate/client; the other opens onto the main lobby and is used by the attorney. The booth is divided by a wall which separates the inmate from his attorney. There is a small metal mesh screen through which

*96

the inmate and his lawyer may speak to one another. Above this mesh screen is a small glass window through which visual contact can be made. A narrow writing ledge is affixed beneath the mesh screen on the attorney’s side of the dividing wall. The attorney and his client sit on fixed metal stools which have no back. The amount of space available for each of the two parties is approximately 20 square feet. Both sides of the visiting booth are well lighted, but neither is ventilated. The room does not permit physical contact in any way between the lawyer and his client and will not accommodate a conference of four persons. The door which separates the attorney from the lobby area is not soundproof, and normal conversational tones can be heard without any difficulty by a person standing near the door. Likewise, the general noise level in the module area carries into the attorney’s booth and makes conversation difficult.

Because of the obvious failure of the planners and designers of the Correction Center to provide attorney/client visiting facilities in compliance with the standards established by Paragraph 8 of the Court’s order, the Special Master raised this question with the defendants at a meeting on March 24, 1977, at which discussions concerning the move to the new facility were held. At that time the Special Master suggested that the separating wall be removed from the attorney’s booth and that a soundproof security door be installed between the attorney’s booth and the outside lobby area. In response, the Special Master was told that multipurpose rooms located on each of the housing floors of the institution had been designed to permit contact visiting between an inmate and his lawyer and that these rooms would be available to all lawyers seeking a contact visit with clients. The Special Master agreed to this procedure as a temporary measure and requested that steps be taken to inform all attorneys coming into the new facility of their right to a contact visit.

Shortly after inmates were moved to the third floor of the new facility on April 22, 1977, the Special Master began to receive complaints both from inmates and attorneys about the attorney/client visiting facilities. On May 6,1977, the Special Master requested the defendant Sheriff to post the following notice in all attorney/client booths:

Attorneys visiting clients in the Lucas County Correction Center are entitled to meet privately with their clients in multipurpose rooms designed to permit contact visiting. You and your client will be escorted to such a room unless you state a wish to meet with your client in a divided, non-contact visiting area. In order to preserve necessary records, you will be asked to sign a form indicating that you have requested non-contact visiting. If you experience any difficulty whatsoever in arranging a meeting with your client in a multipurpose room, please contact Professor Vincent M. Nathan, 2801 W. Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606 (537-4176), who has been appointed by Judge Don J. Young to serve as Special Master in the case of

Jones v. Wittenberg.

At a meeting held on May 12, 1977, the Sheriff stated that he had not and would not post these notices but he did agree to post his own notice in the attorney’s booth indicating that a multipurpose room would be available for attorney/client visits upon request by the attorney. During the course of numerous inspections, the Special Master found that these notices had not been posted in any of the attorney/client booths in the jail. In the course of an inspection which was held on Monday, June 13, 1977, however, the Special Master found the following notice posted in the attorney/client booths on the third floor of the facility:

There is a multipurpose room available for contact visits. Please notify the Correctional Officer if you desire a contact visit.

Thank you.

No such notices were posted on any other floor of the facility.

The current

policy

in the new facility is to place an attorney in one of the divided booths. If he asks for a contact visit, he is

*97

to be allowed to

go

to a multipurpose room with his client if one is available. This has not always been the

practice,

however. On some occasions, attorneys who have specifically asked for a contact visit have been told that such a visit is not permitted. Because multipurpose rooms have been assigned as office space to the Director of Inmate Services, several counselors, and the sergeant in charge of the security staff in the jail, only one such room is available for attorney/client visits on the third and fourth floors. Two multipurpose rooms appear to be available on the fifth and sixth floors. Such rooms as are available, however, must accommodate a substantial amount of programming which is projected for the new facility. For example, both of the classrooms which were constructed on the fifth floor of the facility have been converted to office area for Work Release Program staff. Therefore all educational activities must take place in the multipurpose rooms on the housing floors. Likewise, regular religious services, group counseling sessions, and other program activities, will be held in these rooms. Thus, if the only acceptable facilities for attorney/client visits are these multipurpose rooms, it can be expected that attorneys will find it very difficult to meet with their clients and will experience significant delays. The use of these multipurpose rooms creates additional problems of inmate movement and consumes valuable time on the part of correctional officers who are required to transport the inmate to and from the multipurpose room. Finally, since the small attorney/client booths are not soundproof, and thus cannot properly be used without alteration, the exclusive utilization of the multipurpose rooms in place of these attorney/client booths will result in additional unused space in the facility.

The present attorney/client booths can be made usable by the removal of the dividing wall, the installation of soundproof doors, and the provision of adequate ventilation and required furnishings. In the absence of such renovation, there will be constant pressure to make use of these rooms as they presently exist, because, as programming develops in the new facility, the multipurpose rooms will become less and less available for attorney/client visits.

No specific facilities for attorney/client visits were constructed in the holding area on the first floor or in the medical or classification areas on the second floor of the facility. Attorneys wishing to visit their clients in the holding area are permitted to do so in a small office near the cells. On the second floor, on the other hand, the attorney and client confer in the open lobby area, separated by a security crash gate. Such an arrangement provides no privacy for attorney/client conferences. There is no multipurpose room on this floor of the jail.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are in a state of noncompliance with the provisions of this paragraph of the Court’s order. Given the specificity of the Court’s language, the construction of attorney/client booths as described above (as well as the failure to provide facilities on the second floor) must be regarded as an act of deliberate noncompliance. In spite of repeated promises to the Special Master that the multipurpose rooms would be available for attorney/client visits on the request of the attorney, these facilities have not been made available routinely for this purpose. No effort has been made to inform attorneys of the availability of the multipurpose room with the exception of the notices which were placed in the attorney/client booths on the third floor. This failure on the part of the defendant Sheriff to make the availability of the multipurpose rooms known to attorneys constitutes an act of deliberate noncompliance with the requirements of the Court’s order and with the instructions of the Special Master.

It is the further finding of the Special Master that attorney/client visiting facilities will not be available to attorneys and

*98

inmates unless the structural modifications described above are made on the existing attorney/client booths. The mere existence of a policy allowing the use of multipurpose rooms for these visits will not be sufficient. Experience to date indicates that there will be frequent breakdowns with respect to the execution of this policy and that the multipurpose rooms will not be available for attorney/client visits on a regular basis. Because the right of an inmate to visit privately and reasonably comfortably with his attorney is one of fundamental constitutional import, and because the facilities constructed for these visits were designed in complete disregard of the requirements of the Court’s order, it is the recommendation of the Special Master that the structural changes outlined above be ordered to be completed forthwith.

PARAGRAPH 9

WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER PRESENT A PLAN TO THIS COURT WITH RESPECT TO ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS TO THE PHYSICAL PLANT, WHICH PLAN SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS:

(a) TO PROVIDE ILLUMINATION AS PREVIOUSLY ORDERED;

(b) TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE HEATING IN THE COLD SEASONS AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION AT ALL TIMES;

(c) TO PROVIDE HOT AND COLD WATER AT LEAST FOR BATHING, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BOARD OF HEALTH HOUSING REGULATION STANDARDS;

(d) TO PROVIDE AT ALL TIMES ADEQUATE, WORKING TOILETS;

(e) TO REPAIR ALL LEAKS IN PLUMBING IMMEDIATELY, EVEN THOUGH TO DO SO MAY REQUIRE AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PLUMBERS EMPLOYED FULL-TIME BY THE COUNTY;

(f) TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE AND SANITARY SUPPLY OF DRINKING WATER;

(g) TO CAUSE THE INTERIOR OF THE JAIL TO BE KEPT PAINTED WITH LIGHT-COLORED, WASHABLE, ENAMEL; FAILING THIS, THE DEFENDANT SHERIFF SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LETTER OF § 3401.04 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE;

(h) IF THE PRESENT CELLS ARE NOT TO BE REPLACED WITH NEW CELLS AND OPEN DORMITORY HOUSING, THE CELL-LOCKING SYSTEM MUST BE PLACED IN GOOD WORKING ORDER;

(i) TO MEET THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN CONNECTION WITH ALL FOREGOING PORTIONS OF THIS ORDER;

(j) SAID PROPOSALS SHALL INCLUDE A TIME SCHEDULE FOR MEETING EACH PROBLEM AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF COMPLETION WITHIN ONE (1) YEAR UNLESS GOOD CAUSE IS SHOWN FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME.

At the time of the Court’s order of July, 1971, the old Lucas County Jail was in a state of almost total disrepair. The provisions of this paragraph were designed to correct deficiencies disclosed by testimony heard by the Court at the hearing of February 10 and 11, 1971. When the old jail was evacuated on May 18, 1977, many of the same problems persisted. Ventilation in the old facility was never adequate. During inspections conducted by the Special Master inoperative toilets and leaking plumbing were observed. Jail officials were still having difficulty in obtaining repair services from County plumbers, and leaking pipes appeared to be the rule rather than the exception.. The interior of the jail remained dirty and dingy. Apparently, however, the cell locking system was in reasonably good working order at that time.

*99

Of more importance is the application of this paragraph to the new facility. Many of the problems which led the Court to require alterations and repairs to the physical plant of the old facility are beginning to appear in the new Correction Center after only a few weeks of occupancy.

The problem of illumination in inmates’ cells has been discussed earlier in this report. It may be noted, however, that illumination is inadequate in other portions of the new building as well. For example, the hallways separating the large housing units on the sixth floor are so dark that it is virtually impossible for an officer located in the floor control center to observe correctional officers stationed in those halls. The result is that correctional officers assigned to duty on the sixth floor are justifiably concerned that they are in an insecure position.

The air conditioning system in the new facility has been a source of repetitive complaints by both inmates and staff. Part of this may reflect the usual need to balance a complicated system in a structure of this size. It appears to the Special Master, however, that the problem of temperature and ventilation in the cells themselves is a serious one. Even when the rest of the building is comfortable, these cells are stuffy and noticeably warmer than other areas. Because of the understandable policy prohibiting the opening of cell windows, this problem is one of substantial importance.

Officials from the Toledo Board of Health have pointed out that there is not an adequate supply of hot water in a sink provided in the area on the fifth floor occupied by trusties. The Special Master, however, has been unable to obtain hot water from any of the sink taps in the cell areas. This may result from the fact that water runs in these sinks for only a very brief period of time before it is automatically shut off. Whatever the nature of the problem, it requires correction. This is particularly true in light of the fact that this is the only supply of hot water for inmates for the washing of cups and spoons issued to them on a permanent basis. Water regulators in the housing area showers are malfunctioning, and the only way an inmate can maintain water pressure is by keeping his finger on the button which activates the water supply. Bathing under these circumstances is inconvenient at best. Fixed shower heads direct water out of the shower stall onto the floor of the bathroom. While this water can be swept back into the shower stall with some success, bathroom floors remain wet and dirty.

Although the interior of the new facility is painted with light-colored, washable enamel, it is obvious that steps will have to be taken to keep walls clean or that frequent repainting will be necessary. There has been some incidence of breakdown in toilet and shower fixtures, but these appear to be repaired on a relatively prompt basis. The same is not true of at least all malfunctioning locks and in some instances cell doors have been inoperable for a considerable period of time. It does appear that an adequate and sanitary supply of drinking water exists in the new facility.

On February 28,1972, the Court issued an order amending the provisions of Paragraph 9 as follows:

And it is further ordered adjudged and decreed that the defendant Sheriff Metzger, his agents, employees, successors, assigns and all those acting in concert therewith are ENJOINED from incarcerating any person in a cell which does not have an operative toilet.

Two cells have been constructed on the first floor of the new facility which do not contain any toilet facilities. These cells (rooms 1074 and 1078) are designated on the architectural drawings as “psychiatric cells” and are located immediately adjacent to the receiving and booking station. These cells are padded to minimize the possibility that an inmate incarcerated therein will injure himself. The Special Master entertains substantial doubt that such cells represent current medical thinking about treatment of mentally ill persons. Whatever justification there may be for cells of this type,

*100

however, it would appear that they should be placed in the medical area of the facility and under the control of medical personnel rather than in the receiving and booking area' where correctional officers or their superiors are likely to be making decisions with regard to their use. An expert employed by the Toledo/Lucas County Criminal Justice Regional Planning Unit reached the same conclusion.

24

In any event, these cells are a direct and flagrant violation of the provision quoted above and represent another example of the failure of the planners and designers of the new facility to give appropriate consideration to the provisions of the Court’s order.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants were not in full compliance with the provisions of Paragraph 9 in the former Lucas County Jail and that the very conditions which led to this provision of the Court’s order will arise in the new facility unless concerted efforts are made to maintain a state of cleanliness and good repair. The Special Master recommends that steps be taken at once to balance the air conditioning and heating system, provide adequate heating, cooling, and ventilation in all cells, and correct hot and cold water supplies and pressure throughout the facility.

It is the further finding of the Special Master that the two cells designated as “psychiatric” cells in the booking and holding area of the first floor constitute a violation of the Court’s order. Because the Special Master assumes that the defendants would not have incurred the cost of building these cells without intending to incarcerate inmates in them at least from time to time, it is his recommendation that the defendants be required to install toilets and sinks in these cells or to remove the doors so as to render them unusable for occupancy by inmates.

PARAGRAPH 10

PROMPTLY PROVIDE ARRANGEMENTS FOR LIBRARY SERVICES TO PRISONERS.

(a) THERE SHALL BE NO CENSORSHIP OF BOOKS OR PERIODICALS SUPPLIED TO, PURCHASED BY, OR GIVEN TO PRISONERS, EXCEPT THAT THE DEFENDANT SHERIFF MAY, IN HIS DISCRETION, FORBID THE INTRODUCTION INTO THE JAIL OF BOOKS OR PERIODICALS WHICH WOULD COME CLEARLY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PORNOGRAPHY ESTABLISHED BY THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

Library Services.

Following the Court’s order of July 30, 1971, the defendants did not begin to provide library services to prisoners until approximately February, 1973, when an employee of the Toledo-Lucas County Library began to visit the jail every Friday in order to distribute books to inmates. On these occasions, the librarian brought between 400 and 500 books into the institution on a book cart which he took to the various cellblocks within the facility. An attempt was made to fill special requests received on earlier visits as well as to provide a reasonably broad range of books of interest to prisoners. On each of these visits between 300 and 350 books were actually circulated. This book cart service continued until April 18, 1977, when the County Library employee involved began to spend virtually all of his time preparing to implement an expanded library program in the new Lucas County Correction Center. Between April 18, 1977 and May 18, 1977, when the old jail was closed, the librarian visited that facility on a few occasions and distributed some books.

No library service was provided in the new Correction Center following the evacuation of the old facility (on May 18, 1977)

*101

until June 10, 1977. Service in the new facility at the present time consists of the same book cart arrangement described above. Both in the old jail and in the new facility a second employee of the County Library has delivered books to female inmates and has met with female inmates once a week.

At the time of the planning of the new jail, a much more ambitious library program was envisioned. A large area containing 1,307 square feet has been designated for a jail library collection. The allocated space contains a reading room, work room and a toilet.

In order to develop a program in keeping with the improved physical facilities provided in the new Correction Center, the Toledo-Lucas County Library obtained a grant of $65,030 under the Library Services Construction Act to put the program in place and to maintain it for one year. In addition to the Correction Center, services will be provided to the Child Study Institute and the Toledo House of Correction. The grant application stated that $34,640 would be available in local matching funds. Of the latter amount, the defendant County Commissioners have agreed to provide 24 hours of trusty time per week, valued at $3.00 per hour for a total of $3,744 for the year. The total projected second year cost of the program is $59,850. While County Library staff are optimistic that federal funding will be forthcoming to meet some of these costs, no assurance of this has been received. The defendant County Commissioners have agreed on an informal basis to assume a portion of the financial cost of continuing the program but no specific dollar commitment has been made. The need for expanded library services is well stated in the application itself:

Funds have not been available to provide staff, materials, and equipment to meet the unique informational and leisure reading needs of the inmates of these facilities. The only books housed presently at the three sites are gift copies and discards from the Toledo-Lucas County Library. While these have been chosen as having some value to the potential inmate users, the lack of suitably appealing and relevant materials has been ever-present. Fragmentation of responsibility for direct service and inadequate time available for service have been equally, if not more of a problem.

As a result of this grant, the Toledo-Lucas County Library has created a Correctional Services Division of the Special Services Department. A qualified professional librarian with interest in working in such a program has been appointed. That person will spend four days per week in the library in the Lucas County Correction Center and will be assisted by a clerk-typist to handle clerical duties and to assist on a part-time basis at the Center. Monies from the grant will be used to purchase library materials, equipment, and furnishings. Cassette players and tapes as well as books will be provided. The goal of the project is the creation of a library of 4,000 volumes in the Correctional Center itself. The Correction Librarian has already sought and received assistance from the librarian of The University of Toledo College of Law in developing a list of needed legal materials. Because of the expense involved in purchasing materials necessary for an adequate law library, however, grant funds will not be sufficient for this purpose.

The newly appointed Correction Librarian (the same person who coordinated library services in the old jail) has informed the Special Master that the new library in the Correction Center will be in operation sometime between August 15 and September 1, 1977. At the end of the first year of operation, it will be necessary for the defendant County Commissioners to provide the necessary support for the continuation of what promises to be an outstanding correctional facility library service.

Whether in fact that promise is realized, however, depends upon the willingness of the Correction Center administration to provide the degree of cooperation which is needed if the program is to reach its full potential. The general problem of inmate movement described in the introduction to

*102

this report directly affects the library services program for which funds have been obtained. On September 15, 1976, the Correction Librarian reported to the Assistant Director of the Toledo-Lucas County Public Library that

The Jail Administration informed me that it is not feasible to have scheduled visits to the library for all the inmates. . . their reason being that the movement of very large groups of inmates causes security problems.

As a result, the Correction Librarian indicated that services would have to be limited to the use of book carts, the practice in the old jail. That such limited service was not contemplated by the Toledo-Lucas County Library at the time of its grant application is demonstrated by the diagram of the library facility which was included in that application:

It is obvious that the originators of the grant anticipated that the bulk of the library itself would be devoted to a reading room. Indeed, the policies and procedures published by the Lucas County Correction Center make it clear that reading room service was anticipated:

The librarian shall submit to the Director of Inmate Services a weekly schedule of library hours and services provided by the library. . . . The library staff shall make daily floor rounds providing the inmates with reader service, book cart, and special requests . . . The library staff shall make available the use of the library on a daily basis for the inmates.

The Correction Librarian has submitted to the Special Master his recommendations for the establishment and operation of the library at the Lucas County Correction Center. He recommends that the library be opened to inmates on the third, fourth, and fifth floors and that library service be provided by a book cart system on the maximum security sixth floor. He recommends 45 minute library calls on a weekly basis to each module on the third, fourth and fifth floors. This would permit ten minutes for transportation and 35 minutes in the library itself. The library would be open on Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 8:00 a. m. to 12:00 noon and from 1:00 p. m. to 4:30 p. m. With the assistance of trained trusties or interns, the Correction Librarian believes that the library could be open on additional days. Because it is not the purpose of this report to fully detail plans of compliance, other aspects of the Correction Librarian’s recommendations ' will not be discussed. Suffice it to say, the Correction Librarian and the Toledo-Lucas County Library are prepared to do their part in providing the best possible library service to inmates in the Correction Center if the administration of the Center is willing to allow inmates to participate in the program.

Censorship of Books and Periodicals.

Apart from the provision of library services to prisoners, Paragraph 10 proscribes censorship of books or periodicals except on the basis that such materials are pornographic within the definition of that term established by decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. There is no evidence that the administration of the Correction Center has made any effort to censor books or periodicals distributed by book cart through the library services program, and the institution’s

Policies and Procedures Manual

states that “the selection of library materials shall be the responsibility of the librarian.” On the other hand, censorship does occur with respect to books and periodicals supplied or given to prisoners by persons other than the Correction Librarian. According to the Correction Administrator and the published policies and procedures of

*103

the Center, no books or magazines may be received by a prisoner, either by mail or from visitors. If this were in fact the practice, it would constitute total censorship in violation of the Court’s order. The policy notwithstanding, however, the Special Master has observed on two occasions visitors bringing books or periodicals into the jail for inmates. In both instances these materials were screened cursorily by the Acting Director of Inmate Services. On one occasion that official permitted some of the material to be given to the prisoner but refused other publications because “this goes too far.” The quoted reference was to the sexual orientation of the particular printed matter. On the other occasion, the printed materials were approved by the Acting Director of Inmate Services. If this is in fact the general practice in the institution, it is clear that the process of evaluation falls short of the requirements of the Court’s order.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

It is the finding of the Special Master that the limited library service provided by the book cart program in the former Lucas County Jail constituted a good faith effort to comply with the requirements of Paragraph 10 of the Court’s order. It may be observed, however, that the inauguration of such service in February, 1973, fell short of the standard of “promptness” required by the order. Given the provision of commodious library quarters in the new Correction Center, however, it is the finding of the Special Master that the mere continuation of such a book cart service in the new facility will not constitute compliance. Having constructed adequate library facilities, the administration of the Correction Center must develop policies and procedures

and institute practices

which will permit the library to be used by inmates. Twenty-four hours of trusty or intern time must be provided each week in accordance with the agreement between the defendant County Commissioners and the Toledo-Lucas County Library. If interns rather than trusties are used, the County Commissioners must provide the Toledo-Lucas County Library with $3,744 in accordance with that agreement in order to pay these interns. The Special Master finds that it will be necessary for the defendant County Commissioners to enter into negotiations with the Toledo-Lucas County Library in order to finalize an agreement to continue the library services program upon the expiration of federal funding.

It is the finding of the Special Master that the funds available to develop an adequate library program in the new facility will not permit the purchase of legal materials meeting reasonable standards of adequacy for a law library in a correctional facility. If the Court intends the provision of library services to include development of an adequate collection of legal materials, the defendants are not in compliance with such a requirement and the defendant County Commissioners will be required to appropriate sufficient funds to develop a collection.

It is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are in a state of noncompliance with that portion of Paragraph 10 which proscribes censorship of incoming books or periodicals. Whether all books and periodicals are refused admission or a casual process of censorship occurs, the policies and practices of the institution are clearly outside the scope of the exception permitting exclusion of pornographic materials.

PARAGRAPH 11

APPROPRIATE AS PROMPTLY AS POSSIBLE SUCH SUMS AS ARE NECESSARY TO ENABLE A QUALIFIED ORGANIZATION TO OPERATE A PRETRIAL BAIL RELEASE PROGRAM, TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PERSONS PLACED ON BAIL PENDING TRIAL.

On July 6,1973, the Court amended Paragraph 11 of its original order by requiring the defendant County Commissioners to provide “funds for the operation of a bail bond program in the amount of not less

*104

than $14,000 per year continuing until further order of the Court.”

Records provided to the Special Master by the director of the Pre-Trial Release Program, which operates as a division of the Toledo Legal Aid Society, indicate that the following levels of support have been made available by the defendant County Commissioners to the Pre-Trial Release Program since 1973:

1978:

$11,980 were appropriated by the County Commissioners and received through the Toledo Legal Aid Society. $2,020 was subsequently appropriated in 1973 to produce the $14,000 required by the Court’s supplemental order of July 6 of that year. This money was not received by the Pre-Trial Release Program in 1973.

1974:

$28,567 were requested from the County Commissioners by the Pre-Trial Release Program for 1974. Of this amount, $26,547 constituted the regular allocation request for that year; $2,020 represented the amount appropriated in 1973 but not received. Of the total ($28,-567) which was appropriated; the Toledo Legal Aid Society requisitioned only $23,-002, leaving a balance of $5,565 in funds which were appropriated by the County Commissioners but not received by the Pre-Trial Release Program.

1975:

In this year, the Toledo Legal Aid Society requested from the County Commissioners the $5,565 previously allocated but not received by the Pre-Trial Release Program. Apparently no additional funds were requested. $5,565 was received by the Pre-Trial Release Program on April 10, 1975, but no additional funds were received from the County Commissioners that year.

1976:

In this year the present director of the Pre-Trial Release Program assumed his position. $28,390 were requested from the County Commissioners; $14,000 were allocated and received.

1977:

$29,040 were requested from the County Commissioners; $14,000 were allocated.

Some confusion exists with respect to the 1975 allocation to the Pre-Trial Release Program. When the current director assumed his responsibilities in 1976, he requested an additional allocation from the County Commissioners for that year representing the difference between the $14,000 to which he was “entitled” and the sum of $5,565 which was actually received in 1975. This request was refused by the County Commissioners because they had appropriated a total of $22,000 for the Toledo Legal Aid Society in 1975, and it was the position of the County Commissioners that the Toledo Legal Aid Society should have made $14,000 of that money available to the Pre-Trial Release Program. It appears that the failure of the Pre-Trial Release Program to receive at least $14,000 in 1975 resulted from the actions of the Toledo Legal Aid Society. In a letter dated April 8,1975, to the then President of the Lucas County Commissioners, an Administrative Assistant employed by the Toledo Legal Aid Society requested payment of the year’s allocation of $22,000 in the following manner:

Having been notified that the County of Lucas has allocated $22,000 to the Toledo Legal Aid Society, we request that full payment be made in the following manner:

$5,565 to the Pre-Trial Release Program, and

$16,435 to the Public Defender Program .

Since these programs are separately funded this procedure will greatly simplify our bookkeeping. Thank you for your cooperation.

Wherever the breakdown occurred, however, the fact remains that the Pre-Trial Release Program received only $5,565 in 1975.

The Pre-Trial Release Program receives funds from sources other than the County Commissioners. According to budget records supplied to the Special Master, the

*105

following funds were available to the PreTrial Release Program beginning in 1973:

1973: $11,980 Received from County Commissioners

10.000 Received from Model Cities

$21,980

1974: $23,002 Received from County Commissioners through Toledo Legal Aid Society

30,000 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)

1.667 State Buy-in to match LEAA Grant

$54,669

1975: $ 5,565 Received from County Commissioners through Toledo Legal Aid Society

60,000 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

1.500 State Buy-in to match LEAA Grant

5.158 1974 LEAA surplus

$72,223

1976: $14,000 Received from County Commissioners through Toledo Legal Aid Society

55,432 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

3,078 State Buy-in to match LEAA Grant

17.265 1975 LEAA Balance

$89,775

1977: $14,000 Allocated by County Commissioners

48,450 Law Enforcement Assistance Administration

1,788 State Buy-in to match LEAA Grant

1.500 1976 State Buy-in to match LEAA Grant (not received in 1976)

22.000 City of Toledo

$87,736

The grant which the Pre-Trial Release Program received from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration is a declining fund grant which will expire at the end of the 1978 fiscal year. Thus the program faces a financial crisis unless steps are taken by the defendant County Commissioners and/or the City of Toledo to meet the financial needs of the agency.

The total budget request submitted for 1977 by the Pre-Trial Release Program totaled $102,778, representing an increase of' $13,003 over the amount actually received in 1976. While the Special Master is not in a position to speak to the question of the validity of all portions of the request made for 1977, it does appear that some reasonable increase in the amount of funds provided by the County Commissioners would be expected in response to inflationary pressures and normal program expansion requirements.

At the present time, the total staff of the Pre-Trial Release Program consists of a director, a clerical person, an operations supervisor, a full-time investigator, and eight part-time (law student) investigators. This staff is responsible for interviewing all persons admitted to the Lucas County Correction Center who are accused of felonies. Until the City of Toledo prisoners are housed in the Correction Center, the PreTrial Release Program staff will continue to be responsible for interviewing persons accused of felonies who are incarcerated in the City of Toledo jail as well. In 1976, a total of 2,160 persons were interviewed by Pre-Trial Release Program staff. Of this number, 825 were recommended for release. Interview contacts for 1977 are running somewhat above the 1976 figure. As of May 31, 1976, 877 persons had been interviewed; as of May 31, 1977, 931 persons have been interviewed. This represents an increase of something in excess of 6%. Had the agency’s full request to the defendant County Commissioners for 1977 been honored, a service coordinator would have been added to the staff. This person would have been responsible for assisting persons released on their own recognizance in continuing or obtaining employment in the community. In addition, he would have developed a counseling internship in conjunction with The University of Toledo to provide counseling services to persons released on their own recognizance.

The Pre-Trial Release Program has compiled an impressive record of success with respect to its recommendations. Of 422 persons released on their own recognizance on the recommendation of the Pre-Trial Release Program in 1976, only 22 or 5% failed to appear for trial. (An additional 5% were “technical no shows,” persons who were late for court, did not receive a notice to appear, etc.) At the same time, it should be noted that of 825 persons recommended for release on their own cognizance, only

*106

422 or 51% were actually so released by Municipal Court and Common Pleas judges. A total of 1,335 persons were not recommended for release on their own recognizance, but 377 or 28% of these individuals were so released on their own recognizance against the recommendation of the Pre-Trial Release Program. Twenty-six or 7% failed to appear and an additional 8% were “technical no shows.”

Apart from funding difficulties, the PreTrial Release Program has encountered several difficulties in attempting to operate in the new Lucas County Correction Center. Women to be interviewed are held on the third floor where special facilities have been designated for female classification. Male inmates are interviewed on the first floor of the facility in the holding area. This separation of prisoners, while justifiable on other grounds, has made it somewhat more difficult for Pre-Trial Release Program interviewers to operate within the jail. Because of the location of interview rooms away from the cell area on the first floor and the absence of adequate staff to provide inmate transportation, interviews with male inmates have been conducted through the small openings in the cell doors. This is an entirely unsatisfactory setting for an interview upon which the freedom of the accused person may depend. In addition, the Pre-Trial Release Program interviewers have not been provided with telephones which are needed for verification of information provided in the interview; none of the three interview rooms is equipped with a telephone.

FINDINGS RELATING TO COMPLIANCE

If the modification of July 6, 1973, requiring the appropriation of $14,000 per year is taken as an operational definition of the original requirement that the defendants appropriate “such sums as are necessary to enable a qualified organization to operate a Pre-Trial Bail Release Program, to increase the number of persons placed on • bail pending trial,” it is the finding of the Special Master that the defendants are presently in compliance in that $14,000 have been appropriated for the 1977 fiscal year. On the other hand, it is the opinion of the Special Master that it was not the intention of the Court to establish this figure as an outer limit on the obligation of the defendants. Rather it appears to the Special Master that emphasis should be placed upon provision of such sums “as are necessary” to support a viable and expanding program. If the Special Master is correct in his understanding of this paragraph of the order, then it is his finding that the defendants are in noncompliance in their failure to make additional funds available to cover budget increases required as a result of inflationary pressures and normal program expansion.

Although Paragraph 11 speaks directly to the requirement that sufficient funds be appropriated, it appears to the Special Master that the Court intended that the defendants should take other necessary steps to facilitate the operation of such a program and that, at a minimum, they should not interfere in any way with the operation of a Pre-Trial Release Program. If the Special Master is correct in this interpretation, then it is his finding that the defendants are in noncompliance in their failure to provide sufficient correctional officer staff to facilitate transportation of inmates in the holding area from their cells to interview rooms utilized by Pre-Trial Release Program interviewers and in their failure to provide three telephones for the purpose of verifying information obtained by these interviewers in the course of their meetings with inmates.

In view of the observations and findings of the Special Master in connection with Paragraph 1 of the Court’s order relating to overcrowding, it is the opinion of the Special Master that the development of the most extensive Pre-Trial Release Program which is possible is a matter of critical importance to the future of the Lucas County Correction Center and the ability of the defendants to comply with other provisions of the Court’s order. A jail which is

*107

overcrowded is by definition a dirtier, more restrictive, and less program-oriented facility. While the defendants are not in a position to control a spiraling arrest rate or an increased rate of incarceration, they can, by providing adequate funds and support for a Pre-Trial Release Program, divert a larger number of people from the Correction Center itself. It is the finding of the Special Master that the failure to develop the PreTrial Release Program to its fullest potential will jeopardize compliance with numerous other provisions of the Court’s order relating to physical conditions, programming, and jail services.

PARAGRAPH 12

WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER DETERMINE WHETHER TO PERMIT ALL FOOD PURCHASES FOR THE JAIL TO BE HANDLED DIRECTLY BY THE COOK IN CHARGE OF THE JAIL KITCHEN OR TO ORDER THE COUNTY PURCHASE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE ALL CHANGES IN THE HANDLING OF THE PURCHASES OF FOOD FOR THE JAIL NECESSARY TO INSURE THAT FOOD WILL BE PURCHASED AND DELIVERED TO THE JAIL ON SCHEDULES ESTABLISHED BY THE COOK IN CHARGE OF THE JAIL KITCHEN AND CAUSE A STATEMENT OF THAT DECISION TO BE FILED WITH THIS COURT.

(a) IF SAID DEFENDANTS ELECT TO

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.