return to theClose Tallulah press room

-- Excerpts from the 1995 Human Rights Watch report -- these excerpts are specific to the material that refers to Tallulah --
CLICK HERE to go to the full version of the report on-line


Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project
Human Rights Watch

New York A Washington A Los Angeles A London A Brussels


The Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project was established in 1994 to monitor and promote the human rights of children around the world. Lois Whitman is the director and Mina Samuels is a consultant.



All my ribs were purple at EBR-LTI. A new boy came in and I tried to help him so he wouldn't get beaten up and then a guard pulled us both up and he slapped both of us and then he told me to raise my arms and he beat my ribs until they were purple and blue and I didn't tell my mom cause I knew she would start something.1

EBR, that's a messed up place. The guards will beat you. One of them named Mr. O, he has a thing called a 'house party'. If you work on weekends he wakes you up at 5 A.M.. He calls you in the back where we take showers and beats you for a whole hour. When we go to the mess hall to eat we have to count, and he tells you to come see, then he calls you into the washroom and beats you up and another sergeant comes to beat you. It has only happened two times to me ... I would change EBR. [I would] fire all the workers cause they are just dirty. "New jacks" come in talking, and they beat them up for nothing. This boy at EBR with me, a guard broke his arm with a broom ... [there were] boys lying on the floor and the sarge picked up his chair and threw it at him and hit him. If you tell a counselor, all it's going to do is make it worse.2

In March and May 1995, the Human Rights Watch Children's Rights Project conducted an investigation in Louisiana into the conditions in which children3 are confined in that state, examining the human rights aspects of their incarceration. We found that substantial numbers of children in the state training institutions are regularly physically abused by guards, are kept in isolation for long periods of time, and are improperly restrained by handcuffs.

The state of Louisiana is by most standards one of the poorest states in the U.S. It has one of the highest rates in the country of children living in poverty and children not in school or working. Large numbers of children, especially black children, are suspended from school each year, sometimes for the whole year. Louisiana also has one of the highest rates of incarceration among U.S. states.4 Approximately 1,500 children are confined in secure correctional facilities each year. The circumstances which lead to their incarceration are not within the scope of this report, nor are due process problems, such as adequate representation of the children. Human Rights Watch confined its investigation to the conditions in which children are confined in the Louisiana institutions.

In Louisiana all acts committed by a person over the age of seventeen are tried in adult court, but children over the age of fourteen may be waived by the district attorney into the adult court system for certain enumerated violent crimes. All other children between the ages of eleven and seventeen are under the jurisdiction of the Louisiana Children's Code5 and are adjudicated by special juvenile courts, or district and parish courts with original juvenile jurisdiction. Children under the age of eleven are not subject to criminal adjudication. Certain enumerated acts, such as first and second degree murder and aggravated rape, that are not waived into the adult court, carry the potential adjudication by the court of juvenile jurisdiction of a juvenile life sentence. Under a juvenile life sentence a child is committed to a correctional facility until the age of twenty-one for an act committed before the age of eighteen. That means that children between the ages of eleven and twenty-one are confined in the four post-adjudication correctional facilities. These four correctional facilities are currently operating under a Federal court stipulation and consent decree, described below, that governs population limits and staffing levels.




The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child8 (CRC) is the most important international document concerning children's rights. The CRC deals directly with confinement conditions in: section 37 which sets out the right to be free from torture and, when detained, to be treated with humanity. Other relevant provisions of the CRC that do not deal specifically with childen who are detained include: the right to maintain contact with parents, the right of free expression, the right to health and the right to education.

Five other international documents are relevant to children in confinement: the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty (U.N. Rules);9 the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules);10 the U.N. Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Guidelines);11 the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Prisoners' Rules);12 and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons Under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (Principles).13 These standards, except for the Prisoners' Rules, have been recognized by the international community by adoption as General Assembly resolutions. The Prisoners' Rules were approved by the Economic and Social Council by resolutions in 1957 and 1977. The Prisoners' Rules and Principles are standards applicable to adults and incorporated by reference into the standards applicable to children. The adult standards are never more rigorous thanthose applicable to children and are frequently less onerous.14 The U.N. Rules, the Beijing Rules and the Riyadh Guidelines are applicable exclusively to children in the justice system. The first deals most thoroughly with conditions of confinement and will be referred to most often in the body of this report. All of the international standards stress throughout that children in confinement are entitled to rehabilitative treatment and that states are obliged to provide such treatment. The objective of the treatment is to facilitate a successful reintegration into society.

Applicable international standards will be outlined at the beginning of each descriptive section in the second part of the report. The full texts of all of the standards pertaining specifically to children appear in the appendix to this report.


When a government takes someone into its custody, it has an obligation to ensure that the conditions in which the person is confined do not violate the person's human rights and that, at the very least, minimal standards of decency are guaranteed.

The U.S. federal government has not established standards for the treatment of children in confinement in the U.S.

The U.S. courts have established standards under the United States Constitution. The eighth amendment to the United States Constitution protects adult prisoners from conditions that amount to "cruel and unusual punishment." Children are entitled to a higher standard of care, as they are not "convicted" of crimes. U.S. constitutional law protects incarcerated children from conditions that "amount to punishment"15 under thefourteenth Amendment.16 Although children used to have a right to rehabilitation and treatment,17 the obligation to provide treatment has been overturned. Now children are only protected from "unreasonable restraint." There is no right to treatment, except to the extent that it is necessary to prevent unreasonable restraint.18

The American Correctional Association (ACA) is the leading source of standards for juvenile and adult detention and correctional institutions in the U.S. The ACA describes itself as a "private, nonprofit organization that administer[s] the only national accreditation program for all components of adult and juvenile corrections." Its purpose is to "promote improvement in the management of correctional agencies through the administration of a voluntary accreditation program and the ongoing development and revision of relevant, useful standards."19 Facilities in the corrections system apply to the ACA for accreditation and are subject to a lengthy application process which includes an on-site review of the facilities' compliance with the applicable standards. The accreditation is strictly voluntary. The standards are detailed. Many of the standards require facilities to develop policies regarding, for example, suicide prevention or medical emergency responses, but do not address the effectiveness of the implementation of those policies. All of the Louisiana state juvenile correctional facilities are ACA-accredited and the one private secure facility is required by its contract with the Department of Corrections to become accredited. The ACA standards do not comply in all regards with international law or U.S. constitutional law.20

The OJJDP has granted funds to Abt Associates, Inc. to develop performance-based standards for institutions detaining juveniles. The project is in the preparatory stages.




There are four secure correctional facilities for children in Louisiana. Correctional facilities house children between the ages of eleven and seventeen29 adjudicated as offenders and ordered by the court to be confined in a state facility. The state-run facilities are called the Louisiana Training Institutes (LTI). They are: the East Baton Rouge-LTI (EBR),30 Monroe-LTI and Bridge City-LTI. The EBR-LTI campus is also the site for the Juvenile Reception and Diagnostic Center (JRDC). All children in Louisiana subject to incarceration in an LTI, whether the institution is specified by the court or not, are sent first to JRDC. The average length of stay at JRDC is about four weeks. During that time the children are evaluated for mental and physical health, educational ability and risk factors, such as aggressivity, to determine where they should be most appropriately placed in the system. The LTI's are ostensibly designed to care for different classes of children. Bridge City-LTI is the least secure environment and is where the children who are considered emotionally fragile or who have displayed low aggressivity are generally sent.31

The fourth facility that houses children for the state is the Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth (TCCY). The facility is run by TransAmerican Development Associates, Inc. and was built on contract with the town of Tallulah. The location was chosen for economic development purposes.32 The Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) pays a per diem for each child incarcerated at TCCY on behalf of the state. TCCY opened in November 1994.

The racial composition of the children incarcerated at the institutions is predominantly African-American. On August 24, 1995, the percentage of African-American children at the institutions was as follows: EBR-LTI -84 percent; Monroe-LTI - 88 percent; Bridge City-LTI - 73 percent and TCCY - 80 percent.33 The racial composition of the staff at the institutions is also predominantly African-American. On August 24, 1995, the percentage of African-American staff at the institutions was as follows: EBR-LTI -87 percent; Monroe-LTI - 69 percent; Bridge City-LTI - 83 percent and TCCY - 78 percent.34

Conditions in the three LTI's are monitored under a Federal court order, administered by Judge Frank Polozola, in the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana. The court's order arose out of litigation started in 1971 surrounding the conditions at the Lousiana State Penitentiary at Angola. In 1981, the court extended its jurisdiction to include conditions in all state penitentiaries, parish prisons, and other penal institutions, including juvenile institutions. In 1983 the court set interim population levels for the five then existing juvenile institutions operated by the DPSC, pending a report by the DPSC on the conditions at the institutions. Finally, in 1984, the DPSC entered into a consent decree and stipulation with the court35 pursuant to which the DPSC agreed to maintain conditions, limitations and standards at the juvenile institutions under its supervision and control as set out by the court.

The court set population limits and minimum staffing requirements for the institutions which could be modified only by application to the court. The court also required that the facilities comply with all applicable health and fire rules and any other regulations adopted pursuant to Louisiana law which affect the health and safety of offenders. Finally the court required that an annual report be submitted to it by each institution setting out the populations, staffing levels and the number of violent incidents in certain categories, including assaults and suicides. The court continues to exercise its jurisdiction over the juvenile institutions to the present time. A court-appointed expertmonitors the institutions, receiving complaints and reports on occurrences at the institutions.

The conditions at TCCY are also monitored by Judge Polozola. The facility was opened pursuant to a stipulation and consent decree dated November 15, 1994, setting a population limit and requiring that TCCY begin the process of securing ACA accreditation. TCCY encountered significant problems maintaining control of the children housed at the facility during November and December. During the period from November 16, 1994, to December 29, 1994, there were eighty reports of assault incidents between the children.36 As a result of the problems at TCCY the court declared a state of emergency at the facility on December 22, 1994, and has been closely monitoring the situation at TCCY since then. A motion by the DPSC to vacate the state of emergency was denied on June 22, 1995.




Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth

Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth is located in the town of Tallulah in the north of Louisiana, about a half hour drive from Monroe and three and a half hours from Baton Rouge. The facility has a court-approved capacity of 396. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited in May 1995, there were 395 children on the campus. There are plans to expand the facility by 350 beds, 240 of which will be single cellisolation and administrative segregation cells. Although the ground has been broken for the new building, progress has been held up due to the state of emergency declared by the federal court, described earlier.

All the buildings look alike, with gray siding and concrete floors; they are placed close together. The buildings are connected by concrete walkways, and the dormitories are enclosed by high chain-link fences. There is no grass on the property and no playing field. The gymnasium consists of a concrete floor and a roof held up by posts. This is also the visiting area. The whole facility appears to be cramped, institutional and drab, particularly in comparison to the open green spaces of the state-run facilities.

All the dormitories are identical: one-room buildings with concrete floors. Forty children live in each dormitory. Twenty double-bunk beds are arranged in two rows along one wall in each. Underneath each bed are two unlocked foot lockers. Each dormitory has three long grey tables with long benches on either side and a television in the corner nearest the tables. There is a water fountain and four pay phones. Four toilets are separated from the showers by a partition and there is a low partition between the toilets. There are two urinals and six showers.

The children wear unmarked t-shirts, sweatshirts, jeans and sneakers. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited the facility, it was raining heavily. The children were not wearing rain jackets. Some of the children interviewed told Human Rights Watch that a confrontation early in the winter was sparked partly by the fact that the children were not issued coats for the colder weather. The children are not allowed to wear their own clothing.

When TCCY first opened, on November 16, 1994, there were significant problems in the operation of the facility. The staff hired by TransAmerican Develpment Associates, Inc. were unable to keep control of the children. Some children told HRW that they were moved to the facility without being told where they were going and once at the facility were given conflicting information about the length of time they would spend at TCCY and the nature of their program. Two children who had been confined at the facility since the opening described being awoken at 3:00 A.M.. at EBR-LTI and being told to take off all their clothes and to put on the new ones issued from TCCY. They were then bused up to TCCY in the middle of the night without being told where they were being taken.

The DPSC assumed operational authority of the facility on December 29, 1994, pursuant to a Federal court-declared state of emergency at TCCY, on December 22,after an accumulation of disturbances made it clear to the court that order could not be maintained under the administration of the private management services corporation.42 Until the court declared a state of emergency authorizing the DPSC to assume operational control, there had been no indication that the DPSC would involve itself in a resolution of the problems. Human Rights Watch was told by Superintendent Goodwin at TCCY that the security system has been brought under control and that the administration of the facility is now operated more effectively. There was, however, a confrontation between the staff and the children in a dormitory on April 19, 1995, which suggests that the security system is still not as effective as it should be and that the children do not have sufficient respect for the security system.

Although the reasons for the disturbance are not clear, the children in one dormitory were reported to be "loud, unruly and causing chaos" all evening.43 The situation escalated when the children began throwing shoes and deodorant at the correctional officers. The correctional officers set off "Clear Out," a chemical agent, and left the dormitory. The children began "destroying" the dormitory, "knocking the T.V. down, pulling the water fountain off the wall, pulling sinks and urinals off the wall [and] overturning bunks." More Clear Out was set off and several of the children put towels, sheets and pillowcases around their faces. The situation was brought under control, and the children were removed and restrained within one hour. The forty-one children in the dormitory were dispersed to be housed as follows: "Nineteen were placed in segregation (the total count of this unit is twenty), fourteen were placed in the ward in the infirmary (this ward normally holds up to six offenders), eight were placed in the intake room in the segregation unit, and three were placed in the isolation rooms in the infirmary." There were no significant injuries to staff or children. HRW does not have sufficient information to determine whether the response to the riot was appropriate.



The facilities described above fail to comply with international standards in many respects. Although contrary to both international law standards and ACA standards,the state facilites in Louisiana use large dormitories exclusively. All of the standards recommend the use of single cells or at minimum small dormitories.44 The large dormitories and the open bathrooms afford the children absolutely no privacy at any time in their daily lives. Large dormitories have also been found to be directly and positively linked to child-on-child injury and the increased use of isolation to control juvenile behavior.45 Many children told HRW about getting into fights in their dormitories, or being picked on by other children in their dormitories. During the period from July 1994 to July 1995, there were 614 incidents of child-on-child assaults at Monroe-LTI, 545 incidents at EBR-LTI and eighty-three at Bridge City-LTI.46 Frequently physical abuse by the correctional officers (which will be described later in the report) occurs in the process of breaking up a fight between children in a dormitory.

The physical environment of all the facilities, but EBR-LTI and TCCY in particular, is punitive. The size of the facilities precludes individualized treatment to a large extent. Staff and children at the facilities told Human Rights Watch that isolation cells are often used to control the behavior of a child. The isolation cells are small and bare except for a bed, a toilet and a sink. There are generally no windows; where there are windows, they are so small that no significant natural light is let in, and they are covered by wire mesh. The doors have small windows for observation and slots through which food is passed at mealtimes. At Bridge City-LTI the isolation cells are painted a dark color on the walls, floors and ceilings. Placement in a dark cell andclosed or solitary confinement is absolutely prohibited by Rule 67 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty.

The U.N. Rules also encourage contact between confined children and their families and communities. Rules 59-61 require regular visits, preferably once a week but at minimum once a month, and a right to twice weekly telephone calls and letter writing. All of the facilities have visiting day only once a month. They are contact visits which usually occur in a large open room or space at the facility, generally the gymnasium or a similar location. Parents are not permitted to bring food for their children on visiting day. Because of the size of the facilities there is no attempt to locate facilities in the communities from which the children come. A substantial percentage of the children come from the urban areas, in particular Orleans Parish. Yet Bridge City-LTI, the closest facility to the parish, is the smallest and least secure facility. Because of the travel distances to the facilities, many of the children never receive visitors, and most do not have visitors every month.

Telephone calls are generally permitted every night from the pay phones in the common rooms in the dormitories. Many children told HRW that their parents cannot afford to pay the collect phone charges, so they do not speak with their parents on a regular basis. At Monroe-LTI the counsellors are required to make a phone call to the parents of each child in their care once a month at the facility's expense.47 This system ensures that the children speak with their parents at least once a month.

The children said they are unable to call their lawyers because the lawyers will not accept the collect charges. There is also no privacy when making the phone calls, as the phones are located on a wall in the common room. Some children told us that they were denied the opportunity to make phone calls by other children in their dormitory. Others said that the length of time they were given to use the phone was restricted by the staff to between three and eight minutes. When the children are placed in disciplinary segregation, there does not appear to be any opportunity to use the telephone, as the children are not permitted to leave the isolation cell except once a day to take a shower. Human Rights Watch, however, was not told of any specific rule that prevented the children from using the telephone while segregated from the rest of the population.

Writing paper and stamped envelopes are not uniformly or regularly supplied to the children. Many of the children said that they get writing paper, pencils and stampsfrom their parents. It is an article commonly included in the packages sent to the facilities by parents. There does not appear to be any institutional encouragement to write letters.

The location of the institutions, the overall environment of monthly visits, shortened telephone calls, if any are made at all, and irregular letter writing do not foster contacts between the children and their families. Children at all the facilities told Human Rights Watch that they rarely saw their counsellors, whose role it is to provide guidance, counselling and individual attention to the children. Strengthening contacts with family and other persons in their home community and individual attention from a counsellor are considered by international standards to be an integral part of creating a treatment environment.48



Children are subject to different disciplinary standards than those that apply to adults, because under international standards the purpose of a child's confinement is not punishment but rehabilitation and treatment.49 U.S. Constitutional law protects children from conditions that amount to punishment.50

Rule 67 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. It specifically prohibits corporal punishment and the use of solitary confinement under any circumstances. Rule 68 of the U.N. Rules requires that clear rules set out the conduct that constitutes a disciplinary offense and the sanction that will be imposed. Rule 24 of the U.N. Rules requires that upon admission to a facility, all children be given a copy of the governing rules of the institution.

U.S. Constitutional law cases have found that children may not be placed in isolation for purely disciplinary purposes; rather they "may only be placed in isolation whenthey pose immediate threats to themselves or other people."51 Moreover, isolation should be for as short a period of time as is necessary to enable a child's violent mood to subside. Giving a child books and writing materials in isolation reinforces its non-punitive nature.

When children are placed in isolation in LTI's52 they are not able to participate in any of the programming at the facilities. They are let out only to have a shower each day. They are not provided with anything to do, no books, no paper and pencil, no television. They are simply given nothing to occupy their time.

According to the ACA standards, disciplinary isolation may last a maximum of five days. This is the standard purportedly followed by the LTI's. This does not comply with the international standards set out above, nor does it appear to comply with the U.S. constitutional law decisions which restrict the use of isolation to instances where children pose an immediate threat to themselves or others, referred to above. Most children interviewed at all the institutions, except Bridge City-LTI, confirmed that disciplinary isolation generally lasted a maximum of five days. There were exceptions, however: TA at EBR-LTI told us that she had spent nine consecutive days in disciplinary lockdown. She also said that the guards sometimes refuse to let children out of the cells during the isolation period.

None of the children interviewed at Bridge City-LTI had been in lockdown, nor had they ever heard of anyone placed in lockdown. The lockdown log book at Bridge City-LTI confirmed that no child had been in the cells since November 1994. Human Rights Watch was told by Superintendent Harris that when isolation is used it is only for one hour at a time to bring a child's behavior under control.

Children are, however, placed in what the institutions call "protective custody", or administrative segregation, for longer periods of time than five days at all the facilitiesexcept Bridge City-LTI.53 The administrative segregation cells are identical to the isolation cells and frequently located in the same building. The use of administrative segregation gives the institutional administration a power which is open to abuse and arbitrary use. There is no clear monitoring system or system of review at the correctional facilities to ensure that this power is not abused or over-used. Institutions use administrative segregation excessively.

At TCCY, 240 of the 350 new beds being built will be single cells for use as administrative segregation cells and isolation cells.54 At EBR-LTI, the staff uses what is called "pre-disciplinary detention" in the isolation cells. A child can spend up to three days in an isolation cell, prior to a determination that disciplinary isolation is required.

Children reported that isolation is used frequently. UB, at EBR-LTI, said that on the day before she talked with us, she had been placed in isolation for seven hours simply for dancing. OK, age eighteen, at EBR-LTI, said that he was put in isolation for a "couple of hours" just for talking in the dining hall. At Monroe-LTI, one child alleged there was corruption in the isolation practices:

C KJ, age eighteen, said: "Some of the guards are crooked, they ask for your money or else it's lockdown. [It's] cold [and] they take everything away from you and [you have] just your pj's."

Several children reported that isolation cells were cold. At TCCY children in isolation prior to disciplinary hearings are provided with a mattress at all times, however, once a child is found "guilty" of a violation, the mattress is taken away between the hours of 6:00 A.M.. and 9:00 P.M. during his time in isolation. Human Rights Watch was not told about the use of this practice at any of the other facilities.

Human Rights Watch was told by each of the superintendents of the facilities that the use of restraints was confined to circumstances where children needed to be brought under control or where they were being transported. None of the children interviewed said that they had either experienced or witnessed the application of handcuffs orshackles as punishment. However, a number of children told Human Rights Watch that they had either experienced or witnessed correctional officers placing handcuffs on a child to restrain him and then proceeding to beat him while he was restrained. In other instances where the use of restraints was described, it was unclear whether the restraints were a necessary security measure or an abuse of the power to restrain the children. DM, age nineteen, who had escaped from Monroe-LTI in 1993, told us that he is forced to wear shackles at all times, except when he is confined to his room. He was wearing shackles when HRW spoke with him. This unnecessary and cruel use of shackles is contrary to the international standards cited above.

The international standards require that on admission children be given a copy of the rules and that the information contained in the rules be conveyed to them in a "manner enabling full comprehension."55 Many of the children told us that they had not received a rule book upon arrival at the facility in which they were incarcerated. Being given a copy of the rules does not in itself guarantee that the rules will be applied fairly as written. Both children who had received a copy of the rules, and those who had not, told us that the "real" rules were created and applied at the discretion of the staff on duty. UB, at EBR-LTI, said that she got a copy of the rules, "but I didn't read them, because they don't run the institutes by the rules book." KM, age twenty, at EBR-LTI, said, "rules change every day."

Human Rights Watch has reviewed the book of rules. It is drafted in complex language that is difficult to understand. It is unlikely that a reading of the rule book would provide adequate notice to the children of their rights and obligations, given the language in which it is written.56 Secretary Richard Stalder of the DPSC told us that he wanted to change the language of the rules to make them more accessible to both staff and children.57



International law is clear and consistent in its prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The prohibition is contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child at article 37(a).58 The U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice prohibit corporal punishment in Article 17.3, and Rules 63 and 64 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty prohibit the use of restraints or force in any case unless all other control methods have been exhausted and failed.59 A violation of any of these provisions is physical abuse. In accordance with the ACA standards, the DPSC has adopted a standard operating procedure that specifically restricts the use of physical force to instances of justifiable self-defense, protection of others, protection of property, and prevention of escapes, and then only as a last resort. Under the DPSC procedure, physical force is never justifiable as punishment.60

HRW received complaints of physical abuse at all of the facilities we examined. The frequency of abuse varied between the facilities. At the Bridge City-LTI only one child complained to us of abuse by a guard.61 The problem of physical abuse by security staff at the facilities is more serious at Monroe-LTI and TCCY; at EBR-LTI physical abuse is pervasive. Children told us that they had been beaten for just "looking at someone wrong." A former staff person of the DPSC told Human Rights Watch that correctional officers have told him that the abuse problem is worsening,but that they will not report the problem because they are afraid of losing their jobs and of the repercussions in their relations with other correctional officers.

Allegations of abuse varied widely from institution to institution. Secretary Stalder of the DPSC told Human Rights Watch that there is no systematic record of the number of allegations of abuse of children by staff.62


Tallulah Correctional Center for Youth

The children confined at TCCY made fewer complaints about physical abuse. Where abuse was reported, it was attributed to the DPSC security staff.

The children interviewed about conditions at TCCY said the following about physical abuse:

C BG, age eighteen, said: "It used to be alright but the DPSC came in and has to do their own thing. They beat you up and stuff ... they got a pack, three of them, and they run around and beat people up. My mama wants to check. [One time when there were] no white people in the cafeteria, so [the man serving the food] skipped me three times and then started punching me and others joined and said this be for 300 years ago what you did to my people."

C SC said: "I had my eardrum bust, March 22nd, the dormitory they stuck me out because I was the only one from Baton Rouge, the rest are from New Orleans, and the lieutenant punched me in the ear and busted my eardrum. I went to Conway hospital in Monroe ... I reported the ear drum. The nurse said she wrote it up, but you can't always listen to them and nothing happened."

A few children who had been at both TCCY and EBR-LTI commented that the security staff at TCCY were more understanding and more willing to talk rather than hit as compared to EBR-LTI.



U.N. Rules 75 and 76 provide that children should have the opportunity to make complaints and to be informed of the response without delay.

The Administrative Remedy Procedure (ARP) under which children in the Louisiana correctional facilities are entitled to complain to the superintendent about physical abuse is virtually never used. During the period from July 1994 to March 1995, the summary of ARPS65 prepared by each institution showed that there were no complaints of abuse at Bridge City-LTI and only one complaint of abuse at EBR-LTI. At Monroe-LTI, where, according to Superintendent Dunavant, the ARP system is functioning much more effectively, there were seventy-seven complaints of abuse during the same period of time. The number of complaints per month dropped dramatically after the first three months of the period reported. There is no reporting by TCCY.

The children we spoke to universally had no confidence in the system. Complaints are rarely made as a result of this lack of confidence, and when they are made there is frequently no response at all. Many of the children told us that when they wrote complaints they were ripped up by the guards when they gave the paper to them, or that the complaints were never passed on to the captain in charge. There is a strong fear of reprisal among the children.

C LJ, age sixteen, said: "If you write them up and they find out, they are away for a couple of days, and then they try to hit you up for anything you do."

Despite the existence of the ARP, Superintendent Elijah Lewis at EBR-LTI told us that he had no way of knowing how many children in total complained of abuse66 and how many staff members had been disciplined for abusing children. However, after our visit, he reported to Secretary Stalder that there had been ninety-two reported cases of alleged abuse; six of the cases had been confirmed and disciplinary action had been taken. There was no indication what the disciplinary action was.67 Three days after Human Rights Watch's second visit to EBR-LTI, a child complained that he had received lacerations to the head area and the correctional officer named was placed on forced leave. An investigation was conducted, and the complaint was substantiated. The correctional officer received an emergency verbal suspension.68

The children we talked to had the following to say about the ARP:

C EC, age seventeen, said: "I wrote a complaint and told the truth and the officer came and got me and we started fisting. Sometimes they tear them up...every time someone in the dormitory files a complaint, nothing has ever happened."

C DM, age nineteen, said: "They use physical force but when it goes down everything comes up clean, like nothing happens."

C BC, age twenty, said: "The guards write reports and say that the offenders hit first, that's why nobody did nothing about it."

C EK, age eighteen, said: "You can't beat their words. I wrote them up a couple times and I never got no response."


Rule 37 of the U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty provides that children must receive food of a quality and quantity to satisfy the standards of health and hygiene.

Virtually every child interviewed at all the facilities, except Bridge City-LTI, told Human Rights Watch that he was hungry. At Bridge City-LTI the children said that they received better quality food than at the other facilities and a sufficient quantity of food. At the other facilities the portions of food served are inadequate according to the children.

The children consistently made the following kinds of statements about the quantity of the food served:

C UB told Human Rights Watch that she had lost 31 lbs. since her arrival at the LTI.

C EC, age seventeen, said: "They don't feed us enough."

C BA, age sixteen, said: "The food tastes like soap."

C BN, age sixteen, said: "No taste to it. Don't get enough. Can't get full."

C OK, age sixteen, said: "Don't be enough."

The breakfasts and lunches served at the LTI's are funded by the federal government's school lunch program. In a meeting with the secretary of the DPSC, Human Rights Watch raised the issue of inadequate portions of food. The secretary agreed that there was a possibility that the portion sizes specified for the school lunch program might not be fixed with a view to the appetites of sixteen and seventeen-year-old boys. However, the secretary was of the opinion that all health and nutritional standards were met by the meals served at the LTI's.69 In response to Human Rights Watch's expressed concern, Superintendent Dunavant of Monroe-LTI offered to look into the possibility of increasing the portion sizes, noting that the portion specifications were a minimum requirement, not a maximum requirement. Human Rights Watch was not told whether the DPSC authorized any increase in portion size.

Although the quantities were said to be insufficient, there were fewer complaints about the quality of the food. Human Rights Watch was told by children who had been in several facilities that the quality of the food at EBR-LTI and JRDC was significantly worse than at the other two state-run facilities. There were complaints of meat and chicken being rare or raw in the middle. Some of the children complained about the sanitary conditions in the kitchens. KJ, age eighteen, who works in the dining hall at Monroe-LTI, said, "the cooks up here are dirty. They drop food on the floor and pick it up and serve it up." UM, age fourteen, said, "one day they dropped food on the floor and then picked it back up and gave it to us."

We had meals at both EBR-LTI and Monroe-LTI. We found the food to be adequate, though it lacked seasoning, particularly, we were told, to the Louisiana palate which is accustomed to salt. Human Rights Watch was also told by some children that the food on days that visitors came was invariably much better quality than on other days.


Article 28 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that children have a right to education and that primary education must be compulsory and free. The right to education is reiterated in U.N. Rule 38. U.N. Rules 39 through 46 detail the parameters of the right to education, vocational training and work. The right includes education for children of compulsory school age and access to further education for children above compulsory school age. Article 26.6 of the Beijing Rules provides that children should not leave the institution at an educational disadvantage. U.N. Rule 47 sets out the children's right to a daily period of recreation, outdoors if possible, and additional daily time for leisure activities , like arts and crafts.

All of the facilities, except the JRDC section at EBR-LTI, have a school program and some time set aside each day, usually about one hour, for recreation. In general children attended school either in the morning or in the afternoon for three hours. There is no school for children housed at the JRDC. Since many of the children are found to be at a grade level below the one corresponding to their age, most of the schooling programs are alternative education programs. Many of the children interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that they had not been in school right before they were admitted to the institutions. The school provides basic education in math and literacy and builds on the child's education as he or she progresses.

The teachers are, for the most part, drawn from the school system in the area in which the institution is located. There is provision for special education at all the facilities, to some extent. Monroe-LTI appears to have the most highly developed staff ofteachers in the area of special education. Most of the children commented relatively favorably on school, saying that it was an acceptable way to pass time and was sometimes interesting.

All of the facilities provide classes to prepare children for their Graduate Equivalency Degree (GED). However, once a child achieves a GED there are no further educational opportunities. At Monroe-LTI, KJ, age eighteen, who wanted to take college courses, said, "If you are smarter, you don't get good education. It pays to be stupid, you get rewarded." Superintendent Dunavant told HRW that one child at Monroe-LTI did a teleconference course from Northeast University in Louisiana in 1994, but that college courses were not generally available. He also told us that when a child wants to go to college his approach is to try to convince a court to let the child out to attend college. Secretary Stalder of the DPSC told HRW that college courses were not possible because of lack of funds. The institutions have no policy of facilitating the pursuit of higher education .

Human Rights Watch visited each of the facilities on a weekday, at an hour during which the children, or at least some of them, would normally be in school. At every facility there were empty classrooms at the time the visit occurred and a substantial proportion of the children were not in school. At Bridge City-LTI most of the teachers were gone on the first day Human Rights Watch visited, apparently on training programs, but no one that Human Rights Watch spoke to was quite sure of where the teachers were.

EBR-LTI, but not JRDC, is fortunate enough to have the Model Continuum of Rehabilitative Care (MCRC) program, which is funded by a grant from the federal Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT). The program includes interaction with the parents, substance abuse treatment, aftercare, job placement and a large educational component. Children learn on computers, using a specially designed computer program which includes the Job Skills Education Program (JSEP). That program gives children the foundation for at least 350 different job prescriptions. The children who were participating in this program expressed satisfaction with the program, particularly the sense that the interactive computer program was like having their own personal tutor. Bridge City-LTI and Monroe-LTI recently received funding from the DPSC to set up the computer job training portion of the MCRC program.

Recreation at the facilities is inconsistently provided from facility to facility. Some of the children told HRW that during the recreational period at EBR-LTI they are often made to sit on the floor in the gym and do nothing for the entire hour; for outside recreation time the children said that they are often made to sit on the sidewalk. OK,age eighteen, said, "yesterday, I'm a dormitory rep, I go to a meeting and tell them the dormitory needs some outside rec, the man ain't letting us out, he come ready to hit because I told he didn't give us outside rec."

Many of the children at TCCY said that there was not enough to do at the facility and that there was more to do at EBR-LTI. The children at Monroe-LTI and Bridge City-LTI, except those in isolation, of course, generally said that they had lots of things to do and that the activities were interesting and, in some cases, enjoyable. At Monroe-LTI there is a "boys club" which operates a canteen and has various activities including pottery, pool and weights. The children interviewed at Monroe-LTI commented favorably on the club activities.

The three LTI's all provide vocational training. Monroe-LTI has the most highly developed vocational training program. It includes working as apprentices to various trades. On the day that Human Rights Watch visited, two children were helping to set up an air conditioning system in the school. The regular vocational programs focus on small engine repair, upholstery and carpentry.

There are also parenting skills programs, to differing degrees, at each of the LTI's. At Monroe-LTI the parenting program is operated on an annual grant of $25,000 from the state formula grant money distributed by the OJJDP and awarded through the State Advisory Group. The parenting program started out as a comprehensive program that included an overnight visit component. A small house was assigned for use by the program and set up to mimic a home. As part of the program the confined children's babies were able occasionally to spend an entire weekend in this monitored "home" situation with their parents. Human Rights Watch was told by an official who requested anonymity that although no problems ever occurred, the administration of Governor Edwards stopped the overnight visit component of the program, citing liability risks. Bridge City-LTI also has a parenting program, and EBR-LTI provides some parenting skills training to girls who are pregnant. When a girl has a child during her term at the LTI, the baby is taken from her immediately after delivery and placed in the care of a family member or put into foster care.

At Bridge City-LTI there is a program called the Short Term Offender Program (STOP). STOP is for children, boys only, who are generally first time property offenders. The boys are required to serve only ninety days in the program, which includes components on substance abuse and victim impact awareness. TCCY ostensibly has a Louisiana Intensive Training and Education Program, the "LITE" program, which is for boys serving shorter sentences, and a regular LTI program. The "LITE" program is supposed to be a boot camp program. The children interviewedsaid that there did not seem to be any difference between the two programs, and many were given conflicting information on which program they were participating in. Human Rights Watch was unable to discern the difference between the programs, and none of the children interviewed said that they were participating in boot camp type activities beyond some drills. However, Bridge City- LTI, which does not purport to be a boot camp, has an atmosphere more akin to a boot camp. At Bridge City -LTI the children's heads are shaved close and they are required to do marching style drills for at least one hour every day, often more, and sometimes for as much as four hours on the weekend.



International standards clearly enunciate the principle that children who are incarcerated are to be cared for and treated. The goal of the incarceration is to prepare children for their return to society. Incarceration is not for punishment, but rather for treatment. To that end the international standards develop the concept of "normalization." "Normalization" requires an institution to minimize the differences between life inside and life outside the institution. International standards encourage interaction between the children and their community, treatment with respect and dignity and the development of alternatives to incarceration.

The physical surroundings of the four correctional facilities foster intimidation and punishment. The programming and counselling are inadequate to provide a full treatment program and on the days Human Rights Watch visited, there was little evidence that the children were being treated with respect and dignity at most times. The total lack of privacy magnifies the punishment atmosphere of the institutions.

A judge in Orleans parish who did not want to be named said, "people may mouth treatment, but they don't mean it," and another judge in Jefferson parish told Human Rights Watch that the State was just "warehousing kids" in the LTI's and that he "did not have much confidence in the LTI's...I only send kids to LTI's as a last resort; you can't count on good, effective treatment." Even Superintendent Dunavant, of Monroe-LTI, told Human Rights Watch that keeping children in the LTI's until they are twenty-one years old means that when they are released, they cannot function as adults in society.70

Some children in the institutions told us that they are not getting treatment or preparation for reintegration into society. JK, age eighteen, who had been at Monroe-LTI for three and a half years said, "I'm somewhat institutionalized. When they keep you a long time it just makes it worse. If they would have some type of rehab. courses, it would be better."

EK, age nineteen, at Monroe-LTI, summed up the systemic and societal problems that are carried over to the LTI's, saying, "They just slap you up...I came from a family like that, that's all I had to go through all my life, being locked up ain't changing me...when they slap us up, it ain't doing nothing but pumping up anger in me...I mostly grew up in the system...since everyone telling me how it was, I knew I would be at LTI someday."

This sentiment was echoed by Dr. Cecile Guin who has worked in the field of juvenile justice in Louisiana for eighteen years. She said, "No one cares enough to rock the boat so that the system can be changed ... Once the youth enters a juvenile institution, his or her chances of becoming a productive member of society are significantly decreased ... It is more likely that the youth has serious educational deficiencies that are not addressed during incarceration, is brutalized one way or another through the system and is released at a full term date with little or no preparation for reintegration into society ... Louisiana has never really implemented a comprehensive treatment program in the state."

A particular issue that is symptomatic of the general treatment accorded to the children is that many are not even given the fundamental right to know when they are to be released from the facility, or they are given an adjudicated date of release by the court, but it is somehow modified or let to pass without formal extension of the date. According to the children we spoke with this is due to the fact that an aftercare plan has not yet been prepared for the child,71 or that there is no space yet in the alternative or aftercare program for which the child is slated, or that the child is simply not able to contact his or her lawyer before a court date so that he or she is then unable to make arrangements to attend court. The problem is particularly acute for the children from Orleans parish because of the large number of children from the parish who need an aftercare program and the lack of resources of the parish.

KN, age fourteen, said, "I seen a lot of people here that are supposed to go home but they never leave, it worries me because they take so long." At TCCY, SC said his release date was supposed to be March 7 (he was interviewed on May 3) but that he had heard nothing about his release and he could not get in touch with anyone because all the phone calls are collect and the lawyers do not accept the calls.

The overall atmosphere of the institutions, in particular EBR-LTI and TCCY, is one of hostility and anger. Very little appears to be done to assist children in their reintegration into society. Among the people Human Rights Watch spoke to in the institutions and outside of them, there seemed to be little hope that the children at the secure facilities would stay out of trouble once released.



1 BG (not his actual initials), age eighteen. To preserve the anonymity of the children the initials used to identify a child bear no relation to the actual initials or name of the child.

2 EM, age fifteen.

3 The word "children" is used in this report to mean anyone under the age of eighteen. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier" (Article 1).

4 Annie E. Casey Foundation, 1994 Data Book on Louisiana's Children (1994).

5 LSA-Ch.C. Added by Acts 1991, No. 235, para. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1992.

6 Because Human Rights Watch visited only two detention centers for children, the Rivarde Memorial Home in Jefferson Parish and the Youth Study Center in Orleans Parish, this report does not attempt to evaluate conditions in all detention centers in the state. Although the conditions at the detention facilities are not included, Human Rights Watch extends its thanks to Superintendent Richard Winder of the Youth Study Center, Dr. Walter Maestri, Director ofJuvenile Services in Jefferson Parish and his staff and Mr. Ernest Thomas, Detention Home Supervisor at Rivarde Memorial Home; all of whom were helpful to us.

7 Now known as the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth (JCCY).

8 G.A. Res. 44/25, November 20, 1989; entered into force September 2, 1990.

9 G.A. Res. 45/113, April 2, 1991.

10 G.A. Res. 40/33, November 29, 1985.

11 G.A. Res. 45/112, March 28, 1991.

12 ECOSOC Res. 663 C (XXIV), July 31, 1957, and 2076 (LXII), May 13, 1977.

13 G.A. Res. 43/173, December 9, 1988.

14 As a result of the emphasis on naturalization and treatment in the standards applicable to children, many of the requirements are more detailed than the standards applicable to adults. For example, the specifications for the physical environment of adult facilities deal primarily with the tangible material environment like the size of the cell, the bed, the shower and the toilet. The standards for children's facilities call for facilities small enough to enable individualized treatment and of a design in keeping with the rehabilitative aims. There are virtually no programming requirements for adult facilities. Institutions housing children are required to provide education, vocational training and work opportunities, as well as recreational and physical training. Solitary confinement is prohibited for children, though not for adults.

15 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S.Ct. 1861 (1979).

16 References to U.S. Constitutional Law will draw on a paper by Sue Burrell, Staff Attorney at the Youth Law Center in San Francisco, entitled, Legal Issues Relating to Conditions of Confinement for Detained Children, presented at the NJDA 6th Annual National Juvenile Services Training Institute, 1994. See also Soler et al., Representing the Child Client, (Matthew Bender Publishing, 1994).

17 Pena v. New York State Division for Youth, 419 f. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

18 Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 102 S.Ct. 2452 (1982).

19 ACA, Standards for Juvenile Training Schools, 3rd ed., May 1991, p. xiv.

20 For example, ACA standards allow the use of isolation for up to five days, whereas international standards prohibit its use for children.

21 42 USC 5601.

22 Interview with Mark Soler, President, Youth Law Center, September 8, 1995.

23 A status offense is an action which, if carried out by an adult, would not be illegal; for example, truancy or running away from home.

24 Section 223(a)(3) of the Act provides for the formation of a state advisory group to prepare the plan for use of the federal funds.

25 The five sets of standards referred to are: i) standards published by the Task Force on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in 1976; ii) ACA standards; iii) Architecture of Facilities, Corrections Administration, and Interim Status: The Release, Control, and Detention of Accused Juvenile Offenders between Arrest and Disposition published in 1979 by the Institute of Judicial Administration/American Bar Association's Juvenile Justice Standards Project; iv) Standards for the Administration of Juvenile Justice published in 1980 by the National Advisory Committee for Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; and v) Standards for Health Services in Juvenile Confinement Facilities published in 1984 by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care. These standards were reviewed in the preparation of this report. Human Rights Watch considers the ACA standards to be the most comprehensive; they are, therefore, the only standards referred to in the report.

26 42 USC 1997.

27 20 USC 1401.

28 Interview with Mark Soler, President, Youth Law Center, September 8, 1995.

29 Children serving a juvenile life sentence in Louisiana may continue to be held in juvenile facilities between the ages of eighteen and twenty.

30 Since our visit this facility has changed its name to the Jetson Correctional Center for Youth. For purposes of this report, the name of the facility at the time of Human Rights Watch's investigation will be retained.

31 Interview with Mrs. Perla Steele, Director of Diagnostic Services, who administers the operations of JRDC, on March 16, 1995.

32 Interview with Secretary Richard Stalder of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, on May 4, 1995.

33 This information was provided to Human Rights Watch in a letter dated August 25, 1995, from George White, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Youth Development, Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

34 Human Rights Watch was not able to obtain this statistical information from TCCY.

35 Hayes Williams, et al v. John McKeithen, et al, December 27, 1984, USDC, Middle District of Louisiana, Civil Action No. 71-98-B.

36 Progress Report by Superintendent Jerry Goodwin to Secretary Richard Stalder, dated March 8, 1995.

37 In Pena v. New York State Division for Youth, 419 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), at pp. 203-206, the court said that there was an "absolute proscription against punishment and retribution as permissible objectives" in the juvenile justice system. For other references to this issue see also: D.B. Tewksbury, 545 F. Supp. 896 (D.Or. 1982); Morgan v. Sproat, 432 F. Supp. 1130 (S.D. Miss. 1977); and Burrell, Legal Issues Relating to Conditions of Confinement for Detained Children, at p. 26.

38 The term EBR-LTI will be used throughout the report, unless otherwise indicated in the text, to include the long term campus and JRDC.

39 Interview with Reginald Grace, Assistant Secretary to the Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, March 16, 1995.

40 Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 28; U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 38.

41 To preserve the anonymity of the children, the initials used to identify a child bear no relation to the actual initials or name of the child.

42 Interview with Secretary Richard Stalder of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, May 4, 1995.

43 The details of the April 19, 1995, disturbance at TCCY are drawn from a report dated April 20, 1995 prepared by Superintendent Goodwin of TCCY and sent to the Deputy Secretary of the DPSC.

44 ACA, Standards for Juvenile Training Schools, Section C, 3-JTS-2C-01; U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 33; U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 9.

45 "We found that the percentage of juveniles in dormitories is positively associated with juvenile-on-juvenile injury and the use of short-term confinement. Juveniles in dormitories injure other juveniles more often, and staff in facilites with dormitories more frequently rely on short-term isolation to control juvenile behavior. The finding with respect to juvenile-on-juvenile injury is consistent with prior research that shows that increased social density has more negative effects on juveniles' behavior than reduced space does.": OJJDP, Conditions of Confinement: Juvenile Detention and Corrections Facilities (1994), at p. 68. Ernest Thomas, Detention Home Supervisor at Rivarde Memorial Home in Jefferson Parish told Human Rights Watch that, "dorms create sexual harassment and is the intimidation of the setting."

46 Hayes Williams, et al v. John McKeithen, et al, Annual Reports of Lousiana Training Institutes to the United States District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, July 1995.

47 Interview with Superintendent Robert Dunavant, May 3, 1995.

48 U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rules 8, 30 and 87; U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice, Rule 26.

49 U.N. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice.

50 Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979).

51 Pena v. New York Division for Youth, 419 F. Supp. 203 (S.D.N.Y. 1976); Thomas v. Mears, 474 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. Ark. 1979); and Burrell, Legal Issues Relating to Conditions of Confinement for Detained Children, at p. 29.

52 Throughout the report the terms isolation and lockdown will be used interchangeably. Both refer to the same thing, but 'lockdown' is the term commonly used in Louisiana.

53 Interview with Superintendent Elijah Lewis at the East Baton Rouge-LTI, March 16, 1995; interview with Superintendent Robert Dunavant at the Monroe-LTI, May 3, 1995.

54 Ninety new beds have been have been built since HRW visited, all of which are single cell housing. It is not clear whether they are intended for administration segregation. HRW was told that they were reserved for the most aggressive children at the facility.

55 U.N. Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, Rule 24; Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, Rule 35.

56 For example, the violation of "defiance" is defined in part in the following manner: "No offender shall threaten an employee in any manner, including threatening with legal redress during a confrontation situation (this does not mean telling an employee of planned legal redress outside a confrontation situation and does not mean the actual composition or filing of a writ or suit)." Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Juvenile Offenders, 1st ed., 1993, Section IV.2.

57 Interview with Secretary Richard Stalder, May 4, 1995.

58 CRC, Article 37(a): "No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment..."

59 Beijing Rules, Rule 17.3: "Juveniles shall not be subject to corporal punishment." U.N. Rules, Rule 64: "Instruments of restraint and force can only be used in exceptional cases, where all other control methods have been exhausted and failed, and only as explicitly authorized and specified by law and regulation. They should not cause humiliation or degradation, and should be used restrictively and only for the shortest possible period of time."

60 Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Standard Operation Procedure No. 03-01-031, as revised March 02, 1994.

61 The terms "guard," "correctional officer" and "security staff" refer to the same position at the facilities. The guards are strictly for security purposes. The counselors referred to by the children provide guidance and counseling to the children and do not have primary responsibility for security. The allegations of abuse primarily involved members of the security staff.

62 Interview with Secretary Richard Stalder of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, May 4, 1995.

63 The quotes which appear in this report are verbatim records of what the children said to HRW, with the addition of words necessary for grammatical purposes. Where an additional word seemed to be required for clarity for the reader it is indicated by square brackets.

64 Ms. Gagneaux is employed by the DPSC.

65 The source of these statistics is the DPSC form 7, under department regulation 30-1, Summary of ARPS by Subject Code, as submitted by each of the juvenile institutions on a monthly basis. This information was provided to us by the DPSC.

66 Because of the complexity of the ARP requirements, many children may complain in an incorrect manner and they are, therefore, ignored.

67 Letter from Superintendent Elijah Lewis to Secretary Richard Stalder of the Department of Public Safety and Corrections, August 22, 1995.

68 The secretary of the DPSC supplied Human Rights Watch with the notification to him by Superintendent Lewis of EBR-LTI of the correctional officer's emergency suspension. Letter to HRW, June 13, 1995.

69 Following Human Rights Watch's visit the Department of Public Safety and Corrections sent us information it had gathered from each of the institutions certifying that the food allowances met U.S.D.A., American Dietetic Association and Department of Education dietary allowance requirements. Letters from the Department of Public Safety and Corrections to Human Rights Watch, dated May 24, 1995 and September 1, 1995.

70 Interview with Superintendent Robert Dunavant, May 3, 1995.

71 This problem does not occur for children in the MCRC program at EBR-LTI, because the development of an aftercare program is part of the overall MCRC program.


return to the CloseTallulah press room