Little v. Shelby County (384 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 2005)

ORDER AND OPINION PURGING DEFENDANTS OF CONTEMPT

MCCALLA, District Judge.

On December 22, 2000, the Court issued an Opinion Finding Defendants in Contempt of Court for failing to implement specific steps ordered by Judge Turner in his orders of November 12, 1997, and November 24, 1999, to correct the unconstitutional conditions at the Shelby County Jail (“the Jail”). Following the finding of contempt, Defendants created a new remedial scheme that was effectively adopted by the Court as the remedial plan to correct the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. The Court held hearings in this case on April 15, 2005, and on April 19, 2005, to determine whether Defendants should no longer be held in contempt of Court.

The long history of unconstitutional conditions at the Jail during the period between 1987 and 2001 was conceded by the Defendants. The following quote from the report of Defendants’ expert, Dr. Jeffrey A. Schwartz, summarizes the conditions that were present at the Jail;

Prior to 2001, the Shelby County Jail had a twenty year history of abysmal leadership, mismanagement, nepotism and cronyism, low hiring standards and poor personnel practices, lack of staff training and other resources and a profound lack of concern, support or accountability from both the Sheriffs Office and the rest of the Shelby County government. These factors produced an overcrowded jail that was dangerous for inmates and staff alike, a jail in which the living units were largely controlled by gangs and in which assaults, rapes, stabbings, escapes and suicides were relatively commonplace events. The jail was filthy and in poor repair; staff were unprofessional with inmates and with each other and there was a well-established pattern of excessive force. Food service, medical and mental health services were deplorable and other services such as inmate classification and inmate programming were dysfunctional or simply lacking. The rest of the Shelby County Sheriffs Office had metaphorically disinherited the jail and its staff, routinely refusing to recognize them as part of the same organization. The jail had not been certified by the Tennessee Corrections Institute (TCI) for many years and it is difficult to imagine how the jail’s image in the community could have been much worse.

(Jeffrey A. Schwartz, A Review of the Shelby County Jail, March 2005, (“Schwartz Report”), Hearing Ex. 2, at 7.) (Docket No. 810.) Until the December 22, 2000, Opinion Finding Defendants in Contempt of Court, Defendants failed to take steps to remedy these conditions. (Id. at 59-60.) Since the finding of contempt, Defendants have developed and taken steps to implement a new remedial scheme that has alleviated the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. For the following reasons, the Court FINDS that Defendants have PURGED themselves of contempt through the implementation of this new remedial scheme.

I. Background and Procedural History

Plaintiff Darius Little, while incarcerated in the Jail on September 27, 1995, was raped by three gang members who were also incarcerated in the Jail. No guard was present to prevent Plaintiff from being raped. In addition, during the time of Plaintiffs incarceration, guards were rarely present to observe the inmates.

The present case was filed on May 14, 1996, and alleged that Plaintiffs civil rights were violated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was originally assigned to the late Honorable Jerome Turner and was transferred to this Court on March 6, 2000. On September 12, 1996, Judge Turner issued a Consent Order in which Defendants stipulated to their liability under § 1983 for violation of Plaintiffs rights under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Consent Order Stip. Liab. for Inj. Relief Purposes Only; and Estab. Proced. for Remedy, Sept. 12, 1996, (Docket No. 15).)

On November 12, 1997, the Court issued an Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy Unconstitutional Conditions in Shelby County Jail and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Order Granting Injunctive Relief to Remedy Unconstitutional Conditions in the Shelby County Jail (“Findings of Fact”). (Order Granting Inj. Relief to Remedy Uneons. Cond. in Shelby Co. Jail, Nov. 12, 1997, (Docket No. 55).); (Find. Of Fact and Concl. of Law in Supp. of Order. Granting Inj. Relief to Remedy Uncons. Cond. in Shelby Co. Jail, Nov. 12, 1997, (Docket No. 54).)

In his findings of fact, Judge Turner described the conditions at the Jail concerning population capacity, intake and classification of inmates, inmate supervision, noise level, gang activity, data collection and certification. (Find. Of Fact, Nov. 12, 1997, (Docket No. 54), at 3-5.) Judge Turner found that the following factors would reduce the risk of violence and sexual assault in the Jail: (1) continual supervision of inmates; (2) properly classifying inmates, and separating inmates who are likely to assault other inmates; and (3) separating inmates who are likely to be victims of assault. (Id. at 5-6.) In addition, Judge Turner found that increased guard supervision would reduce the likelihood of physical and sexual assaults on inmates in the Jail and that continuous twenty-four hour supervision of the cell block should also reduce physical and sexual assaults in the Jail. (Id. at 6.)

The November 12, 1997, order required the Jail to make several changes with respect to the manner in which it was operated:

1. Classification. Within 90 days of the entry of this order, each inmate admitted to the Shelby County Jail will be confidentially interviewed by classification staff prior to such inmate’s cell assignment to determine if such inmate has known enemies from whom he should be separated; protective custody needs; or gang involvement. Information will be collected during the initial classification interview to determine if such inmate has assaulted other inmates during prior incarcerations, or has been a victim of an assault by another inmate during prior incarcerations, or fears he may be victimized by another inmate, or has gang affiliations or previous conviction for violent crimes. This information shall become part of an automated inmate information system, which shall be developed and implemented as soon as practicable, using good faith efforts but no later than nine months from the entry of this order to insure that potential victims are separated from known predators (i.e., inmates who have assaulted other inmates.) All housing unit assignments will be made by classification staff only. Within six months after the entry of this order, all staff assigned to classification will complete a course of classification interviewing training designed to insure compliance with this order.

2. Housing. Any inmate who is classified as violent (a level V, VI, or VII on the current classification scale) shall never be housed in a cell with more than one other inmate. Whenever it becomes necessary to assign two inmates to the same cell, classification officers will not house potential victims with known predators. Furthermore, inmates classified as violent (i.e., those indicated by a red dot on the wrist band under the current classification system), and inmates with a known history of violence, will not be housed with inmates classified as nonviolent (indicated by a blue, green, or yellow dot on the wristband, under the current classifications). When a compatible housing assignment cannot be made, the inmate shall be housed in a single cell. As soon as reasonably possible, but no later than nine months after the entry of this order, the facility shall implement a policy requiring single-cell-ing for those inmates who have not yet been fully classified.

3. Inmates Supervision. A separate cell block officer shall be continuously assigned to each of the cell blocks in which inmates are incarcerated, on the lower level of the current jail facility whenever any of the cells in such cell block house two or more inmates. Each cell block officer shall monitor the cell block to he/she is assigned continuously to assure the inmates housed together in the same cell are housed compatibly. Only under documented emergencies involving risk of safety to cell block officers or inmates will cell block officers supervise more than two adjacent cell blocks at a time, and shall only do so for the time period necessary to resolve such emergency. The continuous monitoring required by this order shall be implemented as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than nine months from the date of entry of this order.

4. Cell Block officers assigned to housing duties on floors 2, 3 and 4 of the current jail facility will also continuously supervise individual cell blocks in which inmates are incarcerated to assure compatibility. Cell block officers may only be removed from their assigned cell blocks for documented emergencies involving risks of safety to cell block officers or inmates, and then only for the time period necessary to resolve such emergency. Under no circumstances shall a cell block officer supervise more than two adjacent cell blocks at a time. It is the intent of this order that there shall be a separate cell block officer assigned at all times to supervise each cell block in the current facility on floors 2, 3 and 4, when such cell block houses inmates and are not totally locked down for the entire shift. Every cell block shall have its own cell block officer continuously supervising such cell block except as otherwise allowed in this order. The continuous monitoring required by this order shall be implemented as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than nine months from the date of entry of this order.

5. Each cell block officer will insure that inmates are housed compatibly by frequent observation of behavior of inmates in the cell block such cell block officer is supervising, and by confidentially interviewing inmates in the cell block to determine if the inmate’s cell assignment is safe. In addition, cell block officers will interview any inmate in the cell block who the cell block officer believes may be having compatibility problems with other inmates. Inmates identified as having potentially violent cell mate compatibility problems will be promptly separated and referred to classification for review.

6. In general population cells on the second, third and fourth floors, inmates will be permitted to move between their cell and the day room of the cell block during a five minute period each hour, unless such movement is otherwise restricted by jail operational procedures. During the remaining 55 minutes of the hour, the cell doors will remain locked. Inmates may remain in their cells, or the day room during those 55 minute periods. Cell block officers will continuously monitor the cells during these five minute periods when the cell doors are open to insure that no inmate enters a cell within the cell block to which such inmate is not assigned.

7. Continuous direct observation of inmates by cell block officers is required during all out-of-cell activity in lock down and protective custody housing units.

(Order Granting Inj. Relief to Remedy Uncons. Cond. in Shelby Co. Jail, Nov. 12,1997, (Docket No. 55), at 3-7.)

On November 24, 1999, Judge Turner issued a Consent Order Adopting Recommendations of Special Master, Final Order Granting Injunctive Relief as to Conditions in the Shelby County Jail. The November 24, 1999, order mandated that the provisions in the November 12, 1997, order concerning classification, housing, and inmate supervision would remain in force until November 1, 2004. (Consent Order Adopting Recommendations of Special Master, Final Order Granting Inj. Relief as to Conditions in the Shelby Co. Jail, Nov. 24, 1999, (Docket No. 78), at 5.) The November 24, 1999, order also required Defendants to modify their record keeping of violent incidents at the Jail. (Id. at 5-6.) In addition, it contained the following requirement regarding overtime:

It is further ordered that defendants are forbidden to regularly use overtime to staff cell block officer positions required by the Court Order. The defendants are to make good faith efforts to employ sufficient cell block officers to staff all positions required by the Court Order. If due to exceptional reasons, overtime must be utilized to staff a position, voluntary overtime should be used before the use of mandatory overtime. The defendants should in such cases use good faith efforts to cease using overtime to staff positions as soon as possible.

(Id. at 6.) These additional requirements also remained in effect until November 1, 2004. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Cite Defendants for Contempt of Court on June 29, 2000, and a Supplemental Motion to Cite Defendants for Contempt of Court on September 1, 2000. On December 22, 2000, the Court issued its Opinion Finding Defendants in Contempt of Court. In particular, Defendants were found to be in contempt of Court because they had failed to comply with the provisions of the November 12, 1997, order requiring single celling of inmates who were not fully classified, adequate inmate supervision and compliance with the 55/5 policy. (Op. Finding Defs. in Contempt of Court, Dec. 22, 2000, (Docket No. 233), at 43.) In addition, Defendants were held in contempt for failing to comply with the provision of the November 24, 1999, order concerning the prohibition of the regular use of overtime'to staff Court-ordered posts. (Id.) The opinion instructed the parties to submit short, intermediate, and long-term remedial plans to correct the unconstitutional conditions in the Jail. (Id.)

II. Findings of Fact

Based on the entire record in this case, including the purgation hearings held on April 15, 2005, and April 19, 2005, the Court makes the following findings of fact on the issues now before the Court.

The Shelby County Jail is a temporary detention facility for individuals awaiting disposition of their criminal charges pending in the criminal courts in Shelby County, Tennessee. Convicted individuals are then transferred to either state or county prison facilities to serve their sentences. The Jail was considered to be one of the worst urban jails in the United States prior to 2001. (Tr. at 30, 94-95, 123; Hearing Ex. 2, at 40.) In fact, several cases have highlighted the unconstitutional conditions existing within the Jail prior to 2001. See Gilland v. Owens, sub nom. No. 87-2191 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 18, 1987); Pulliam v. Shelby County, No. 92-2354 (W.D. Tenn. filed Apr. 20,1992); and United States v. Marshall, No. 93-20117 (W.D. Tenn. filed Apr. 22, 1993).

At that time there was a high risk of violence and rape, gang control was pervasive, and institutional control was poor. (Tr. at 70, 128-29.) Since the finding of contempt, however, the Jail has undergone a remarkable turnaround that has resulted in a drastic reduction in the levels of violence and gang control that were once prevalent. (Tr. at 19, 33, 95, 119, 175; Hearing Ex. 2, at 40; Hearing Ex. 3.)

After the finding of contempt, Defendants developed and undertook steps to implement a new remedial scheme that included numerous components that, when executed in combination, have improved the conditions at the Jail. (Tr. at 34, 70, 95, 130, 164-65.) These components include direct supervision in the cell blocks, improved population management, the collection and utilization of data, the installation of an objective classification system, improved control of gang members through the creation of a Gang Intelligence Unit, improved inmate discipline and prosecution of inmate crimes committed within the Jail, the creation of a separate Disturbance Response Team, the provision of adequate inmate services, the creation of an effective grievance procedures, improved staff training, improved security, efforts to obtain certification and accreditation, the creation of programs and activities to reduce inmate idleness, and improved leadership. The continued development and implementation of each of these components is critical to maintaining the current constitutional conditions at the Jail. Moreover, the failure to continue implementing any single component could be detrimental to the Jail’s ability to operate at a constitutional level. (Tr. at 164-65.) The Court will discuss these individual components in turn.

A. Direct Supervision

The Jail is a poorly designed facility. This poor design makes it difficult to operate the Jail securely and efficiently. (Tr. at 36-37.) The poor design also makes it possible for inmates to escape observation from staff members. (Tr. at 131-32.)

Prior to 2001, the Jail employed a method of supervision called indirect supervision, which for all practical purposes, resulted in little or no meaningful supervision. (Tr. at 37, 132; Hearing Ex. 2, at 61.) Under this system, deputy jailers did not wish to go into the cell blocks unless they were accompanied by other jailers or they had no choice. (Tr. at 38.) In addition, observation of inmates through a small window in the back of each cell from the “catwalk” was not effective for numerous reasons. (Tr. at 37-38.) Dr. Schwartz opined that this lack of supervision contributed to the pervasive gang control and gang violence in the Jail prior to 2001. (Tr. at 39.)

The Court heard testimony concerning the central role direct supervision now plays in reducing the level of violence and gang control in the Jail. Direct Supervision requires a staff member of a correctional facility to work directly with inmates inside the living unit. (Tr. at 35.) In particular, the staff member is permanently stationed inside the living unit for the duration of a shift. (Id.)

After the Court issued its opinion finding Defendants in contempt, the Jail, after a period of delay, implemented direct supervision. Direct supervision is practiced at the Jail by locking a deputy jailer inside each of the regular cell blocks during the two day shifts when the inmates are allowed out of their cells and into the day room, a communal area between the two rows of cells in each cell block. (Tr. at 36, 39-40, 133-34, 139-40.) During the night shift, when inmates are locked down in their individual cells, direct supervision is not practiced and instead one deputy jailer supervises three cell blocks. (Tr. at 42-44, 133-34.)

The Court received proof demonstrating that direct supervision has played a critical role in reducing the level of violence and gang control in the Jail because it places guards in a better position to observe what is transpiring inside the cell block. (Tr. at 21-22.) Under a system of direct supervision, it is more difficult for inmates to commit violent acts or sexual assaults because deputy jailers are in the shared common area and can immediately respond. (Tr. at 46, 140-41.) Furthermore, by interacting with the inmates inside the cell block, deputy jailers can detect potential disputes between inmates and intervene before those disputes escalate into violence. (Tr. at 47, 141.) The presence of deputy jailers inside the cell blocks also provides inmates with an excuse not to fight other inmates. (Tr. at 141.)

Under a system of direct supervision, deputy jailers also act more like managers of the individual cell blocks. (Tr. at 46, 158.) In this capacity, it is important that they provide inmates with information and basic services, including, among other things, food, maintenance, counseling, chaplaincy, and medical and mental health services. (Tr. at 46^48, 160.) The ability to provide these services impacts the quality of direct supervision; when those services are poor or unavailable, the credibility and management ability of the deputy jailer stationed inside the cell block is undermined. (Tr. at 48, 158-60.) Conversely, when the deputy jailer is able to provide these services, the level of violence in the Jail is reduced. (Tr. at 46-48, 159-60.)

B. Population Management

Population management has played a critical role in reducing the level of violence at the Jail. (Tr. at 48, 143-44.) The Court heard testimony demonstrating that as a correctional facility becomes more crowded, management of the facility becomes more difficult and the risk of violence, inmate disturbances and riots increases. (Tr. at 49, 143-44.) In the Shelby County Jail, for instance, it is much more difficult to control gangs or violence when the Jail has 3,000 inmates as opposed to 2,000 inmates. (Tr. at 21, 142; Hearing Ex. 2, at 62.)

Following the contempt finding, the County began a concerted effort to develop population management information. (Tr. at 49.) As a result of this effort, the Jail currently produces monthly Population Management Reports which include data on, among other things, the average daily population at the Jail, the total number of inmates booked, the total number of inmates released, the average length of stay at the Jail, booking process time and the total number of inmates in the Jail with cases pending in General Sessions Courts and Criminal Courts broken down by the booking date and offense type. The report identifies when and why there are backups in moving the inmate population through the Jail. (Tr. at 85.) Data contained in the reports is shared with state criminal court judges during monthly meetings that focus on population management. (Tr. at 85-86.)

The Jail also now employs a jail population management analyst to facilitate the County’s population management effort. (Tr. at 142.) The population management analyst works with the population data that is collected, examines individual inmate cases and meets with judges and representatives from the offices of the District Attorney General and Public Defender to try to move particular cases through the Jail. (Tr. at 142-43.) In addition, the population management analyst works with pretrial services in an effort, where appropriate, to obtain lower bonds or move particular inmates out of the Jail. (Tr. at 143.) Mr. Fisher testified that the efforts of the population management analyst have been very helpful in reducing the jail population. (Id.)

Overpopulation has the potential to undermine much of the progress that has been made in remedying the unconstitutional conditions that once existed in the Jail. The following quote from Dr. Schwartz’s report is illustrative of the importance of population management:

Without the heavy emphasis on population management over the last four years, it is reasonable to conclude that almost everything in the jail would be significantly more difficult. Most importantly, lowering population pressures has directly helped prevent violence.

(Hearing Ex. 2, at 63.)

C. Collection and Utilization of Data

The collection and utilization of data is essential to the effective operation of a detention facility. Prior to 2001, data collection at the Jail was essentially nonexistent. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 66; Tr. at 154.) Since the contempt finding, the Jail has made progress in collecting and utilizing data to track conditions at the Jail. Dr. Schwartz testified that the Jail now uses data to a higher degree than any jail he has worked with in the United States. (Tr. at 26.)

One example of how data is currently utilized at the Jail is the Jail Report Card — a monthly report that provides statistics on Jail operations and activities. (Tr. at 84.) Through this report, problems within the Jail are identified. (Tr. at 155.) The information contained in the Jail Report Card is reviewed at monthly meetings attended by Shelby County Sheriff Mark H. Luttrell, Jr. During these meetings individual managers explain any variances in numbers concerning their areas of operation. (Tr. at 84.) Sheriff Luttrell testified that the Jail Report Card is used both as a tool to monitor conditions at the Jail and to hold managers accountable for their areas of operation. (Id.)

D. Objective Classification

In the past, the Jail had no effective classification system. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 64.) The Jail had difficulty obtaining information that was necessary to properly and quickly classify inmates. (Tr. at 148.) Under the prior classification system, an inmate receiving a high security level classification could nonetheless be assigned to a floor that was inappropriate for that inmate given the inmate’s classification. (Tr. at 147-48.) As a result, a highly violent, predatory inmate could be, and often was, housed with an inmate who was likely to be victimized. (Tr. at 55; Hearing Ex. 2, at 64.)

Since the finding of contempt, the County has implemented a modern objective classification system that utilizes more data in determining an individual’s classification. (Tr. at 61, 148.) Under this system, an inmate’s initial classification is regularly reviewed based on that inmate’s current institutional behavior to insure that the inmate is properly classified. (Tr. at 59-60.) For instance, if an inmate is involved in a violent incident, then the inmate is reviewed and often receives a higher security level classification. (Tr. at 60.) Dr. Schwartz testified that the objective classification system has been effective in separating the most dangerous inmates from those that are the least dangerous. (Tr. at 21.)

E. Gang Control

Prior to 2001, gang control was prevalent in the pods at the Jail. Gangs maintained their own organizational structure, created and enforced them own rules, organized brawls, forced non-gang members to fight gang members for sport and intimidated both inmates and staff. (Op. Finding Defs. in Contempt of Court, Dec. 22, 2000, (Docket No. 233) at 16-20.) An example of the degree of gang control and intimidation is the murder of Sergeant De-drick Taylor on April 19, 1996. (Id. at 20.) During this time, the Jail had no effective gang unit to reduce gang control. Although the Jail maintained a Gang Task Force, that task force consisted of one officer who gathered, but did not otherwise report or act upon, information concerning gang membership, organization and activity. (Op. Finding Defs. in Contempt of Court, Dec. 22, 2000, (Docket No. 233) at 21.; Tr. at 53,144-45.)

The Jail now has a Gang Intelligence Unit (“GIU”) that collects and utilizes data to control and monitor gang activity. (Tr. at 54, 146.) In general, the GIU examines Jail admissions and identifies known gang members. (Tr. at 51, 145.) During this process, gang members seen as a serious threat are placed in administrative segregation, while other gang members are tracked. (Tr. at 52.) The GIU also examines violent incidents to determine whether there was gang involvement, regularly interviews inmates, and receives telephone calls providing information regarding gang activity through a hotline from telephones in the cell blocks. (Tr. at 52, 145.) In addition, the GIU, when able, works with law enforcement units charged with investigating gang activity outside the Jail. (Tr. at 145-46.)

F. Inmate Discipline and Prosecution of New Crimes

The Jail had no effective system to discipline and prosecute inmates prior to 2001. Often disciplinary hearings on inmate cases were not heard due to staff shortages in the Disciplinary Section. (Tr. at 151.) Other inmate eases were often delayed and many inmates were either released or transferred from the Jail before their cases were heard. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 64.) In addition, inmates who committed infractions in the Jail often did not serve their sentences because very little space was available for disciplinary segregation. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 64.) As a result, an inmate committing an infraction often waited to receive a segregation bed or was released or transferred without serving his sentence. (Id.) With respect to prosecution, the severity of conduct required to prosecute a case was very high. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 64-65.) Moreover, there were few investigations and subsequent referrals to the District Attorney General’s Office. (Id. at 65.)

Several changes have since occurred with respect to the inmate disciplinary and prosecutorial system. The Jail has designated an additional living unit for disciplinary segregation housing, devoted more staff resources to disciplinary hearings and changed policies regarding the disciplinary hearing process. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 65.) In addition, inmates committing serious offenses are immediately transferred to administrative segregation pending the outcome of their disciplinary hearing and are kept there if they are found guilty. (Id.)

The Jail has also created a General Investigative Bureau (“GIB”) that works with staff at the District Attorney General’s Office to prosecute inmates who commit infractions in the Jail. The GIB investigates all incidents that could constitute a potential crime and refers cases to the District Attorney General’s office for prosecution. (Tr. at 150; Hearing Ex. 2, at 65.) The existence of the GIB has had a positive impact on staff morale at the Jail. (Tr. at 62; Hearing Ex. 2, at 65.) In addition, the existence of the GIB has created a disincentive for inmates to perform violent acts because inmates are aware that they will be prosecuted and will receive additional time for any infractions they commit in the Jail. (Tr. at 62,150-51.) The active prosecution of inmate infractions at the Jail has also improved the ability of deputy jailers to supervise inmates. (Tr. at 151-52.)

G. Disturbance Response Team

Prior to 2001, the Disturbance Response Team at the Jail was comprised of deputy jailers already assigned to staffing posts. (Tr. at 156.) Therefore, when a disturbance arose, these jailers had to vacate their assigned posts in order to respond to the emergency. (Id.) In addition, the DRT did not have the equipment or training necessary to perform their job effectively and did not conduct random searches of the various cell blocks in a systematic manner. (Tr. at 158.)

As presently constituted, the DRT is a freestanding unit that is called whenever there is any physical confrontation in the Jail. (Tr. at 63, 156.) The DRT is deployed in small groups through various areas of the Jail and maintains its visibility by walking around the floors, visiting with deputy jailers, performing random searches of cell blocks to control contraband and obtain gang information and by providing escorts. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 68; Tr. at 64, 156-57.) The existence of the DRT facilitates direct supervision because it assures staff that if a dangerous situation in the cell block arises, there will be an immediate response from a unit capable of taking physical control of that situation. (Tr. at 63-64, 156.) In addition, the DRT also provides a deterrent to inmates who contemplate creating a violent incident or disturbance because inmates are aware that a well-equipped and well-trained unit exists to immediately respond to any such incident or disturbance. (Tr. at 64, 156-57.)

H. Inmate Services

The unavailability or inadequacy of inmate services such as food, maintenance, counseling, chaplaincy, sanitation, medical and mental health services can have a negative impact on inmate morale and increases the risk of violence in a correctional facility. (See e.g., Tr. at 65-66, 123-24, 159-60.) In addition, as previously discussed, the ability to provide adequate inmate services also significantly impacts the degree to which direct supervision can be successfully practiced. (Tr. at 48, 158-60.)

Prior to 2001, food, maintenance, medical and mental health services were deficient at the Jail. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 68; Tr. at 123, 160.) In particular, maintenance and food service were consistently substandard. (Id.) In addition, medical and mental health services lacked adequate resources and inmates often failed to receive treatment. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 68.) Since 2001, Defendants have taken steps to improve these services. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 69; Tr. at 123.) The continued provision of proper inmate services such as food, maintenance, counseling, chaplaincy, sanitation, medical and mental health services is critical to the effective operation of the Jail.

I.Grievance Procedures

It is essential for a correctional facility to maintain an effective inmate grievance procedure so that the facility can monitor potential problems, so inmates can make complaints regarding treatment or services in the facility, and so that valid inmate concerns can be addressed. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 19; Tr. at 161.) Prior to 2001, there was no grievance procedure in place at the Jail. (Tr. at 163.) Currently, a grievance procedure exists and is initiated when an inmate completes a grievance form that is signed off by a deputy jailer. (Tr, at 162.) The form then goes to the grievance office and from there it is sent to the particular section that is the subject of the grievance. (Tr. at 162-63.) An answer is then given to the inmate and the inmate has an opportunity to appeal that answer. (Tr. at 163.) Although there have been several problems with the current grievance procedure, the Court heard testimony concerning changes aimed at making the procedure more effective that were scheduled to take place on May 1, 2005. (Tr. at 163-64.)

J. Staff Training

Prior to 2001, there was no effective staff training at the Jail. (Tr. at 22-23.) Since that time, the level of staff training has improved. (Tr. at 23, 120.) The training is professional and there have been improvements in the classroom facilities, atmosphere, staff, instructors and the curriculum. (Tr. at 23.)

K. Security

The Court received testimony indicating that the security in the Jail has dramatically improved since the finding of contempt. (Tr. at 29.) Improved security within the Jail is the result of many components working in concert. Those components are discussed in the following sections of this order and opinion: Sections II. A. Direct Supervision; B. Population Management; C. Collection and Utilization of Data; D. Objective Classification; E. Gang Control; F. Inmate Discipline and Prosecution of New Crimes; G. Disturbance Response Team; H. Inmate Services; I. Grievance Procedures; J. Staff Training; L. Certification/Accreditation; M. Inmate Idleness; and N. Leadership. Mr. Fisher testified that the security in the Jail can now be characterized as good. (Tr. at 120.)

L. Certification/Accreditation

After an inspection from the Tennessee Corrections Institute (“TCI”) on August 19, 1988, the Jail received a recommendation of non-certification and the TCI Board of Control approved the recommendation of non-certification and decertified the Jail on October 18, 1988. During the 15 years between 1988 and 2003, every TCI annual inspection resulted in a “non-certification” recommendation. On October 8, 2003, the Jail received a recommendation for certification, and the Board of Control approved the recommendation for certification on January 29, 2004, and certified the Jail as being in compliance with TCI minimum standards.

The Jail also has never received accreditation from the American Correctional Association (“ACA”). (Tr. at 187.) The record shows that the County is moving toward obtaining accreditation and that it appears that the Jail is “on track” to receive ACA accreditation. (Tr. at 187; Hearing Ex. 2, at 31.)

M. Inmate Idleness

Inmate idleness is a serious problem that enhances the risk of violence in the Jail. It is therefore essential for the Jail to develop and maintain programs so that inmates have an opportunity to participate in constructive activities. (Hearing Ex. 2, at 47.) The record shows that since the finding of contempt, the Defendants have taken steps to implement programs and activities to reduce inmate idleness at the Jail. Specifically, Defendants have developed and maintained an Alcohol and Drug Program; a General Equivalency Diploma (“GED”) course; an Anger Management Program; a MCS Education Program; a Life Skill Program; a DUI Program; a Moral Reconation Therapy Program; a Stop the Violence Program; a Cross Cultural (Spanish) Program; and other special programs.

N. Leadership

The current Sheriff and Jail leadership have been a key part in the dramatic turnaround that has taken place in the Jail. The record reflects that the current leadership has provided support, technical assistance and direction throughout the process of implementing the remedial scheme necessary to alter the unconstitutional conditions at the Jail. The current Jail staff have in turn responded to the demands placed on them in a professional way and with improved performance. (Tr. at 26-27.)

III. Standard of Review

In determining whether Defendants have complied with an order of the Court, the Court considers whether “the defendants took all reasonable steps within their power to comply with the court’s order,” which includes whether the defendants have “marshalled] their own resources, assert[ed] their high authority, and demand[ed] the results needed from subordinate persons and agencies in order to effectuate the course of action required by the [court’s order].” Glover v. Johnson, 934 F.2d 703, 708 (6th Cir.1991).

IY. Analysis

As previously noted, prior to 2001, the Jail was a dangerous place with high levels of violence and rape, and pervasive gang control. Today, the Jail is a safer institution for both inmates and staff; violence and gang activity within the Jail have been brought under control.

These changes have occurred as a result of Defendants’ implementation, and continued implementation, of a remedial scheme that was created over a period of time following the Court’s December 22, 2000, finding of contempt. The Court finds that the substantial reductions in violence and gang control at the Jail have resulted from the development and interaction of interdependent components that comprise a de facto fourteen (14) point remedial scheme. These components are (1) direct supervision in the cell blocks; (2) improved population management; (3) collection and utilization of data; (4) installation of an objective classification system; (5) improved control of gang members through the creation of a Gang Intelligence Unit; (6) improved inmate discipline and prosecution of inmate crimes committed within the Jail; (7) creation of a separate Disturbance Response Team; (8) provision of adequate inmate services; (9) creation of an effective grievance procedure; (10) improved staff training; (11) improved security; (12) efforts to achieve certification •and accreditation; (13) creation of programs and activities to reduce inmate idleness; and (14) improved leadership. Each of these fourteen components has been essential to creating and maintaining constitutional conditions within the Jail.

Shelby County has achieved constitutional compliance not through adherence to symptom-based remedial provisions, but rather through a focused, systemic and information-driven structural reform based on critical expert assessment of essential institutional functions. This fourteen point structural reform scheme was narrowly drawn, extended no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right, and was the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right. The evidence received during the purgation hearings demonstrated that Defendants are, in fact, no longer following the steps required by the prior Court orders. Rather, in consultation with the Court, the Court’s Special Master Charles Glover Fisher, V., and the County’s own retained experts Dr. Jeffrey A. Schwartz and Dr. Pat Gaston, the Defendants have taken all reasonable steps within their power to (1) fashion an effective remedy (the fourteen point remedial scheme) and (2) implement that remedy. See Glover,. 934 F.2d at 708. It is by this creative and determined approach that Sheriff Luttrell and Shelby County have marshaled their resources, purged themselves of contempt, and achieved constitutional compliance.

Y. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court FINDS that Defendants have PURGED themselves of contempt of the Court orders through the development and implementation of the fourteen point remedial scheme.

So ORDERED.

. Appendices A-K, which contain certain documents referenced in this order and opinion are attached. The order and opinion and the appendices shall be accessible at http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov for five days following the entry of this order and opinion. In addition, the order and opinion and appendices shall be permanently accessible at http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/JudgeMcCalla. [Editor's Note: Appendices A-K are not included in this publication.]

. In light of the provisions contained in § 3626(b) of the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA”), the Court initiated the purgation process and adopted a schedule to move Defendants toward purgation. Section 3626(b) of the PLRA provides:

(1)Termination of prospective relief.—

(A) In any civil action with respect to prison conditions in which prospective relief is ordered, such relief shall be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervener-

(i) 2 years after the date the court granted or approved the prospective relief;

(ii) 1 year after the date the court has entered an order denying termination of prospective relief under this paragraph; or

(iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 2 years after such date of enactment.

(B) Nothing in this section shall prevent the parties from agreeing to terminate or modify relief before the relief is terminated under subparagraph (A).

(2) Immediate termination of prospective relief. — In any civil action with respect to prison conditions, a defendant or intervener shall be entitled to the immediate termination of any prospective relief if the relief was approved or granted in the absence of a finding by the court that the relief is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right.

(3) Limitation. — Prospective relief shall not terminate if the court makes written findings based on the record that prospective relief remains necessary to correct a current and ongoing violation of the Federal right, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and that the prospective relief is narrowly drawn and the least intrusive means to correct the violation.

(4) Termination or modification of relief.— Nothing in this section shall prevent any party or intervener from seeking modification or termination before the relief is terminable under paragraph (1) or (2), to the extent that modification or termination would otherwise be legally permissible.

18 U.S.C. § 3626(b).

. In an order issued on April 14, 1998, the Court certified a class of all persons who were at that time, or would in the future be, incarcerated in the Shelby County Jail. That order effected the consolidation of two inmate rape cases and provided for the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of injunctive relief in this case. (Consent Order of Apr. 14, 1998, Banks v. Shelby County, No. 96-2874 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 16, 1996.)) The consolidated cases included Banks and Hill v. Shelby County, No. 96-2622 (W.D. Tenn. filed June 17, 1996).

. Judge Turner's November 12, 1997, findings of fact are attached to this order and opinion as Appendix A.

. The November 12, 1997, order is attached as Appendix B.

. This policy is known as the 55/5 policy.

. The November 24, 1999, order is attached as Appendix C.

. The December 22, 2000, opinion is attached as Appendix D.

. In a related proceeding, the United States filed a complaint against the Defendants pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1997, seeking to enjoin the Defendants from depriving persons incarcerated at the Jail of rights, privileges, or immunities secured and protected by the United States Constitution. United States v. Shelby County, No. 02-2633 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 12, 2002), Complaint, Aug. 12, 2002, (Docket No. 1). After the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement, the Court issued an order conditionally dismissing the case and placed the case on the inactive docket pending Defendants' compliance with the Settlement Agreement. United States v. Shelby County, Order of Conditional Dismissal, Aug. 15, 2002, (Docket No. 3). A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached as Appendix I. The Settlement Agreement is also available at the United States Department of Justice website at http://www.us-doj.gov/crt/split/documents/shel-by_settleagmt.htm. Additionally, a Findings Letter issued by the United States on June 27, 2001, following an investigation of the Jail is attached as Appendix J. The Findings Letter is also available at the United States Department of Justice website at http://www.us-doj.gov/crt/split/documents/shelbyfmd.htm.

. Gilland was the preceding case involving, among other things, inmate violence and overcrowding in the Shelby County Jail. Judgment was entered dismissing the case on July 7, 1993. That case was a class action that provided for implementation, monitoring and enforcement of injunctive relief. Moreover, the following case numbers were consolidated in the class action: No. 87-2276; No. 87-2273; No. 87-2429; No. 87-2341; No. 87-2348; No. 88-2924; No. 88-2095; and No. 88-3004.

. In Pulliam, the Plaintiff alleged that he was attacked and beaten by approximately 10 inmates at the Jail on December 27, 1991. In the closing argument of the jury trial, Plaintiffs counsel stated the following concerning the attack on Plaintiff:

But I want you to close your eyes and think about being Michael in that pod and being drug into the day room area. He was in the day room area and you heard Mike testify this is an open area, you heard each and every guard testify that they were supposed to have visual access of this area at all times, they were supposed — and that it was critical for security for them to have access. Well, as Judge Gibbons found, I'm going to assert to ya’ll that I believe that what happened was that the staffing wasn't adequate. Remember, we have got some testimony about the fact that those that were on the roster weren't exactly those that were actually there that day, so I choose to believe that they were understaffed and that’s why nobody saw. But remember Mike testified he was brought out here where this A is and that's where he was jumped on by what, eight, ten inmates, them beating and beating and beating on him, them stomping and hitting him, and then he was pulled over here to this table where he was laid on his back and one of the people in that pod stood on the table and stomped and stomped and stomped on his hip until it broke.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot imagine the terror of hearing my own bones being broken by someone else. I cannot imagine the terror in the helplessness of laying here and no one coming to get me, no one intervening. But that wasn't the end of it for Michael, he was drug from here — he couldn't walk, his hip was broken, so he was drug over here into the shower area where they attempted to sexually assault him, where they urinated on him, where they committed indignities to that man that no man or woman should ever have to put up with. They stomped on his arm, ladies and gentlemen, they broke both the bones in his wrist. I’m not talking about a pencil like what ya'll have got in your hand, I’m talking about the bones of a full grown man and they broke them. But that wasn’t the end of the terror for Michael, no. From here, remember, he was dragged further, dragged because he couldn’t walk back to this bunk where someone, and it is undisputed that this happened, took off their clothes, put grease in their hand and started to attack him again. I cannot imagine the mindset of Michael at that point, I cannot imagine it. All we do know is that that screaming was something that eventually caused him to be dragged back out into the day room area again where he was kicked and kicked and kicked until he had his ribs broken. I submit to you, ladies and gentlemen, all of that took a lot longer than 30 seconds. Michael was eventually taken out of the pod. Michael’s testimony is that he laid here for some period of time, and we don't know exactly how long he laid there, but the incident report that ya’ll have all seen said that this happened at about 11 minutes after 8:00 in the evening. We do know that Michael was taken to the Med and he got there at 10:13. That's a two hour-period, folks. Mike had a hip trauma, he had a very severe trauma. That kind of trauma is attended to immediately, and we know that it took them at least two hours from the time it happened until the time he got there for him to be treated.

Pulliam, Transcript from Trial Proceedings held Apr. 26, 1994, June 14, 1994, (Docket No. 106), at 15-17.

On April 27, 1994, following the trial, the jury rendered a verdict for Plaintiff and against Defendant, A.C. Gilless, individually, in the amount of $895,000 in compensatory damages and $109,500 in punitive damages, and against Defendant Shelby County in the amount of $3,750,000 in compensatory damages. Pulliam, Judgment, Apr. 28, 1994, (Docket No. 90).

. Marshall involved a Jail Lieutenant who organized an ad hoc group of jailers to beat certain juvenile pretrial detainees on September 6, 1991. Lt. Marshall and 6 deputy jailers were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law).

The 7-count indictment asserted in summary that:

It was part of the plan and purpose of this conspiracy (to deprive the victims of the right to be free from the use of unreasonable force amounting to punishment by one acting under color of law) that the defendants would remove juvenile pretrial detainees, who were in cells and in the custody of the Shelby County Sheriff, from the cells in the P + Q pod area of the second floor of the Shelby County Jail....That the defendants, after removing these prisoners a few at a time, would assault and beat them in the hallway adjacent to the P + Q pod... .That this beating would be accomplished with fists, shot feet, riot sticks, and stun guns.

Marshall, Indictment, Count 1, at 2-3.

It was further alleged that, after the beatings:

On the afternoon of September 6, 1991, defendants Belinda Marshall and Glynn Bridgeforth and another co-conspirator agreed to have the officers involved prepare reports concerning the beatings which falsely stated that the inmates attacked the officers with weapons.

Id. at 4.

Of the four defendants who went to trial, 3 were convicted and sentenced to substantial periods of imprisonment (51 months, 63 months, and 120 months for Bridgeforth, Tines, and Marshall respectively). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions on November 29, 1995. United States v. Tines, 70 F.3d 891 (6th Cir.1995). The Sixth Circuit opinion noted that: "None of the inmates [selected to be beaten] had participated in the earlier fight with the new inmates [the asserted justification for the beatings organized by Lt. Marshall].'' Id. at 894. The injuries to the inmates were summarized as follows:

The six inmates suffered abrasions, contusions, and lacerations. Among other injuries, Adams suffered a fractured humerus; Chaney suffered a broken nose and fractured ribs; Coleman suffered a fracture of the medial wall between the eye socket and the nose; and Owens suffered retinal hemorrhaging as well as broken bones in both his nose and eye socket.

Id.

. The lack of administrative control within the Jail is illustrated by widespread guard-to-inmate drug smuggling as evidenced by a federal "sting” operation in 1991 and institutional loss of control is illustrated by riots that occurred in the summer of 1991. Specifically, on August 7, 1991, twenty-seven individuals, twenty-two of whom were then employed at the Jail, were indicted by a federal grand jury as a result of a federal investigation concerning individuals who were paid by inmates to smuggle contraband, such as cocaine base and dilaudid, into the Jail. See James Chisum and Chris Conley, Jail Chaplain, Others Dealt Inmates Drugs, Charges Say, The Commercial Appeal, (Memphis, TN), Aug. 8, 1991, at Al, available at LEXIS, News Library, Newspaper Stories, Combined Papers. Those individuals were charged in the following cases: United States v. Johnson et al., No. 91-20196 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Harmon, No. 91-20197 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Lane, No. 91-20198 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Wooten, No. 91-20199 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Brownlee, No. 91-20200 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Harmon, No. 91-20201 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Smith, No. 91-20202 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Irving, No. 91-20203 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Hudson, No. 91-20205 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. McNeal, No. 91-20205 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Key, No. 91-20206 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Holton, No. 91-20207 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Rogers, No. 91-20208 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Chambers, No. 91-20209 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Tate, No. 91-20210 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Currie, No. 91-20211 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Thompson et al., No. 91-20212 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Nunn, No. 91-20213 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Stillman, No. 91-20214 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Chiles, No. 91-20215 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Burton, No. 91-20216 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Hall, No. 91-20217 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Richards, No. 91-20218 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); United States v. Jackson, No. 91-20219 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991); and United States v. Harris, No. 91-20220 (W.D. Tenn. filed Aug. 7, 1991).

On June 22, 1991, inmates rioted and, for a period of time, controlled part of the fourth floor of the Jail. Joey Senat and Lawrence Buser, Downtown Inmates Riot Over Quality of Breakfast, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), June 23, 1991, at Al, available at LEXIS, News Library, Newspaper Stories, Combined Papers. Two months later, on August 17, 1991, the Jail experienced a major riot where inmates took control of the fourth floor for approximately eight hours. James Chisum, Eight-Hour Riot Rocks Jail; Damage Heavy to 4th Floor; Some Prisoners Transferred, The Commercial Appeal (Memphis, TN), Aug. 18, 1991, at Al, available at LEXIS, News Library, Newspaper Stories, Combined Papers. That riot briefly spread to the third floor of the Jail. Id.

. Despite the progress that has been made, the Jail continues to experience problems with the smuggling of contraband into the facility. On March 8, 2005, seventeen individuals, fourteen of whom were current and former deputy jailers, were indicted for smuggling drugs into the Jail. Those individuals were charged in the following cases: United States v. Williamson, No. 05-20066 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Williamson, et al., No. 05-20071 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Williamson, et al., No. 05-20075 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Williamson, et al., No. 05-20076 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Williamson, et al., No. 05-20077 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Reed, No. 05-20067 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Grant, No. 05-20068 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Grant, et al., No. 05-20072 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Grant, et al., No. 05-20073 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Grant, et al., No. 05-20074 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Grant, et al., No. 05-20078 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); United States v. Springer, No. 05-20069 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005); and United States v. Boyland, et al., No. 05-20070 (W.D. Tenn. filed Mar. 8, 2005).

. Defendants' expert, Dr. Jeffrey A. Schwartz, testified that the level of gang violence has reduced substantially, that gang activity is almost undetectable, and that Jail staff, instead of gangs, now control the living units. (Tr. at 19.) In making these findings, Dr. Schwartz relied on, among other things, inmate interviews and Jail incident reports. (Id.) Some of the interviews were conducted separately by himself, and some were conducted jointly with Charles Glover Fisher, V., an expert in the field of corrections who is the Special Master in this case. (Id.)

Dr. Schwartz further testified that, after interviewing inmates on every floor of the Jail, none of them said they had been threatened, had difficulty sleeping, worried about being attacked, had been attacked, were pressured for commissary goods, telephone time, or sex, or that they experienced any of the other conditions consistent with gang control of living units in the Jail. (Tr. at 19-20.) His findings were corroborated by the fact that some of the inmates who were interviewed had stayed in the Jail on previous occasions and described the dangerous conditions and extensive gang violence and control that once existed at the Jail. (Tr. at 20.)

Mr. Fisher similarly testified that the level of violence at the Jail has decreased substantially and that gang control is nonexistent. (Tr. at 119, 175; Hearing Ex. 3.) He further testified that inmates he interviewed said they felt safe and saw no gang activity in the Jail. (Tr. at 119) Mr. Fisher interviewed inmates from all sections of the Jail, including the third and fourth floors, where most of the gang members are housed. (Id.)

. The Jail contains pods, or cell blocks, which are groups of 23 cells. A central corridor, called the day room, separates the two rows of cells inside an individual pod. (Tr. at 36.) A catwalk accessible to the Jail staff also runs behind the row of cells. (Tr. at 37.) For the purpose of this order, the Court uses the terms "pod” and "cell block” interchangeably.

. For example, inmates would often cover the window to prevent observation, the windows would often be badly scratched and the lights inside the cell would often be out or covered. (Tr. at 37-39.)

. Mr. Fisher testified that gang activity occurred in the cell blocks when deputy jailer left their posts. (Tr. at 139.) The record further reflects that although deputy jailer's were at one time stationed in the hallway in front of the cell blocks, gang activity would nonetheless occur when the jailers either did not pay attention, left their posts, or simply could not see because of the poor sight lines.

. Dr. Schwartz specifically testified during the hearings that providing necessary maintenance services in a timely manner is important in reducing the level of violence in the Jail, but that "[t]he link between poor maintenance services and violence is probably indirect and ... would be hard to specify.” (Tr. at 46-47.)

. For instance, Sheriff Mark H. Luttrell, Jr. testified that when a significant number of inmates have stayed in the Jail for an extended period of time, the jail population management analyst makes inquiries with the District Attorney General’s office and the Public Defender's office to determine what is delaying particular cases. (Tr. at 85.)

. Initially, Ms. Kim Hackney served as the jail population management analyst. (Tr. at 142.) Currently, Ms. Chris Kirby is serving in this position. (Id.) The creation of the jail population management analyst position and the employment of Mr. William Powell, the county Criminal Justice Coordinator, have been essential in implementing the