Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER FEIKENS, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A. Glover I and Glover II B. Decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit C. Procedure on Remand PART I Findings of Fact as of April 17, 1987 A. Access to the Courts (i)Huron Valley Women’s Facility (ii)Crane Facility B. Educational Programming (i)Associate’s Degree Programming (ii)Baccalaureate Programming (iii) Off-grounds Privileges (iv) Department’s Response C. Vocational programming (i) Inadequate Programming at HVWF and Crane (ii) Vocational Interest Survey Ignored (iii) Existing Programs Function Poorly D. Apprenticeships (i) No Medical Records or Building Maintenance Apprenticeships (ii) Existing Programs Fail to Conform to Standards E. Prison Industry, Trust Fund Payments and Wages F. Off-grounds Programming and Work Pass Conclusion A. Access to the Courts B. Educational Programming (i) Associate’s Degree (ii) Baccalaureate Programming C. Vocational Programming D. Apprenticeships E. Prison Industry, Trust Payments and Wages F. Off-grounds Programming and Work Pass PART II Compliance Subsequent to April 17, 1987 A. Access to the Courts (i) Paralegal Training a. HVWF b. Crane (ii) Prison Legal Services B. Educational Programming (i) Associate’s Degree (ii) Baccalaureate Degree C. Vocational Programming D. Apprenticeship E. Prison Industry and Wages F. Off-grounds Programming and Work Pass Conclusion A. Access to the Courts B. Educational Programming (i) Associate’s Degree (ii) Baccalaureate Degree C. Vocational Programming D. Apprenticeships E. Prison Industry, Trust Payments and Wages F. Off-grounds Programming and Work Pass PART III Findings Requested by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit A. History of Educational Offerings at all Michigan Corrections Institutions since the Court’s 1981 “Final Order” B. Current State of Educational Programs at all Michigan Corrections Institutions C. Identity of Public and Private Colleges and Universities now providing educational programs to Michigan prison inmates, and the identity of the specific Michigan corrections facilities in which such programs are being offered D. Per Capita Amount now being expended for two-year and four-year programs for women and for men at such institutions and the source of those funds (i) Per Capita Expenditure (ii) Source of Revenues E. Efforts expended by the Department to comply with the Court’s 1981 Order F. Specific Manner in which the Department Has Not Complied G. Estimated Total Cost and Per Capita Cost of Educational Programs leading to two- and four-year degrees H. Development of a Detailed Plan for remedying the equal protection violation ... PART IV — REMEDY (i) Contempt (ii) The Remedy APPENDICES ORDER INTRODUCTION On September 19, 1988, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued its mandate and judgment vacating my preliminary injunction order of October 20, 1986 and my order of April 17, 1987 appointing an administrator. The court remanded the case for further factual findings regarding defendants’ efforts to comply with my prior orders and for me to develop a detailed plan for remedying the equal protection violations I have already found. Glover v. Johnson, 855 F.2d 277, 288 (6th Cir.1988) (“Glover III”). This Memorandum Opinion and Order complies with the court’s mandate. A. Glover I and Glover II Female inmates in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“Department”) commenced this suit in 1977 and demanded that defendants and others, members of the Michigan Corrections Commission (“Commission”), provide them with educational and vocational opportunities comparable to those provided male inmates. On December 23, 1977, I certified a class action “on behalf of all female inmates in Michigan.” Glover v. Johnson, 85 F.R.D. 1, 2, 7 (E.D.Mich.1977). In 1977, Charmaine Cornish and Georgia Manzie, then inmates at Huron Valley Women’s Facility (“HVWF”), filed a class action seeking declaratory judgment and damages based on alleged violations by the Department of their rights to equal protection and their right to access the courts. On March 17, 1978, I entered an order consolidating this case with Glover v. Johnson, Civil Action No. 77-71229. After a bench trial, I found that the educational opportunities available to the Department’s women prisoners were substantially inferior to those available to the Department’s male prisoners; accordingly, I ruled that the Department violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. To guarantee the female inmates’ right of access to these opportunities, I also found the Department obligated to provide a paralegal education course “to train female inmates to help themselves and each other in the presentation of their claims to the courts.” Glover v. Johnson, 478 F.Supp. 1075, 1097 (E.D.Mich.1979) (“Glover /”). On October 25, 1979, I entered an order setting forth in general terms the remedies the Department would be required to implement and I asked that it submit a plan detailing the steps to be taken to comply with the order. Glover I at 1102-03. On April 6, 1981, after extensive negotiations between the parties and consultations with me, I entered a Final Order setting forth the remedies to be provided by the Department. Glover v. Johnson, 510 F.Supp. 1019 (E.D.Mich.1981) (“Glover II”). In addition to paralegal training, my orders require the Department to provide female inmates with post-secondary education, to implement various vocational and apprenticeship programs, to make use of off-grounds and work pass programs with eligible prisoners, to establish prison industry programs, to pay back wages to a trust fund established for the benefit of the women prisoners, and to re-evaluate and standardize the prisoner wage scale used by the Department to assure that it is applied to women fairly. Neither my 1979 nor my 1981 order was appealed from and, therefore, they are now law of the case. See Glover III at 281. From 1981, until the issuance of my October 1986 injunction and the appointment of Dr. Richard Meisler as administrator in 1987, the major effort has been to compel compliance with Glover I and Glover II. The record of my attempts to prod compliance during these six years consumes thirteen pages of entries on the docket. Of particular note is my order of June 18,1985 granting plaintiffs’ motion for contempt with respect to the wages to be paid paralegal students at HVWF. See infra at 814-815, 829. It is significant because it is the first time, and by no means the last, that the Department has met the use, and threatened use, of my contempt power with studied indifference. On January 22, 1986, plaintiffs brought their second motion for contempt, this time challenging broadly the Department’s compliance. During the summer of 1986, I held ten days of evidentiary hearings, took plaintiffs’ motion under advisement, and began another round of negotiations aimed at achieving compliance. These proeeed-ings prompted the Department to arrange for Spring Arbor College (“Spring Arbor”) to provide two baccalaureate courses commencing October 21, 1986. On October 16, 1986,1 learned that the Department intended to provide this program only at HVWF and that qualified inmates desiring to enroll but residing at the Florence Crane Correctional Facility (“Crane”) would be required to transfer to the overcrowded and higher security HVWF. After a hearing on October 20, 1986, I granted a preliminary injunction requiring the Department to provide courses at both HVWF and Crane beginning October 21, 1986. This order was not obeyed necessitating plaintiffs’ third motion for contempt. On October 31, 1986, the Department appeared to explain its failure to obey my order. It asserted that Spring Arbor was unwilling to proceed with the program at Crane. At a hearing held November 6, 1986, a representative of Spring Arbor, Paul J. Nemecek, indicated that courses could begin at Crane no earlier than January 12, 1987. I took plaintiffs’ third motion for contempt under advisement. The Department’s unwillingness or inability to make progress towards implementing the programs ordered in Glover I and Glover II convinced me of the need for an independent administrator. After receiving recommendations from plaintiffs, the Department, and an advisory committee appointed by me, I named Dr. Richard Meis-ler as administrator. B. Decision of the US. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit The Court of Appeals concluded that I failed to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) when issuing the preliminary injunction because I did not adequately set forth factual findings supporting in-junctive relief. Indeed, in its view, the record is devoid of factual findings that would justify the relief I granted. Particularly, the court said that I failed to demonstrate how denying the female inmates their right to an education would produce irreparable harm, why the harm to plaintiffs would outweigh the harm to the Department, and why plaintiffs were likely to succeed. Moreover, the court said that I failed to address the Department’s contention that it is incapable of compliance. Glover III, 855 F.2d at 284. The Court of Appeals vacated my order appointing an administrator because it found that order “directly related to” and “generated by” my injunctive order. Id. at 285. More important, it determined that my order of appointment failed to document the “acts or ommissions of the Department that led [me] to conclude that the Department flouted [my] orders.” Id. at 286. Moreover, it held that I had not demonstrated that use of less intrusive means, including my use of contempt power, would fail to bring about compliance. Id. at 287. Thus, the court found appointment of an administrator “excessively intrusive” into the Department’s power to administer its penal system. Id. For purposes of determining an appropriate remedy the Court of Appeals suggested the following: 1. Making findings of fact “specifically detailing”: a) the history of educational offerings at all Michigan correctional institutions since the court’s 1981 “Final Order.” b) the current state of educational programs at all Michigan correctional institutions. c) the identity of the public and private colleges and universities now providing educational programs to Michigan prison inmates, and the identity of the specific Michigan correctional facilities in which such programs are being offered. d) the per capita amount now being expended for two-year and four-year degree programs for women and for men at such institutions, and the source of those funds. e) the efforts expended by the defendants to comply with the court’s 1981 order. f) the specific manner in which defendants have not complied. g) the estimated total cost and per cap-ita cost of educational programs leading to two-and four-year degrees. 2. Developing a detailed plan for remedying the equal protection violation through ordering expenditures for educational programs for women inmates on parity with those already being offered to men, if any, on a per capita, not a total expenditure basis, i.e., an educational program based on parity of expenditures rather than a plan requiring the same degrees, courses and subjects for both men and women. Id. at 288. I also note the concurring opinion of Judge Engel which emphasized that evidence of per capita expenditure is but one consideration in determining how to remedy the equal protection violations I have found. Id. He went on to comment: The very difference between the sexes may mean in a given situation that the delivery of rehabilitative services may necessarily require the varied expenditure of monies because of the natural differences in the sexes or in their conditions of confinement. In short, I would not like to think that anything we have said here is construed to require or encourage an oversimplistic approach to what is in reality a difficult task requiring a full measure of judicial thought. Id. at 289. C. Procedure on Remand On November 4, 1988, plaintiffs renewed their motion that I find the Department in contempt with respect to all aspects of my orders in Glover I and Glover II. On November 29, 1988, I convened a hearing to determine future procedure. I ordered plaintiffs and the Department to submit proposed findings of facts together with citations to the existing record. Primarily for the purpose of allowing the Department to establish compliance with my orders subsequent to April 1987, I also ordered the parties to provide a list of proposed additional witnesses or evidence together with a summary of that testimony or evidence. I took five days of testimony in January 1989. At the conclusion of that hearing, I ordered the parties to submit evidence relevant to the inquiry suggested by the Court of Appeals. I took six more days of testimony directed to that inquiry in April 1989. The parties have now submitted final briefs. I turn now to the difficult task to which Judge Engel averred. This Opinion proceeds in four parts. I set forth the facts as they existed on the date I appointed Dr. Meisler administrator in Part I. I discuss my findings relative to the Department’s efforts at compliance subsequent to the appointment of Dr. Meisler in Part II. I respond to the inquiry of the Court of Appeals in Part III. I detail my findings on plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and outline the remedies to be imposed in Part IV. PART I Findings of Fact as of April 17, 1987 I choose the date of my order appointing an administrator as the turning point in the history of this case for three reasons. First, as the Court of Appeals noted, I have yet to rule on plaintiffs’ January 22, 1986 contempt motion. Second, the Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of the challenges to my orders. Glover III, 855 F.2d at 278. Therefore, the Court of Appeals has not ruled out appointment of an administrator or any other remedy that I might determine to be appropriate. It is important therefore to set forth the record as it existed at the time the Court of Appeals reviewed my orders. That record provides abundant support for my earlier rulings. The Court of Appeals is of the opinion that my appointment of an administrator was “generated” by the Department’s response to my injunctive order. Unfortunately, the Department’s reaction to that order was but the most immediate in a series of disappointments and frustrations spanning the history of this case. Nowhere is the Department’s intransigence and its poor respect for the orders of this court better revealed than in the evidence presented in the June and July 1986 hearings on plaintiffs’ motion for contempt. It is this evidence, far more than the Department’s disregard of my injunctive order, that formed the backdrop for my appointment of an administrator. Plaintiffs’ 1986 motion for contempt attacked the Department’s compliance with six different areas of my 1979 and 1981 orders: (A) Access to the Courts; (B) Educational Programming; (C) Vocational Programming; (D) Apprenticeship Opportunities; (E) Prison Industry, Trust Fund Payments and Prisoner Wages; and (F) Off-grounds Privileges and Work Pass Programs. I address the record in each area. A. Access to the Courts In Glover I, I determined that the HVWF law library met the constitutional standard established in Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 97 S.Ct. 1491, 52 L.Ed.2d 72 (1977), provided that the collection was properly updated and maintained. Glover I, 478 F.Supp. at 1096. I also determined that to assure plaintiffs’ access to the courts it was necessary for the Department to provide paralegal training to the inmates. Id. at 1097, 1103. My 1981 Final Order required the Department to provide paralegal training to interested and qualified inmates until such time as there existed a pool of adequately trained female inmate assistants. My Order specifically incorporated the terms proposed by James S. Wilber, Director of Prison Legal Services of Michigan (“PLS”), as set forth in Part G of Defendants’ Plan and Schedule of December 27, 1979. Plaintiffs allege that as of April 1987 the Department had still not responded to my contempt order of June 18, 1985; that is, inmate paralegal trainees at HVWF were not being paid at the rate of $1.50 per day. Moreover, they allege that the paralegal training supposedly provided at HVWF was either nonexistent or so inferior as to be practically nonexistent. With respect to the Crane facility, plaintiffs allege that no paralegal training had been provided and that the law library did not meet minimum constitutional standards. The evidence supports plaintiffs' contentions. (i) Huron Valley Women’s Facility The terms proposed by James Wilber, and incorporated into my Final Order, call for paying inmate paralegal trainees at the rate of $1.50 per day. PLS provided the first paralegal training class between April 1982 and March 1983. The inmate trainees were paid at the rate ordered. The Department contracted for Washtenaw Community College (“WCC”) to provide the second class, an advanced paralegal course which was taught during 1983. Plaintiffs consented to a different program provider with the understanding that no features of the program would be changed. Despite this assurance, inmates participating in the WCC program were paid less than the required rate. The Department hired a private attorney to teach the third paralegal class; students participating in that class were also underpaid. On June 18, 1985, I granted plaintiffs’ motion for contempt and ordered the Department to pay inmate trainees $1.50 per day “forthwith.” I also ordered it to pay back.wages to trainees who had not received the full pay scale. As of the July 1986 hearings, neither my 1981 Final Order nor my 1985 contempt order had been obeyed. Patrick Williams, the school principal at HVWF, testified that inmate trainees were being paid 25 cents per day. He was also unaware of any court order with respect to trainee wages. Deposition of Patrick Williams (“Williams Dep.”), Mar. 26, 1986 at 128. At the July 11, 1986 hearing, inmate trainees Letitia Crawford and Anita Alcorta confirmed Williams’ report that inmate trainees were then being paid at a rate of 25 cents per day. They indicated that they had been told just prior to the hearing that they would soon receive the required $1.50 per day. Tr. July 11, 1986 at 7-8, 115-16. There is evidence indicating that the Department is still not paying paralegal students at the required rate. See infra at 829. More important than the Department’s failure to pay trainees at the appropriate rate is its failure to provide appropriate training. The evidence indicates that there have been no introductory paralegal classes given at HVWF for the large part of the time since my Final Order was issued. Other than the programs taught by PLS between April 1982 and March 1983, by WCC during 1983 and by the private attorney, there have been no paralegal programs at HVWF. No introductory programs were offered between March 1983 and March 1986. The only advanced paralegal program was taught by WCC in 1983. That course was never completed. Tr. July 11, 1986 at 7; Williams Dep. Mar. 26, 1986 at 123-24 (no paralegal programming in 1985). See also Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact (“Def. Resp.”) at 3-4, # 12, 14 (admits the same impliedly). (ii) Crane Facility However intolerable the situation with respect to paralegal training at HVWF was, the situation at Crane was worse. As of the summer of 1986 the Department had not offered any paralegal training at Crane. At the 1986 contempt hearings it indicated through its attorney, Susan Harris, that the Department had not scheduled paralegal training at Crane, and that it had no intention to do so. Tr. June 9, 1986 at 31-33. The Department’s position was that because paralegal programming existed at HVWF, it was not obligated to provide it at Crane. Id. at 32-3. See also Testimony of Marjorie Van Ochten, hearings administrator for the Department, July 29, 1986 at 149-53. The Department’s position respecting paralegal training at Crane is the same as that rejected by the Court of Appeals regarding educational programming at Crane. See Glover III, 855 F.2d at 280, 282. The Department’s position was unreasonable even before the Court of Appeals ruled. As the Department clearly understood, Van Ochten, July 29, 1986 at 151-52, the purpose of paralegal training was to assure female inmates access to the courts. The fact that the Department was, at least as of March 1986, fulfilling its responsibility with respect to inmates housed at HVWF, has no bearing on its obligation to assure access for inmates housed at Crane. Yet, the Department did not seek clarification from the court nor did it make inquiry as to whether there existed at Crane an adequate number of trained legal assistants. Id. at 152, 166. It simply chose not to provide paralegal training at Crane. The Department not only failed to provide paralegal training as required by my orders, they also failed to provide an adequate law library. When the Crane facility opened in April 1985, there was no law library. The first books did not arrive until six months later. Id. at 154-55. The library did not contain all the required materials until January of 1986. Testimony of Susan Fair, July 22, 1986 at 94-95. See also Testimony of Mary Johnson, July 31, 1986 at 79 (no M.C.L.A.s or M.S.A.s as of April 1986, inmates unable to respond to challenges to their parental rights). The Department claims to have provided for the prisoners’ needs by arranging for prisoners to use the law library at the Branch County Jail or by transferring prisoners desiring to use the law library back to HVWF. Yet, there is no evidence that the inmates were ever told of the availability of the Branch County Library. Indeed the evidence suggests that the prisoners were not so informed. See Testimony of Pat Balasco, July 29, 1986 at 184. Moreover, when inmate Susan Fair asked to be transferred to HVWF to use the library she was refused. Nor was she told of the availability of the Branch County Library. Fair, July 31, 1986 at 85-86. Accord Testimony of Sandra Girard, Director of PLS, July 31, 1986 at 67 (no transfers back to HVWF to use law library, no space available at HVWF). There can be no question that the Department has disobeyed my orders with respect to court access. The Department cannot contend that the failure to pay paralegals at the ordered rate was due to the non-cooperation of some third party. Despite my contempt order, it simply chose not to pay. The Department excused its failure to provide paralegal services at Crane with the spurious argument that my orders did not apply to Crane. That position was belied by the Department’s contrary stance with respect to library facilities. By arranging, or claiming to have arranged, for the use of the Branch County Jail Library, the Department implicitly acknowledged the applicability of my orders to the Crane facility. Apparently, the Department believes it has the right to pick the parts of my orders it wishes to obey and to ignore the rest. However, the parts of my court access orders that the Department chose to recognize (provision of paralegal training at HVWF and of a law library at Crane) were so ineptly executed that the practical effect was as if they had been ignored. B. Educational Programming In Glover I, I found that the community college opportunities available to female inmates were generally comparable to those provided to male inmates. I stressed, however, the Department’s obligation to maintain parity of programming and to facilitate and not impede the participation of women inmates in secondary education. My orders in Glover I and Glover II define the minimum characteristics of parity. The Department shall provide to all interested and qualified female inmates “a systematic and coherent course package which, when successfully completed, culminates in the receipt of an Associate’s Degree.” Glover II, 510 F.Supp. at 1021. The Associate’s Degree was to be such that it would enable entry into a four-year baccalaureate program. Id. I also required the Department to eliminate unnecessary scheduling conflicts and to provide all necessary course texts and materials. Id. I did not order the Department to provide third- and fourth-year programming because the Department represented that funding cutbacks would all but eliminate the baccalaureate opportunities then available to male prisoners. I did order the Department to assist and cooperate in the establishment of four-year programs that any educational institution chose to offer. My Final Order in Glover II further provides that the assistance rendered female prisoners with respect to baccalaureate programming be “in no way” less than that afforded male prisoners. Id. This last requirement became more significant in October 1984 when Spring Arbor, which had been providing baccalaureate programming only to male prisoners residing in the State Prison of Southern Michigan (“SPSM”), received a line item allocation in the State budget. The Department understood correctly, see Plaintiffs’ Exhibit (“P.Ex.”) 34, that such an allocation for male baccalaureate programming would, under my orders, require comparable support for third- and fourth-year degree programming for women inmates. The evidence as of April 1987 indicates that the Department fell far short of fulfilling its obligations under my orders with respect to post-secondary education. (i) Associate’s Degree Programming The Department had not by April 1987 provided a systematic and coherent community college course package to its female inmates. The evidence indicates that the courses desired by the inmates were not taught, Tr. July 11, 1986 at 62, 90, and that those courses actually taught were offered out of sequence. As a result there existed a pool of female inmates who had earned more than the required number of hours but still had no associate’s degree because they had been unable to accumulate sufficient hours in their chosen subject area. The cases of Letitia Crawford and Gladys Wilson are illustrative of the difficulties encountered by female inmates. Crawford began working toward an associate degree in criminal justice in 1982. Subsequently, the Department stopped offering classes in criminal justice. Crawford took up courses in business and accounting. Unable to find enough courses in business, Crawford simply took whatever was offered. Crawford then enrolled in a computer course only to discover, midway through the course, that the course was being taught out of sequence — the advanced course was taught before the prerequisite. Incredibly, the instructor learned of the error at the same time as the students. As a result, the students were given lower grades because the instructor did not believe the students to be working at the level of the advanced course. Testimony of Letitia Crawford, July 11, 1986 17-18, 22-23. Similarly, Wilson started out in psychology but found the same courses repeated time and time again. She then switched to criminal justice only to find the same repetitious offerings. Although she had accumulated 67 credits, seven more than needed, she was unable to obtain an associate’s degree in either psychology or criminal justice. Testimony of Gladys Wilson, July 21, 1986, 90. See also Glover, July 11, 1986 at 62, 72-73. The evidence indicates that the Department contributed in many ways to the incoherence of the Associate’s Degree Program. First, the absolute number of course offerings declined between 1981 and 1987. Williams Dep. July 31, 1986 at 160-61; Tr. July 28, 1986 at 47. Moreover the Department failed to take an active role in planning course offerings. For instance in 1985, Williams did not participate in planning the courses to be offered by School-craft College (“Schoolcraft”) even though Williams was aware that Schoolcraft did not have the necessary information to plan appropriately. As a consequence, School-craft resorted to offering standard introductory courses which were repetitious of the courses previously offered by other institutions. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that Williams was unaware of the courses that were taught previously. Williams Dep., July 31, 1986 at 84-87, 150-54. Moreover, it appears that the Department discourages inmate participation in the community college program by offering one of the lowest wage rates for any type of prison activity. See Williams Dep., July 31, 1986, at P.Ex. 24 and 26. Contrary to my orders, the Department did not provide necessary textbooks for the courses; the students were required to purchase the books. Tr. July 11, 1986 at 14-16. My orders require the Department to assure the availability of academic counseling in advance of the commencement of classes. Yet, it appears that the first visit by an academic counselor to HVWF occurred on July 30, 1986. Williams Dep., July 31, 1986 at 157-58. (ii) Baccalaureate Programming Although not initially required by my orders to provide baccalaureate programming to the female prisoners, I did require the Department to do no less for its female inmates than it does for its male inmates. Spring Arbor has been providing four-year degree programming at SPSM since 1981. During each year of that time period forty inmates have received baccalaureate degrees. By October of 1984, the Department’s assistance to the male prisoners had become so extensive that it made sense to include it as a line item in the Michigan Department of Education’s budget. At that time, even the Department recognized that my orders required that comparable programming be made available to the women. Yet, by April 1987, this had not occurred. The Department admits that no four-year degree programming was offered at HVWF in 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, in the fall of 1985 or the spring of 1986. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact (“P.Findings.”) at 45, # 5; cf. Def. Resp. at 12, # 5. Eastern Michigan University (“EMU”), which provided programming in 1983 and in the spring of 1985, was not adequately paid for its services. As a re-suit EMU declined to provide further services to the Department. More important, EMU withheld credit from the participating inmates and refused to release their transcripts. At July 1986, some students had still not received credits earned. Tr. July 11, 1986 at 64. Understandably, the interest of the participating students, and those learning of their ordeal, in' continuing post-secondary studies was diminished. The reasons why EMU was not paid in 1983 are not entirely clear. It appears, however, that the Department was substantially responsible for the difficulty attending the 1985 course offering. After the completion of, and in light of, the hearings on contempt, the Department arranged for Spring Arbor to provide baccalaureate programming at HVWF. These programs began October 21, 1986. The untoward events surrounding the provision of baccalaureate courses at Crane in the fall of 1986 have already been recounted in the introduction to this opinion. I need only add that even after I had clearly informed the Department of its obligations under my orders in the show cause hearing, and threatened to use my contempt power, no heed was paid to my orders. Despite Nemecek’s indication that Spring Arbor could begin classes by January 12, 1987, there were still no baccalu-reate courses at Crane as of April 1987. (iii) Off-grounds Privileges My 1981 Final Order specifically requires the Department to provide off-grounds programming for eligible inmates unable to complete their course work at the correctional facility. Glover II, 510 F.Supp. at 1021. Yet, the Department has not made off-grounds programming available despite the existence of interested and eligible inmates. Tr. July 11, 1986 at 21, 69, 93; Tr. July 21, 1986 at 91; Williams Dep., Apr. 9, 1986 at 56-57, Williams Dep., July 31, 1986 at 158; Deposition of Tekla Miller (“Miller Dep.”), Apr. 29, 1986 at 24-26. (iv) Department’s Response The Department contends that its noncompliance should be excused because of the lack of sufficient interest in post-secondary educational programming on the part of both the providing institutions and the inmates. I find abundant interest on the part of the female inmates, e.g., Williams Dep., Apr. 9, 1989 at P.Ex. 7 (12-15 women who were qualified and interested in pursuing a four-year degree program); Tr. July 11, 1986 at 19, 63, 67, 69, 73-74, 77, 91-93 (Testimony of various prisoners regarding difficulties encountered pursuing post-secondary education); Tr. July 22, 1986 at 45 (Mary Johnson transferred to Crane on the same day she was scheduled to begin EMU classes at HVWF); Tr. July 21, 1986 at 90-91; Tr. July 11, 1986 at 92-93 (Gladys Wilson and Joyce Dixon refused off-grounds privileges despite unavailability of needed courses at the facility); Miller Dep., Aug. 8, 1986 at 34-35 (there exist inmates interested in off-grounds programming). What is surprising is the persistence shown by these inmates. Given the disjointed programs, the uncertainty of receiving credit for work performed, and low wages, it would be entirely natural for the inmates to want no part in what for many students has become an exercise in disappointed expectations. Indeed there is evidence that otherwise interested inmates have been dissuaded by the prospect of entering programs in which the difficulty of bureaucratic struggle exceeds that of learning. Williams Dep., Apr. 9, 1986 at 48 (Williams agrees that poor response to announcement of EMU classes may be due to history of students not receiving credit for work done.); see also Williams Dep., Mar. 26, 1986 at 137; Tr. July 11, 1986 at 64. There can be little question that the commitment of various educational institutions has been less than one would hope for from institutions dedicated to public service. The problem is really one of economic incentive. Significant funding for prisoner post-secondary education comes from Pell Grants paid directly to the provider institutions. Pell Grants are based on the number of students enrolled, not the cost of providing education. The provider institutions have been unwilling to provide programming for the female prisoner unless guaranteed a minimum return for their efforts. Given the relatively small number of female prisoners, this return is difficult to achieve without Department subsidy. The Department has been unable or unwilling to solve this “critical mass” problem. A second problem, as demonstrated by the fiasco with EMU, is that the Department has at times simply not fulfilled the obligations undertaken to the institutions. It may be that the uncooperative attitude of the provider institutions accounts partially for the failure to provide adequate post-secondary education to the female inmates. I hasten to add that the constitutional obligation of the State, and thus the Department, is nondelegable. If impossibility can ever be a defense in a case such as this, it must be impossibility in the strictest sense — that no one in the world can perform the required acts. The inability of the Department, whether willful or not, to overcome the obstacles in providing post-secondary education to the female inmates was abundantly clear as of April 1987. Professor Otto Feinstein described the problem in this way: In my experience, particularly ... with ex-offenders and people who are incarcerated, ... if you want to mesh, ... officially with the behavior of the educational institution, or in this case the Department of Corrections, and the educational institutions, you need some person ... or office that meshes those relations long enough [so] that you have a pattern that is satisfactory to the clients, in this case the inmates or the ex-offend-ers_ If that is not done, if it is assumed that the bureaucracy will function on its own and keep focused ... until all these problems are resolved, the evidence is largely that it will not occur and that is what I was looking for in the documents [in this case]. ... I saw the symptoms of this institutional glitch.... Tr. July 28, 1986 at 50-51. I concluded that an administrator could help solve this institutional glitch. C. Vocational Programming In Glover I, I found the range and quality of vocational programming available to female inmates to be substantially inferior to that offered to male inmates. In 1979 the male prisoners benefited from more than twenty vocational programs teaching skilled trades such as automobile servicing and drafting; the female prisoners had available five programs which developed only elemental skills. I found the women prisoners “entitled to a greater variety of programming_” Glover /, 478 F.Supp. at 1087. I ordered the Department to begin forthwith a vocational counseling and testing program to be followed by a survey of the women’s vocational interests and to implement those programs found to have significant inmate support. I ordered that the programs be “taught, funded and equipped” in a manner comparable to the vocational programs offered the men and that the programs offered prepare the inmates for “non-menial” positions in the fields selected. Id. at 1102. By April 1987, however, the female prisoners had fewer, not more, vocational programs; the Department had largely ignored the results of the ordered survey, and the programs actually offered were deficient. (i) Inadequate Programming at HVWF and Crane There were five vocational programs available to HVWF inmates in 1979: food service, office occupations, graphic arts, building maintenance and general shop. By July 1986 only three programs remained. The programs in general shop and building maintenance were eliminated. The Department made no effort to replace the general shop program. The building maintenance program was replaced by a program entitled “Introduction to Tool Technology” (“ITT”) in October 1983. As I shall discuss later, the ITT program was not intended to, nor does it, serve as a vocational program. From the time the Crane facility opened in April 1985 until October 1986, eighteen months, there was no vocational programming. In October 1986, after the contempt hearings, but before the appointment of Dr. Meisler, the Department began offering a program in television production. Whatever the merits of this program, and they are questionable, I find it incredible that the Department made absolutely no effort to assure continuity of programming between HVWF and Crane when it knew that Crane would be populated almost entirely by inmates transferred from HVWF. Women arriving at Crane discovered that their vocational training was wasted because it could not be continued at Crane. If they arrived at Crane after October 1986, their only option was to start anew in television production. (ii) Vocational Interest Survey Ignored In October 1980, after a year of little progress, I ordered the appointment of Martha Stein to serve as Vocational Programming Coordinator for HVWF. From 1980 until 1984, Stein developed — with the help of a board of independent advisors, the Huron Valley Women’s Facility Vocational Assessment and Advisory Committee — a vocational testing and counseling program which came to be known as “Project Grow” (Greater Resource Opportunities for Women). Over the years, Project Grow engaged in vocational counseling and surveyed inmate occupational interests. The Department failed to implement the programs recommended as a result of Project Grow. Testimony of Patricia Cur-ran, July 28, 1986 at 96; Deposition of T.A. Ryan (“Ryan Dep.”), July 29, 1986 at 128— 30. See also Testimony of Marilyn Mar-shall, June 10, 1986 at 61 (no programming in the health care area). The failure to implement these programs may have been due to the fact that the Department had not fully integrated the vocational training programs, especially vocational counseling, into the day-to-day management of the prison. Marilyn Mar-shall, who replaced Stein in April 1985, testified that she had very little professional contact with Patrick Williams, the school principal at HVWF. This is extraordinary because the school principal is in charge of vocational programming. Id. at 52. Similarly, there is evidence of poor communications between the vocational coordinator and the prison classification director. Testimony of Patricia Curran and David King, July 28, 1986 at 86-88, 113-15. This is troubling because the classification director determines inmates’ eligibility for educational programming. As a consequence of this lack of communication, inmates needing, and interested in, training have been assigned to institutional jobs. Marilyn Marshall, June 10, 1986 at 30-34. See also David King, July 28, 1986 at 106, 116-17. (iii) Existing Programs Function Poorly The programming actually available to the women prisoners was sorely deficient. Of the programs offered at HVWF only the graphic arts and office occupations programs functioned reasonably well. The ITT program was not a vocational program at all and the food service program provided only entry-level skills. Moreover, the Department’s practice of transferring vocational students to Crane midway through their training often stifled the little vocational education that was occurring. Williams admitted in his deposition that inmates would not develop vocational skills by participating in the ITT course. Williams Dep., July 31, 1986 at 30. The program was intended to provide “hands-on” experience so the participants could determine their interest in related instruction. Id. at 28-30. It succeeded only in convincing the participants of the futility of their efforts. The women spent the large part of their time studying pictures of various tools. See, e.g., P.Ex. 11. Their “hands-on” experience consisted mostly of producing sundry personal items such as jewelry boxes. See Testimony of Delores Federico, July 22, 1986 at 5-16. In sum, the program was more akin to high school arts and crafts than a pre-vocational course. In the 1986 contempt hearings plaintiffs contended that the vocational food service program had changed little since 1979. As in 1979, they alleged that the men had a food service program offering full commercial training whereas the women’s program taught only home economics. They complained particularly that the equipment available to women was not commercial grade. Sylvia Coleman, the food service program instructor, testified that the equipment available was adequate and in some respects better than the equipment available to the men at Huron Valley. Testimony of Sylvia Coleman, July 22, 1986 at 119-20,124-25. Defendants’ vocational expert, T.A. Ryan, concurred. Ryan Dep., July 29, 1986 at 101-02. Marilyn Marshall, the vocational coordinator, and Jane Chapman, plaintiffs’ vocational expert, maintained that the equipment was not commercial grade. Testimony of Marilyn Marshall, June 10, 1986 at 43-44; Testimony of Jane Chapman, July 24, 1986 at 213-14. The chief difference between the equipment available to the Huron Valley men and the equipment available to the women is scale; the male residents have access to the commercial kitchen used to prepare food for the institution whereas the women’s equipment is designed for food preparation on a smaller scale. The parties disagree as to whether the difference in scale matters. T.A. Ryan testified that the positions available to graduates of the 1986 HVWF vocational food service program were limited to work in fast food restaurants at minimum wage or as an assistant cook or hostess for wages slightly above minimum wage. Ryan Dep., July 29, 1986 at 102-04. Chapman testified that the vocational food service program resembled a home economics course rather than the commercial food service courses usually taught in a junior college or a prison setting. Chapman, July 24, 1986 at 213. Her opinion finds support in the background and training of the course instructor. Coleman testified that her training and prior experience were in the field of home economics; she admits that her chief exposure to commercial food service was when she made salads as part of her summer waitressing job during high school and college. Coleman, July 24, 1986 at 222. Instructors usually teach, and students generally learn, the subjects in which they have expertise. Here, that subject appears to be home economics. Moreover, there was general agreement that the space allotted to the food service program was inadequate. Ryan Dep., July 29, 1986 at 101; cf. Marshall, June 10, 1986 at 43-44. Whatever the relative caliber of the equipment available to the women, it appears that the quality of the program has improved little since 1979. Another difficulty encountered in fashioning adequate vocational programming, even where the program itself is reasonably successful, was that inmates were often transferred from HVWF to the Crane facility in the midst of their training. A transfer would most often end an inmate’s instruction because Crane had virtually no vocational programming. This produced a sense of futility on the part of both the transferred inmate and the inmates left behind. Although the Department made it a policy not to transfer students in the midst of educational programming, this policy was honored more in the breach than in the observance. For example, Stock testified that one of his graphic arts students was transferred to Crane during her training. Stock was allowed no input into the transfer decision nor was he given advance notice of the transfer. Stock, July 22, 1986 at 116. See also Miller Dep. (Warden HVWF), Aug. 8, 1986 at 13, 31-32 (inmates participating in vocational programs are not supposed to be transferred but sometimes are); Crawford, July 11, 1986 at 26-28 (high numbers of transfers from HVWF to Crane caused the class to be disrupted frequently); Testimony of Tammi Gregory, July 22, 1986 at 80, 84-85 (Gregory transferred to Crane two months into her vocational program); King, July 28, 1986 at 117-18 (transfers occurred without notice to the classification director at HVWF). As of April 1987 the vocational programming available to the female inmates was seriously flawed. There was an insufficient variety of programming and poor execution of the programs actually offered. In its proposed findings, and in its response to plaintiffs’ proposed findings, the Department makes little effort to refute this fact. Instead, its defense is based on the contention that there have been improvements since April 1987. I shall consider the Department’s contentions with respect to improved conditions in Part II. D. Apprenticeships I determined in Glover I that the female prisoners were entitled to apprenticeship training. In 1979, the Department’s male prisoners had the potential to participate in apprenticeships in ten separate trades such as millwright, tool and die maker and industrial maintenance electrician. At SPSM, prisoners were able to practice their apprenticeship in conjunction with prison industries. In 1979 there were no apprenticeships or prison industries at HVWF. Glover I, 478 F.Supp. at 1089. In 1981 I ordered the Department to institute within six months apprenticeships in five areas: Medical Records, Building Maintenance, Dental Assistance, Painting and Carpentry. These programs were set forth in the Standard of Apprenticeship (“Standards”) compiled by the Huron Valley Women’s Facility Multi-Crafts Joint Apprenticeship Committee (“Committee”). P.Ex. 9. The Standards were incorporated into my 1981 Order. I further ordered the Department to take “whatever steps necessary to ensure compliance” with the Standards. I also ordered the Department to mount an informational campaign in conjunction with the Committee to inform the prisoners of the availability of apprenticeships and their nature. Glover II, 510 F.Supp. at 1021-22. As of April 1987, six years rather than six months later, only three of the five ordered programs were in operation. None of the three programs in operation conformed to the Standards. Various steps necessary to implement the apprenticeship, particularly the construction of an apprenticeship building at HVWF, had not been completed. There were no apprenticeships offered at Crane. (i) No Medical Records or Building Maintenance Apprenticeships A medical records program did exist for a time at HVWF. It ceased functioning in 1984 when the apprenticeship instructor retired. By July 1986, close to two years later, the instructor had still not been replaced. Defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact at 3; Williams Dep., Mar. 26, 1986 at 56-57; Chapman, July 23, 1986 at 141 (no instructor for medical records apprenticeship); King (HVWF classification director) July 28, 1986 at 120 (no medical records apprenticeship at HVWF). Similarly, there was no building maintenance apprenticeship as of April 1987. Ryan Dep., July 29, 1986 at 116-17; Williams Dep., July 31, 1986 at 70 (building maintenance not including in Williams’ list of existing apprenticeships); Chapman, July 23, 1986 at 140; Marshall, January 19, 1989 at 168. As of the time I appointed Dr. Meisler there was neither a vocational nor an apprenticeship program in building maintenance, although I had ordered institution of both. See supra at 819, 822. (ii) Existing Programs Fail to Conform to Standards The three existing apprenticeship programs did not conform to the Standards. The most significant flaw in both the painting and carpentry apprenticeships was that the apprentices did not receive the required hours of related academic instruction. Margaret Neal, an apprentice in painting, testified that she had no teacher for her academic work; C. Rollins, the painting instructor, gave no lectures. During the four and one-half years of her apprenticeship she was given but a single text to work with on her own. Neal testified that she exhausted this text in 1985 and had not since received new academic materials. Contrary to the Standards, see P.Ex. 9, classroom instruction was not given every year during the time that Neal was a painting apprentice. Testimony of Margaret Neal, July 21, 1986 at 29, 33. Academic instruction in carpentry did not begin until March 1986. Testimony of Linda Greene, July 21,1986 at 79-80; Testimony of Robert Blunden, July 21, 1986 at 44-50. In practice the carpentry instructor’s principal job was prison maintenance and construction. His energies were devoted primarily to fulfilling institutional needs including construction of the vocational building I ordered built. Blunden, id. at 43, 50-54. He had little time or desire to develop and teach the academic component of the apprenticeship. He did so only when asked by Williams. The timing of Williams’ request, March 1986, was no doubt influenced by the pendency of plaintiffs’ motion for contempt. Id. at 62. Linda Greene, a carpentry apprentice, testified that the on-the-job training component of the apprenticeship consisted principally of watching and helping the instructor do his work. Testimony of Linda Greene, July 21, 1986 at 78; Blunden, July 21, 1986 at 52-55. This work at times consisted of changing light-bulbs throughout the prison. Blunden, id. at 52-53. The instructor was so irked by the lightbulb-changing assignment that he pursued a grievance through his union. Id. at 53. The Department does not dispute the allegations concerning the painting and carpentry programs; rather it attempts to excuse noncompliance. First, the Department notes that none of the painting apprentices has completed the required total number of hours. Def.Resp. at 6, # 10. The point of this cryptic argument seems to be that the apprentices had plenty of time left to make up the missed academic work. By this logic a school boy should not complain when he is not taught reading and writing in first grade because he has all of elementary school, high school and college to learn how to read and write. Second, the Department makes a hyper-technical argument that the Standards merely recommend, but do not require, provision of 144 hours per year of related academic training. The passage cited by the Department appears on page 12 of the Standards. The heading on page 12 reads: “Check-List of Apprenticeship Fundamentals and Supplemental Program Information”. The cited language reads: “Provision for organized, related and supplemental instruction in technical subjects related to the trade. A minimum of 144 hours for each year is recommended.” P.Ex. 9 at 12 (emphasis added). I cannot agree that the Department can ignore the Standards’ “minimum recommendations” on apprenticeship “fundamentals.” The frivolousness of this argument becomes obvious upon examination of Section 13 of the Standards: The apprentice, during each year of her apprenticeship shall be required to attend not less than 144 hours of related supervised study and testing sessions. In case of failure of [sic] the part of any apprentice to fulfill the obligations, the Joint Apprenticeship Committee shall suspend or revoke her agreement. P.Ex. 9 at 6 (emphasis added). Clearly, if the apprentice is required to attend 144 per hours a year of related instruction, the Department is required to provide it. Moreover, there is no theory by which the Department can excuse its failure to provide any academic instruction in carpentry prior to March 1986. The dental assistant apprenticeship was one of the few programs that actually worked. There were two dental assistants indentured to the program. Mary Fournier, one of the apprentices, testified that the quality of the apprenticeship suffered until Dr. Smith was hired as the HVWF dentist in January 1986. Testimony of Mary Four-nier, July 21, 1986 at 11-13. At that time the quality of the program improved dramatically. Id. Fournier obtained substantial training during the short period of time she worked with Smith. Id. The Department, however, decided to discontinue the dental program after the two existing apprentices had been certified. The dental assistant apprenticeship requires apprentices to handle dental instruments and to perform procedures on patients under the supervision of a dentist. The apprentices also have access to inmate dental records. The Department contends that its own policies and the accreditation standards of the American Correctional Association (“ACA”) forbid inmates to possess surgical instruments, to perform medical procedures on fellow inmates, or to have access to inmate medical records. Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact at 5, #7. The proofs with respect to ACA standards are sketchy. There is testimony suggesting that the ACA conducted an audit at HVWF in October of 1984 and that the audit determined that the dental program violated ACA standards. Williams Dep., Mar. 26, 1986 at 110-15; Miller Dep., April 29, 1986 at 87-97, Ex. 1; Deposition of Dan Bolden (“Bolden Dep.”), Aug. 1, 1986 at 23-27, 47-52. Evidently, the Department pursued relief through the ACA and a second audit was conducted in December of 1984. Bolden Dep., id. The 1984 audit also found the dental program to violate ACA standards. Nonetheless in January 1985, HVWF’s accreditation was renewed. Miller Dep., id. at 94. Plaintiffs maintain that the ACA provides an exception to its standards to facilitate accredited vocational programs. They argue that the ACA found the dental program in violation primarily because the Department failed to provide adequate academic instruction. Williams Dep., Mar. 26, 1986 at 113-14. What evidence there is supports plaintiffs’ position. I accept that there may exist valid reasons why prisoners should not be permitted to possess surgical instruments or perform medical procedures on other inmates. I am troubled, however, by the way the Department approached this difficulty. The description of the dental apprenticeship in both the HVWF Standards, P.Ex. 9 at Appendix G, and the Standards of Apprenticeship for the Department, P.Ex. 10, clearly contemplates that the apprentices will use dental instruments and perform dental procedures. The Department raised no objection, not even with respect to its own policies, when these standards were promulgated in 1980 and again in 1983. Moreover, the Department did not seek relief in this court until plaintiffs’ contempt motion was brought nearly a year after the position of the ACA, according to the Department’s own factual account, became final. Rather than seek a modification of my order, the Department simply resolved to disobey it by discontinuing the program. Whereas the Department may be sincere in its belief that ACA standards prohibit it from providing an effective dental apprenticeship, its same position with respect to the medical records apprenticeship is disingenuous. The Department argues that it cannot provide an effective medical records program because its policy and ACA standards prohibit inmates from having access to other inmates’ medical records. Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact at 4, # 2. Without contesting the merits of the Department’s policy or the ACA standards, it is apparent to me that an effective medical records program can be offered without violating these policies. Unlike the dentistry program, there is no need to use actual inmate records. The Department may teach record-keeping skills with fictional files, actual records of deceased non-prisoners, or by redacting inmate files to assure anonymity. The Department’s attempt to bootstrap a possibly legitimate excuse for discontinuing the dental apprenticeship into an excuse for failing to provide an apprenticeship in medical records casts doubt on the Department’s credibility in relation to both programs. As of April 1987, the Department had failed to provide apprenticeships in accordance with my 1981 Order. Two of the five programs were not in operation; the remaining programs were fundamentally flawed, principally because the prisoners did not receive the required related instruction. Moreover, it was clear from my 1981 Order that the Department was to add new apprenticeships. This the Department clearly did not do. The opening of the Crane facility only heightened the Department’s obligation to provide additional programming. By April 1987 there were still no apprenticeships at Crane. E. Prison Industry, Trust Fund Payments and Wages In 1979, the Department operated prison industries at four men’s prisons. Prison industries did not exist at HVWF, the only women’s facility. I determined that female prisoners were entitled to participate in prison industries because the State chose to operate prison industries for its own benefit as well as the benefit of the inmates who would gain employment and rehabilita-Glover I, 478 F.Supp. at My 1981 Final Order required the Department to establish two prison industries, manufacture of license plate tabs and chair cushions, at HVWF by January 1982. My order did not require, or preclude, the creation of additional prison industries at HVWF. tion thereby. 1090-91. In 1979,1 determined that women prisoners assigned to institutional work details were paid less than male prisoners assigned to perform similar work at comparably sized institutions. Id. at 1091-92. I also noted that no position at HVWF was classified at the highest of the five prisoner pay levels. Id. at 1092. I did not find the Department’s wage classification system unconstitutional as applied; I did note, however, that the wage discrepancies between male and female prisoners required “serious attention.” My 1981 Final Order provided more concrete relief. It incorporated an Interim Order dated September 8, 1980. The 1980 Order established a trust fund (“Trust”), now known as the Judith Magid Trust Fund, to r