Voices from a Southern Prison

Compliance: Obstacles and Impact

Compliance: Obstacles and Impact Prison-reform litigation in America has been marked bymajorobstacles, both purposeful and unintended, to full compliance with federal court orders . In the Texas case, for example, state officials fiercely resisted any changes that limited the discretion of security personnel.1 Recalcitrant state officials in Alabama erected similar obstacles to compliance with Judge Frank Johnson’s orders.2 The Georgia litigation, while also dogged by delays in implementing the consent decree approved by Judge Anthony Alaimo, featured state officials who were largely willing to comply with the order but were hampered by unforeseen events and the complexity of achieving systemic reform in a prison system.3 The process of implementing the prison consent decree in Kentucky bore a great resemblance to the Georgia experience, in that state officials who were prepared, even eager, to comply with the order met obstacles almost immediately. In the first few weeks after Judge Edward Johnstone signed the consent decree, Commissioner George Wilson moved quickly to begin complying 146 with the state’s agreement because he believed the decree’s requirements were appropriate policy for the prison system. The new budget contained sufficient funding to pay for the first two-year phase of renovation. Wilson also directed corrections personnel to begin work on the other, nonconstruction aspects of the decree. Just as in anything, nothing works any better than the degree of support it gets from the top. The bureau at that time recognized that they did have my support, and that we were going to do it, and we were fully committed to it. We set about putting in place a mechanism that would be ongoing in terms of monitoring and contact with the lawyers, making sure that when disputes or conflicts would occur that we would get a handle on it on the front end rather than letting it turn into a major issue. We had the person in charge of monitoring working out of our lawyers’ office. Through his contacts and his ongoing involvement, he gave the system a degree of sensitivity that caused it to respond and react appropriately. He knew many of the issues affecting the inmates. He had a sensitivity to some of those issues that the average person wouldn’t have. The administration embraced the idea that the consent decree was necessary under the circumstances, that a higher level of commitment was necessary to put the system in constitutional compliance. The governor was aware of all the circumstances. Governor Brown was sensitive to correctional issues. [Funding for compliance] was built into the budget, which the legislature also recognized as an area of considerable need. Wilson set the policy for Kentucky prisons: the consent decree is the law, and we will obey it. He told his top administrators to treat it as a road map to steer the prisons. Despite all the complexities of the thirty-fivepage document, Wilson’s central message to corrections personnel was clear: they were merely implementing the law. In budgeting, managing, and hiring, all decisions were driven by the decree. Wilson and his top executive staff—budget director, legal counsel, and deputy commissioners —broke the consent decree down into areas and set priorities according to agreed timetables. Among the first obligations to be met were a 20 percent salary increase for guards and the hiring of additional guards and program staff. The executive staff members checked off all the people who had to be hired, position by position, then allocated funding from the Compliance: Obstacles and Impact 147 budget for those new positions. Wilson and his advisers immediately set in motion the implementation of these priorities. Written plans were also a necessity. One of the major problems at Eddyville and KSR was the lack of plans for prison operations, so that response to problems was often tardy or nonexistent and was never preventive . The consent decree mandated written plans for proper building maintenance, fire prevention and evacuation, provision of meals with adequate nutrition, proper medical care, and so forth. Wilson also set major construction projects in motion. The dorms and cells at KSR and Eddyville were in a state of ruin, and a centerpiece of the consent decree was renovation of both prisons. The consent decree required the state to renovate one of KSR’s eight open dorms per year over the next eight years, divide the dorms into single rooms, and...