Rasho Settlement Agreement

“We are pleased that the judge is addressing this important issue by forcing the Corrections Department to respect the comparison. It is appalling that a year after the monitor informed the IDOC that his psychiatric care was in a state of emergency, the department still has no intention of repairing it,” said Alan Mills, lawyer and general manager of Uptown People`s Law Center. It is clear that IDOC wants to manage its prisons without responsibility. It relies on people not taking enough care of prisoners to investigate conditions of detention and force the ministry to improve them to meet constitutional standards. Dr. Sim was responsible for developing and implementing a mental health quality assurance process. Dr. Sims` trial includes an audit tool and a mechanism to enable prisons to take corrective action. Dr. Sim described two separate audit processes: (1) internal audits conducted by the psychologist administrator or a social worker in the institution; and (2) external audits conducted quarterly by regional managers. Dr. Sim explained that his review identified 315 “problem statements.” Problem statements are “deviations” from the transaction contract, standard operating procedures or administrative guidelines. (ECF 2375 to 125). These problem statements are then categorized into four broad categories. (ECF 2375, 126-128).

The audit uses these statements when conducting its review as follows: (ECF 97 to 1-2). In addition, on May 6, 2011, the Court adopted a decision continuing formal investigative efforts, while the parties established an expert opinion and the parties negotiated a possible transaction. (ECF 98 to 2). On 7 May 2012, the parties submitted, on the instruction of the Court of Justice, a report on the progress of the work, out of the efforts made to promote a possible transaction and a possible order of approval. (ECF 117). The following day, a status conference was held, during which the parties expressed their constant desire to work towards a solution. (entry to the minute of 08.05.2012). At that time, the Court of Justice set the question for a new status conference on 16 August 2012. This status conference took place and the parties stressed during the hearing that “significant progress” had been made in the regulation.

(entry to the minute of 16.08.2012). The issue was again settled for a status conference on 13 September 2012. On 12 September 2012, the applicants submitted a State of the Union report detailing the efforts made under the approval decree and identifying areas where there was a conflict.