Input:
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 1 of 36 - Page ID#: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
At FRANKFORT

[Filed Electronically]

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (for injunctive relief only) Serve: Jack Conway
Office of the Attorney General 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
KENTUCKY JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET (for injunctive relief only) Serve: J. Michael Brown
Office of the Secretary 125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601-2108
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (for injunctive relief only) Serve: LaDonna Thompson
Office of the Commissioner Kentucky Department of Corrections 275 East Main Frankfort, KY 40601-2321
J. MICHAEL BROWN, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Serve: Office of the Secretary
125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601-2108
LADONNA THOMPSON, individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. _____________ ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

X:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\GOODMANS\DESKTOP\COMPLAINT.DOCX

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 2 of 36 - Page ID#: 2

Serve: Office of the Commissioner

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

KIMBERLY POTTER-BLAIR, individually and

)

in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner

)

of Support Services of the Kentucky Department

)

of Corrections

)

Serve: Office of the Deputy Commissioner of

)

Support Services

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

PAULA HOLDEN, individually and in her

)

official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of

)

Community Services of the Kentucky Department

)

of Corrections

)

Serve: Office of the Deputy Commissioner of

)

Community Services

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

JIM ERWIN, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Adult

)

Institutions of the Kentucky Department of

)

Corrections

)

Serve: Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

Education Branch

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

RANDY WHITE, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Kentucky State

)

Penitentiary

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky State Penitentiary

)

266 Water Street

)

Eddyville, KY 42038

)

2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 3 of 36 - Page ID#: 3

GREGORY HOWARD, individually and in his

)

official capacity as Warden of the Luther Luckett

)

Correctional Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Luther Luckett Correctional Complex

)

Dawkins Road, Box 6

)

LaGrange, KY 40031

)

)

CLARK TAYLOR, individually and in his official

)

capacity of Warden of the Kentucky State

)

Reformatory

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky State Reformatory

)

3001 West Highway 146

)

LaGrange, KY 40032

)

)

Defendants.

)

COMPLAINT

1. This is a class action lawsuit based on the willful and deliberate refusal of the

Defendants to comply with federal laws protecting the rights of the Plaintiffs, who are deaf or

hard of hearing individuals in the custody of Defendant Kentucky Department of Corrections

(“KDOC”).

2. The state agencies, entities, and officials named as Defendants in this case have

failed to comply with federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 12131 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and the Constitution of the

United States.

3. Through their policies and practices, Defendants discriminate against deaf and

hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody. They have done this by denying deaf and hard

of hearing individuals in their custody adequate and equally effective means of communication

with individuals outside of prison—including effective communications between the Plaintiffs

and their loved ones. Defendants have also failed to provide adequate access to other auxiliary

aids and services necessary to accommodate deaf and hard of hearing individuals in a variety of

3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 4 of 36 - Page ID#: 4
settings, including in connection with educational, religious, healthcare, and rehabilitative programs. Defendants also refuse to provide deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC custody with adequate notification of important daily events and safety announcements, or to provide adequate interpretative services at disciplinary hearings. Additionally, Defendants have discriminated against inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing in work assignments.
4. As a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices, deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and care:
• have been prevented from effectively communicating by telephone with family, friends, and attorneys outside of prison;
• have been unable to receive necessary and adequate medical treatment; • have missed prison-wide safety announcements, prison counts, and
announcements for meals and other important daily activities; • have been excluded from participation in educational and counseling programs
offered by KDOC, including those required under the terms of their sentencing; • have been unable to and discouraged from attending standard religious services
due to inadequate accommodations; • have been discriminated against in work assignments; • have been denied the ability to meaningfully participate and defend themselves in
disciplinary hearings; and • have been prevented from learning a trade and receiving educational and
industrial credits that could reduce their overall incarceration time. 5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages from the individual Defendants named herein in their individual capacities, on their own behalf and on behalf of the
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 5 of 36 - Page ID#: 5
class of all deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody for the harms they have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the Defendants’ discrimination.
I. JURISDICTION 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question).
II. VENUE 7. Venue is proper in this District, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because all Defendants reside in this District in Kentucky, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to claims herein occurred within this District.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 8. Named Plaintiff Michael Knights (“Mr. Knights”), inmate # 233021, has a hearing disability and is currently incarcerated at Kentucky State Penitentiary (“KSP”), and under KDOC’s custody and control. 9. Named Plaintiff Oscar Adams (“Mr. Adams”), inmate # 243676, has a hearing disability and is currently incarcerated at Kentucky State Reformatory (“KSR”), and under KDOC’s custody and control. 10. Mr. Knights is profoundly deaf, and has been deaf since birth. Mr. Knights is educated and relies on American Sign Language (“ASL”) to communicate. To further his education, Mr. Knights is currently trying to pursue a GED within the KDOC system. Mr. Knights requires a sign language interpreter to effectively communicate with persons who do not know ASL, and due to his deafness cannot use a standard telephone. 11. Mr. Adams is profoundly deaf, and has been deaf since birth. Mr. Adams relies on American Sign Language (“ASL”) to communicate. Mr. Adams attended and successfully
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 6 of 36 - Page ID#: 6
graduated from the Kentucky School for the Deaf in 1999. Mr. Adams cannot use a standard telephone and requires an interpreter to communicate with those who are not proficient in ASL.
B. Defendants 1. State Agencies
12. KDOC is the Kentucky state agency responsible for the operation of 12 correctional facilities. KDOC is a division of Defendant the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet (“the Cabinet”), which in turn is a governmental subdivision of Defendant the Commonwealth of Kentucky. KDOC’s Mission Statement is: To protect the citizens of the Commonwealth and to provide a safe, secure and humane environment for staff and offenders in carrying out the mandates of the legislative and judicial processes; and, to provide opportunities for offenders to acquire skills which facilitate non-criminal behavior.
2. Individuals 13. J. Michael Brown is Secretary of the Cabinet, is responsible for the training and supervision of employees of the Cabinet and the KDOC, and is responsible for their recognition of and compliance with Kentucky laws. 14. LaDonna H. Thompson is the Commissioner of the KDOC and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of KDOC. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals. 15. Kimberly Potter-Blair is the Deputy Commissioner of Support Services of the KDOC and is responsible for administrative services, corrections training, budget management, offender information, information technology, population management, and re-entry branch. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 7 of 36 - Page ID#: 7
16. Paula Holden is the Deputy Commissioner of Community Services of the KDOC and is responsible for the oversight of KDOC’s Probation & Parole Division and Local Facilities. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
17. Jim Erwin is the Deputy Commissioner of Adult Institutions of the KDOC and is responsible for the oversight of KDOC’s Adult Institutions Division. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
18. Randy White is the Warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary (“KSP”). KSP is a maximum and supermax security correctional facility located in Eddyville, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1889. Upon information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at KSP. As Warden, Mr. White is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of KSP, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at KSP regarding the violation of their rights.
19. Gregory Howard is the Warden of the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (“LLCC”). LLCC is a minimum and medium security correctional facility located in LaGrange, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1981. Upon information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at LLCC. As Warden, Mr. Howard is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of LLCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at LLCC regarding the violation of their rights.
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 8 of 36 - Page ID#: 8
20. Clark Taylor is the Warden of the Kentucky State Reformatory (“KSR”). KSR is a medium security correctional facility located in LaGrange, Kentucky. The facility was established in 1936. Upon information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at KSR.As Warden, Mr. Taylor is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of KSR, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at KSR regarding the violation of their rights.
21. Defendants Brown, Thompson, Potter-Blair, Holden, Erwin, White, Howard and Taylor (“the Individual Defendants”) are all state actors, acting under color of Kentucky statutes and regulation in all activities relevant to this action.
IV. FACTS 22. For years, KDOC has failed to provide the deaf and hard of hearing inmates housed at its facilities the accommodations that are required by the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”). In January 2013, Plaintiff Michael Knights and other deaf and hard of hearing inmates at LLCC retained the services of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil”) and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (“WLC”) to assist them in obtaining the lacking accommodations. Attorneys at Weil and the WLC first began to raise these matters with the KDOC, LLCC, and KSR in May 2013, through correspondence with the KDOC’s Commissioner, Ms. Thompson, and the two correctional facilities’ wardens, Messrs. Howard and Taylor, respectively. 23. Defendants are aware of their obligations under state and federal laws. Nevertheless, Defendants have not remedied their past pattern and practice of discrimination and
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 9 of 36 - Page ID#: 9
continue to discriminate against deaf and hard of hearing individuals, resulting in disabilitybased discrimination in at least five different areas: (A) ineffective access to telecommunications; (B) ineffective access to auxiliary aids and services; (C) ineffective access to prison alerts and announcements; (D) ineffective communication during disciplinary proceedings; and (E) inadequate access to prison vocational opportunities.
A. Ineffective Access to Telecommunications 24. KDOC provides hearing individuals in its custody access to telecommunications services in order for them to communicate with family, friends, and other individuals outside of prison. 25. As the federal government has recognized, “[t]elephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining community and family ties that will contribute to an inmate’s personal development.” 28 C.F.R. § 540.100. Telephone and other forms of telecommunication are very important to individuals in KDOC’s custody because they foster the family and community ties that are fundamental to motivate incarcerated individuals to improve themselves and to prepare them to make a positive transition back to civilian life once their sentence is complete. 26. Because of their disability, most deaf and hard of hearing KDOC inmates cannot use traditional telephones to communicate with individuals outside of prison.
1. Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs) 27. Some KDOC facilities, including KSR and KSP, provide deaf individuals in their custody with limited access to telecommunications devices for the deaf, or “TDDs”. TDDs are electronic devices for text communication via a telephone line to enable people with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by telephone. Based on fifty-year-old technology, the TDD is basically a telephone equipped with a keyboard and a display screen. To communicate with
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 10 of 36 - Page ID#: 10
the deaf, the user of a TDD must type out everything that is said in a conversation. A TDD is effectively useless if both parties to a conversation do not have TDD devices. In other words, a deaf person with a TDD device cannot communicate with other deaf individuals who do not have TDD devices.
28. With special assistance (i.e., a relay service), deaf TDD users can communicate with hearing persons. Relay services are federally-mandated services that operate as follows: the party using the TDD places a call to a relay center, and a relay operator answers the call using another TDD. The caller provides the operator with the phone number of the party with whom they wish to communicate, and the operator places the call. When a hearing person answers the phone, the relay operator explains the relay service and states the name of the caller. The responses of the hearing person are typed by the relay operator into a TDD, and transmitted over the telephone lines to the TDD user. The call proceeds with the relay operator voicing what the TDD user types to the hearing person receiving the call, and typing what the hearing person speaks. The process can also work the other way—a hearing person who has no TDD can call deaf individuals from a traditional telephone by using the relay service.
29. The relay service is free of cost to the users and the caller pays only for the cost of the call to the party with whom the caller wishes to converse. To connect to a relay services center, an individual can either dial “711” from anywhere within the United States or dial the toll-free “800” number of the relay service in the caller’s locality. Accordingly, TDD relay services in Kentucky may be accessed either by calling 711 or by calling Kentucky’s toll-free relay service number.
30. For the most part, deaf individuals in the United States who use ASL have abandoned the 50-year-old TDD technology and now utilize up-to-date and much more
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 11 of 36 - Page ID#: 11
convenient videophones. For those deaf individuals still using a TDD, it is impossible to communicate with a videophone user.
31. On information and belief, KSR has at least one TDD; however, deaf and hard of hearing individuals incarcerated at KSR are repeatedly denied access to it. On information and belief, KSP and LLCC similarly have at least (and likely only) one TDD which deaf and hard of hearing inmates are also frequently denied access.
32. In those rare instances when deaf and hard of hearing individuals are granted access to the TDD it is ordinarily, yet inexplicably, for a shorter period of time than they would have on a normal phone. This is especially detrimental where, as here, the conversations are necessarily slower and more drawn out given the drawbacks of the technology.
33. KSR has never addressed the problem related to the resultant inequality when it comes to TDD use.
2. Videophones 34. Videophones and free or low-cost internet-based video links (collectively, “videophones”) are (and have been for quite some time) replacing TDDs among deaf people because they allow deaf individuals to communicate with one another directly in ASL, without having to communicate through written English (an effectively foreign language, that is especially difficult for many deaf persons to communicate in) and without the use of relay services. When using a videophone, callers can see each other, usually over an internet connection. As a result, many deaf households no longer own a TDD and have no way to accept a TDD call, as they rely exclusively on videophones for telecommunication. 35. Deaf individuals using videophones can also call a Video Relay Service (“VRS”) to place calls to people who do not understand ASL or do not have a videophone. The mechanics of VRS are very similar to those of traditional TDD relay service–the caller is routed
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 12 of 36 - Page ID#: 12
to an interpreter, the caller gives the interpreter the number of the party he is trying to reach, and the interpreter then interprets the conversation into spoken English.
36. Videophones and VRS permit deaf people to use ASL instead of having to carry out every telephone call in written English through a TDD. Due to the fact that TDDs rely on written communications, they are by nature an unsatisfactory and ineffective means of communication for many deaf individuals. Writing usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual. Many deaf individuals who became deaf before acquiring language skills consider ASL to be their native language and English to be their second language. Additionally, many deaf people acquire English as their second language much later in life. Therefore, the English reading and writing skill level of many deaf individuals, including those incarcerated at KDOC institutions, is generally much lower than that of hearing people.
37. Provision of videophones would also ensure that deaf inmates could place telephone calls to deaf family and friends, the vast majority of whom no longer have TDD devices.
38. Deaf individuals in Defendants’ custody have repeatedly requested videophone access, but have been denied this access.
a. Videophones at KSP 39. There are deaf inmates at KSP who use ASL and who are denied effective telecommunication services due to the failure of KSP to provide videophone services to them. 40. Plaintiff Michael Knights cannot communicate with his friends and family who have videophones but not TDD. Without the videophone, it virtually impossible for Mr. Knights to contact his sister, his daughter, his daughter’s mother, and his friends. 41. Plaintiff Michael Knights filed a formal Grievance with Warden White to specifically request access to videophones. Warden White stated in his first stage response that
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 13 of 36 - Page ID#: 13
the TDD system provides effective communication because Mr. Knights can call his legal counsel. Despite Mr. Knights’ ability to call his legal counsel using TDD, it is still inadequate because Mr. Knights cannot effectively communicate with his family and friends. Additionally, deaf inmates at KSP have extremely restricted and an unacceptable level of access to the TDD, especially in relation to hearing inmates’ access to standard telephones.
b. Videophones at KSR 42. There are deaf inmates at KSR who use ASL and who are denied effective telecommunication services due to the failure of KSR to provide videophone services to them. 43. Plaintiff Oscar Adams cannot communicate with his friends and family on the outside given the lack of videophone services. In particular, Mr. Adams is very close to his mother, but cannot communicate with her because she only has a videophone. Unfortunately, Mr. Adams cannot even communicate with his mother in person because the evolution of her fight with lupus prevents her now from visiting him. Mr. Adams is allowed to use the TDD service just once a week for 10-15 minutes.
c. Videophones at LLCC 44. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Michael Knights, filed a formal Grievance with Warden Howard to address the unequal treatment afforded to deaf inmates with respect to the phone system and specifically requested access to videophones. On September 20, 2012, Warden Howard dismissed the request on the basis that Mr. Knights and other deaf inmates are not mistreated because they can use the TDD. 45. On information and belief, despite the initial refusal, LLCC eventually understood, at least in part, the significant unconstitutional hardships it was placing on its deaf inmates and, at least provisionally, installed a videophone.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 14 of 36 - Page ID#: 14
46. On information and belief, to the extent that videophone is still accessible to deaf inmates at LLCC it is available on unnecessarily and unconstitutionally restrictive terms – including prohibitively short periods of time.
d. Videophones at other KDOC Facilities 47. Additionally, there are at least some hearing inmates housed at LLCC who have deaf family on the outside. These individuals can only communicate with their deaf family on an irregular basis. 48. Upon information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied equal and consistent access to telecommunication services at those facilities. B. Inadequate Access to Auxiliary Aids and Services 49. Individuals in the custody of KDOC are by necessity wholly dependent on KDOC for medical, dental, educational, mental health, employment, and religious services, among other services. Individuals in the custody of KDOC are also dependent on KDOC and its staff for all of their basic daily needs, including food, exercise, and safety.
1. Sign Language Interpreter Services 50. For deaf or hard of hearing individuals who rely on ASL as their primary form of communication, use of a qualified ASL interpreter is necessary to ensure effective communication between a deaf or hard of hearing individual and an individual who does not use ASL to communicate. 51. A qualified sign language interpreter is necessary because ASL is a complete, complex language that employs signs made with the hands and other movements, including facial expressions and postures of the body. It is a language distinct from English—it is not
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 15 of 36 - Page ID#: 15
simply English in hand signals-it has its own vocabulary, and its own rules for grammar and syntax.
52. As noted above, writing usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual. English is generally considered a second language for most deaf persons who became deaf before acquiring language—ASL is their native language. Also, several deaf people acquire English as their second language later in life, past the critical period of language acquisition. Therefore, the English reading and writing skill level of many deaf individuals, including those incarcerated in KDOC facilities, is generally much lower than that of hearing people.
53. Lip-reading usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual and is generally far less effective than written communication. It is extremely difficult to lip-read English because only a small fraction of the sounds used in the language are clearly visible on the mouth, and many sounds that are visible look identical on the lips. In addition to these difficulties in lip-reading, the ability to accurately lip-read is affected by the speaker’s facial bone structure, facial musculature, facial hair, lighting, and other external factors. Moreover, even if an ASL user were able to understand the sounds appearing on a speaker’s lips, for the reasons discussed above she would not necessarily understand the English language or the vocabulary the speaker was using.
54. Thus, the provision of qualified sign language interpreter services is the auxiliary service necessary to allow deaf individuals who use ASL in KDOC’s custody and under KDOC’s supervision to effectively communicate with KDOC officials, KDOC employees, and medical personnel.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 16 of 36 - Page ID#: 16
55. Defendants, through their policies and practices, fail to provide adequate access to sign language interpreters for deaf individuals in KDOC’s custody and control and under KDOC’s supervision.
56. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate access to sign language interpreters at KDOC facilities throughout Kentucky.
a. Interpreters for Access to Medical Services 57. Defendants are responsible for the medical care of all individuals incarcerated by KDOC. 58. Deaf individuals who rely on ASL require sign language interpreters to communicate effectively with medical staff. 59. After receiving numerous written requests, Defendants are aware that deaf individuals need sign language interpreters for their medical appointments. 60. Nonetheless, deaf inmates at LLCC are still denied interpreter services at medical appointments. 61. Deaf inmates at facilities other than LLCC, including those housed at KSR and KSP, are consistently denied interpreter services for medical appointments. Mr. Adams, an inmate at KSR, has been denied access to interpreters for medical appointments despite known and serious medical conditions.
b. Interpreters for Access to Administrative Meetings 62. Defendants provide educational, mental health and counseling programs for individuals in KDOC’s custody. 63. Interpreters are not provided by Defendants for such programs, including for educational classes and for religious ceremonies. The same holds true for KSP, KSR and LLCC.
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 17 of 36 - Page ID#: 17
c. Interpreters for Access to Prison Programs 64. Interpreters are not provided by Defendants for meetings between prison employees and inmates. 65. Mr. Adams was denied an ASL qualified interpreter at his reclassification meeting at KSR.
2. Other Auxiliary Aids and Services 66. For deaf and hard of hearing inmates who do not use ASL, other auxiliary aids and services are necessary to ensure their effective participation in and understanding of Defendants’ services and programs. 67. Computer Assisted Real Time (“CART”) is a system that provides access to spoken information for people with hearing loss. CART operators use a court reporting machine to input spoken text. The output of the court reporting machine is fed to a computer, which produces a text document that corresponds very closely to the words used by the speaker. Once in the computer, the text can be displayed on a computer monitor (for one or two users) or projected onto a screen (for more users.) CART is generally the system of choice for latedeafened people attending classes or meetings. 68. An Assistive Listening Device or System (“ALDS”) can be any one of several technologies that are used to improve the reception of speech for people with impaired hearing, including Mr. Adams, when it might be difficult or impossible to hear otherwise. 69. Thus, CART and/or ALDS is necessary to allow certain deaf or hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and under KDOC’s supervision to effectively understand and participate in KDOC programs and services.
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 18 of 36 - Page ID#: 18
70. Defendants, through their policies and practices, fail to provide adequate access to CART or ALDS for deaf or hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and control and under KDOC’s supervision.
71. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate access to CART or ALDS at KDOC facilities throughout Kentucky.
a. Auxiliary Aids and Services at KSP 72. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at KSP are unconstitutionally denied the conveniences of effectively all auxiliary aids and services.
b. Auxiliary Aids and Services at KSR 73. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at KSR have been denied effective access to programs, such as stress management, anger management and educational classes, due to the lack of any system of providing them with effective communication, such as CART and/or ALDS.
c. Auxiliary Aids and Services at LLCC 74. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at LLCC have also been denied educational opportunities, such as classes to achieve a General Educational Development (“GED”) degree, due to the lack of any system of providing them with effective communication, such as CART and/or ALDS. 75. For example, Mr. Knights, while incarcerated at LLCC, had attempted to complete his GED, but was unable to because of the inadequate accommodations for the deaf.
d. Auxiliary Aids and Services at other KDOC Facilities 76. Upon information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied auxiliary aids and services at those facilities.
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 19 of 36 - Page ID#: 19
C. Access to Visual Notification of Announcements 77. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates throughout KDOC institutions have difficulty in accessing public address and other audio alerts and announcements available to other inmates.
1. Visual Notification at LLCC 78. Because deaf and hard of hearing inmates have been unable to hear daily announcements made by LLCC staff, such as announcements requiring inmates to report to their cells for head counts, special accommodations are necessary to assure that the deaf inmates are aware of the announcements. Often times the deaf are punished for failing to abide by such announcements; however, the deaf inmates are not ignoring the announcements, rather they are unaware such announcements were ever made. 79. LLCC does on occasion use bed shakers for awakening deaf inmates in the morning. However, the extent of even this minimal convenience is insufficient and does not address the numerous other accommodations that must be provided to assure that deaf inmates are apprised of prison announcements, emergencies, and roll calls.
2. Visual Notification at KSP 80. KSP also only provides minimal, if any, visual accommodations to deaf inmates. There is no paging system or other system to adequately notify deaf inmates of public announcements.
3. Visual Notification at KSR 81. KSR also only provides minimal visual accommodations to deaf inmates and does not provide any type of paging system or other adequate notifications of public announcements.
4. Visual Notification at Other KDOC Facilities 82. Upon information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied visual notification of announcements at those facilities.
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 20 of 36 - Page ID#: 20
D. Failure to Provide Effective Communication at Disciplinary Proceedings 83. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates are subjected to disciplinary proceedings without effective communication. 84. Although they are punished, many of these inmates do not understand the charges against them or the parameters of their punishment. Moreover, the inmates are denied the ability to defend themselves when they cannot hear what is happening during the hearings. 85. When inmates violate rules and regulations of LLCC, KSP, and KSR, they undergo disciplinary proceedings conducted by hearing officers. During these proceedings, the inmates have an opportunity to defend themselves, to hear the allegations against them, and to understand the parameters of their punishment. 86. KDOC, LLCC, KSP, KSR, and their agents are denying the deaf and hard of hearing inmates full due process by failing to provide appropriate auxiliary services, interpreters, or other means of interpretation. 87. The deaf and hard of hearing inmates are subjected to these proceedings without understanding what is happening during the hearings. Because they are denied interpreters and/or assistive listening devices or other auxiliary aids or services the inmates are unable to hear the adjudicator(s), the allegations against them, or any of the results of the proceeding. They are disciplined without complete knowledge of the claims against them or the length of their punishment. E. Access to Employment Opportunities 88. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates are, solely because of their disabilities, routinely denied employment opportunities within KDOC facilities. Further they are denied training opportunities.
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 21 of 36 - Page ID#: 21
89. On information and belief, deaf inmates at KSP, KSR and LLCC have been discriminated against in their efforts to participate fully and fairly in both training and employment opportunities in “Prison Industries.”
90. Upon information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied the same opportunities.
91. Defendants’ failure to provide its deaf and hard of hearing inmates with access to telecommunication devices and services, effective communication within KDOC institutions, access to announcements and alerts within the KDOC institutions, and access to employment opportunities within KDOC institutions, has resulted in harm, and may result in future harm, to deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC custody. It also violates their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the United States Constitution.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF A DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. § 12131 ET SEQ.)
(Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals)
92. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
93. On July 12, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (l). Title II of the ADA states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 22 of 36 - Page ID#: 22
denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
94. Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with a disability within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
95. The claims under the ADA are brought against the Defendants as departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of the State of Kentucky.
96. Defendants are each a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) (B).
97. At all times relevant to this action, the ADA was in full force and effect in the United States and Plaintiffs had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by the Defendants. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
98. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regulation implementing Title II of the ADA clearly requires the provision of effective communication as part of its nondiscrimination mandate. 28 C.F.R. 35.160.
99. The regulation states that “[a] public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public . . . With disabilities are as effective as communications with others.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a).
100. Defendants’ failure to provide effective communication for individuals with hearing disabilities denied and continues to deny, on the basis of their disability, Plaintiffs the same access to Defendants’ services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges as the access provided to hearing individuals.
101. Plaintiffs have been unable to communicate effectively by telephone with individuals outside of prison, unable to participate in educational, mental health, employment,
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 23 of 36 - Page ID#: 23
disciplinary, and other KDOC services, and unable to learn of daily life and safety alert and other notifications as effectively as hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody.
102. In order to ensure effective communication, the ADA requires that “a public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford qualified individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b) (l).
103. Auxiliary aids and services include, but are not limited to, “qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments,” 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and close captioning, TDDs, videophones, and videotext displays. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
104. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination solely on the basis of their disability, in violation of their rights under the ADA. They have done this by failing to provide effective communication, and by not ensuring that adequate access to qualified sign language interpreter services and other auxiliary aids and services is made available to individuals with hearing impairments in KDOC’s custody or under KDOC supervision.
105. In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, “a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. §160(b) (2).
106. Defendants have failed to give consideration to Plaintiffs’ requests, in most instances flat out denying them their requests for videophone services, or providing unfairly limited access to such services, for visual alert and notification systems, for interpreter services, and for other auxiliary aids and services.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 24 of 36 - Page ID#: 24
107. On information and belief, the failure to provide effective communication and the failure to provide comparable access to services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges are policies, regular practices, and/or customs of Defendants. These failures are ongoing and continue to this date.
108. Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services has subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of their rights under the ADA, in ways that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. inadequate access to sign language interpreters and other appropriate auxiliary aids and services to enable them to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ programs; b. inadequate access to prison audio alerts and notifications; and c. inadequate access to telecommunication devices. 109. The DOJ regulation implementing Title II of the ADA also requires that public entities, either directly or indirectly through other contractual or private arrangements, provide disabled individuals with the same opportunities to participate and benefit from services as is afforded to other individuals. 28 C.F.R. 35.160. 110. The regulation states, in relevant portion, that “[a] public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability—(i) [d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service; (ii) [a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others.” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(i)‒(ii). 111. Defendants are in violation of this regulation directly and indirectly through private entities, by refusing to permit certain deaf and hard of hearing inmates to participate in vocational and employment opportunities because of their hearing disabilities.
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 25 of 36 - Page ID#: 25
112. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion (including exclusion from Defendants’ services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges), violations of their rights under the laws of the United States, financial loss, loss of dignity, frustration, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, trauma, embarrassment, and unnecessary loss of rights and privileges, including unnecessary disciplinary measures.
113. Defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA has resulted, and will continue to result, in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in the custody or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to use or avail themselves of the services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges of the Defendants. This harm will continue unless and until the Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to the policies, practices, and procedures of KDOC pursuant to the ADA.
COUNT II Discrimination on the Basis of a Disability in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C.
§ 794 et seq.) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 114. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 115. The purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is to ensure that no “qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of [] disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 116. Plaintiffs are qualified “individual[s] with a disability” within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20).
25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 26 of 36 - Page ID#: 26
117. Defendants receive “Federal financial assistance” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
118. The operations of KDOC and Defendants are “program[s] or activit[ies]” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(l)(A)‒(B) and/or (b)(2)(B).
119. At all times relevant to this action, the Rehabilitation Act was in full force and effect in the United States and Plaintiffs had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by defendants. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
120. The DOJ regulation implementing the Rehabilitation Act clarifies the requirements for Federal financial recipients, including correctional facilities, stating that “[a] recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall provide appropriate auxiliary aids to qualified handicapped persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills where a refusal to make such provision would discriminatorily impair or exclude the persons in the program receiving federal financial assistance.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f).
121. Appropriate auxiliary aids include, but are not limited to, “qualified interpreters . . . and telephonic devices.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f).
122. Defendants discriminatorily impaired Plaintiffs’ ability to communicate effectively with medical personnel, prison staff, and individuals outside of prison and/or excluded Plaintiffs from educational, vocational, and prison-wide announcements. They have done this by failing to provide appropriate auxiliary aids in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
123. Defendant’s failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services for individuals with hearing disabilities denied and continues to deny, on the basis of their disabilities, Plaintiffs the same access to Defendant’s services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges as the access provided to hearing individuals.
26

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 27 of 36 - Page ID#: 27
124. On information and belief, the failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services and the failure to provide comparable access to services, benefits, activities, programs or privileges are policies, regular practices, and/or customs of Defendants. These failures are ongoing and continue to this date.
125. Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services has subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of their rights under the Rehabilitation Act, in ways that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. inadequate access to appropriate auxiliary aids and services to enable them to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ programs; b. inadequate access to prison alerts and announcements; and c. inadequate access to telecommunication devices. 126. Defendants have also violated Section 504 and its implementing regulation by excluding inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing from Defendants’ employment and vocational benefits and opportunities. 28 C.F.R. 42.503(a). 127. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, from discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion (including exclusion from defendant’s services, benefits, activities, programs, and requirements), financial loss, loss of dignity, frustration, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, trauma, embarrassment, unnecessary loss of rights and privileges, including unnecessary disciplinary measures, and injury to their health. 128. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rehabilitation Act has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for harm suffered. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rehabilitation Act will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in the custody or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to
27

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 28 of 36 - Page ID#: 28
use or avail themselves of the services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges of Defendants. This harm will continue unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act.
COUNT III Violation of Free Speech Rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 129. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 130. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, States “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amends. I. 131. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action when a “person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 132. The Individual Defendants are state actors, acting under color of Kentucky statutes and regulation in all activities relevant to this action, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their freedom of speech, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by preventing Plaintiffs from communicating with people outside of the prison. Despite multiple complaints in writing to KDOC, KDOC through the official actions of the Individual Defendants, has denied
28

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 29 of 36 - Page ID#: 29
and continues to deny Plaintiffs access to telecommunication devices that would give them the ability and opportunity to communicate with people outside of prison.
COUNT IV Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 “Substantial
Burden on Religious Exercise” (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 133. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 134. Governments may not impose substantial burdens on the religious exercises of institutionalized persons even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 135. Plaintiffs are “institutionalized persons” within the meaning of The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. 136. As a department, agency, or instrumentality of Kentucky, LLCC and KSR are government within the meaning of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4). 137. KDOC and the Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by unlawfully imposing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. They have done this by failing to provide interpreters or other means for enabling Plaintiffs to effectively communicate at weekly worship services. The substantial burden defendants have imposed on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise affects programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. 138. Defendants’ failure to comply with RLUIPA has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in KDOC’s custody and continue to be deprived of participation in weekly worship services unless and until
29

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 30 of 36 - Page ID#: 30
Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to KDOC policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to RLUIPA.
COUNT V Violation of the United States Constitution Free Exercise of Religion: First and Fourteenth
Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 139. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 140. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. 141. Defendants have, in their individual and official capacities, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their free exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by discriminating against Plaintiffs because of their mode of speech and by substantially burdening their religious exercise. 142. Defendants’ failure to comply with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be denied adequate weekly worship services unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
30

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 31 of 36 - Page ID#: 31
COUNT VI Violation of the United States Constitution Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment:
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 143. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 144. Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, “[e]excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amends. VIII. 145. Defendants have, in their individual and official capacities, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as secured by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. 146. Defendants have systematically denied Plaintiffs access to basic human services and vital information during their incarceration. Defendants have failed to notify Plaintiffs of prison alerts, announcements, and safety instructions. Defendants refuse to provide Plaintiffs with individual hearing devices. Moreover, Defendants have not provided effective communication between Plaintiffs and prison officials and medical staff. Defendants’ actions place Plaintiffs at a substantial risk of serious future harm. 147. Defendants have actual knowledge of the unconstitutional conditions to which Plaintiffs were, and continue to be, subject, as Plaintiffs have submitted numerous written complaints to KDOC staff requesting that sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services be made available to them and that an alternative notification system be installed.
31

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 32 of 36 - Page ID#: 32
148. Despite actual knowledge of the substantial medical and safety risks Plaintiffs face while in their custody, defendants continue to disregard Plaintiffs’ medical and other needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
149. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to receive inadequate medical treatment and other services unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
COUNT VII Violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act Provision of Interpreters (KRS 344.500) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 150. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 151. The Kentucky Civil Rights Act provides that a “qualified interpreter shall be appointed in any proceeding before a board, commission, agency, or licensing authority of the state or any of its political subdivisions, when the principal party in interest or a witness is deaf, hard of hearing, or speech impaired.” KRS 344.500. 152. KDOC, KSP, LLCC, and KSR are state agencies that sponsor many inmate proceedings before a state board, commission, or agency, including, for example, parole and disciplinary hearings.
32

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 33 of 36 - Page ID#: 33
153. Despite specific requests for interpreters, Plaintiffs have been subjected to many KDOC proceedings falling within the scope of KRS 344.500 without the aid of any interpreter, let alone a qualified interpreter.
154. Defendants, through their policies and practices, consistently fail and even refuse to provide adequate access to qualified interpreters during inmate proceedings that fall within the scope of KRS 344.500.
155. Defendants’ failure to comply with the KRS 344.500 has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be unable to adequately participate in the Defendants’ sponsored proceedings unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to KRS 344.500.
COUNT VIII Violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KRS 344.120) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 156. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 157. The Kentucky Civil Rights Act provides that “it is an unlawful practice for a person to deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” KRS 344.120. 158. Defendants are state actors that fall within the Kentucky Civil Rights Act’s definition of “person.” KRS 344.010.
33

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 34 of 36 - Page ID#: 34
159. Despite specific requests for interpreters, videophones, and other accommodations to fully enjoy the goods and services purportedly offered by Defendants, Plaintiffs have been in a large part denied their requests. Plaintiffs continue to be discriminated against due to their disability and are unable to enjoy Defendants’ accommodations.
160. Defendants, through their policies and practices, consistently fail and even refuse to provide the full scope of their available accommodations to Plaintiffs.
161. Defendants’ failure to comply with the KRS 344.120 has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be unable to adequately enjoy the Defendants’ goods and services unless and until defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices and procedures pursuant to KRS 344.120.
COUNT IX Damages
(Against all Individual Defendants in their individual capacities by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals)
162. The individual Defendants, by their violation of the constitutional provisions and statutes specified above, have harmed Plaintiffs, and will continue to harm Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to communicate with people outside prison. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover from the Individual Defendants, in their individual capacities, the actual damages they have sustained by virtue of the Individual Defendants’ conduct. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Individual Defendants, in their individual capacities, punitive damages to punish the individual Defendants for their past violations and to deter future violations against Plaintiffs by these Defendants and until all Defendants are ordered by this Court to make the
34

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 35 of 36 - Page ID#: 35
modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant required by statute and the United States Constitution.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
   1. Certify this case as a Plaintiff class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 794(a), 42 U.S.C.§ 12133, and KRS 344.450 award the
named Plaintiffs and the class members recovery of any and all damages, incurred because of the Individual Defendants’ actions, from the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities; 3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to provide the proper interpretative services, TTD, videophones, and other hearing devices that are required for deaf and hard of hearing inmates to fully participate in the programs offered by the federally funded prison system; 4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to provide the proper interpretative services, TTD, videophones, and other hearing devices that are required for deaf and hard of hearing inmates to fully participate in and benefit from the programs offered by these public entities; 5. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from depriving Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members of the protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 6. Award prejudgment interest; 7. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees; 8. Award monetary punitive and/or compensatory damages against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities; and 9. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
35

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/01/14 Page: 36 of 36 - Page ID#: 36
VII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiffs, by their counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable in this action.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Gregory A. Belzley Gregory A. Belzley Camille A. Bathurst BelzleyBathurst Attorneys P.O. Box 278 Prospect, KY 40059 502/292-2452 gbelzley@aol.com P.J. McCarthy Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-3314 202/682-7041 202/857-0940 Fax patrick.mccarthy@weil.com Deborah Golden Washington Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 11 DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 202/319-1000 202/319-1010 Fax deborah_golden@washlaw.org Counsel for Plaintiffs
36

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 1 of 42 - Page ID#: 1159

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
At FRANKFORT

[Filed Electronically]

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY (for injunctive relief only) Serve: Jack Conway
Office of the Attorney General 700 Capitol Avenue, Suite 118 Frankfort, KY 40601
KENTUCKY JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET (for injunctive relief only) Serve: J. Michael Brown
Office of the Secretary 125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601-2108
KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (for injunctive relief only) Serve: LaDonna Thompson
Office of the Commissioner Kentucky Department of Corrections 275 East Main Frankfort, KY 40601-2321
J. MICHAEL BROWN, individually and in his official capacity as Secretary of the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet Serve: Office of the Secretary
125 Holmes Street Frankfort, KY 40601-2108
LADONNA THOMPSON, individually and in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Kentucky Department of Corrections

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 3:14-CV-00001-GFVT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 2 of 42 - Page ID#: 1160

Serve: Office of the Commissioner

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

KIMBERLY POTTER-BLAIR, individually and

)

in her official capacity as Deputy Commissioner

)

of Support Services of the Kentucky Department

)

of Corrections

)

Serve: Office of the Deputy Commissioner of

)

Support Services

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

PAULA HOLDEN, individually and in her

)

official capacity as Deputy Commissioner of

)

Community Services of the Kentucky Department )

of Corrections

)

Serve: Office of the Deputy Commissioner of

)

Community Services

)

Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

JIM ERWIN, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Deputy Commissioner of Adult

)

Institutions of the Kentucky Department of

)

Corrections

)

Serve: Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

Education Branch

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

RANDY WHITE, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Kentucky State

)

Penitentiary

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky State Penitentiary

)

266 Water Street

)

Eddyville, KY 42038

)

)

GREGORY HOWARD, individually and in his

)

official capacity as Warden of the Luther Luckett

)

Correctional Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 3 of 42 - Page ID#: 1161

Luther Luckett Correctional Complex

)

Dawkins Road, Box 6

)

LaGrange, KY 40031

)

)

CLARK TAYLOR, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Kentucky State

)

Reformatory

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky State Reformatory

)

3001 West Highway 146

)

LaGrange, KY 40032

)

)

AARON SMITH, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Kentucky State

)

Reformatory

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky State Reformatory

)

3001 West Highway 146

)

LaGrange, KY 40032

)

)

KATHY LITTERAL, individually and in her official )

capacity as Warden of the Bell County Forestry

)

Camp

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Bell County Forestry Camp

)

560 Correctional Drive

)

Pineville, KY 40977

)

)

STEVE HANEY, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Blackburn Correctional )

Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Blackburn Correctional Complex

)

3111 Spurr Road

)

Lexington, KY 40511

)

)

GARY BECKSTROM, individually and in his official )

capacity as Warden of the Eastern Kentucky

)

Correctional Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

)

200 Road to Justice

)

West Liberty, KY 41472

)

)

ALAN BROWN, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Green River Correctional )

3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 4 of 42 - Page ID#: 1162

Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Green River Correctional Complex

)

1200 River Road

)

P.O. Box 9300

)

Central City, KY 42330

)

)

JANET CONOVER, individually and in her official )

capacity as Warden of the Kentucky Correctional

)

Institute for Women

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women

)

300 Ash Ave.

)

P.O. Box 337

)

Peewee Valley, KY 40056

)

)

JOSEPH MEKO, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Little Sandy Correctional )

Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Little Sandy Correctional Complex

)

505 Prison Connector

)

Sandy Hook, KY 41171

)

)

DON BOTTOMS, individually and in his official

)

capacity as Warden of the Northpoint Training

)

Center

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Northpoint Training Center

)

P.O. Box 479

)

Burgin, KY 40310

)

)

RAVONNE SIMS, individually and in her official

)

capacity as Warden of the Roederer Correctional

)

Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Roederer Correctional Complex

)

P.O. Box 69,

)

LaGrange, KY 40031

)

)

STEVE WOODWARD, individually and in his official )

capacity as Warden of the Western Kentucky

)

Correctional Complex

)

Serve: Office of the Warden

)

Western Kentucky Correctional Complex

)

374 New Bethel Church Road

)

4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 5 of 42 - Page ID#: 1163

Fredonia, KY 42411

)

)

BOBBIE UNDERWOOD, individually and in her

)

official capacity as Personnel Branch Manager

)

of the Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

Serve: Kentucky Department of Corrections

)

Personnel Division

)

275 East Main

)

Frankfort, KY 40601-2321

)

)

Defendants.

)

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

1. This is a class action lawsuit based on the willful and deliberate refusal of the

Defendants to comply with federal laws protecting the rights of the Plaintiffs, who are deaf or

hard of hearing individuals in the custody of Defendant Kentucky Department of Corrections

(“KDOC”).

2. The state agencies, entities, and officials named as Defendants in this case have

failed to comply with federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 12131 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and the Constitution of the

United States.

3. Through their policies and practices, Defendants discriminate against deaf and

hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody. They have done this by denying deaf and hard

of hearing individuals in their custody adequate and equally effective means of communication

with individuals outside of prison—including effective communications between the Plaintiffs

and their loved ones. Defendants have also failed to provide adequate access to other auxiliary

aids and services necessary to accommodate deaf and hard of hearing individuals in a variety of

settings, including in connection with educational, religious, healthcare, and rehabilitative

programs. Defendants also refuse to provide deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC

5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 6 of 42 - Page ID#: 1164
custody with adequate notification of important daily events and safety announcements, or to provide adequate interpretative services at disciplinary hearings. Additionally, Defendants have discriminated against inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing in work assignments.
4. As a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory policies and practices, deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and care:
• have been prevented from effectively communicating by telephone with family, friends, and attorneys outside of prison;
• have been unable to receive necessary and adequate medical treatment; • have missed prison-wide safety announcements, prison counts, and
announcements for meals and other important daily activities; • have been excluded from participation in educational and counseling programs
offered by KDOC, including those required under the terms of their sentencing; • have been unable to and discouraged from attending standard religious services
due to inadequate accommodations; • have been discriminated against in work assignments; • have been denied the ability to meaningfully participate and defend themselves in
disciplinary hearings; and • have been prevented from learning a trade and receiving educational and
industrial credits that could reduce their overall incarceration time. 5. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, and damages from the individual Defendants named herein in their individual capacities, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class of all deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody for the harms they have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the Defendants’ discrimination.
6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 7 of 42 - Page ID#: 1165
I. JURISDICTION 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Federal Question).
II. VENUE 7. Venue is proper in this District, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because all Defendants reside in this District in Kentucky, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to claims herein occurred within this District.
III. PARTIES A. Plaintiffs 8. Named Plaintiff Michael Knights (“Mr. Knights”), inmate # 233021, has a hearing disability and is currently incarcerated at Kentucky State Penitentiary (“KSP”), and under KDOC’s custody and control. 9. Named Plaintiff Oscar Adams (“Mr. Adams”), inmate # 243676, has a hearing disability and is currently incarcerated at Kentucky State Reformatory (“KSR”), and under KDOC’s custody and control. 10. Mr. Knights is profoundly deaf, and has been deaf since birth. Mr. Knights is educated and relies on American Sign Language (“ASL”) to communicate. To further his education, Mr. Knights is currently trying to pursue a GED within the KDOC system. Mr. Knights requires a sign language interpreter to effectively communicate with persons who do not know ASL, and due to his deafness cannot use a standard telephone. 11. Mr. Adams is profoundly deaf, and has been deaf since birth. Mr. Adams relies on American Sign Language (“ASL”) to communicate. Mr. Adams attended and successfully graduated from the Kentucky School for the Deaf in 1999. Mr. Adams cannot use a standard telephone and requires an interpreter to communicate with those who are not proficient in ASL.
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 8 of 42 - Page ID#: 1166
B. Defendants 1. State Agencies
12. KDOC is the Kentucky state agency responsible for the operation of 12 correctional facilities. KDOC is a division of Defendant the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet (“the Cabinet”), which in turn is a governmental subdivision of Defendant the Commonwealth of Kentucky. KDOC’s Mission Statement is: To protect the citizens of the Commonwealth and to provide a safe, secure and humane environment for staff and offenders in carrying out the mandates of the legislative and judicial processes; and, to provide opportunities for offenders to acquire skills which facilitate non-criminal behavior.
2. Individuals 13. J. Michael Brown is Secretary of the Cabinet, is responsible for the training and supervision of employees of the Cabinet and the KDOC, and is responsible for their recognition of and compliance with Kentucky laws. 14. LaDonna H. Thompson is the Commissioner of the KDOC and is responsible for the day-to-day operations of KDOC. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals. 15. Kimberly Potter-Blair is the Deputy Commissioner of Support Services of the KDOC and is responsible for administrative services, corrections training, budget management, offender information, information technology, population management, and re-entry branch. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals. 16. Paula Holden is the Deputy Commissioner of Community Services of the KDOC and is responsible for the oversight of KDOC’s Probation & Parole Division and Local Facilities.
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 9 of 42 - Page ID#: 1167
On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
17. Jim Erwin is the Deputy Commissioner of Adult Institutions of the KDOC and is responsible for the oversight of KDOC’s Adult Institutions Division. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals.
18. Randy White is the Warden of the Kentucky State Penitentiary (“KSP”). KSP is a maximum and supermax security correctional facility located in Eddyville, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1889. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at KSP. As Warden, Mr. White is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of KSP, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at KSP regarding the violation of their rights.
19. Gregory Howard is the Warden of the Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (“LLCC”). LLCC is a minimum and medium security correctional facility located in LaGrange, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1981. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at LLCC. As Warden, Mr. Howard is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of LLCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at LLCC regarding the violation of their rights.
20. Clark Taylor was the Warden of the Kentucky State Reformatory (“KSR”). Since the initiation of this action, Aaron Smith has become the Warden of KSR. KSR is a medium
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 10 of 42 - Page ID#: 1168
security correctional facility located in LaGrange, Kentucky. The facility was established in 1936. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at KSR.As Warden, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Smith is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of KSR, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, Mr. Taylor and Mr. Smith are aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and are aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at KSR regarding the violation of their rights.
21. Kathy Litteral is the Warden of the Bell County Forestry Camp (“BCFC”). BCFC is a minimum security correctional facility located in Bell County near Pineville, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1962. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at BCFC. As Warden, Ms. Litteral is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of BCFC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and she is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at BCFC regarding the violation of their rights.
22. Steve Haney is the Warden of the Blackburn Correctional Complex (“BCC”). BCC is a minimum security correctional facility located near Lexington, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1972. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at BCC. As Warden, Mr. Haney is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of BCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at BCC regarding the violation of their rights.
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 11 of 42 - Page ID#: 1169
23. Gary Beckstrom is the Warden of the Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (“EKCC”). EKCC is a medium security institution located in the Appalachian Region of Morgan County in Eastern Kentucky. The facility opened in 1990. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at EKCC. As Warden, Mr. Beckstrom is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of EKCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at EKCC regarding the violation of their rights.
24. Alan Brown is the Warden of the Green River Correctional Complex (“GRCC”). GRCC is a minimum and medium security correctional facility located in Mulenberg County near Central City, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1994. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at GRCC. As Warden, Mr. Brown is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of GRCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at GRCC regarding the violation of their rights.
25. Janet Conover is the Warden of the Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women (“KCIW”). KCIW is a maximum and supermax security correctional facility located in Shelby County near the town of Pewee Valley, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1938. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at KCIW. As Warden, Ms. Conover is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of KCIW, and is
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 12 of 42 - Page ID#: 1170
responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and she is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at KCIW regarding the violation of their rights.
26. Joseph Meko is the Warden of the Little Sandy Correctional Complex (“LSCC”). LSCC is a medium and maximum supermax security correctional facility located in Elliott Country near Sandy Hook, Kentucky. The facility opened in 2005. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at LSCC. As Warden, Mr. Meko is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of LSCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at LSCC regarding the violation of their rights.
27. Don Bottoms is the Warden of the Northpoint Training Center (“NTC”). NTC is a medium security correctional facility located near Burgin, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1983. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at NTC. As Warden, Mr. Bottoms is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of NTC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at NTC regarding the violation of their rights.
28. Ravonne Sims is the Warden of the Roederer Correctional Complex (“RCC”). RCC is an Assessment and Classification Center for the KDOC located in LaGrange, Kentucky.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 13 of 42 - Page ID#: 1171
The facility opened in 1976. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at RCC. As Warden, Mr. Sims is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of RCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and she is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at RCC regarding the violation of their rights.
29. Steve Woodward is the Warden of the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (“WKCC”). WKCC is a minimum and medium security correctional facility located in Lyon County, Kentucky. The facility opened in 1977. On information and belief, at least some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at WKCC. As Warden, Mr. Woodward is the legal custodian of individuals under the custody and care of WKCC, and is responsible for their safe, secure, and humane treatment. On information and belief, he is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of specific written complaints by deaf and hard of hearing individuals at WKCC regarding the violation of their rights.
30. Bobbie Underwood is the Personnel Branch Manager of the Personnel Branch of the Kentucky Department of Corrections. On information and belief, she is responsible for KDOC employee compliance with federal laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., and the Constitution of the United States. On information and belief, she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and he is aware of whether KDOC employees and KDOC policies comply with federal law.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 14 of 42 - Page ID#: 1172
31. Defendants Brown, Thompson, Potter-Blair, Holden, Erwin, White, Howard and Taylor, Smith, Litteral, Haney, Beckstrom, Brown, Conover, Meko, Bottoms, Sims, Woodward , and Underwood (“the Individual Defendants”) are all state actors, acting under color of Kentucky statutes and regulation in all activities relevant to this action.
IV. FACTS 32. For years, KDOC has failed to provide the deaf and hard of hearing inmates housed at its facilities the accommodations that are required by the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”). In January 2013, Plaintiff Michael Knights and other deaf and hard of hearing inmates at LLCC retained the services of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP (“Weil”) and the Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs (“WLC”) to assist them in obtaining the lacking accommodations. Attorneys at Weil and the WLC first began to raise these matters with the KDOC, LLCC, and KSR in May 2013, through correspondence with the KDOC’s Commissioner, Ms. Thompson, and the two correctional facilities’ wardens, Messrs. Howard and Taylor, respectively. 33. Defendants are aware of their obligations under state and federal laws. Nevertheless, Defendants have not remedied their past pattern and practice of discrimination and continue to discriminate against deaf and hard of hearing individuals, resulting in disabilitybased discrimination in at least five different areas: (A) ineffective access to telecommunications; (B) ineffective access to auxiliary aids and services; (C) ineffective access to prison alerts and announcements; (D) ineffective communication during disciplinary proceedings; and (E) inadequate access to prison vocational opportunities.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 15 of 42 - Page ID#: 1173
A. Ineffective Access to Telecommunications 34. KDOC provides hearing individuals in its custody access to telecommunications services in order for them to communicate with family, friends, and other individuals outside of prison. 35. As the federal government has recognized, “[t]elephone privileges are a supplemental means of maintaining community and family ties that will contribute to an inmate’s personal development.” 28 C.F.R. § 540.100. Telephone and other forms of telecommunication are very important to individuals in KDOC’s custody because they foster the family and community ties that are fundamental to motivate incarcerated individuals to improve themselves and to prepare them to make a positive transition back to civilian life once their sentence is complete. 36. Because of their disability, most deaf and hard of hearing KDOC inmates cannot use traditional telephones to communicate with individuals outside of prison.
1. Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDDs) 37. Some KDOC facilities, including KSR and KSP, provide deaf individuals in their custody with limited access to telecommunications devices for the deaf, or “TDDs”. TDDs are electronic devices for text communication via a telephone line to enable people with hearing and speech disabilities to communicate by telephone. Based on fifty-year-old technology, the TDD is basically a telephone equipped with a keyboard and a display screen. To communicate with the deaf, the user of a TDD must type out everything that is said in a conversation. A TDD is effectively useless if both parties to a conversation do not have TDD devices. In other words, a deaf person with a TDD device cannot communicate with other deaf individuals who do not have TDD devices.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 16 of 42 - Page ID#: 1174
38. With special assistance (i.e., a relay service), deaf TDD users can communicate with hearing persons. Relay services are federally-mandated services that operate as follows: the party using the TDD places a call to a relay center, and a relay operator answers the call using another TDD. The caller provides the operator with the phone number of the party with whom they wish to communicate, and the operator places the call. When a hearing person answers the phone, the relay operator explains the relay service and states the name of the caller. The responses of the hearing person are typed by the relay operator into a TDD, and transmitted over the telephone lines to the TDD user. The call proceeds with the relay operator voicing what the TDD user types to the hearing person receiving the call, and typing what the hearing person speaks. The process can also work the other way—a hearing person who has no TDD can call deaf individuals from a traditional telephone by using the relay service.
39. The relay service is free of cost to the users and the caller pays only for the cost of the call to the party with whom the caller wishes to converse. To connect to a relay services center, an individual can either dial “711” from anywhere within the United States or dial the toll-free “800” number of the relay service in the caller’s locality. Accordingly, TDD relay services in Kentucky may be accessed either by calling 711 or by calling Kentucky’s toll-free relay service number.
40. For the most part, deaf individuals in the United States who use ASL have abandoned the 50-year-old TDD technology and now utilize up-to-date and much more convenient videophones. For those deaf individuals still using a TDD, it is impossible to communicate with a videophone user.
41. On information and belief, KSR has at least one TDD; however, deaf and hard of hearing individuals incarcerated at KSR are repeatedly denied access to it. On information and
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 17 of 42 - Page ID#: 1175
belief, KSP and LLCC similarly have at least (and likely only) one TDD which deaf and hard of hearing inmates are also frequently denied access.
42. In those rare instances when deaf and hard of hearing individuals are granted access to the TDD it is ordinarily, yet inexplicably, for a shorter period of time than they would have on a normal phone. This is especially detrimental where, as here, the conversations are necessarily slower and more drawn out given the drawbacks of the technology.
43. KSR has never addressed the problem related to the resultant inequality when it comes to TDD use.
2. Videophones 44. Videophones and free or low-cost internet-based video links (collectively, “videophones”) are (and have been for quite some time) replacing TDDs among deaf people because they allow deaf individuals to communicate with one another directly in ASL, without having to communicate through written English (an effectively foreign language, that is especially difficult for many deaf persons to communicate in) and without the use of relay services. When using a videophone, callers can see each other, usually over an internet connection. As a result, many deaf households no longer own a TDD and have no way to accept a TDD call, as they rely exclusively on videophones for telecommunication. 45. Deaf individuals using videophones can also call a Video Relay Service (“VRS”) to place calls to people who do not understand ASL or do not have a videophone. The mechanics of VRS are very similar to those of traditional TDD relay service–the caller is routed to an interpreter, the caller gives the interpreter the number of the party he is trying to reach, and the interpreter then interprets the conversation into spoken English. 46. Videophones and VRS permit deaf people to use ASL instead of having to carry out every telephone call in written English through a TDD. Due to the fact that TDDs rely on
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 18 of 42 - Page ID#: 1176
written communications, they are by nature an unsatisfactory and ineffective means of communication for many deaf individuals. Writing usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual. Many deaf individuals who became deaf before acquiring language skills consider ASL to be their native language and English to be their second language. Additionally, many deaf people acquire English as their second language much later in life. Therefore, the English reading and writing skill level of many deaf individuals, including those incarcerated at KDOC institutions, is generally much lower than that of hearing people.
47. Provision of videophones would also ensure that deaf inmates could place telephone calls to deaf family and friends, the vast majority of whom no longer have TDD devices.
48. Deaf individuals in Defendants’ custody have repeatedly requested videophone access, but have been denied this access.
a. Videophones at KSP 49. There are deaf inmates at KSP who use ASL and who are denied effective telecommunication services due to the failure of KSP to provide videophone services to them. 50. Plaintiff Michael Knights cannot communicate with his friends and family who have videophones but not TDD. Without the videophone, it virtually impossible for Mr. Knights to contact his sister, his daughter, his daughter’s mother, and his friends. 51. Plaintiff Michael Knights filed a formal Grievance with Warden White to specifically request access to videophones. Warden White stated in his first stage response that the TDD system provides effective communication because Mr. Knights can call his legal counsel. Despite Mr. Knights’ ability to call his legal counsel using TDD, it is still inadequate because Mr. Knights cannot effectively communicate with his family and friends. Additionally,
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 19 of 42 - Page ID#: 1177
deaf inmates at KSP have extremely restricted and an unacceptable level of access to the TDD, especially in relation to hearing inmates’ access to standard telephones.
b. Videophones at KSR 52. There are deaf inmates at KSR who use ASL and who are denied effective telecommunication services due to the failure of KSR to provide videophone services to them. 53. Plaintiff Oscar Adams cannot communicate with his friends and family on the outside given the lack of videophone services. In particular, Mr. Adams is very close to his mother, but cannot communicate with her because she only has a videophone. Unfortunately, Mr. Adams cannot even communicate with his mother in person because the evolution of her fight with lupus prevents her now from visiting him. Mr. Adams is allowed to use the TDD service just once a week for 10-15 minutes.
c. Videophones at LLCC 54. On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Michael Knights, filed a formal Grievance with Warden Howard to address the unequal treatment afforded to deaf inmates with respect to the phone system and specifically requested access to videophones. On September 20, 2012, Warden Howard dismissed the request on the basis that Mr. Knights and other deaf inmates are not mistreated because they can use the TDD. 55. On information and belief, despite the initial refusal, LLCC eventually understood, at least in part, the significant unconstitutional hardships it was placing on its deaf inmates and, at least provisionally, installed a videophone. 56. On information and belief, to the extent that videophone is still accessible to deaf inmates at LLCC it is available on unnecessarily and unconstitutionally restrictive terms – including prohibitively short periods of time.
d. Videophones at other KDOC Facilities
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 20 of 42 - Page ID#: 1178
57. Additionally, there are at least some hearing inmates housed at LLCC who have deaf family on the outside. These individuals can only communicate with their deaf family on an irregular basis.
58. On information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied equal and consistent access to telecommunication services at those facilities.
B. Inadequate Access to Auxiliary Aids and Services 59. Individuals in the custody of KDOC are by necessity wholly dependent on KDOC for medical, dental, educational, mental health, employment, and religious services, among other services. Individuals in the custody of KDOC are also dependent on KDOC and its staff for all of their basic daily needs, including food, exercise, and safety.
1. Sign Language Interpreter Services 60. For deaf or hard of hearing individuals who rely on ASL as their primary form of communication, use of a qualified ASL interpreter is necessary to ensure effective communication between a deaf or hard of hearing individual and an individual who does not use ASL to communicate. 61. A qualified sign language interpreter is necessary because ASL is a complete, complex language that employs signs made with the hands and other movements, including facial expressions and postures of the body. It is a language distinct from English—it is not simply English in hand signals-it has its own vocabulary, and its own rules for grammar and syntax. 62. As noted above, writing usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual. English is generally considered a second language for most deaf persons who became deaf before acquiring language—ASL is their native language. Also, several deaf
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 21 of 42 - Page ID#: 1179
people acquire English as their second language later in life, past the critical period of language acquisition. Therefore, the English reading and writing skill level of many deaf individuals, including those incarcerated in KDOC facilities, is generally much lower than that of hearing people.
63. Lip-reading usually does not provide effective communication for a deaf individual and is generally far less effective than written communication. It is extremely difficult to lip-read English because only a small fraction of the sounds used in the language are clearly visible on the mouth, and many sounds that are visible look identical on the lips. In addition to these difficulties in lip-reading, the ability to accurately lip-read is affected by the speaker’s facial bone structure, facial musculature, facial hair, lighting, and other external factors. Moreover, even if an ASL user were able to understand the sounds appearing on a speaker’s lips, for the reasons discussed above she would not necessarily understand the English language or the vocabulary the speaker was using.
64. Thus, the provision of qualified sign language interpreter services is the auxiliary service necessary to allow deaf individuals who use ASL in KDOC’s custody and under KDOC’s supervision to effectively communicate with KDOC officials, KDOC employees, and medical personnel.
65. Defendants, through their policies and practices, fail to provide adequate access to sign language interpreters for deaf individuals in KDOC’s custody and control and under KDOC’s supervision.
66. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate access to sign language interpreters at KDOC facilities throughout Kentucky.
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 22 of 42 - Page ID#: 1180
a. Interpreters for Access to Medical Services 67. Defendants are responsible for the medical care of all individuals incarcerated by KDOC. 68. Deaf individuals who rely on ASL require sign language interpreters to communicate effectively with medical staff. 69. After receiving numerous written requests, Defendants are aware that deaf individuals need sign language interpreters for their medical appointments. 70. Nonetheless, deaf inmates at LLCC are still denied interpreter services at medical appointments. 71. Deaf inmates at facilities other than LLCC, including those housed at KSR and KSP, are consistently denied interpreter services for medical appointments. Mr. Adams, an inmate at KSR, has been denied access to interpreters for medical appointments despite known and serious medical conditions.
b. Interpreters for Access to Administrative Meetings 72. Defendants provide educational, mental health and counseling programs for individuals in KDOC’s custody. 73. Interpreters are not provided by Defendants for such programs, including for educational classes and for religious ceremonies. The same holds true for KSP, KSR and LLCC.
c. Interpreters for Access to Prison Programs 74. Interpreters are not provided by Defendants for meetings between prison employees and inmates. 75. Mr. Adams was denied an ASL qualified interpreter at his reclassification meeting at KSR.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 23 of 42 - Page ID#: 1181
2. Other Auxiliary Aids and Services 76. For deaf and hard of hearing inmates who do not use ASL, other auxiliary aids and services are necessary to ensure their effective participation in and understanding of Defendants’ services and programs. 77. Computer Assisted Real Time (“CART”) is a system that provides access to spoken information for people with hearing loss. CART operators use a court reporting machine to input spoken text. The output of the court reporting machine is fed to a computer, which produces a text document that corresponds very closely to the words used by the speaker. Once in the computer, the text can be displayed on a computer monitor (for one or two users) or projected onto a screen (for more users.) CART is generally the system of choice for latedeafened people attending classes or meetings. 78. An Assistive Listening Device or System (“ALDS”) can be any one of several technologies that are used to improve the reception of speech for people with impaired hearing, including Mr. Adams, when it might be difficult or impossible to hear otherwise. 79. Thus, CART and/or ALDS is necessary to allow certain deaf or hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and under KDOC’s supervision to effectively understand and participate in KDOC programs and services. 80. Defendants, through their policies and practices, fail to provide adequate access to CART or ALDS for deaf or hard of hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody and control and under KDOC’s supervision. 81. On information and belief, Defendants do not provide adequate access to CART or ALDS at KDOC facilities throughout Kentucky.
a. Auxiliary Aids and Services at KSP
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 24 of 42 - Page ID#: 1182
82. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at KSP are unconstitutionally denied the conveniences of effectively all auxiliary aids and services.
b. Auxiliary Aids and Services at KSR 83. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at KSR have been denied effective access to programs, such as stress management, anger management and educational classes, due to the lack of any system of providing them with effective communication, such as CART and/or ALDS.
c. Auxiliary Aids and Services at LLCC 84. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates at LLCC have also been denied educational opportunities, such as classes to achieve a General Educational Development (“GED”) degree, due to the lack of any system of providing them with effective communication, such as CART and/or ALDS. 85. For example, Mr. Knights, while incarcerated at LLCC, had attempted to complete his GED, but was unable to because of the inadequate accommodations for the deaf.
d. Auxiliary Aids and Services at other KDOC Facilities 86. On information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied auxiliary aids and services at those facilities. C. Access to Visual Notification of Announcements 87. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates throughout KDOC institutions have difficulty in accessing public address and other audio alerts and announcements available to other inmates.
1. Visual Notification at LLCC 88. Because deaf and hard of hearing inmates have been unable to hear daily announcements made by LLCC staff, such as announcements requiring inmates to report to their cells for head counts, special accommodations are necessary to assure that the deaf inmates are
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 25 of 42 - Page ID#: 1183
aware of the announcements. Often times the deaf are punished for failing to abide by such announcements; however, the deaf inmates are not ignoring the announcements, rather they are unaware such announcements were ever made.
89. LLCC does on occasion use bed shakers for awakening deaf inmates in the morning. However, the extent of even this minimal convenience is insufficient and does not address the numerous other accommodations that must be provided to assure that deaf inmates are apprised of prison announcements, emergencies, and roll calls.
2. Visual Notification at KSP 90. KSP also only provides minimal, if any, visual accommodations to deaf inmates. There is no paging system or other system to adequately notify deaf inmates of public announcements.
3. Visual Notification at KSR 91. KSR also only provides minimal visual accommodations to deaf inmates and does not provide any type of paging system or other adequate notifications of public announcements.
4. Visual Notification at Other KDOC Facilities 92. On information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied visual notification of announcements at those facilities. D. Failure to Provide Effective Communication at Disciplinary Proceedings 93. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates are subjected to disciplinary proceedings without effective communication. 94. Although they are punished, many of these inmates do not understand the charges against them or the parameters of their punishment. Moreover, the inmates are denied the ability to defend themselves when they cannot hear what is happening during the hearings.
25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 26 of 42 - Page ID#: 1184
95. When inmates violate rules and regulations of LLCC, KSP, and KSR, they undergo disciplinary proceedings conducted by hearing officers. During these proceedings, the inmates have an opportunity to defend themselves, to hear the allegations against them, and to understand the parameters of their punishment.
96. KDOC, LLCC, KSP, KSR, and their agents are denying the deaf and hard of hearing inmates full due process by failing to provide appropriate auxiliary services, interpreters, or other means of interpretation.
97. The deaf and hard of hearing inmates are subjected to these proceedings without understanding what is happening during the hearings. Because they are denied interpreters and/or assistive listening devices or other auxiliary aids or services the inmates are unable to hear the adjudicator(s), the allegations against them, or any of the results of the proceeding. They are disciplined without complete knowledge of the claims against them or the length of their punishment.
E. Access to Employment Opportunities 98. Deaf and hard of hearing inmates are, solely because of their disabilities, routinely denied employment opportunities within KDOC facilities. Further they are denied training opportunities. 99. On information and belief, deaf inmates at KSP, KSR and LLCC have been discriminated against in their efforts to participate fully and fairly in both training and employment opportunities in “Prison Industries.” 100. On information and belief, deaf and hard of hearing inmates at other KDOC facilities have been denied the same opportunities. 101. Defendants’ failure to provide its deaf and hard of hearing inmates with access to telecommunication devices and services, effective communication within KDOC institutions,
26

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 27 of 42 - Page ID#: 1185
access to announcements and alerts within the KDOC institutions, and access to employment opportunities within KDOC institutions, has resulted in harm, and may result in future harm, to deaf and hard of hearing individuals in KDOC custody. It also violates their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the United States Constitution.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF A DISABILITY IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (42 U.S.C. § 12131 ET SEQ.)
(Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals)
102. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
103. On July 12, 1990, Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b) (l). Title II of the ADA states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
104. Plaintiffs are qualified individuals with a disability within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
105. The claims under the ADA are brought against the Defendants as departments, agencies, or instrumentalities of the State of Kentucky.
106. Defendants are each a “public entity” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) (B).
27

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 28 of 42 - Page ID#: 1186
107. At all times relevant to this action, the ADA was in full force and effect in the United States and Plaintiffs had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by the Defendants. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
108. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regulation implementing Title II of the ADA clearly requires the provision of effective communication as part of its nondiscrimination mandate. 28 C.F.R. 35.160.
109. The regulation states that “[a] public entity shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public . . . With disabilities are as effective as communications with others.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a).
110. Defendants’ failure to provide effective communication for individuals with hearing disabilities denied and continues to deny, on the basis of their disability, Plaintiffs the same access to Defendants’ services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges as the access provided to hearing individuals.
111. Plaintiffs have been unable to communicate effectively by telephone with individuals outside of prison, unable to participate in educational, mental health, employment, disciplinary, and other KDOC services, and unable to learn of daily life and safety alert and other notifications as effectively as hearing individuals in KDOC’s custody.
112. In order to ensure effective communication, the ADA requires that “a public entity shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford qualified individuals with disabilities . . . an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, a service, program, or activity conducted by a public entity.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b) (l).
113. Auxiliary aids and services include, but are not limited to, “qualified interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with
28

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 29 of 42 - Page ID#: 1187
hearing impairments,” 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and close captioning, TDDs, videophones, and videotext displays. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
114. Defendants subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination solely on the basis of their disability, in violation of their rights under the ADA. They have done this by failing to provide effective communication, and by not ensuring that adequate access to qualified sign language interpreter services and other auxiliary aids and services is made available to individuals with hearing impairments in KDOC’s custody or under KDOC supervision.
115. In determining what type of auxiliary aid and service is necessary, “a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of the individual with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. §160(b) (2).
116. Defendants have failed to give consideration to Plaintiffs’ requests, in most instances flat out denying them their requests for videophone services, or providing unfairly limited access to such services, for visual alert and notification systems, for interpreter services, and for other auxiliary aids and services.
117. On information and belief, the failure to provide effective communication and the failure to provide comparable access to services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges are policies, regular practices, and/or customs of Defendants. These failures are ongoing and continue to this date.
118. Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services has subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of their rights under the ADA, in ways that include, but are not limited to, the following:
29

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 30 of 42 - Page ID#: 1188
a. inadequate access to sign language interpreters and other appropriate auxiliary aids and services to enable them to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ programs; b. inadequate access to prison audio alerts and notifications; and c. inadequate access to telecommunication devices. 119. The DOJ regulation implementing Title II of the ADA also requires that public entities, either directly or indirectly through other contractual or private arrangements, provide disabled individuals with the same opportunities to participate and benefit from services as is afforded to other individuals. 28 C.F.R. 35.160. 120. The regulation states, in relevant portion, that “[a] public entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, on the basis of disability—(i) [d]eny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service; (ii) [a]fford a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others.” 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(i)‒(ii). 121. Defendants are in violation of this regulation directly and indirectly through private entities, by refusing to permit certain deaf and hard of hearing inmates to participate in vocational and employment opportunities because of their hearing disabilities. 122. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the ADA, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer from discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion (including exclusion from Defendants’ services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges), violations of their rights under the laws of the United States, financial loss, loss of dignity, frustration, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, trauma, embarrassment, and unnecessary loss of rights and privileges, including unnecessary disciplinary measures.
30

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 31 of 42 - Page ID#: 1189
123. Defendants’ failure to comply with the ADA has resulted, and will continue to result, in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in the custody or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to use or avail themselves of the services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges of the Defendants. This harm will continue unless and until the Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to the policies, practices, and procedures of KDOC pursuant to the ADA.
COUNT II Discrimination on the Basis of a Disability in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C.
§ 794 et seq.) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 124. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 125. The purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is to ensure that no “qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of [] disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 126. Plaintiffs are qualified “individual[s] with a disability” within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(20). 127. Defendants receive “Federal financial assistance” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 128. The operations of KDOC and Defendants are “program[s] or activit[ies]” within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794(b)(l)(A)‒(B) and/or (b)(2)(B).
31

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 32 of 42 - Page ID#: 1190
129. At all times relevant to this action, the Rehabilitation Act was in full force and effect in the United States and Plaintiffs had a right not to be subjected to discrimination on the basis of their disability by defendants. 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).
130. The DOJ regulation implementing the Rehabilitation Act clarifies the requirements for Federal financial recipients, including correctional facilities, stating that “[a] recipient that employs fifteen or more persons shall provide appropriate auxiliary aids to qualified handicapped persons with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills where a refusal to make such provision would discriminatorily impair or exclude the persons in the program receiving federal financial assistance.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f).
131. Appropriate auxiliary aids include, but are not limited to, “qualified interpreters . . . and telephonic devices.” 28 C.F.R. § 42.503(f).
132. Defendants discriminatorily impaired Plaintiffs’ ability to communicate effectively with medical personnel, prison staff, and individuals outside of prison and/or excluded Plaintiffs from educational, vocational, and prison-wide announcements. They have done this by failing to provide appropriate auxiliary aids in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
133. Defendant’s failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services for individuals with hearing disabilities denied and continues to deny, on the basis of their disabilities, Plaintiffs the same access to Defendant’s services, benefits, activities, programs, or privileges as the access provided to hearing individuals.
134. On information and belief, the failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services and the failure to provide comparable access to services, benefits, activities, programs or privileges are policies, regular practices, and/or customs of Defendants. These failures are ongoing and continue to this date.
32

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 33 of 42 - Page ID#: 1191
135. Defendants’ failure to provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services has subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination on the basis of their disability in violation of their rights under the Rehabilitation Act, in ways that include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. inadequate access to appropriate auxiliary aids and services to enable them to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ programs; b. inadequate access to prison alerts and announcements; and c. inadequate access to telecommunication devices. 136. Defendants have also violated Section 504 and its implementing regulation by excluding inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing from Defendants’ employment and vocational benefits and opportunities. 28 C.F.R. 42.503(a). 137. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ rights under the Rehabilitation Act, Plaintiffs have suffered, and continue to suffer, from discrimination, unequal treatment, exclusion (including exclusion from defendant’s services, benefits, activities, programs, and requirements), financial loss, loss of dignity, frustration, humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, anxiety, trauma, embarrassment, unnecessary loss of rights and privileges, including unnecessary disciplinary measures, and injury to their health. 138. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rehabilitation Act has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for harm suffered. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Rehabilitation Act will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in the custody or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to use or avail themselves of the services, benefits, activities, programs, and privileges of Defendants. This harm will continue unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act.
33

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 34 of 42 - Page ID#: 1192
COUNT III Violation of Free Speech Rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United
States Constitution (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 139. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 140. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, States “shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amends. I. 141. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 creates a cause of action when a “person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” 142. The Individual Defendants are state actors, acting under color of Kentucky statutes and regulation in all activities relevant to this action, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their freedom of speech, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by preventing Plaintiffs from communicating with people outside of the prison. Despite multiple complaints in writing to KDOC, KDOC through the official actions of the Individual Defendants, has denied and continues to deny Plaintiffs access to telecommunication devices that would give them the ability and opportunity to communicate with people outside of prison.
34

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 35 of 42 - Page ID#: 1193
COUNT IV Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 “Substantial
Burden on Religious Exercise” (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 143. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 144. Governments may not impose substantial burdens on the religious exercises of institutionalized persons even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). 145. Plaintiffs are “institutionalized persons” within the meaning of The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1. 146. As a department, agency, or instrumentality of Kentucky, LLCC and KSR are government within the meaning of RLUIPA. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(4). 147. KDOC and the Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to the free exercise of religion, as secured by RLUIPA, by unlawfully imposing a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise. They have done this by failing to provide interpreters or other means for enabling Plaintiffs to effectively communicate at weekly worship services. The substantial burden defendants have imposed on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise affects programs or activities that receive Federal financial assistance. 148. Defendants’ failure to comply with RLUIPA has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will continue to be in KDOC’s custody and continue to be deprived of participation in weekly worship services unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to KDOC policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to RLUIPA.
35

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 36 of 42 - Page ID#: 1194
COUNT V Violation of the United States Constitution Free Exercise of Religion: First and Fourteenth
Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 149. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 150. Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. 151. Defendants have, in their individual and official capacities, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their free exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, by discriminating against Plaintiffs because of their mode of speech and by substantially burdening their religious exercise. 152. Defendants’ failure to comply with the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be denied adequate weekly worship services unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
COUNT VI Violation of the United States Constitution Freedom from Cruel and Unusual Punishment:
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments (42 U.S.C. § 1983) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals)
36

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 37 of 42 - Page ID#: 1195
153. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein.
154. Under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, “[e]excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” U.S. Const. amends. VIII.
155. Defendants have, in their individual and official capacities, deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiffs of their right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment as secured by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.
156. Defendants have systematically denied Plaintiffs access to basic human services and vital information during their incarceration. Defendants have failed to notify Plaintiffs of prison alerts, announcements, and safety instructions. Defendants refuse to provide Plaintiffs with individual hearing devices. Moreover, Defendants have not provided effective communication between Plaintiffs and prison officials and medical staff. Defendants’ actions place Plaintiffs at a substantial risk of serious future harm.
157. Defendants have actual knowledge of the unconstitutional conditions to which Plaintiffs were, and continue to be, subject, as Plaintiffs have submitted numerous written complaints to KDOC staff requesting that sign language interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services be made available to them and that an alternative notification system be installed.
158. Despite actual knowledge of the substantial medical and safety risks Plaintiffs face while in their custody, defendants continue to disregard Plaintiffs’ medical and other needs in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
37

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 38 of 42 - Page ID#: 1196
159. Defendants’ failure to comply with the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to receive inadequate medical treatment and other services unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
COUNT VII Violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act Provision of Interpreters (KRS 344.500) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 160. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 161. The Kentucky Civil Rights Act provides that a “qualified interpreter shall be appointed in any proceeding before a board, commission, agency, or licensing authority of the state or any of its political subdivisions, when the principal party in interest or a witness is deaf, hard of hearing, or speech impaired.” KRS 344.500. 162. KDOC, KSP, LLCC, and KSR are state agencies that sponsor many inmate proceedings before a state board, commission, or agency, including, for example, parole and disciplinary hearings. 163. Despite specific requests for interpreters, Plaintiffs have been subjected to many KDOC proceedings falling within the scope of KRS 344.500 without the aid of any interpreter, let alone a qualified interpreter.
38

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 39 of 42 - Page ID#: 1197
164. Defendants, through their policies and practices, consistently fail and even refuse to provide adequate access to qualified interpreters during inmate proceedings that fall within the scope of KRS 344.500.
165. Defendants’ failure to comply with the KRS 344.500 has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be unable to adequately participate in the Defendants’ sponsored proceedings unless and until Defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant to KRS 344.500.
COUNT VIII Violation of the Kentucky Civil Rights Act (KRS 344.120) (Against all Defendants by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated
individuals) 166. Plaintiffs allege and incorporate by reference each and every allegation above as if fully set forth herein. 167. The Kentucky Civil Rights Act provides that “it is an unlawful practice for a person to deny an individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” KRS 344.120. 168. Defendants are state actors that fall within the Kentucky Civil Rights Act’s definition of “person.” KRS 344.010. 169. Despite specific requests for interpreters, videophones, and other accommodations to fully enjoy the goods and services purportedly offered by Defendants, Plaintiffs have been in a large part denied their requests. Plaintiffs continue to be discriminated against due to their disability and are unable to enjoy Defendants’ accommodations.
39

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 40 of 42 - Page ID#: 1198
170. Defendants, through their policies and practices, consistently fail and even refuse to provide the full scope of their available accommodations to Plaintiffs.
171. Defendants’ failure to comply with the KRS 344.120 has resulted in harm to Plaintiffs, and will continue to result in harm to Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC and continue to be unable to adequately enjoy the Defendants’ goods and services unless and until defendants are ordered by this Court to make modifications to their policies, practices and procedures pursuant to KRS 344.120.
COUNT IX Damages
(Against all Individual Defendants in their individual capacities by the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals)
162. The individual Defendants, by their violation of the constitutional provisions and statutes specified above, have harmed Plaintiffs, and will continue to harm Plaintiffs, as Plaintiffs will remain in the custody of KDOC or under the supervision of KDOC and will continue to attempt to communicate with people outside prison. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to recover from the Individual Defendants, in their individual capacities, the actual damages they have sustained by virtue of the Individual Defendants’ conduct. In addition, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the Individual Defendants, in their individual capacities, punitive damages to punish the individual Defendants for their past violations and to deter future violations against Plaintiffs by these Defendants and until all Defendants are ordered by this Court to make the modifications to their policies, practices, and procedures pursuant required by statute and the United States Constitution.
VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:
40

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 41 of 42 - Page ID#: 1199
1. Certify this case as a Plaintiff class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;
2. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 794(a), 42 U.S.C.§ 12133, and KRS 344.450 award the named Plaintiffs and the class members recovery of any and all damages, incurred because of the Individual Defendants’ actions, from the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities;
3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to provide the proper interpretative services, TTD, videophones, and other hearing devices that are required for deaf and hard of hearing inmates to fully participate in the programs offered by the federally funded prison system;
4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from refusing to provide the proper interpretative services, TTD, videophones, and other hearing devices that are required for deaf and hard of hearing inmates to fully participate in and benefit from the programs offered by these public entities;
5. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin Defendants from depriving Plaintiffs and Plaintiff class members of the protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983;
6. Award prejudgment interest;
7. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees;
8. Award monetary punitive and/or compensatory damages against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities; and
9. Award Plaintiffs such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
VII. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs, by their counsel and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b),
hereby demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable in this action.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gregory A. Belzley Gregory A. Belzley Camille A. Bathurst BelzleyBathurst Attorneys P.O. Box 278
41

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 42 Filed: 10/01/14 Page: 42 of 42 - Page ID#: 1200
Prospect, KY 40059 502/292-2452 gbelzley@aol.com P.J. McCarthy Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20005-3314 202/682-7041 202/857-0940 Fax patrick.mccarthy@weil.com Deborah Golden Washington Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 11 DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 202/319-1000 202/319-1010 Fax deborah_golden@washlaw.org Counsel for Plaintiffs
42

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 48 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 1276

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00001-GPVT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

MOTION TO DISMISS ON BEHALF OF BOBBIE UNDERWOOD

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

Comes Defendant Bobbie Underwood, (hereinafter referred to as “Underwood”), by counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and other applicable law, and move this honorable Court to dismiss the above-styled action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. In support of this motion, Defendants submit the following memorandum of law.

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Kentucky Department of Corrections inmates who identify themselves as deaf and/or hard of hearing, filed the initial Complaint in this action alleging that their rights have been violated. At the core of their action are complaints regarding accommodations for them as deaf and/or hard of hearing inmates. Plaintiffs have now filed an Amended Complaint adding several defendants, including Bobbie Underwood. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that it is their information and belief that Underwood is responsible for KDOC employee compliance with federal laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12131, et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, et seq., and the Constitution of the United State and that she is aware of KDOC’s policies and practices regarding deaf and hard of hearing individuals and

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 48 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#: 1277
whether KDOC employees KDOC policies comply with federal law. (DN 42, Amended Complaint, p. 13).
STANDARD OF REVIEW Underwood is due to be dismissed from this action because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against her. As set out below, Underwood has no contact with on inmates nor is she involved in establishing or enforcing policy and procedure as they relate to accommodations for inmates housed at KYDOC institutions. As such, Plaintiffs do not and cannot state a claim against Underwood unless they are bringing this action as KYDOC employees challenging her activities in her oversight of activities tied to employee personnel, payroll, recruitment, or in various areas of employee Human Resources. In presenting this argument to the Court, Underwood attaches an Affidavit explaining her job responsibilities. While consideration of material outside the pleadings can result in the Court converting the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment, it is Underwood’s understanding that introduction of this Affidavit under these circumstances without converting the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment is appropriate under Weiner v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86, 89 (6th Cir., 1997). Nonetheless, to the extent the Court converts the Motion to Dismiss into a Motion for Summary Judgment, Underwood is still due to be dismissed from this action for the reasons stated.
DISCUSSION Underwood is due to be dismissed from this action because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against her. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not state any factual allegations concerning Underwood.
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 48 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#: 1278
While Underwood has general knowledge regarding the ADA and other laws that are relevant in the human resources area, her knowledge of those areas are only as they relate to employees. Underwood is employed in a central office position and her position is not tied to any institution. Underwood’s position involves oversight of activities tied to employee personnel, payroll, and recruitment, as well as various employee Human Resources responsibilities. Underwood’s job duties do not involve KYDOC inmates – she does not oversee inmate issues, she is not assigned to any KYDOC institution, she has no contact with inmates, her job duties do not involve making or enforcing policy or procedure for inmates, and issues regarding accommodations of any type for KYDOC inmates do not fall within her job responsibilities. While Underwood has basic knowledge of various federal and state laws as they apply to human resources and personnel for KYDOC employees, she has no knowledge of these laws as they apply to KYDOC inmates. (See Affidavit of Bobbie Underwood attached as Exhibit A). At a minimum, to state a claim for relief, Plaintiffs must show how Underwood is accountable because she was personally involved in the acts about which Plaintiffs complain. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-76 (1976). Plaintiffs Complaint is not filed on behalf of any KYDOC employee, nor does it allege any violation of rights relevant to KYDOC employee personnel, payroll, recruitment, or Human Resources. Plaintiffs Complaint not only fails to show that Underwood was personally involved in the acts about which Plaintiffs complain, they fail to allege any facts concerning Underwood or her position within KYDOC.
CONCLUSION
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 48 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#: 1279
With Plaintiffs failure to show how Underwood is involved at all in the acts about which they complain, and failure to allege any facts concerning Underwood, Underwood should be dismissed from this action.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Underwood, by counsel, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against her and dismiss her from this action.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Angela T. Dunham ANGELA T. DUNHAM J. TODD HENNING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Office of Legal Services 275 East Main Street P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2400 Telephone: (502) 782-2299 Fax: (502) 564-8765
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 30, 2014, I electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky by using the CM/ECF system. I further that it is my understanding that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system:
/s/ Angela T. Dunham _________________________________ COUNSEL FOR UNDERWOOD
4

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 49 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1283

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00001-GPVT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated

PLAINTIFF

v.

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY KENTUCKY JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

Come Defendants Commonwealth of Kentucky (“Commonwealth”), Justice and Public Safety Cabinet (“Cabinet”), Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department”), J. Michael Brown (“Brown”), LaDonna Thompson (“Thompson”), Kimberly Potter-Blair (“Potter-Blair”), Paula Holden (“Holden”), Jim Erwin (“Erwin”), Randy White (“White”), Gregory Howard (“Howard”), Clark Taylor (“Taylor”), and Aaron Smith (Smith), (“Defendants”) and state as follows for their response to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint:
1. In response to paragraphs 1-20 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, Defendants incorporate by reference, as if restated herein, the February 10, 2014 Answer to paragraphs 1-20 of the original Complaint.
2. In response to paragraph 21, Defendants deny that some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at Bell County Forestry Camp and deny that grievances have been filed at Bell County Forestry Camp regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 49 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 2 of 5 - Page ID#: 1284
3. In response to paragraph 22, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Blackburn Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
4. In response to paragraph 23, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
5. In response to paragraph 24, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Green River Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
7. In response to paragraph 26, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Little Sandy Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
8. In response to paragraph 27, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Northpoint Training Center regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 49 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 3 of 5 - Page ID#: 1285
9. In response to paragraph 28, Defendants deny that some of the KDOC’s deaf inmates are in custody at Roederer Correctional Complex and deny that grievances have been filed at Roederer Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
10. In response to paragraph 29, Defendants deny that grievances have been filed at Western Kentucky Correctional Complex regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates. Defendants admit the remainder of allegations contained in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
11. In response to paragraph 30, Defendants admit so much of the allegations regarding Underwood’s knowledge and experience regarding issues that impact employees. Defendants deny so much of the allegations regarding Underwood’s knowledge and experience regarding issues that impact inmates.
12. In response to paragraphs 31-172 of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (on page 40 of the Amended Complaint, what is numbered 162 seems to be a mistake, and should be number 172), Defendants incorporate by reference, as if restated herein, the February 10, 2014 Answer to paragraphs 21-162 of the original Complaint.
13. Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested. 14. Defendants deny any allegations not specifically admitted herein. 15. Defendants deny each and every allegation that they deprived the Plaintiffs of any
Constitutional right or infringed upon any state or federally protected rights.
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 49 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 4 of 5 - Page ID#: 1286
16. Defendants at all times acted reasonably and prudently in accordance with the existing law, state of the art, and/or custom in the profession during the relevant time periods thus barring any recovery herein.
17. Any requests for damages against defendants in their official capacities are claims against the Commonwealth and are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
18. Any requests for damages are barred pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 19. Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Prison Litigation Reform Act by failing to
exhaust their administrative remedies as to some or all claims. 20. Defendants plead the affirmative defenses of Estoppel and/or waiver, thus barring any
recovery herein. 21. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of absolute, sovereign, official,
governmental, good faith, and/or qualified immunities. 22. Defendants reserve the right to assert such other affirmative defenses as may appear
appropriate after discovery has been conducted in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand as follows:
A. That Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed; B. That Defendants recover any and all costs and fees incurred herein; C. Any and all other proper relief to which the Defendants may appear entitled; and D. Trial by jury on all applicable claims.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Angela T. Dunham ANGELA T. DUNHAM J. TODD HENNING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Office of Legal Services 275 East Main Street
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 49 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 5 of 5 - Page ID#: 1287 P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2400 Telephone: (502) 782-2299 Fax: (502) 564-8765
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 30, 2014, I electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky by using the CM/ECF system. I further certify that it is my understanding that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system:
/s/ Angela T. Dunham _________________________________ COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
5

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 1288

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00001-GPVT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

MOTION TO DISMISS ON BEHALF OF GARY BECKSTROM, DON

BOTTOMS, ALAN BROWN, JANET CONOVER, STEVE HANEY, KATHY

LITTERAL, JOSEPH MEKO, RAVONNE SIMS, AND STEVE WOODWARD

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

Come Defendants Gary Beckstrom (“Beckstrom”), Don Bottoms (“Bottoms”), Alan Brown (“Brown”), Janet Conover (“Conover”), Steve Haney (“Haney”), Kathy Litteral (“Litteral”), Joseph Meko (“Meko”), Ravonne Sims (“Sims”), and Steve Woodward (“Woodward”), by counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and other applicable law, and move this honorable Court to dismiss the above-styled action for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted. In support of this motion, Defendants Beckstrom, Bottoms, Brown, Conover, Haney, Litteral, Meko, Sims, and Woodward submit the following:

INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, Kentucky Department of Corrections inmates who identify themselves as deaf and/or hard of hearing, filed the initial Complaint in this action alleging that their rights have been violated. At the core of their action are complaints regarding accommodations for them as deaf and/or hard of hearing inmates. Plaintiffs have now filed an Amended Complaint adding several defendants, including Beckstrom (Warden at Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex), Bottoms (Warden at Northpoint Training Center, Brown (Warden at Green River Correctional Complex), Conover

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#: 1289
(Warden at Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women), Haney (Warden at Blackburn Correctional Complex), Litteral (Warden at Bell County Forestry Camp), Meko (Warden at Little Sandy Correctional Complex), Sims (Warden at Roederer Correctional Complex), and Woodward (Warden at Western Kentucky Correctional Complex).1 In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert that it is their information and belief that these defendants are Wardens of various Kentucky Department of Corrections Adult institutions, that deaf or hard of hearing inmates are housed at these institutions, and grievances regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing inmates have been filed at these institutions. (DN 42, Amended Complaint, p. 10-14).
DISCUSSION Beckstrom, Bottoms, Brown, Conover, Haney, Litteral, Meko, Sims, and Woodward are due to be dismissed from this action because Plaintiffs fail to state a claim against them. Specifically, Plaintiffs do not state any factual allegations concerning any of these defendants. Simply being a Warden at an adult institution where deaf and hard of hearing inmates may be housed, where grievances have at some time in the past been filed, does not state a claim against these defendants.2 At a minimum, to state a claim for relief, Plaintiffs must show how these defendants are accountable because they were personally involved in the acts about which Plaintiffs complain. See Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 375-76 (1976). Plaintiffs never allege any personal involvement by these defendants in the acts about which they complaint. Plaintiffs
1 Plaintiffs also named Assistant Director of Personnel Bobbie Underwood as a defendant. A motion to dismiss on behalf of Defendant Underwood is already pending before the Court. 2 Even under these facts, why Defendants Sims and Litteral were named in the Amended Complaints is confusing as last check, which was during the responses to discovery, there were no deaf and/or hard of hearing inmates housed at Bell County Forestry Camp or Roederer Correctional Complex. (See attached response to interrogatory No. 2).
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#: 1290
are not housed at the institutions where these defendants are wardens. Plaintiffs do not claim that they filed grievances regarding accommodations for deaf and hard of hearing at the institutions where these defendants are wardens. The only basis for including these defendants is their position as warden as that is an insufficient basis for Plaintiffs claims. Liability under §1983 must be based on active unconstitutional behavior. Shehee v. Luttrell, 199 F.3d 295, 300 (6th Cir. 1999). Plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges no active unconstitutional behavior or any personal involvement at all in the alleged acts set out in the Complaint.
CONCLUSION With Plaintiffs failure to show how Beckstrom, Bottoms, Brown, Conover, Haney, Litteral, Meko, Sims, or Woodward are involved at all in the acts about which they complain, and failure to allege any facts concerning these defendants, Beckstrom, Bottoms, Brown, Conover, Haney, Litteral, Meko, Sims, and Woodward should be dismissed from this action. WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Beckstrom, Bottoms, Brown, Conover, Haney, Litteral, Meko, Sims, and Woodward, by counsel, respectfully moves this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims against them and dismiss them from this action.
Respectfully submitted, /s/ Angela T. Dunham ANGELA T. DUNHAM J. TODD HENNING DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Office of Legal Services 275 East Main Street P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2400 Telephone: (502) 782-2299 Fax: (502) 564-8765 Counsel for Defendants
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 50 Filed: 10/30/14 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#: 1291 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 30, 2014, I electronically filed this document with the Clerk of the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky by using the CM/ECF system. I further that it is my understanding that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system:
/s/ Angela T. Dunham _________________________________ COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
4

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 1466

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

Eastfll'n District of lont,uoky
F I LED

MICHAEL KNIGHTS AND OSCAR ADAMS, )

on behalf of themselves and

)

all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

JUN 242015
AT FRANKFORT ROBERT R. CARR CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
Case No.: 3: 14-cv-00001-GFVT

CONSENT JUDGMENT WHEREAS, Plaintiffs Michael Knights and Oscar Adams (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") filed an action alleging violations of their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq., the Constitution of the United States, the Religious Land use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000,42. U.S.C. § 200cc et seq., the Kentucky Civil Rights Act Provision of Interpreters, KRS 344.500, and the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, KRS 344.l20 (the "Complaint"); WHEREAS, the Plaintiffs and the Kentucky Department of Corrections (the "Department, and, together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties") have entered into a settlement agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Settlement Agreement"), to resolve all claims against all those named as defendants in the Complaint without trial or adjudication of any further issue of fact or law; WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that this Consent Judgment may be signed by a Judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky and consent to the entry of this Judgment;

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 1467 •

WHEREAS, the Department confirms, agrees and acknowledges, that it will perform the obligations and duties set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
NOW THEREFORE, the Court finds that there is good and sufficient cause to enter this Consent Judgment, and that it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. The Department, any person or entity under the Department's control, and all of the Department's officers, assigns, successors in interest, predecessors in interest, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, licensees and employees are enjoined and restrained, for the duration of the Settlement Agreement (see Sections 1. and XVII.!), from directly or indirectly breaching any terms of the Settlement Agreement.
2. This Court will retain jurisdiction over the Parties to enforce the Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction pursuant to Section XVLB. of the Settlement Agreement.
3. Pursuant to Section XV. of the Settlement Agreement, the Court appoints Margo Schlanger to serve as a Settlement Monitor to monitor the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to Section XV.B. of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Monitor will provide semi-annual reports to the Court and to the Parties concerning the status of Defendants' compliance with the Settlement Agreement or report to the Court pursuant to any schedule hereafter set by the Court.
4. Except as provided herein, all claims alleged in the Complaint are dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Section XVLB. of the attached Settlement Agreement and all pending motions are withdrawn.
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 1468 •

Dated: May 29, 2015
On behalf of Plaintiffs,
/s/ Ralph Miller
 Ralph Miller (admitted pro hac vice)
 Kristen Murphy (admitted pro hac vice)
 W. Sutton Ansley (admitted pro hac vice) Zachary C. Garthe (admitted pro hac vice) Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 1300 Eye Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington Dc 20005-3314 (202)682-7000 Fax: (202) 857-0939 ralph.miller@weil.com kristen.murphy@weil.com sutton.ansley@weil.com zachary.garthe(a1weil.com
Gregory A. Blezley
 BelzleyBathurst Attorneys
 P.O. Box 278
 Prospect, KY 40059
 (502) 292-2452
 gbelzley(a1aol.co,l1!

Deborah Golden Elliot Mincberg (admitted pro hac vice) Washington Lawyers' Committee
For Civil Rights & Urban Affairs 11 DuPont Circle, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 319-1000
 (202)319-1010 (fax)
 deborah golden(a1washlaw.org
 elliot mincberg@washlaw.org

Counselfor Plaintiffs

On behalf of Defendants,
lsI Angela Dun=-h=a",-,-,m,---~_ ANGELA T. DUNHAM DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Office of Legal Services 275 East Main Street P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2400 Telephone: (502) 782-2299 Fax: (502) 564-8765
Counselfor Defendants

The Honorable Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove

* Dated: , ...

,2015

3

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 1 of 65 - Page ID#: 1509

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL KNIGHTS )

on behalf of themselves and

)

all others similarly situated,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

First Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor
February 2, 2016
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 2 of 65 - Page ID#: 1510

I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is the first semi-annual report to the Court and the Parties concerning the status of compliance with the Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department”) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (“Deaf”).
I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the various affected institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement. The Department has made a significant start towards compliance during the Agreement’s first seven months. In particular, each institution that houses one or more Deaf inmates now has an ADA Coordinator and a videophone.
However, much remains to be done. Most notably, the Department has failed to make any progress with respect to staff training, which the Agreement required to be provided by October 2015. In addition, I have not yet assessed progress towards many Agreement provisions, but the inmate interviews I have conducted demonstrate that, at least at some institutions, Kentucky’s Deaf inmates feel they are continuing to struggle to get interpreters, auxiliary aids and services, and effective communication more generally. I look forward to more comprehensively evaluating compliance across the Department, over the next months and the Agreement’s full term.
Note: The Agreement included heading numbers, but not every paragraph and provision is clearly numbered. To facilitate reference to specific paragraphs, I have numbered them all, and attach the agreement with that as the only change, as Exhibit B to this report. In this report, I refer to the settlement provisions using these numbers.
This report has five Exhibits:
A) Margo Schlanger CV B) Settlement Agreement with additional numbering C) Compliance reporting form for Agreement items with deadlines (Jan. 4, 2016) D) Quarterly Compliance reporting form (Jan. 18, 2016) E) Summary of common themes in inmate interviews

II. TIMELINE

The Settlement was filed with the Court on May 29, 2015, and ordered by the Court on June 24, 2015. The Settlement Agreement specified that its effective date would be 30 days after filing. Accordingly, the pertinent deadlines for the agreement are:

• June 28, 2015 • July 28, 2015 • Aug. 27, 2015 • Sept. 26, 2015

Effective date Effective date plus 30 days Effective date plus 60 days Effective date plus 90 days

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 3 of 65 - Page ID#: 1511
In order to line up the Agreement’s various reporting deadlines with the State’s quarterly calendar, I have shifted those deadlines a few days or weeks. Quarterly reports will therefore cover the ordinary quarters (using calendar years, not fiscal years), with reports due two weeks after the close of the quarter.
• 1st Quarter: Jan. 1 to Mar. 31; reporting due Apr. 14 • 2nd Quarter: Apr. 1 to June 30; reporting due July 14 • 3rd Quarter: July 1 to Sept. 30; reporting due Oct. 14 • 4th Quarter: Oct. 1 to Dec. 31; reporting due Jan. 14
The Agreement does not specify precise timing for my Semi-Annual Reports, but barring some reason to do otherwise, I plan to file them in February and July.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITEMS WITH SPECIFIED DEADLINES.
A. Items with deadlines in the first 90 days.
1. Designation and information re. ADA Coordinators.
The Agreement required the designation of ADA Coordinators for each facility, along with notice to me and Deaf Inmates, physical posting of the information in a secure area in any housing unit in which a Deaf inmate is held, and web-posting. All this was to be complete by July 28, 2015. (II.B.1, II.B.2)
Status: Nearly compliant. I received timely notice of this information from KDOC for each institution. All but one of the Deaf inmates I have communicated with knew the identity of their ADA Coordinator. And I received photographs of the physical posting of the information. The web-posting is here: http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx. As of today (February 2, 2016), the webpage is nearly complete; it is missing the Department’s newest facility, the Ross-Cash Center. In addition, the online information for the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex is not up to date; a change in ADA Coordinator that occurred sometime before December 7, 2015, is not reflected.
Necessary compliance steps: • Add Ross-Cash Center and update Western Kentucky Correctional Complex on http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx. • Implement a system to ensure timely updating of the webpage and report that system to me.
2. Videophone installation.
The Agreement (IX.D.3.a) required that Deaf inmates at all institutions have access to videophones by the end of August 2015. The Department has reported to me that this has been accomplished in every facility. Deaf inmates at five institutions have used the videophones to

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 4 of 65 - Page ID#: 1512
discuss with me (via a law student assistant) their observations about compliance with the agreement.
Status: Apparently compliant.
It is worth noting that the videophone requirement does not exhaust all the Settlement Agreement’s provisions governing access to telephone services. For example, the Agreement, also requires ready access to a TTY for all Deaf inmates (IX.D.1). This is a topic for future reporting, but I have been informed that the Deaf inmate at the Ross-Cash Center does not sign well enough to be able to use the videophone; instead, she uses a TTY. The Ross-Cash Center is currently able to borrow a TTY from Western Kentucky Correctional Complex, which is colocated with it, but apparently does not have its own TTY for its inmates’ more ready use.
3. Videophone access.
The Agreement (IX.D.3) is clear that videophone and TTY usage must be cost-free for Deaf inmates, and that Deaf inmates must have at least as much access to videophones as nonDeaf inmates have to conventional telephones. In particular, it provides “videophones . . . will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use.”
I have been told by one inmate that because the phone is in another housing area, he needs to request special permission and an escort (and that time under escort is counted against his limited phone time), whereas non-Deaf inmates have access to phones in their own housing areas and without special request. In a compliance reporting form that covered the 90-day requirements of the Agreement, attached as Exhibit C, I asked the ADA Coordinators to selfreport on this issue. Most of their responses indicate that phones are accessible, but are not entirely clear about the need for escort. For the Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC), the self-report was that Deaf inmates are charged for the use of videophones, and that they “have to have staff set up the system for them on an individual basis upon their request.” WKCC does not (as of the latest report) house any Deaf inmates, but it used to house one; she was transferred to another facility. WKCC’s self-report is inconsistent with this Agreement provision.
It is important that the videophones be as available to Deaf inmates as conventional phones are to non-Deaf inmates—including in the same unit, if that is the arrangement for other inmates. In addition, the time it takes to set up a videophone or transport Deaf inmates to it should be counted against their allocated phone time.
In future reports, I will examine this issue in more depth.
Status: Unclear.
Necessary compliance steps: • Ensure that Deaf inmates are not charged for videophone use

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 5 of 65 - Page ID#: 1513
• Give Deaf inmates access to videophones at least equal to non-Deaf inmates’ access to conventional phones (in the same unit, if that’s the arrangement for conventional phones).
• Transport and set-up time for the videophones should not be taken from Deaf inmates’ phone time.
4. Informational materials for Deaf Inmates.
The Agreement required that by the end of September 2015, all Deaf inmates be provided with “materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services.” The language of these materials is required to be “designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate.” (III.F.1) The same deadline applied, as well, to a Settlement Agreement requirement that Deaf Inmates be given “a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available.” (IV.B)
In response to my questions (see Exhibit C), several institutions provided me the written notice they shared with Deaf inmates. ADA Coordinator self-reports indicate that most inmates have received this documentation. (The Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women’s coordinator stated only that both its Deaf inmates are aware of the available services. The RossCash Center’s ADA Coordinator stated “Auxiliary Aids and services are done by are medical staff. Interpreter is available through Purple phone.” No written documents were provided by either; I infer that notification to the inmates may have been oral rather than written.)
When provided, the content of the informational materials is not ideal:
• For many of the institutions, the notice does not use “language designed to be accessible.” For example, two of the notices state: “This memorandum serves as notification to you of an auxiliary aide available for your use,” but never explain what an auxiliary aid is.
• The best of the informational handouts is the one for the Roederer Correctional Complex, which specifies the circumstances in which interpretation services are provided. Others do not have this detail, which is important.
• All of the information focuses on telephone equipment (TTY and videophone). There is nothing in any of the materials that informs Deaf inmates that they are entitled to other auxiliary aids and services, including: o Hearing aids (and how to get them) o Computer-aided transcription services o Assistive listening systems o Closed caption decoders o Open and closed captioning (for example for shared televisions or video provided by the institution) o Non-auditory alert or alarm systems o Bed shakers o Other medically-necessary devices o TVs that support open- or closed-captioning (at the inmate’s expense)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 6 of 65 - Page ID#: 1514
• No information tells inmates that they can ask to purchase devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers, even if not deemed medically necessary.
Status: Partially compliant.
Necessary compliance steps: • Written notification to all Deaf inmates • Improvement of written materials so that they satisfy the following criteria: o They explain in clear and simple terms what an auxiliary aid is. o They explain in clear and simple terms how to request an auxiliary aid or qualified interpretation. o They list the occasions when interpretive services are available, and when such services may be by video or in-person. o They explain how to use a TTY and a videophone. o They explain what non-telephonic auxiliary aids are available, under what circumstances, and how to request them. This should especially include hearing aids, open- or closed-captioning, non-auditory alerts, bed shakers, etc. It should cover which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense.
5. Qualified Interpreters for unscheduled medical emergencies.
Starting at the end of September 2015, the Agreement (VI.C.4) requires the Department to provide a Qualified Interpreter via Video Remote Interpreting (“VRI”) for unscheduled medical emergencies. Using the form attached as Exhibit C, I asked the ADA Coordinators at facilities with at least one Deaf inmate to self-report if any such situation has arisen, and what arrangements their facility has made to be ready for this obligation, if the time does come. All reported no emergencies so far. They also each reported some preparation, usually by informing medical staff about the availability of a VRI laptop and the like. However, the self-reports do leave some compliance questions unanswered:
• At Roederer Correctional Center, the ADA Coordinator reported that use could be scheduled—which leaves unanswered the question about unscheduled medical emergencies. I note, as well, that the Agreement (VI.A) actually provides for in-person rather than video interpretation for scheduled medical appointments.
• At the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women, the ADA Coordinator reported, “We will inform the off site provider and let them know they would be coming and the estimated arrival time.” This again leaves unanswered the question of effective communication both on-site and if the provider is not prepared to meet the need.
• At the Ross-Cash Center, the ADA Coordinator reported that discussions with a provider are ongoing.
Status: Unclear. Necessary compliance steps: Unclear.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 7 of 65 - Page ID#: 1515
6. Training.
The Agreement includes very substantial provisions governing training, which was supposed to be provided by the end of September 2015 on numerous specified topics to “KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population.” (XIII.A.1) In addition, the Agreement requires that ADA Coordinators be “trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1) There are procedural requirements, as well: the Department is required to receive input from the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (KCDHH) and from me. (XIII.A.1)
Unfortunately, the Department as a whole has made no evident progress towards implementing this crucial aspect of the Settlement Agreement. Apparently even scheduling a meeting with the KCDHH has been challenging. This is not a sufficient excuse for failing to at least develop a draft on which to receive input.
I note, however, that the ADA Coordinator at the Kentucky State Reformatory has developed a useful PowerPoint training offering tips on communication with Deaf inmates. I do not know whether that training has been delivered, or to whom. It does not cover all the needed topics, but it is a start.
Status: Non-compliant.
Necessary compliance steps: • Confer with KCDHH and with me • Develop and deliver training for ADA Coordinators and for prison staff.
7. Disciplinary hearings without a Qualified Interpreter.
The Agreement specifies: “If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.” (VII.B.3) I have requested a list of any inmates who, as of June 28, 2015 (the Agreement’s effective date), met these criteria. But KDOC has not provided me with a list. Therefore, I do not know if KDOC is or is not in compliance with this provision.
Status: Unclear. Necessary compliance steps:
• Identify any inmates covered, and redo their disciplinary hearings if need be.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 8 of 65 - Page ID#: 1516
8. Payments to plaintiffs and their counsel.
The Settlement Agreement required payment of a total of $253,077.62 to plaintiffs and their counsel (mostly counsel). Plaintiffs’ counsel report to me that these payments have been made in full.
Status: Compliant.
9. Routine reporting.
Grievances: The Agreement requires that the Department provide me, quarterly, a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates that relate to the Agreement. (XIV.3) There are very few such grievances, so mostly this provision requires negative reports. I received summaries for the first relevant period (July 2015) by several emails from Department headquarters. For the next reporting period, I received individual emails from ADA Coordinators. In order to facilitate this reporting, I then created a web-based reporting form (and aligned the reporting with ordinary quarters). A PDF version of the form is attached as Exhibit D. For the 2015 4th Quarter reports, covering October 1 to December 31, 2015, I sent a link to it to each of the ADA Coordinators on Monday, January 18, 2016, and requested it be filled out by Thursday, January 28. Unfortunately, as of close of business the following Monday, February 1, there remained two institutions (out of thirteen) that had not yet reported. It remains my hope that use of this form will considerably facilitate reporting. (There have so far been just a handful of grievances reported to me; I will be examining their resolution on my site visit to Kentucky State Reformatory, later this month.)
Deaf inmates. The Agreement requires that the Department provide me, every six months, a current and up-to-date list of Deaf inmates in the KDOC’s custody, identifying the inmates’ names, DOC numbers and institutions. Of the Department’s thirteen adult institutions, I understand seven to have one or more Deaf inmates. I received the first set of these reports from a central administrative contact at the Department; the second set came to me via individual emails from different ADA Coordinators, and required numerous email reminders. Even then, three institutions did not provide their lists. To make this reporting requirement easier in the future, I will use the web-based reporting form just discussed. (The 2015 Quarter 4 version does not include this question, because it is required only every other quarter.)
Status: Compliant, but difficult.
Necessary compliance steps: • Ensure timely and complete responses to the reporting forms I provide by all ADA Coordinators.
10. Situational reporting.
The Agreement specifies five situations in which the Department is supposed to notify me promptly. They are:

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 9 of 65 - Page ID#: 1517
• When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a program or activity because the Department has determined that participation would present a “Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates.” (II.A)
• When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a work assignment because that assignment would “present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others” (VI.F)
• When the Department is considering a non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates, in real time, of prison-wide events and emergencies, and events specific to that inmate (VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C)
• When the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adjust the number of minutes afforded Deaf Inmates to make TTY and videophone calls. (IX.C)
• When the Department has made a determination to allow or disallow a Deaf Inmate to use devices such as vibrating clocks or in-line amplifiers, if those devices are not deemed medically necessary. (XII)
I have not received any such notices. In order to ascertain whether any of these situations has arisen, I included questions about these five situations in the quarterly reporting form already discussed, and attached as Exhibit D. Most of the Department’s institutions have responded to that form. Of those, several institutions have considered a non-auditory alert system, and may have made determinations to allow or disallow various covered devices, without providing me the required notice.
Status: Partially non-compliant. Necessary compliance steps: Train ADA Coordinators as to their prompt situational reporting obligations.
IV. DEFENDANT’S OTHER OBLIGATIONS
The Settlement Agreement is 24 pages long and includes many other requirements not discussed in this report. But those requirements do not specify a date for achievement. The Agreement’s term is five years.
Two interpretations of the absence of a date seem plausible: Perhaps when no date is specified, the requirement should be considered effective immediately. Or perhaps the Department is required to implement the requirement moving with reasonable speed. (I don’t think it is plausible to interpret the absence of a date as leaving the implementation time frame completely to the discretion of the Defendant.)
Before beginning to monitor compliance with all the provisions that have no dates, I asked the Department to inform me when its institutions will be compliant, in its view. I felt that that if the Department specified a reasonable date, it would be appropriate to delay site visits and the monitoring they enable until after that date. I asked, as well, for particular attention to be paid to compliance at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), since it houses several dozen Deaf Inmates, with only about eight others spread among a handful of other institutions.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 10 of 65 - Page ID#: 1518
The Department informed me that it would be in compliance with the Agreement at KSR by the middle of February. Therefore, I have scheduled a site visit to KSR for February 24 and 25, 2016. In advance of that visit, I am completing a draft Compliance Instrument, which I will share with plaintiffs’ counsel and with the Department.
In order to keep abreast on issues at other institutions, I have made contact with each of the Deaf inmates who is not at KSR; a law student assistant has interviewed nearly all of them about their experiences with matters covered by the Settlement Agreement. Those experiences are referenced in this report, and their common themes are summarized in Exhibit E.
Status: Unclear
Necessary compliance steps: The Department should specify reasonable dates for full compliance at each institution, which will allow my site visits to be as useful as possible.
V. CONCLUSION, AND SUMMARY OF NECESSARY COMPLIANCE STEPS.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections has made a significant start towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement since the Agreement became effective on June 28, 2015. Much remains to be done; I will report in more depth in the next report.
Summary of Necessary Compliance Steps 1. Designation and information re. ADA Coordinators. • Add Ross-Cash Center and update Western Kentucky Correctional Complex on http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx. • Implement a system to ensure timely updating of the webpage and report that system to me. 2. Videophone installation. • None 3. Videophone access. • Ensure that Deaf inmates are not charged for videophone use. • Give Deaf inmates access to videophones at least equal to non-Deaf inmates’ access to conventional phones (in the same unit, if that’s the arrangement for conventional phones). • Transport and set-up time for the videophones should not be taken from Deaf inmates’ phone time. 4. Informational materials for Deaf Inmates. • Written notification to all Deaf inmates • Improve materials so that they satisfy the following criteria: o They explain in clear and simple terms what an auxiliary aid is. o They explain in clear and simple terms how to request an auxiliary aid or qualified interpretation. o They list the occasions when interpretive services are available, and when such services may be by video or in-person. o They explain how to use a TTY and a videophone.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 11 of 65 - Page ID#: 1519
o They explain what non-telephonic auxiliary aids are available, under what circumstances, and how to request them. This should especially include hearing aids, open- or closed-captioning, non-auditory alerts, bed shakers, etc. It should cover which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense.
5. Qualified Interpreters for unscheduled medical emergencies. • Unclear
6. Training. • Confer with KCDHH and with me • Develop and deliver training for ADA Coordinators and for prison staff.
7. Disciplinary hearings without a Qualified Interpreter. • Identify any inmates covered, and redo their disciplinary hearings if need be.
8. Payments to plaintiffs and their counsel. • None.
9. Routine reporting. • Ensure timely and complete responses by all ADA Coordinators to the reporting forms I provide.
10. Situational reporting. • Train ADA Coordinators as to their prompt situational reporting obligations.
11. Defendant’s other obligations. • Specify reasonable dates for full compliance at each non-KSR institution.
Dated: February 2, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 12 of 65 - Page ID#: 1520
First Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (Feb. 2, 2016)
Exhibits
A) Margo Schlanger CV B) Settlement Agreement with additional numbering C) Compliance reporting form for Agreement items with deadlines (Jan. 4, 2016) D) Quarterly Compliance reporting form (Jan. 18, 2016) E) Summary of common themes in inmate interviews

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 13 of 65 - Page ID#: 1521
Exhibit A: Margo Schlanger CV

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 14 of 65 - Page ID#: 1522
MARGO SCHLANGER http://margoschlanger.net
mschlan@umich.edu 734-615-2618
EMPLOYMENT
Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan (2009–present; on leave 2010 and 2011). Director, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, http://clearinghouse.net. Visiting Professor of Law, Fall 2009.
Settlement Monitor, Adams & Knights v. Kentucky Department of Corrections (3:14-cv-00001, E.D. Ky.), June 2015–present. Court-appointed monitor in settlement of state-wide case about deaf prisoners.
Counsel to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Special Government Employee, parttime, 2012-2013). Advised Secretary of Homeland Security on civil rights matters.
Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Presidential appointment, 2010 & 2011). (Chair, Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee of the federal Information Sharing Environment’s Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee; Chair, Interagency Coord. Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities; Member, U.S. Delegation, Universal Periodic Review.)
Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (Spring 2009).
Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis (2004–2009); Director, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Elected 2008 “David M. Becker Professor of the Year” by law students.
Faculty Fellow, Harvard University Center for Ethics and the Professions (2001/02).
Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (1998–2004).
Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section (1995– 1998). Division Special Achievement Awards, 1996 and 1997.
Law clerk, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Supreme Court of the United States (1993–1995).
Fact-checker, The New Yorker (1989–1990).
OTHER APPOINTMENTS
Member, Department of Homeland Security Family Residential Center Federal Advisory Committee, Nov. 2015–present.
Reporter, American Bar Association task force on Standards relating to the Legal Status of Prisoners (2007–Jan. 2010). See http://www.americanbar.org/publications/criminal _justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_treatmentprisoners.html.
Commissioner, Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s Prisons (2006–2008). See http://www.prisoncommission.org.
EDUCATION
Yale Law School, J.D. 1993. Book Reviews Editor, Yale Law Journal (Vol. 102); Vinson Prize for excellence in clinical casework.
Yale College, B.A. 1989. Honors: magna cum laude, distinction in the History major, National Merit Scholar.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 15 of 65 - Page ID#: 1523
Schlanger cv, page 2 of 9 (12/20/2015)
COURSES TAUGHT
Torts; Prisons and the Law; Constitutional Equality; Constitutional Law. Seminars include Police and Surveillance Reform; Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and the Law; Civil Rights and Homeland Security; Empirical Inquiries into Civil Litigation; Institutional Reform Litigation.
SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS, forthcoming and published (for links, see margoschlanger.net)
The Just-Barely-Sustainable California Prisoners’ Rights Ecosystem, forthcoming, ANNALS OF THE AM. ACAD. POL. & SOC. SCI. (2016).
No Reason To Blame Liberals (Or, The Unbearable Lightness of Perversity Arguments, THE NEW RAMBLER REVIEW (online, June 15, 2015) (reviewing NAOMI MURAKAWA, THE FIRST CIVIL RIGHT: HOW LIBERALS BUILT PRISON AMERICA).
Against Solitary Confinement: Jonah’s Redemption and Our Need for Mercy, , 16 RUTGERS J. LAW & RELIGION 345 (2015) (symposium: People of the Book).
Stealth Advocacy Can (Sometimes) Change the World (review of ALISON L. GASH, BELOW THE RADAR: HOW SILENCE CAN SAVE CIVIL RIGHTS (2015)), 113 U. MICH. L. REV. 897 (2015).
Trends in Prisoner Litigation as the PLRA Enters Adulthood, 5 U.C. IRVINE L. REV 153 (2015).
Prisoners’ Rights Lawyers’ Strategies for Preserving the Role of the Courts, 69 U. MIAMI L. REV. 519 (2015).
Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap, 6 HARV. NAT. SEC. L.J. 112 (2015).
Offices of Goodness: Influence Without Authority within Federal Agencies, 36 CARDOZO L. REV. 53 (2014).
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Structural Reform of the American Workplace (with Pauline Kim), 91 WASH. U. L. REV. 1519 (2014).
Prison Segregation: Symposium Introduction and Preliminary Data on Racial Disparities, 18 MICH. J. RACE & LAW 241 (2013).
Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics, 48 HARV. CIV. RIGHTS-CIV. LIB. L. REV. 165 (2013).
Women Behind the Wheel: Gender and Transportation Law, 1860-1930, in Tracy A. Thomas & Tracey Jean Boisseau, eds., FEMINIST LEGAL HISTORY: ESSAYS ON WOMEN AND LAW (2011).
Regulating Segregation: The Contribution of the ABA Criminal Justice Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners, 47 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1421 (2010)
Against Secret Regulation: Why and How We Should End the Practical Obscurity of Injunctions and Consent Decrees, 59 DEPAUL L. REV. 515 (2010).
How to Study District Judge Decision-Making, 29 WASH. U. J. LAW & POL’Y 83 (2009) (with Pauline Kim, Christina Boyd, Andrew D. Martin).
Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act, 11 U. PENN. J. CONST. LAW 139 (2008) (with Giovanna Shay).
Jail Strip-Search Cases: Patterns and Participants, 71 LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 65 (2008).

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 16 of 65 - Page ID#: 1524
Schlanger cv, page 3 of 9 (12/20/2015)
Operationalizing Deterrence: Claims Management (in Hospitals, a Large Retailer, and Jails and Prisons), 2 JOURNAL OF TORT LAW (Aug. 2008).
Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability, 60 VAND. L. REV. 745 (2007) (with Samuel Bagenstos).
The Washington University Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: Using Court Records for Research, Teaching, and Policymaking, 75 UMKC L. REV. 153 (2006) (Symposium: Federal Civil Court Records of the National Archives: Opportunities for Empirical, Historical and Legal Research and Curriculum Design) (with Denise Lieberman). What We Know and What We Should Know About American Trial Trends, 2006 J. DISP. RES. 35 (2006) (Vanishing Trial Symposium).
Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 550 (2006). Reprinted in 23 CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND ATTORNEY FEES ANNUAL HANDBOOK (Steven Saltzman, ed., 2007).
Second Best Damage Action Deterrence, 55 DEPAUL L. REV. 517 (2006) (Clifford Symposium on Tort Law and Social Policy).
Determinants of Civil Rights Filings in Federal District Court by Jail and Prison Inmates, 1 J. EMPIRICAL LEG. STUD. 79 (2004) (with Anne Piehl).
The Reliability of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Database: An Initial Empirical Analysis, 78 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1455 (2003) (with Theodore Eisenberg) (symposium issue)
Inmate Litigation, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1555 (2003).
Gender Matters: Teaching a Reasonable Woman Standard in Personal Injury Law, 45 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 769 (2001).
Beyond the Hero Judge: Institutional Reform Litigation as Litigation, 76 MICH. L. REV. 1994 (1999).
Injured Women Before Common Law Courts, 1860–1930, 21 HARV. WOMEN’S L.J. 79 (1998).
NON-SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS
Class-Action Suit Brings Sweeping Changes to Solitary Confinement in New York, Prospect.org, Dec. 23, 2015 (with Amy Fettig), available at http://prospect.org/article/class-action-suit-brings-sweepingchanges-solitary-confinement-new-york.
Solitary Reform Milestones, Solitary Watch (with Amy Fettig), available at http://solitarywatch.com/milestones.
Eight Principles for Reforming Solitary Confinement, American Prospect, Fall 2015 (with Amy Fettig), available at http://prospect.org/article/eight-principles-reforming-solitary-confinement-0.
With one decision, Obama and Lynch could reshape the criminal justice system, WashingtonPost.com, Aug. 3, 2015 (with Robert Ferguson & Judith Resnik), available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/08/03/with-one-decision-obama-could-totallyreform-the-criminal-justice-system/.
A Civil Rights Vision for Countering Violent Extremism, The Hill (Congress Blog), July 14, 2015, available at http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/247769-a-civil-rights-vision-for-counteringviolent-extremism.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 17 of 65 - Page ID#: 1525
Schlanger cv, page 4 of 9 (12/20/2015)
The Declining Prisoner Docket, Alliance for Justice Blog, Feb. 25, 2015, available at http://www.afj.org/blog/the-declining-prison-litigation-docket.
U.S. Intelligence Reforms Still Allow Plenty of Suspicionless Spying on Americans, JustSecurity.org, Feb. 13, 2015, available at http://justsecurity.org/20033/guest-post-intelligence-reforms-plentysuspicionless-surveillance-americans/.
When is it Ok to Racially Profile? Politico Magazine, Dec. 18, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/20033/guest-post-intelligence-reforms-plenty-suspicionless-surveillance-americans/.
Intelligence Legalism and the Torture Report, JustSecurity.org, Dec. 17, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/18510/intelligence-legalism-torture-report/.
Infiltrate the NSA, Democracy (Issue #35, Winter 2015); Dec. 15, 2014 and TheAtlantic.com, Dec. 30, 2014, available at http://www.democracyjournal.org/35/infiltrate-the-nsa.php.
A Civil Rights Lawyer Explains Why Obama's Immigration Order is an Even Bigger Deal than it Seems, TheNewRepublic.com, Nov. 25, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/17117/cult-rules-originsintelligence-legalism/.
The Problem with Legalism in the Surveillance State, JustSecurity.org, Nov. 7, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/17163/problem-legalism-surveillance-state/.
A Cult of Rules: The Origins of Legalism in the Surveillance State, JustSecurity.org, Nov. 5, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/17117/cult-rules-origins-intelligence-legalism/.
Justice Alito Would Be Just Fine if Congress Undid Yesterday's Landmark Privacy Decision, TheNewRepublic.com, June 26, 2014, available at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118403/justicealito-privacy-reading-his-concurring-opinion-privacy.
The Bigger No Fly List Problem, JustSecurity.org, June 25, 2014, available at http://justsecurity.org/12215/guest-post-no-fly-list-problem/.
The Supreme Court Gives a Subtle Boost to Free Speech, The New Republic, May 28, 2014, available at http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117925/wood-v-moss-subtle-victory-free-speech.
Even Conservative Judges Can’t Deny the Constitutional Logic of Same-Sex Marriage, Daily Beast, May 18, 2014, available at http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/18/even-conservative-judges-can-tdeny-the-constitutional-logic-of-same-sex-marriage.html.
In the Story of Jonah, an Urgent Lesson About the Dangers of Solitary Confinement, TABLET MAGAZINE, Sept. 11, 2013, available at http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-life-and-religion/143081/jonahsolitary-confinement.
ABA Criminal Justice Standards on the Treatment of Prisoners, CRIM. JUSTICE MAG., Summer 2010, at 14 (with Margaret Colgate Love & Carl Reynolds).
Prison Litigation Reform Act Update, in THE STATE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 2007-2008 (American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Apr. 2008).
Professor Notes PLRA Flaws: Will Congress Act to Correct Them?, CORRECTIONAL LAW REP., Feb./Mar. 2008, at 65 (reprints testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security: Review of the Prison Litigation Reform Act: A Decade of Reform or an Increase in Prison Abuses (Nov. 2007)).
The Political Economy of Prison and Jail Litigation, PRISON LEGAL NEWS, June 2007, at 1.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 18 of 65 - Page ID#: 1526
Schlanger cv, page 5 of 9 (12/20/2015)
Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Prisons: The Case for Amending the Prison Litigation Reform Act, American Constitution Society Issue Brief, Mar. 28, 2007 (with Giovanna Shay). National Prison Commission Begins Work, CORRECTIONAL LAW REP., June/July 2005, at 1, and PRISON LEGAL NEWS, July 2005, at 17. Inmate Litigation: Results of a National Survey, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS LARGE JAIL NETWORK EXCHANGE, July 2003, at 1.
OTHER WORKS IN PROGRESS
Executive Order 12,333 and civil liberties; Racial housing in the California prison system; Crimigration and the Equal Protection Clause.
GRANTS
National Science Foundation SES-0718831 (co-PI, with Pauline Kim and Andrew Martin), “The Litigation Process in Government-Initiated Employment Discrimination Suits” (2007), $213,999.
Harvard University William F. Milton Fund (with Anne Morrison Piehl), “Litigated Intervention in the Management of Correctional Facilities” (2002), $33,607.
SERVICE AND MEMBERSHIPS
Professional Bar admissions: New York, District of Columbia (inactive), Missouri; Supreme Court; 9th Cir., Eastern District of Missouri.
Organizing committee member, Prisoners’ Advocates Conference (Los Angeles, Sept. 2016; New Orleans, Feb. 2014). Chair, Prison Litigation: A Workshop for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys (Washington, DC, Mar. 2008).
Counsel for amici curiae former corrections officials, Prison Legal News v. Florida (11th Cir. 2015)
Member, expert advisory committee on data collection and confidential reporting, Prison Rape Elimination Act Commission (2007).
Drafter, ABA Litigation Section Project, The Rule of Law in Times of Calamity (2006).
Counsel of record for amici curiae ACLU and other prison advocacy organizations, Woodford v. Ngo, 05-416 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Feb. 2, 2006).
General Academic Member, Editorial Board, Journal of National Security Law & Policy (2015-present) Co-editor (with Sharon Dolovich), SSRN abstracting “journal,” Corrections & Sentencing Law &
Policy (2006–2009, 2012-present). See http://ssrn.com. Chair, American Association of Law Schools, Remedies Section (2014) Chair, American Association of Law Schools, Section on Law & the Social Sciences (2007/08). Member, Law & Society Association Dissertation Prize Committee (2007). Member, Law & Society Association.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 19 of 65 - Page ID#: 1527

University of Michigan

Schlanger cv, page 6 of 9 (12/20/2015)

Member, Provost’s Faculty Advisory Committee

Chair, Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, Committee on Civil Rights and Liberties (2014-16), Member (2013/2014)
Member, Law School Curriculum Committee (2014-2016) Member, Law School Tenure Committee (2015/16, 2012/2013); Chair (2013/2014) Faculty Advisor, Journal of Race & Law symposia: criminalization of poverty (2016); solitary confinement (2013) Convenor, Prison Law & Scholarship Roundtable (2014, 2012)

Washington University in St. Louis
Member, Law School Promotions Committee (2007/08) Advisory Board, Washington University Center for Empirical Research in the Law (2007/08) Standing participant: Workshop on Empirical Research in Law (2004–2009) Chair, Law School Lateral Appointments Committee (2006/07) Chair, Law School Dean’s Advisory Group on Improving Student Career Prospects (2005/06) Chair, Law School Rules and Petitions Committee (2005/06) Chair, Law School Ad Hoc Committee on Tenure Standards and Process (2004/5) Member, University Committee on Senate By-Laws (2004/5) Member, Law School Clerkship Committee (Fall 2004)

PRESENTATIONS (2004–present)
U. Mich. American Constitution Society, Is This When Mass Incarceration Ends (Nov. 2015)
U. Mich. Women Law Students Association, Incarcerated Women (Oct. 2015)
Panelist/Discussant (2015/16): • 9th Circuit Corrections Summit, Grievances and Gripes: A Problem Solving Approach for All Stakeholders (Nov. 2015) • U. Mich. Institute for Research on Women and Gender, Incarcerated Women: A Conversation about Realities (Oct. 2015) • Society for Empirical Legal Studies annual conference. Discussant for Aziz Huq, The Predicates of Military Detention at Guantanamo: The Role of Individual Acts and Affiliations; Chang, Chen & Lin, Attorney and Judge Experience in Torts Litigation: An Empirical Study (Oct. 2015)
Studying Injunctions Quantitatively, Center for Political Studies, Interdisciplinary Workshop on Politics and Policy (Mar. 2015)
Intelligence Legalism and the NSA’s Civil Liberties Gap • Association of American Law Schools, Annual Conference, National Security Law Section (chosen in call for papers) (Jan. 2015) • University of Iowa Law School Faculty Workshop (Nov. 2014) • University of Michigan Law School Legal Theory Workshop (Sept. 2014) • 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop (May 2014)
Offices of Goodness: Influence without Authority in Federal Agencies • Emory Law School (Mar. 2014)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 20 of 65 - Page ID#: 1528

• Cardozo Law School (Feb. 2014) • Law & Society Ass’n (May 2013)

Schlanger cv, page 7 of 9 (12/20/2015)

Panelist/Discussant (2014/15-) • Brennan Center: Strengthening Intelligence Oversight--Executive Branch Oversight (May 2015) • Michigan Department of Education, Teaching the Movement in Michigan: Civil Rights
Education Forum (May 2015) • Clifford Symposium (DePaul Law): The Supreme Court, Business and Civil Justice--Civil
Procedure (Apr. 2015) • Columbia University, Deliberate Resistance: LGBT Prisoner Rights 20 Years After Farmer v.
Brennan (Nov. 2014) • 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Pro Se Conference--the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Sept. 2014)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Structural Reform of the American Workplace • EEOC Datanet Conference (May 2014) • Labor Law Research Network (June 2013) • Stanford Law Faculty Workshop (Oct. 2009) • Brooklyn Law School Faculty Workshop (Sept. 2009) • Building Theory Through Empirical Legal Studies, Berkeley Center for the Study of Law &
Society (April 2009) • UCLA Law Faculty Workshop (Feb. 2009) • University of Arizona Law Faculty Workshop (Feb. 2009)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act and Litigation Dynamics • Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, Prisoners’ Advocates Conference (Feb. 2014)

The Present and Future of Institutional Reform Litigation: Current Trends in Prisoner Cases • U.C. Irvine Law School, Prisoners Access to Justice Symposium (Feb. 2014) • University of Miami Law School, Leading from Below Symposium (Feb. 2014)
Marriage Equality and the Constitution, Alma College Constitution Day Speaker (Sept. 2013)
Plata v. Brown and Realignment: Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics, • Law & Society Ass’n (May 2013) (as discussant in panel on Plata v. Brown) • University of Illinois faculty workshop (Mar. 2013)
Race and civil rights injunctions, Ass’n of American Law Schools, Remedies Section (Jan. 2013)
Chair/discussant, panel on Immigration, Law & Society Association Conference (June 2012)
Operationalizing Deterrence: Claims Management (in Hospitals, a Large Retailer, and Jails and Prisons) • University of Michigan Law Faculty Workshop (Sept. 2008) • Insurance & Society Seminar, Boston (May 2008) • Southern Methodist University Law Faculty Workshop (Jan. 2008) • Law & Society Ass’n, Berlin (July 2007) • University of North Carolina Law Faculty Workshop (Nov. 2006) • Law & Society Ass’n, Baltimore (July 2006)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 21 of 65 - Page ID#: 1529
Schlanger cv, page 8 of 9 (12/20/2015)
Seminar teaching • Ass’n of American Law Schools, Workshop for New Law Teachers (June 2008) • Ass’n of American Law Schools, Workshop for New Law Teachers (June 2007)
Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability • University of Illinois Law School, Seminar on Law, Psychology & Economics (Apr. 2008) • Washington University Law Faculty Workshop (Aug. 2006)
Civil Rights Injunctions Over Time: A Case Study of Jail and Prison Court Orders • University Management Team, Washington University in St. Louis (Apr. 2008) • Prison Litigation: A Workshop for Plaintiffs’ Attorneys (Washington, D.C., Mar. 2008) • Law and Society Ass’n (Las Vegas, NV, June 2005) • Junior Scholars Empirical Legal Studies conference, Cornell Law School (Oct. 2004)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act • Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Prisons: The Case for Amending the PLRA, Symposium, Penn. J. of Constitutional Law, Litigating the Eighth Amendment (Feb. 2008) • Witness, National Prison Rape Elimination Comm’n, The Role of Courts and Litigation in Regulating Prison and Jail Prevention of Sexual Violence and Misconduct (Dec. 2007) • Witness, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, hearing: Review of the Prison Litigation Reform Act: A Decade of Reform or an Increase in Prison Abuses (Nov. 2007) • Congressional staff briefing, proposed amendments to the PLRA (Sept. 2007) • Preserving the Rule of Law in America’s Prisons: The Case for Amending the PLRA American Constitution Society issue brief presentation, Washington DC (Apr. 2007) • The Past and Future of the PLRA, National Association of Attorneys General, Baltimore, MD (Feb. 2007) • Witness, ABA Criminal Justice Section Council, on proposed ABA policy to amend the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Nov. 2006).
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: Using Court Records for Research, Teaching, and Policymaking
• Association of American Law Schools annual conference, Washington University Law breakfast (Jan. 2008)
• Presentation to social studies coordinators, Missouri Cooperating School Districts (Feb. 2007) • Conference presentation (“Federal Civil Court Records of the National Archives: Opportunities
for Empirical, Historical and Legal Research and Curriculum Design”), University of Missouri at Kansas City & National Archives and Records Administration (Oct. 2005)
Moderator/discussant, panel on Race, Empirical Legal Studies Conference (Nov. 2007).
Fault and the Constitutional Law of Equality. Invited response to David Strauss, Childress Lecture (Little Rock and the Legacy of Brown), Saint Louis University (Oct. 2007)
Teaching the Equal Protection Clause. Presentation to high school teachers, Street Law (Oct. 2007)
The Plaintiffs’ Bar and the Conceptualization of Litigation • Law & Society Ass’n, Berlin (July 2007) • Washington University Law Faculty Workshop (May 2007) • Conference presentation (The Plaintiff’s Bar), New York Law School (Mar. 2006)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 22 of 65 - Page ID#: 1530
Schlanger cv, page 9 of 9 (12/20/2015)
The Litigation Process in Government-Initiated Employment Discrimination Suits (hypotheses and preliminary evidence). Duke Law School Faculty Workshop (Apr. 2007)
Discussant, Katherine Barnes et al., Life and Death Decisions: Prosecutorial Discretion and Capital Punishment in Missouri, St. Louis U. conference (Mar. 2007).
Discussant, J.J. Prescott, Empirical Evidence of Prosecutorial Charging Manipulation: And What it Tells Us About What Prosecutors are Trying to Do, Empirical Legal Studies Conference, Austin Texas (Oct. 2006).
Moderator, panel on Empirical Inquiries in Criminal Justice, Law and Society Ass’n (July 2006).
Women and the New Supreme Court: University of Missouri–St. Louis, Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life (Jan. 2006).
Moderator, panel discussion of Problems and Solutions in American Criminal Justice, in conjunction with hearing held at Washington University in St. Louis by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America’s (Oct. 2005).
What We Know and What We Could Know About the Vanishing Trial: Featured Comment on Marc Galanter, “A World Without Trials,” University of Missouri at Columbia, Distinguished Lecture on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Sept. 2005).
Incarceration, Reform, and Politics: presentation to undergraduate student groups (Apr. 2005).
Second Best Damage Action Deterrence • University of Missouri at Columbia (Apr. 2005). • Clifford Conference on Torts and Social Policy, DePaul University College of Law (Apr. 2005). • UCLA faculty workshop (Mar. 2005)
Collateral Consequences of Incarceration: Background on the Scope of the Carceral System: Symposium on Poverty, Wealth and the Working Poor: Clinical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Apr. 2005).
Respondent to James B. Jacobs, The Future of Imprisonment: Leadership, and Prison Reform, St. Louis University Ass’n of Criminal Justice and Sociology (Oct. 2004).

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 23 of 65 - Page ID#: 1531
Exhibit : Settle ent Agree ent ith bering

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 24 of 65 - Page ID#: 1532

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ET AL. AND PLAINTIFFS OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL KNIGHTS [NUMBERED FOR USE IN COMPLIANCE MONITORING]

I. DEFINITIONS

[I.]1. “ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325).

[I.]2.

“Auxiliary Aids and Services” include, but are not limited to, “Qualified Interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments,” 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as hearing aids, computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, “TDDs” or “TTYs” as defined below, videotext displays, written materials (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.104); as well as Videophones, access to telephone relay services, visual alert or alarm systems, and bed shakers.

[I.]3.

“Deaf Inmates” means Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). .

[I.]4.

“Direct Threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.

[I.]5.

“Effective Communication” and “Effectively Communicate” means communication with Deaf Inmates that is substantially as effective as communication with the general Inmate population (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)) and will, when necessary, include the provision of appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, such as Qualified Interpreters. Effective Communication affords Deaf Inmates an opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the KDOC’s services, programs, or activities in a way that is substantially equal to the opportunity provided to a similarly situated non-Deaf Inmate. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).

[I.]6. “Effective Date” means thirty (30) days after this Agreement is filed with the Court.

[I.]7. “Inmate” means any person in the custody of the KDOC.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 25 of 65 - Page ID#: 1533
[I.]8. “KCDHH” means the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
[I.]9. “KDOC” means Kentucky Department of Corrections.
[I.]10. “KDOC program” means any program or activity, or aid, benefit, or service as defined by the ADA and Section 504 (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, § 41.51) available to Inmates of KDOC for which the KDOC does more than only provide physical space at its facilities, including but not limited to, programs, activities, aids, benefits, or services mandated by law, qualifying for educational or early release credits, and/or ordered as part of an Inmate’s sentence.
[I.]11. “KDOC employees,” “KDOC staff,” and “KDOC personnel” each and collectively include all employees, contractors, agents, and other staff of the KDOC whose job responsibilities place them on a regular basis in contact with Deaf Inmates, and the supervisors of those employees, contractors, agents, or other staff.
[I.]12. “KDOC Adult Institution” means any facility owned or operated by the KDOC for the care and custody Inmates, including but not limited to Bell Country Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
[I.]13. “Off-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a location not owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]14. “On-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a KDOC facility, including medical care provided by third parties in facilities owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]15. “Parole hearing” means any hearing or meeting during which an Inmate is being offered the opportunity to be released from KDOC custody on parole.
[I.]16. “Plaintiffs” means, for purposes of this Agreement, Oscar Adams (inmate #243676) and Michael Knights (inmate #233021).
[I.]17. “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means attorneys-of-record for Plaintiffs in Oscar Adams and Michael Knights, et al., v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv00001 (E.D. Ky.) at the time this Agreement is signed.
[I.]18. “Qualified Interpreter” means a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104. 2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 26 of 65 - Page ID#: 1534
A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.
[I.]19. “Section 504” means Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2014).
[I.]20. “Settlement Monitor” means Margo Schlanger, whose curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
[I.]21. “TTYs” or “TDDs” means teletypewriters or telecommunications devices for the Deaf, which are devices used with a telephone to communicate with persons who are Deaf by typing and reading communications.
[I.]22. “Video Remote Interpreting” or “VRI” means a video-telecommunication interpreting service, which uses Qualified Interpreters and is delivered over a high-speed Internet connection. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d).
[I.]23. “Videophone” means a telephone with a camera and screen for visual, real-time communications. The term Videophone as used in this Agreement is limited to Videophones intended for the use by Deaf Inmates within the custody of the KDOC, and does not include Videophones within KDOC Adult Institutions intended for the use of the general Inmate population.
II. GENERAL POLICIES
[II.]A. Non-discrimination Based on Disability
The KDOC will ensure that Deaf Inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC shall provide Deaf Inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 27 of 65 - Page ID#: 1535

[II.]B. ADA Coordinator

[II.B.1.] Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will assign a staff member at each KDOC Adult Institution the title, duties, and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The KDOC will maintain the ADA Coordinator position at each KDOC Adult Institution as required by law. The ADA Coordinator responsibilities will be a part of the official duties assigned to the person in this role. The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.

[II.B.2.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will notify the Settlement Monitor of the identity of each KDOC employee assigned the title, duties and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC’s website. The name and contact information of each KDOC Adult Institution’s ADA Coordinator will be communicated to all Deaf Inmates incarcerated in each respective KDOC Adult Institution, and will also be prominently posted in a secure area in any housing unit in which Deaf Inmates are held.

[II.B.3.] ADA Coordinators will assist with providing, coordinating, and overseeing Auxiliary Aids and Services for Deaf Inmates and for implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be provided with and responsible for knowing the contents of this Agreement, and will assist with implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be available to assist with various aspects of accommodating Deaf Inmates. In such situations, ADA Coordinators will ensure Effective Communication for the Deaf Inmates.

III. INITIAL CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT

[III.]A. General Policy

[III.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification with Effective Communication. The purpose is to facilitate communication between the Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (or other persons) during medical, psychological, and educational testing and evaluation, as well as to provide an explanation of prison policies and procedures, including Inmate discipline, grievances, and how to utilize the TTY, Videophone and other Auxiliary Aids and Services.

[III.A.2.] As of the date of this Agreement, initial intake, assessment, and classification for male Inmates occurs at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW).

[III.]B.

Hearing Assessment

As part of the initial intake, assessment, and classification, medical staff will assess and, if necessary, test all persons who may be a Deaf Inmate for Deafness. If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate’s institutional file, and
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 28 of 65 - Page ID#: 1536
will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator. Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.
[III.]C. Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment
[III.C.1.] After medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.
[III.C.2.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not require any or all of the Auxiliary Aids and Services set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Auxiliary Aids and Services and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file.
[III.C.3.] If an Inmate is not found to have a hearing impairment at his or her initial intake, assessment, and classification, initially refuses, or does not request Auxiliary Aids and Services, but later believes that Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary to ensure Effective Communication, he or she will fill out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form. KDOC will provide the Inmate who was initially not found to have a hearing impairment with a hearing assessment if so ordered by medical staff. If that individual is found to be Deaf, KDOC will follow the procedures set forth in this section.
[III.]D. Ensuring Staff Awareness Through Identification Cards
[III.D.1.] The KDOC will take appropriate steps to ensure that all KDOC personnel having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate are made aware of such Inmate’s need for Auxiliary Aids and Services so that Effective Communication with, and the safety of, the Deaf Inmate will be ensured. Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Inmate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Inmate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services. If any KDOC staff takes any Deaf Inmate’s ID card, the Deaf Inmate will be given another official indicator of his or her Deaf status.
[III.D.2.] All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards.
[III.D.3.] The KDOC will post at the entrance to all KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates a notice clearly stating that the KDOC Adult Institution houses Deaf Inmates and that the Deaf Inmates carry an ID card or other official indicator with them. The notice will include a picture of the ID card and other official indicator carried by Deaf Inmates. The Notice will also be posted outside each housing unit where Deaf Inmates are held.
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 29 of 65 - Page ID#: 1537

[III.D.4.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not wish to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file. If any Deaf Inmate signs a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card but later requests to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will promptly be provided an opportunity to fill out a Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card form. The KDOC will then promptly provide the Inmate with a Deaf Inmate ID card and update the Deaf Inmate’s institutional file.

[III.]E.

Interpretation of Materials

The KDOC will provide the Deaf Inmate materials it provides to all Inmates. In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

[III.]F. Creation and Interpretation of Rights Materials

[III.F.1.] Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services. The KDOC will create these materials using language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate. The KDOC will provide these materials to Deaf Inmates with the orientation materials provided to all other Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification.

[III.F.2.] In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

IV. HOUSING

[IV.]A. General Policy

[IV.A.1.] The KDOC has the discretion to house Deaf Inmates at whatever KDOC Adult Institution it deems appropriate. See, e.g., KY Corrections Policy and Procedure 18.7.

[IV.A.2.] Wherever a Deaf Inmate is housed, that Deaf Inmate retains all rights as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, and this Agreement.

6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 30 of 65 - Page ID#: 1538
[IV.]B. Schedule of Accommodations
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, KDOC personnel at those KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed shall provide each Deaf Inmate with a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available. When the schedule of accommodations changes, including when a Qualified Interpreter will be available, an updated schedule of accommodations will be given to all Deaf Inmates.
V. PROVISION OF AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
[V.]A. General Policy
[V.A.1.] In order to ensure substantial equality for Deaf Inmates, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. This substantial equality will extend to include KDOC programs for or to Deaf Inmates provided by third party vendors, contractors, or state-funded entities, such as community colleges.
[V.A.2.] Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.
[V.A.3.] In those instances where the KDOC permits volunteers to provide activities (religious or otherwise)—including programs, services, or meetings—to Inmates in KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed, the KDOC will allow the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements, and will work with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteer-provided activities. Such an accommodation must be initiated by request from the Deaf Inmate to the volunteer organization or individual. The responsibility for finding the interpreter will not rest with the KDOC, and proper notice allowing the KDOC to conduct appropriate security clearances must be provided. To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.
[V.A.4.] The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and may therefore choose not to provide such Deaf Inmates substantially equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 31 of 65 - Page ID#: 1539
such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
[V.A.5.] The KDOC will provide instructions for the use of all Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Deaf Inmates’ full use and enjoyment of the Auxiliary Aids and Services.
[V.]B. Medical Devices
All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to a co-payment for that medical device, just as non-Deaf Inmates are charged a co-payment for other medical appliances or devices. This copay shall not apply, however, to hearing aid batteries or for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.
[V.]C. Maintenance of Auxiliary Aids and Services
The KDOC shall maintain all Auxiliary Aids and Services in its custody in good working condition at all times.
VI. QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
[VI.]A. General Policy
[VI.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. The KDOC agrees that Deaf Inmates in need of interpreter services will receive a Qualified Interpreter able to facilitate Effective Communication with that particular Deaf Inmate. The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
● communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care;
● disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
● transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate’s status; ● transitional programming; ● rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and ● educational programming.
[VI.A.2.] The KDOC shall also provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated as circumstances warrant. The KDOC will be responsible for scheduling and overseeing the provision of Qualified Interpreters.
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 32 of 65 - Page ID#: 1540
[VI.A.3.] When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate’s need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board’s duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate’s scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.
[VI.]B. Other Means of Communication
KDOC employees will communicate with Deaf Inmates for such purposes, and to the same extent, as they would communicate with non-Deaf Inmates using all available means of communication. This provision in no way lessens the KDOC’s obligation to provide Qualified Interpreters in certain situations and in a timely manner.
[VI.]C. On-site Medical Care
[VI.C.]1. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication for all scheduled appointments between Deaf Inmates and medical personnel at KDOC facilities, including, but not limited to, review of medical history, medical appointments, follow up meetings or appointments, and treatment meetings. The parties agree that for many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication in these circumstances.
[VI.C.]2. Informing Appropriate Medical Staff
The KDOC will ensure that all medical staff are made aware of an Inmate’s Deafness. For each Deaf Inmate, the medical staff will note, in bold marking, the Deaf Inmate’s disability on the medical file cover and in the Deaf Inmate’s medical file.
[VI.C.]3. Scheduling Medical Appointments with Qualified Interpreters
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with the ability to request Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Effective Communication at medical appointments. The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Inmates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services. Appointments for Deaf Inmates requiring Auxiliary Aids and Services will be scheduled within the same time period from the initial request as those for similarly situated nonDeaf Inmates.
[VI.C.]4. Emergency Events
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 33 of 65 - Page ID#: 1541
services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in conjunction with medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible. Lifesaving medical care should never be delayed because no interpretation services are available.
[VI.]D. Off-site Medical Care
[VI.D.1.] As early as practicable, the KDOC will inform all off-site medical providers that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time.
[VI.D.2.] In the case of an emergency, the KDOC will, as soon as possible, inform an off-site medical provider that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service is being transported to the off-site medical provider. Notification will include the Deaf Inmate’s estimated time of arrival.
[VI.]E. Educational, Vocational, and Rehabilitative Programming
The KDOC shall provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services for all KDOC programs, which are offered at KDOC Adult Institutions and which Deaf Inmates are qualified for, admitted into, or in which Deaf Inmates are actively participating. The following appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services will be provided:
[VI.E.]1. Educational Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned education materials where available. In addition, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for educational KDOC program classes. The educational program classes include, without limitation, literacy, adult basic education, GED preparatory, and technical education and certification classes. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]2. Vocational/Work Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned vocational/work materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for vocational/work KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]3. KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse, and evidence-based
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 34 of 65 - Page ID#: 1542
KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)). The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs. (
[VI.]F. Work Assignments
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates opportunities for institutional work assignments that are consistent with the opportunities for the same assignments given to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
[VI.]G. Religious Services
[VI.G.1.] The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.
[VI.G.2.] No Deaf Inmate will be required to attend a religious service where a Qualified Interpreter is not provided in order to receive any religious meal, diet, or otherwise offered religious accommodation.
[VI.G.3.] To the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.
[VI.]H. Transfer and Classification Matters
The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate’s transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate’s status.
[VI.]I. Transitional Programming – Post-Release Supervision (Including Parole)
Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under post-release supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.
[VI.]J. Additional Communications
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement. A significant communication includes any
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 35 of 65 - Page ID#: 1543
communication for which the Deaf Inmate requests an interpreter, subject to approval by the ADA Coordinator, the Warden, and/or the Warden’s designee.
VII. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
[VII.]A. Qualified Interpreters For Disciplinary Proceedings
[VII.A.1.] The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction, including those proceedings carried out under Chapter 15 of the Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure and any other disciplinary policies and procedures now in force or subsequently adopted by the KDOC. A Qualified Interpreter must be available to a Deaf Inmate at the following stages of the above-described disciplinary proceedings:
● staff investigations involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, prior to filing a disciplinary report or equivalent;
● investigative interviews that involve the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (such as when an adverse party is interviewed);
● during any part of the preparation of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● during any part of the shift supervisor’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● during any part of the investigator’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● giving Miranda warnings to a Deaf Inmate; ● advising a Deaf Inmate of his or her right to consult with an assigned legal
aide; ● advising a Deaf Inmate of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing; and ● during any part of the hearing, or re-hearing, before the Adjustment
Committee, Adjustment Officer or Unit Hearing Officer that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel. [VII.A.2.] Inmate or staff advisors will be provided and accessible to Deaf Inmates who are suspected of, charged with, or witnesses to a disciplinary infraction, on the same terms as they are provided to non-Deaf Inmates. To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 36 of 65 - Page ID#: 1544
[VII.]B. Miscellaneous
[VII.B.1.] If any Deaf Inmate is a witness at a disciplinary hearing, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter at the hearing.
[VII.B.2.] The KDOC must hold disciplinary hearings for Deaf Inmates within the same time frame as it holds disciplinary hearings for non-Deaf Inmates.
[VII.B.3.] Nothing in this Agreement precludes any Deaf Inmate who is suspected of or charged with a disciplinary infraction from voluntarily waiving his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter and to proceed through any stage of a disciplinary proceeding without the benefits of a Qualified Interpreter. If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.
VIII. NON-AUDITORY ALERT NOTIFICATIONS
[VIII.]A. General Policy
Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.
[VIII.]B. Relaying Information
[VIII.B.1.] The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Inmates. The non-auditory alert system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.
[VIII.B.2.] In addition, the KDOC will continue to publish the institution schedule in the handbook that every Inmate receives and to post promptly any schedule changes, which are done by memorandum from the Warden, in all dormitories, the library, and the gym at each KDOC Adult Institution in which a Deaf Inmate is housed. Further, the KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.
[VIII.B.3.] The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 37 of 65 - Page ID#: 1545
[VIII.]C. Non-Auditory Alarms and Emergency Evacuation
[VIII.C.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in real-time and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers. The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.
[VIII.C.2.] KDOC personnel shall be responsible for the evacuation or safe relocation of Deaf Inmates during an emergency. Therefore, during emergencies, KDOC employees will personally and Effectively Communicate adequate information about the emergency to Deaf Inmates.
IX. TELECOMMUNICATIONS
[IX.]A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with access to telecommunication devices that enable them to have communication with people outside of the KDOC and that are substantially equivalent—in terms of the amount and quality of the information conveyed—to the communications that non-Deaf Inmates have with people outside of the KDOC using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones.
[IX.]B. Monitoring Communications
The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.
[IX.]C. Additional Time for Communication
The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 38 of 65 - Page ID#: 1546
[IX.]D. Technology KDOC Will Provide
The KDOC will make the following communications technologies available at KDCO Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated to facilitate communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC facilities. This list of technological equipment is not exhaustive. The KDOC will keep abreast of evolving technology and will consider adding additional equipment to reflect technological advances, as it deems appropriate or as required by applicable federal and state law. KDOC will provide a list of available communications equipment to Deaf Inmates upon their arrival at the KDOC Adult Institutions in which they are housed.
[IX.D.]1. TTY or TDD
The parties acknowledge that there may be reasonable concerns over the theft and destruction of the TTY/TDD device(s), and that the TTY/TDD device(s) therefore must be maintained in a secured location when not in use. The parties also acknowledge that access to the TTY/TDD device(s) will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate. Nonetheless, for every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, in no event will TTY/TDD access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones, except to the extent that Deaf Inmates must request access to the otherwise secured TTY/TDD device(s). A reasonable request by a Deaf Inmate to access the TTY/TDD device(s) will be granted. TTY/TDDs will be located in areas substantially as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. TTY/TDDs will be available for Deaf Inmate use during the same days and hours as conventional telephones. At each KDOC Adult Institution where any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will ensure that an alternate TTY or TDD unit is available for use when the regular TTY or TDD is broken or otherwise unavailable.
[IX.D.]2. Relay Services
For every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will enable all TTYs and TDDs to access publicly available relay service phone numbers such as 711 and 1-800 numbers. Deaf Inmates will not be charged any more than similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates for the use of relay services.
[IX.D.]3. Videophones
[IX.D.3.a.] Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Videophones shall be installed and accessible to Deaf Inmates in any KDOC Adult Institution that houses Deaf Inmates. Access to the Videophone will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate, but in no event will Videophone access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones. Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use. Deaf Inmates will not be charged for the use of Videophones.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 39 of 65 - Page ID#: 1547
[IX.D.3.b.] Videophones will allow voice carry-over features.
[IX.]E. Responsibility for Maintaining Equipment and Training Staff
[IX.E.1.] The KDOC will ensure that the technology used to permit communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC Adult Institutions is in good working order. Further, the KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC’s control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order. KDOC staff shall attempt to resolve complaints about any malfunctioning equipment within a reasonable time of receiving that complaint. To the extent services, equipment, and resources that are outside KDOC’s control are involved (for example services or equipment provided by cable, telephone, utilities, or various other companies), KDOC will agree to notify those providers/companies of any problems and, to the extent necessary or possible under the circumstances, work with them expeditiously to resolve the problem.
[IX.E.2.] The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.
X. MEDIA
[X.1.] The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Inmate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate’s request.
[X.2.] The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closed-captioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Inmate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.
XI. HAND RESTRAINTS
[XI.]A. General Policy
[XI.A.1.] According to the KDOC’s hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 40 of 65 - Page ID#: 1548
● when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution; ● when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit;
and ● as needed in response to security threats. [XI.A.2.] The applicable portions of the KDOC hand restraint policy, summarized above, have been reviewed to confirm when hand restraints are used on Inmates confined to KDOC Adult Institutions. While the policy does not specify the manner in which mechanical restraints are used during Off-site Medical Care, an Affidavit is included as Appendix A to this Agreement describing the two-point bed restraint system used during Off-site Medical Care. The two-point system would allow a Deaf Inmate to use his or her hands for communicating via sign language to some degree. KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate.
[XI.]B. Off-site Medical Care
[XI.B.1.] During Off-site Medical Care, the KDOC shall use a two-point hand restraint system to allow for the Deaf Inmate’s need for Effective Communication while considering the safety and security of the Deaf Inmate and those located at Off-site Medical Care facilities. The KDOC will include training on use of the two-point hand restraint system in its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees.
[XI.B.2.] In the event a medical decision made by medical professionals or medical staff that requires or calls for removal or adjustment of hand restraints, the KDOC will follow its secured policy regarding the removal of mechanical restraints where necessary for treatment or emergencies.
[XI.]C. On-Site Medical Care
The KDOC’s hand restraint policy, summarized above in Section XI.A., will be followed for Onsite Medical Care.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS DEVICES AND AIDS
Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination. Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 41 of 65 - Page ID#: 1549
their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary. Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Inmate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be documented. The ADA Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.
XIII. TRAINING
[XIII.]A. General Policy
[XIII.A.1.] The KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will provide training as defined in Section XIII.B below to KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population. The KDOC will incorporate this training into its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees. This training will be included in current KDOC training within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The KDOC will update the training materials as required by law, including but not limited to, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws.
[XIII.A.2.] The KDOC will provide any materials that may be used for training, as specified under Section XIV of this Agreement, to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session. In addition, the KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will update and allow the KCDHH and the Settlement Monitor to review the training as defined in Section XIII.B. at least every two years.
[XIII.]B. KDOC Employee Training
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will begin training KDOC employees on the following topics:
● best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals; ● the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened
individuals; ● identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf; ● the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction
with hearing corrections personnel; ● the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters; ● directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other
telecommunication equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people;
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 42 of 65 - Page ID#: 1550
● disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV;
● the KDOC’s anti-discrimination policy; ● all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates; ● hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and ● the requirements of this Agreement.
XIV. GRIEVANCES
[XIV.1.] All KDOC grievance coordinators will inform Deaf Inmates who file a grievance of the option to share that grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator of the KDOC Adult Institution in which the Deaf Inmate is housed. If the Deaf Inmate agrees to share the grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator, the grievance coordinator will forward a copy of that grievance (or grievance response or outcome) to the ADA Coordinator for review.
[XIV.2.] A written record of all Deaf Inmates’ grievances (and any responses and outcomes) will be maintained by the KDOC. For five years following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor may request the records of any Deaf Inmate’s grievances, as long as the Deaf Inmate signs a waiver of confidentiality pursuant to KRS 197.023, and a copy of that Deaf Inmate’s records will be provided, free of charge, to the Settlement Monitor.
[XIV.3.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every three months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement. This written summary will describe, for each grievance, the issue raised by the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC Adult Institution where the grievance was filed, a summary of KDOC’s response, and whether and how the grievance was resolved.
XV. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
[XV.]A. Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Right of Access
To the extent Plaintiffs’ Counsel maintains a current or prospective attorney-client relationship with any Deaf Inmate, they shall be provided the same access to that Deaf Inmate and to the records relating to that Deaf Inmate, as any other attorney with a similar relationship to another non-Deaf Inmate.
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 43 of 65 - Page ID#: 1551
[XV.]B. The Settlement Monitor’s Investigation
[XV.B.1.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date, the following will apply to the extent necessary to permit the Settlement Monitor to thoroughly and objectively assess the KDOC’s compliance with and implementation of this Agreement:
● [XV.B.1.a] The Settlement Monitor will have unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC to provide any requested records, files, or papers, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
● [XV.B.1.b] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all other materials relating to the case Adams, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case no. 14-cv-00001, except for those materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Any requested materials protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine will be logged with information including the author, date, nature of the material, reason for the claim of privilege, and persons to whom the material was disseminated, and this log will be provided to the Settlement Monitor.
● [XV.B.1.c] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all pertinent staff members and employees of the KDOC. The Settlement Monitor may engage in both formal and informal conferences with staff members and employees, including confidential or group interviews, and such persons will cooperate will the Settlement Monitor fully and will respond to all reasonable inquiries and requests relating to compliance efforts. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
● [XV.B.1.d] The Settlement Monitor may conduct confidential interviews with any Deaf Inmate or with groups of Deaf Inmates incarcerated at Adult KDOC Institutions. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every six months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a current and up-to-date list of Deaf Inmates in the KDOC’s custody, which identifies the name, DOC numbers and the KDOC Adult Institution for each Deaf Inmate. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
● [XV.B.1.e] The Settlement Monitor may request KDOC staff members and employees to prepare, where appropriate, written responses to any questions by the Settlement Monitor related to the implementation of the Agreement or issues in this litigation, so long as the request does not interfere with security
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 44 of 65 - Page ID#: 1552
obligations of KDOC staff members and employees. The KDOC will not refuse or fail to respond to reasonable requests. Responses to these requests shall be provided in a timely manner that is reasonable and shall not interfere in the security obligations of any KDOC staff members or employees. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC staff members or employees to provide any requested responses, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
● [XV.B.1.f] The Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution so long as the KDOC is provided notice a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the visit. All visits will be supervised by a KDOC employee. Visits will be limited to only those areas of a KDOC Adult Institution that are affected by this Agreement. Absent Court order or a separate agreement, the Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution only once in a calendar year. The KDOC will pay the cost of and associated with providing Qualified Interpreters for the Settlement Monitor’s visits to KDOC Adult Institutions.
[XV.B.2.] The parties will not refuse reasonable requests for records, files, papers, or other materials or for access to people or other information. The Settlement Monitor will conduct the bulleted monitoring, above, in a reasonable manner to minimize interference with the daily operations of the KDOC. Absent a Court order requiring otherwise, the KDOC retains discretion to prohibit the Settlement Monitor from conducting the aforementioned monitoring on the buildings and premises under the control of the KDOC, but the KDOC will not unreasonably refuse requests for visits.
[XV.B.3.] The Settlement Monitor may hire other persons as the Settlement Monitor determines to be necessary to carry out the Settlement Monitor’s duties.
[XV.B.4.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor will issue semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties detailing the parties’ compliance with and implementation of this Agreement.
[XV.B.5.] The KDOC will not pay for the fees and expenses due to the Settlement Monitor for the Settlement Monitor’s services under this section.
XVI. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
[XVI.]A. Release
In consideration of the representations, promises and agreements set forth herein, including the payments as set forth in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Plaintiffs, on their behalf and on behalf of their assignees, heirs, executors, family members, beneficiaries, administrators, successors, and anyone acting, or claiming to act, on their behalf, hereby releases and forever discharges the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, KDOC, J. Michael Brown, Ladonna Thompson, Kimberly Potter-Blair,
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 45 of 65 - Page ID#: 1553
Paula Holden, Jim Erwin, Randy White, Gregory Howard, Clark Taylor, Aaron Smith, Kathy Litteral, Steve Haney, Gary Beckstrom, Alan Brown, Janet Conover, Joseph Meko, Don Bottoms, Ravonne Sims, Steve Woodward, and Bobbie Underwood from any and all claims and causes of action, known and unknown, asserted and unasserted, direct and indirect, and of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, which they had on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement arising out of the facts set forth in the discrimination charge they filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division.
[XVI.]B. Dismissal
[XVI.B.1.] The Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims of the Amended Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division (the “Court”), Case Number 3:14-cv-00001.
[XVI.B.2.] The parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this Agreement as set out in Section XVI.E of this Agreement, below.
[XVI.]C. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Disbursements and Expenses
In settlement of all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, any disbursements and expenses, including expert fees, incurred on behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation up to and including the Effective Date, the parties agree that within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall pay $250,000.00 as directed by Plaintiffs’ counsel.
[XVI.]D. Damages
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall directly pay (1) Plaintiff Oscar Adams $1,500.00 in damages and (2) Plaintiff Michael Knights $1,500.00 in damages. The KDOC also agrees to pay within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement Plaintiff Michael Knights $77.62 to compensate for lien charges assessed against him for communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel regarding this case and settlement.
[XVI.]E. Enforcement Powers
[XVI.E.1.] During the term of the Agreement, as set out in Section XVII.H, Plaintiffs may move the court for reinstatement of the lawsuit, or may elect to seek specific performance or institute an action for breach. An action to enforce this Agreement does not include any action for damages, except for enforcement of Section XVI.D. A Plaintiff seeking to enforce this Agreement can only seek to have a court order the KDOC to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
[XVI.E.2.] The lawsuit may not be reinstated, nor a claim for breach or specific performance of this Agreement brought, before a Plaintiff first notifies the KDOC of the nature of the alleged material non-compliance and gives the KDOC sixty (60) days to cure the alleged breach. The parties agree to non-binding mediation prior to any Plaintiff moving to reinstate the lawsuit or filing an enforcement action.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 46 of 65 - Page ID#: 1554
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
[XVII.]A. Non-Admission
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, facts, or allegations. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, or the admission of the validity of any defense.
[XVII.]B. Private Settlement Agreement
This Agreement is a private settlement agreement within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
[XVII.]C. Confidentiality
No part of this Agreement is or will be considered confidential by the parties. This Agreement will be made available by request under the Freedom of Information Act.
[XVII.]D. Entire Agreement
[XVII.D.1.] This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. There were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this document, except as stated within the document itself. The terms of this Agreement are contractual in nature.
[XVII.D.2.] All parties agree that the relief provided in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.
[XVII.]E. Execution
This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, all of which, when so executed and taken together, shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each counterpart may be delivered by email (as a .pdf attachment) or facsimile, and an email or facsimile signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.
[XVII.]F. Binding
This Agreement is final and binding on the Parties. Each Party has a duty to so inform any such successor in interest.
[XVII.]G. Non-Waiver
Failure by the Plaintiffs to seek enforcement of this Agreement pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision will not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances and provisions.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 47 of 65 - Page ID#: 1555
[XVII.]H. Severability In the event that a court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, such provision will be severed from this Agreement and all other provisions will remain valid and enforceable, provided however that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, the Parties will attempt, through reasonable, good faith negotiations, to agree upon such other amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the Parties as closely as possible to the relative rights and obligations initially intended by them hereunder.
[XVII.]I. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall remain in effect for five years from the Effective Date. The KDOC, however, will continue to provide all accommodations required under the law, including under the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, regardless of any term limit applicable to this Agreement. Signed: /s/
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 48 of 65 - Page ID#: 1556
Exhibit C: Co liance re orting or or Agree ent ite ith ea line an

Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 49 of 65 - Page ID#: 1557
Form+
Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016)
In preparation of the first monitoring report, I am checking with each KDOC ADA Coordinator for facilities with Deaf Inmates about Settlement Agreement items that include a deadline on or before September 26, 2015. (The agreement was filed with the court on May 29, 2015. So that means that its effective date is June 28, 2015, 30 days later. Ninety days after that was September 26, 2015.) Please respond to the attached questions no later than January 15. Thanks for your assistance. Margo Schlanger Adams & Knights v. Kentucky DOC Settlement Monitor
Identifying information
Your name
Your phone number
Your email
Your institution
http://www.formpl.us/form/830029631/[1/21/2016 10:17:41 AM]

Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 50 of 65 - Page ID#: 1558
1. Videophones: Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Videophones shall be installed and accessible to Deaf Inmates in any KDOC Adult Institution that houses Deaf Inmates. Access to the Videophone will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate, but in no event will Videophone access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones. Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use. Deaf Inmates will not be charged for the use of Videophones. (IX.D.3.a)
a. Are videophones installed and
accessible to Deaf Inmates?
b. Are videophones located in areas as accessible to Deaf
Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf
Inmates?
c) Are videophones available during the same days and hours
as conventional telephones? What are those days and hours?
d) Are videophones available to use without particular permission to
the same extent that conventional
telephones are available to use without
http://www.formpl.us/form/830029631/[1/21/2016 10:17:41 AM]

Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016) - Form+

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16

particular permission?

1559

When is permission

required?

Page: 51 of 65 - Page ID#:

e) Are Deaf Inmates charged for the use of
Videophones?

2. KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services. The KDOC will create these materials using language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate. (III.F.1)

Please provide the materials described in
this provision.

no file selected

Please explain whether these materials have
been provided to each Deaf Inmate in your facility, and when.

3. KDOC personnel at those KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed shall provide each Deaf Inmate with a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available. (IV.B.)

Please provide the schedule described in
this provision.

no file selected

Please explain whether these materials have
http://www.formpl.us/form/830029631/[1/21/2016 10:17:41 AM]

Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016) - Form+

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16

been provided to each

1560

Deaf Inmate in your

facility, and when.

Page: 52 of 65 - Page ID#:

4. KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. (VI.C.4.)

Please describe the arrangements made to
be ready for this circumstance, should it
occur.
Please provide a list of all such emergencies that have taken place since September 26, 2015, and whether a Qualified Interpreter was or was not provided.
5. The KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will provide training as defined in the Agreement to KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population. (It is my understanding that this training has been delayed.)

This training

Has taken place Has not taken place

If the training has taken place, please provide the training materials, and details on the dates, times, trainers, and attendees of the training

Training materials

no file selected

http://www.formpl.us/form/830029631/[1/21/2016 10:17:41 AM]

Adams & Knights v. KDOC, compliance questions (1/4/2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 53 of 65 - Page ID#: 1561

Details on dates, times, trainers, attendees

no file selected

Submit
You're strongly advised not to submit passwords (and other potentially confidential information) via Form+
Report Abuse

Create your own awesome forms now

http://www.formpl.us/form/830029631/[1/21/2016 10:17:41 AM]

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 54 of 65 - Page ID#: 1562
Exhibit : arterl Co liance re orting or an

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 55 of 65 - Page ID#: 1563
Form+
Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016)
Jan. 18. This reporting form will be used each quarter; in the future I will circulate it immediately at the close of the quarter, and ask for the information to be provided within 2 weeks. This time, I ask that you complete it by January 28. Thank you. Definition: Under the agreement, Deaf means unable to hear well enough to rely on hearing as a means of processing information. It includes deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired.
Your identifying information
Your name
Your institution
Your email
Your phone number
Are you the current ADA Coordinator? If http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16

not, please list the

1564

name, phone number,

and email of the

current ADA

Coordinator

Page: 56 of 65 - Page ID#:

If your institution does not currently have any Deaf inmates, and has not had any Deaf inmates since July 2015, you can skip the rest of this form. Just say so here.

Any Deaf inmates? My institution does not have any current Deaf inmates, and has not had any since July 2015
1) Grievances (Agreement XIV.3) In the fourth quarter of 2015 (October through December, 2015), did any Deaf Inmate file any grievance concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement?

Any grievances?

If yes, please upload a summary that describes, for each grievance, the issue raised, KDOC’s response, and whether and how the grievance was resolved.

Grievance summary

no file selected

2) Arrangements (contractual or otherwise) with qualified interpreters, to facilitate their availability when called for by the Agreement

a. Do you have an arrangement with a
http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 57 of 65 - Page ID#:

provider of in-person

1565

interpreter services?

If so, please name the provider(s) and
describe the terms of the arrangement in detail.

b. Do you have an arrangement with provider of video interpretation services?

If yes, please name the provider(s) and
describe the terms of the arrangement in detail.

Situational reporting under the Agreement
For each of the following questions, I first provide you the relevant paragraph of the Agreement, and then ask whether the situation described has arisen, since July 1, 2015. If it has, I ask for the required documentation.

3) Non-Discrimination Based on Disability (II.A): “The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.”
a. Since July 1, 2015, have you at any point determined that any activities present a direct threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore been unable to provide those inmates full and equal enjoyment of any facility services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations?

http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16

Direct threat

1566

determination?

Page: 58 of 65 - Page ID#:

b. If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the service, privilege, facility, advantage or accommodation; (2) the risk presented; (3) a list of inmate(s) affected.

Direct threat documentation

no file selected

4) Work Assignments: (VI.F) “The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.”
a. Since July 1, 2015, have you at any point determined that a work assignment presented a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and therefore chosen not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to that work assignment?*

Work direct threat determination?
b. If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the work assignment(s); (2) the risk(s) presented; (3) the names of inmate(s) affected.

Work direct threat documentation

no file selected

5) Non-Auditory Alert Systems (VIII.B.3; VIII.C) “The KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the
http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whe1t5h6er7such devices
are acceptable for the stated purpose.”

Page: 59 of 65 - Page ID#:

a. Have you considered any nonauditory alert systems?
b. If so, what systems have been under consideration?
6) Additional Time for Communication: “The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other nonDeaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.”

a. How much time are non-Deaf inmates allowed to use for phone calls?

Time per call, and per day or week

b. How much time are Deaf inmates allowed to use for Videophone
calls?

Time per call and per day or week.

c. How much time are Deaf inmates allowed
http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+
Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 60 of 65 - Page ID#: to use for TTY calls? Time per call, and per day or w1ee5k6.8

d. Since July 2015, have you made any determination that the usage arrangements
are inequitable?
e. If you have made such a determination,
please provide documentation of the
reasoning.

no file selected

7) Miscellaneous Devices and Aids: (XII) “Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.”

a. Since July 2015, have you made any determinations allowing or disallowing devices?

Considered a device

b. If you have considered a devie–whether you granted or refused permission– please upload documentation of the device(s), the reasoning, and the names of affected inmate(s).

http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Adams v. KDOC, Quarterly Compliance Reporting (Jan. 2016) - Form+

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16

Documentation of

no file selected 1569

devices granted or

refused

Page: 61 of 65 - Page ID#:

Submit
You're strongly advised not to submit passwords (and other potentially confidential information) via Form+
Report Abuse

Create your own awesome forms now

http://www.formpl.us/form/5109298686328832/[1/31/2016 8:50:09 PM]

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 62 of 65 - Page ID#: 1570
Exhibit E: S ar o co on the e in in ate inter ie o e ber an ar

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 63 of 65 - Page ID#: 1571

Exhibit E: Notes from Kentucky Department of Corrections Inmate Interviews
My assistant, a third year law student, conducted seven inmate interviews between November 2015 and January 2016. Five interviews were conducted by videophone service. Two inmates preferred not to utilize the videophone service; she interviewed one by conventional telephone and one by TTY. The interviews covered five facilities, which is all but two of the facilities that house Kentucky’s deaf inmates. (For those two remaining facilities, one interview is scheduled and one inmate requested to communicate by letter, instead of phone.) Many additional interviews focusing on the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) will be reported separately, as part of the future report on a KSR site visit. Where a denominator is reported in the right-hand column, it indicates how many inmates were asked the relevant question. No denominator means that the inmate volunteered the information, without a specific question that was also posed to other inmates.

Topic
ADA Coordinators 1. Inmate knows the ADA coordinator at his/her facility and how to get in
touch with the ADA coordinator 2. Inmate fears that reporting problems to the ADA coordinator will lead to
the revocation of privileges or other disciplinary action 3. ADA coordinator is unwilling to accommodate inmate’s hearing
impairment (for example, by writing back and worth or facing the inmate while speaking to facilitate lip-reading)

Inmates reporting
5/6 1
1

Aids and Services

1. Inmate has not been provided information about how to request or obtain 6/6

devices or services

2. Hearing aids—functionality

Inmate’s hearing aid is in good working order

2/4

Inmate’s hearing aid is not in good working order

2/4

3. Hearing aid: repairs and replacements

Inmate has been waiting for a month or longer for a new hearing aid,

3/4

or repairs

Repairs to inmate’s hearing aid have been made quickly

2/4

4. Inmate did not have to pay for a hearing aid and/or repairs to an existing

3/3

aid

5. Inmate did not have to pay for a hearing aid batteries

3/3

Alert Systems

1. Has the prison installed a bed shaker and/or strobe light in the inmate’s

cell?

No

6/7

Yes

1/7

2. Inmate does not feel safe in case of an emergency

5/7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 64 of 65 - Page ID#: 1572

3. The prison has not provided an effective method to communicate day-to- 6/7 day announcements to deaf inmates

Closed Captioning

1. Closed captioning is available and turned on upon request

4/6

2. Closed captioning is not available or not turned on upon request

2/6

Discipline

1. Inmate fears that requests for services or aids will lead to revocation of

3

other privileges or other disciplinary measures

2. Inmate has been unable to understand why disciplinary proceedings were

3

initiated due to ineffective communication with corrections staff. (Note:

the timing of this issue is unclear, but at least one or two seem to be since

the Agreement’s effective date.)

3. Inmate faced disciplinary action as a result of being unable to hear

3

commands or alerts. (Note: The timing of these reported issues is unclear,

but at least one may have been since the Agreement’s effective date)

Effective Communication

1. Inmate does not feel communication with medical staff is effective

6/6

2. Inmate does not feel communication with corrections staff is effective

5/7

3. Corrections staff are unwilling to accommodate inmate’s hearing

3

impairment (for example, by writing back and worth or facing the inmate

while speaking to facilitate lip-reading)

Hand Restraints

1. Inmate has been placed in hand restraints (Note: the timing of these

5/7

reported issues is unclear, but they may all have preceded the

Agreement’s effective date)

2. Hand restraints undermined inmate’s ability to communicate

4/6

Hearing Assessments

1. Inmate has never received a hearing assessment.

3/7

Notification Regarding Deaf Inmates

1. Inmate was given a distinct identification card identifying him/her as

7/7

deaf or hearing impaired or signed a waiver

2. Inmate misplaced the distinct identification card and requested a new one

1

but has not yet received a replacement.

3. There is no sign outside the inmate’s assigned dorm indicating that a deaf 5/7

inmate is housed there

4. Inmates report a sign outside the assigned dorm, but because it says “hard

2

of hearing,” not “deaf,” believe that COs therefore do not understand that

they cannot hear at all and have unrealistic expectations of their abilities.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 83-1 Filed: 02/04/16 Page: 65 of 65 - Page ID#: 1573

Programming

1. Inmate is unable to participate effectively in classes due to

5/6

communication or hearing issues

Qualified Interpreters

1. Facility has not provided in-person qualified interpreters for medical

6/6

appointments.

2. Facility has provided video interpretation (VRI) at medical appointments 2/6

3. Facility has not provided in-person qualified interpreters for classes and

6/6

programming

4. Facility has provided VRI for some, if not all, classes and programming

2

5. Facility provided a VRI at intake

1

6. Inmate requested qualified interpreters at religious services and was

2

denied

7. Inmate was not provided a schedule of when qualified interpreters or

5/6

other aids/services would be available

8. The prison’s VRI is not easily accessible because the process of

2

requesting and acquiring it is time consuming.

Work Assignments

1. Inmate’s request for work assignments was denied due to the inmate’s

2/6

hearing disability. (Note: the timing of these reports is unclear; they may

both predate the Settlement’s effective date)

2. Inmate has not been denied a work assignment due to the inmate’s

4/6

hearing disability

Videophones

1. A videophone is installed at the inmate’s facility

6/6

2. The videophone is usually in good working order

6/6

3. Inmate is not charged to use the videophone

5/5

4. The videophone is located in a different dorm than the inmate is housed

1

in, which creates barriers to access and reduces the amount of time the

inmate is able to spend on the videophone

5. Inmate must request permission to use the videophone, a process not

1

required for hearing inmates

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 1 of 38 - Page ID#: 1469
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ET AL. AND PLAINTIFFS OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL KNIGHTS
I. DEFINITIONS
1. "ADA" means the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325).
"Auxiliary Aids and Services" include, but are not limited to, "Qualified Interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments," 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as hearing aids, computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, "TDDs" or "TTYs" as defined below, videotext displays, written materials (see 28 C.F.R. § 35,104); as well as Videophones, access to telephone relay services, visual alert or alarm systems, and bed shakers.
3. "Deaf Inmates" means Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). .
4, "Direct Threat" means a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.
"Effective Communication" and "Effectively Communicate" means communication with Deaf Inmates that is substantially as effective as communication with the general Inmate population (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)) and will, when necessary, include the provision of appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, such as Qualified Interpreters. Effective Communication affords Deaf Inmates an opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the KDOC's services, programs, or activities in a way that is substantially equal to the opportunity provided to a similarly situated non-Deaf Inmate. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
6. "Effective Date" means thirty (30) days after this Agreement is filed with the Court.
7. "Inmate" means any person in the custody of the KDOC.
8. "KCDHH" means the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 2 of 38 - Page ID#: 1470
9. "KDOC" means Kentucky Department of Corrections.
10. "KDOC program" means any program or activity, or aid, benefit, or service as defined by the ADA and Section 504 (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, § 41.51) available to Inmates of KDOC for which the KDOC does more than only provide physical space at its facilities, including but not limited to, programs, activities, aids, benefits, or services mandated by law, qualifying for educational or early release credits, and/or ordered as part of an Inmate's sentence.
11. "KDOC employees," "KDOC staff" and "KDOC personnel" each and collectively include all employees, contractors, agents, and other staff of the KDOC whose job responsibilities place them on a regular basis in contact with Deaf Inmates, and the supervisors of those employees, contractors, agents, or other staff.
12. "KDOC Adult Institution" means any facility owned or operated by the KDOC for the care and custody Inmates, including but not limited to Bell Country Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
13. "Off-site Medical Care" means medical care that is provided at a location not owned or operated by the KDOC.
14. "On-site Medical Care" means medical care that is provided at a KDOC facility, including medical care provided by third parties in facilities owned or operated by the KDOC.
15. "Parole hearing" means any hearing or meeting during which an Inmate is being offered the opportunity to be released from KDOC custody on parole.
16. "Plaintiffs" means, for purposes of this Agreement, Oscar Adams (inmate #243676) and Michael Knights (inmate #233021).
17. "Plaintiffs' Counsel" means attorneys-of-record for Plaintiffs in Oscar Adams and Michael Knights, et al., v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv00001 (E.D. Ky.) at the time this Agreement is signed.
18. "Qualified Interpreter" means a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104. A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 3 of 38 - Page ID#: 1471
Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing,
A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.
19, "Section 504" means Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2014).
20. "Settlement Monitor" means Margo Schlanger, whose curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
21. "TTYs" or "TDDs" means teletypewriters or telecommunications devices for the Deaf, which are devices used with a telephone to communicate with persons who are Deaf by typing and reading communications.
22. "Video Remote Interpreting" or "VRI" means a video-telecommunication interpreting service, which uses Qualified Interpreters and is delivered over a high-speed Internet connection. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d).
23. "Videophone" means a telephone with a camera and screen for visual, real-time communications. The term Videophone as used in this Agreement is limited to Videophones intended for the use by Deaf Inmates within the custody of the KDOC, and does not include Videophones within KDOC Adult Institutions intended for the use of the general Inmate population.
II. GENERAL POLICIES
A. Non- discrimination Based on Disability
The KDOC will ensure that Deaf Inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated non-Deaf Imnates. The KDOC shall provide Deaf Inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
B. ADA Coordinator
Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will assign a staff member at each KDOC Adult Institution the title, duties, and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The KDOC will maintain the ADA Coordinator position at each KDOC Adult

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 4 of 38 - Page ID#: 1472
Institution as required by law. The ADA Coordinator responsibilities will be a part of the official duties assigned to the person in this role. The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC's obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will notify the Settlement Monitor of the identity of each KDOC employee assigned the title, duties and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC's website. The name and contact information of each KDOC Adult Institution's ADA Coordinator will be communicated to all Deaf Inmates incarcerated in each respective KDOC Adult Institution, and will also be prominently posted in a secure area in any housing unit in which Deaf Inmates are held.
ADA Coordinators will assist with providing, coordinating, and overseeing Auxiliary Aids and . Services for Deaf Inmates and for implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be provided with and responsible for knowing the contents of this Agreement, and will assist with implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be available to assist with various aspects of accommodating Deaf Inmates. In such situations, ADA Coordinators will ensure Effective Communication for the Deaf Inmates.
III. INITIAL CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT
A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification with Effective Communication. The purpose is to facilitate communication between the Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (or other persons) during medical, psychological, and educational testing and evaluation, as well as to provide an explanation of prison policies and procedures, including Inmate discipline, grievances, and how to utilize the TTY, Videophone and other Auxiliary Aids and Services.
As of the date of this Agreement, initial intake, assessment, and classification for male Inmates occurs at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW).
B. Hearing Assessment
As part of the initial intake, assessment, and classification, medical staff will assess and, if necessary, test all persons who may be a Deaf Inmate for Deafness. If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate's institutional file, and will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator. Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.
ri

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 5 of 38 - Page ID#: 1473
C. Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment
After medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.
If any Deaf Innate indicates that he or she does not require any or all of the Auxiliary Aids and Services set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Auxiliary Aids and Services and that document will be kept in the Inmate's institutional file.
If an Inmate is not found to have a hearing impairment at his or her initial intake, assessment, and classification, initially refuses, or does not request Auxiliary Aids and Services, but later believes that Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary to ensure Effective Communication, he or she will fill out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form. KDOC will provide the Innate who was initially not found to have a hearing impairment with a hearing assessment if so ordered by medical staff If that individual is found to be Deaf, KDOC will follow the procedures set forth in this section.
D. Ensuring Staff Awareness Through Identification Cards
The KDOC will take appropriate steps to ensure that all KDOC personnel having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate are made aware of such Inmate's need for Auxiliary Aids and Services so that Effective Communication with, and the safety of, the Deaf Inmate will be ensured. Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Innate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a. Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Innate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services. If any KDOC staff takes any Deaf Inmate's ID card, the Deaf Inmate will be given another official indicator of his or her Deaf status.
All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Innate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards,
The KDOC will post at the entrance to all KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates a notice clearly stating that the KDOC Adult Institution houses Deaf Inmates and that the Deaf Inmates carry an ID card or other official indicator with them. The notice will include a picture of the ID card and other official indicator carried by Deaf Inmates. The Notice will also be posted outside each housing unit where Deaf Inmates are held.
If any Deaf Innate indicates that he or she does not wish to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Deaf Irunate ID Card and that document will be kept in the Inmate's institutional file. If any Deaf Inmate signs a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card but later requests to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will promptly be provided an opportunity to fill out

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 6 of 38 - Page ID#: 1474
a Request for Deaf Innate ID Card form, The KDOC will then promptly provide the Inmate with a Deaf Inmate ID card and update the Deaf Inmate's institutional file.
E. Interpretation of Materials
The KDOC will provide the Deaf Inmate materials it provides to all Inmates. hi providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.
F. Creation and Interpretation of Rights Materials
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services. The KDOC will create these materials using language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate. The KDOC will provide these materials to Deaf Inmates with the orientation materials provided to all other Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification.
In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.
IV. HOUSING
A. General Policy
The KDOC has the discretion to house Deaf Inmates at whatever KDOC Adult Institution it deems appropriate. See, e.g., KY Corrections Policy and Procedure 18.7.
Wherever a Deaf Innate is housed, that Deaf Innate retains all rights as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, and this Agreement.
B. Schedule of Accommodations
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, KDOC personnel at those KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed shall provide each Deaf Inmate with a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available. When the schedule of accommodations changes, including when a Qualified Interpreter will be available, an updated schedule of accommodations will be given to all Deaf Inmates.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 7 of 38 - Page ID#: 1475
V. PROVISION OF AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. General Policy
In order to ensure substantial equality for Deaf Inmates, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, as required by this Agreement, the U,S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. This substantial equality will extend to include KDOC programs for or to Deaf Inmates provided by third party vendors, contractors, or state-funded entities, such as community colleges.
Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC's custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC's custody.
In those instances where the KDOC permits volunteers to provide activities (religious or otherwise)—including programs, services, or meetings—to Inmates in KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed, the KDOC will allow the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution's security requirements, and will work with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteer-provided activities. Such an accommodation must be initiated by request from the Deaf Inmate to the volunteer organization or individual. The responsibility for finding the interpreter will not rest with the KDOC, and proper notice allowing the KDOC to conduct appropriate security clearances must be provided. To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.
The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and may therefore choose not to provide such Deaf Inmates substantially equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
The KDOC will provide instructions for the use of all Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Deaf Inmates' full use and enjoyment of the Auxiliary Aids and Services.
B. Medical Devices
All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to a co-payment for that medical device, just as

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 8 of 38 - Page ID#: 1476
non-Deaf Inmates are charged a co-payment for other medical appliances or devices. This copay shall not apply, however, to hearing aid batteries or for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.
C. Maintenance of Auxiliary Aids and Services
The KDOC shall maintain all Auxiliary Aids and Services in its custody in good working condition at all times.
VI. QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. The KDOC agrees that Deaf Inmates in need of interpreter services will receive a Qualified Interpreter able to facilitate Effective Communication with that particular Deaf Inmate. The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
• communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care;
• disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
• transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate's status;
• transitional programming;
• rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and
• educational programming.
The KDOC shall also provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated as circumstances warrant. The KDOC will be responsible for scheduling and overseeing the provision of Qualified Interpreters.
When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate's need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board's duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate's scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 9 of 38 - Page ID#: 1477
Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.
B. Other Means of Communication
KDOC employees will communicate with Deaf Imnates for such purposes, and to the same extent, as they would communicate with non-Deaf Inmates using all available means of communication. This provision in no way lessens the KDOC's obligation to provide Qualified Interpreters in certain situations and in a timely manner.
C. On-site Medical Care
General Policy
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication for all scheduled appointments between Deaf Inmates and medical personnel at KDOC facilities, including, but not limited to, review of medical history, medical appointments, follow up meetings or appointments, and treatment meetings. The parties agree that for many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication in these circumstances,
2. Informing Appropriate Medical Staff
The KDOC will ensure that all medical staff are made aware of an Inmate's Deafness. For each Deaf Innate, the medical staff will note, in bold marking, the Deaf Inmate's disability on the medical file cover and in the Deaf Inmate's medical file.
3. Scheduling Medical Appointments with Qualified Interpreters
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with the ability to request Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Effective Communication at medical appointments. The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Imnates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services. Appointments for Deaf Inmates requiring Auxiliary Aids and Services will be scheduled within the same time period from the initial request as those for similarly situated nonDeaf Imnates.
4. Emergency Events
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in conjunction with medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible. Lifesaving medical care should never be delayed because no interpretation services are available.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 10 of 38 - Page ID#: 1478
D. Off-site Medical Care
As early as practicable, the KDOC will inform all off-site medical providers that a Deaf Innate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time.
In the case of an emergency, the KDOC will, as soon as possible, inform an off-site medical provider that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service is being transported to the off-site medical provider. Notification will include the Deaf Inmate's estimated time of arrival.
E. Educational, Vocational, and Rehabilitative Programming
The KDOC shall provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services for all KDOC programs, which are offered at KDOC Adult Institutions and which Deaf Inmates are qualified for, admitted into, or in which Deaf Inmates are actively participating. The following appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services will be provided:
Educational Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned education materials where available. In addition, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for educational KDOC program classes. The educational program classes include, without limitation, literacy, adult basic education, GED preparatory, and technical education and certification classes. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Innate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F,R. § 160(b)(2)).
Vocational/Work Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned vocational/work materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for vocational/work KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § l60(b)(2)).
3. KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse, and evidence-based KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Innate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)). The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs.
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 11 of 38 - Page ID#: 1479
F. Work Assignments
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates opportunities for institutional work assignments that are consistent with the opportunities for the same assignments given to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
G. Religious Services
The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers,
No Deaf Inmate will be required to attend a religious service where a Qualified Interpreter is not provided in order to receive any religious meal, diet, or otherwise offered religious accommodation.
To the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.
H. Transfer and Classification Matters
The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate's transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate's status.
I. Transitional Programming — Post-Release Supervision (Including Parole)
Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under post-release supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.
J. Additional Communications
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement. A significant communication includes any communication for which the Deaf Inmate requests an interpreter, subject to approval by the ADA Coordinator, the Warden, and/or the Warden's designee.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 12 of 38 - Page ID#: 1480
VII. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
A. Qualified Interpreters For Disciplinary Proceedings
The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction, including those proceedings carried out under Chapter 15 of the Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure and any other disciplinary policies and procedures now in force or subsequently adopted by the KDOC. A Qualified Interpreter must be available to a Deaf Inmate at the following stages of the above-described disciplinary proceedings:
• staff investigations involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, prior to filing a disciplinary report or equivalent;
• investigative interviews that involve the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (such as when an adverse party is interviewed);
• during any part of the preparation of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
• during any part of the shift supervisor's review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
• during any part of the investigator's review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
• giving Miranda warnings to a Deaf Inmate;
• advising a Deaf Innate of his or her right to consult with an assigned legal aide;
• advising a Deaf Inmate of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing; and
• during any part of the hearing, or re-hearing, before the Adjustment Committee, Adjustment Officer or Unit Hearing Officer that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Innate and KDOC personnel.
Innate or staff advisors will be provided and accessible to Deaf Inmates who are suspected of, charged with, or witnesses to a disciplinary infraction, on the same terms as they are provided to non-Deaf Inmates. To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 13 of 38 - Page ID#: 1481
B. Miscellaneous
If any Deaf Inmate is a witness at a disciplinary hearing, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter at the hearing.
The KDOC must hold disciplinary hearings for Deaf Inmates within the same time frame as it holds disciplinary hearings for non-Deaf Inmates.
Nothing in this Agreement precludes any Deaf Inmate who is suspected of or charged with a disciplinary infraction from voluntarily waiving his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter and to proceed through any stage of a disciplinary proceeding without the benefits of a Qualified Interpreter. If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be reheard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.
VIII. NON-AUDITORY ALERT NOTIFICATIONS
A. General Policy
Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.
B. Relaying Information
The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Immates. The non-auditory alert system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.
In addition, the KDOC will continue to publish the institution schedule in the handbook that every Inmate receives and to post promptly any schedule changes, which are done by memorandum from the Warden, in all dormitories, the library, and the gym at each KDOC Adult Institution in which a Deaf Imnate is housed. Further, the KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.
The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 14 of 38 - Page ID#: 1482
C. Non-Auditory Alarms and Emergency Evacuation
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in real-time and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers, The KDOC has - the discretion as to which type of nonauditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDI -11-I of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.
KDOC personnel shall be responsible for the evacuation or safe relocation of Deaf Inmates during an emergency. Therefore, during emergencies, KDOC employees will personally and Effectively Communicate adequate information about the emergency to Deaf Inmates.
IX. TELECOMMUNICATIONS
A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with access to telecommunication devices that enable them to have communication with people outside of the KDOC and that are substantially equivalent—in terms of the amount and quality of the information conveyed—to the communications that non-Deaf Inmates have with people outside of the KDOC using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones.
B. Monitoring Communications
The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.
C. Additional Time for Communication
The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Immates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 15 of 38 - Page ID#: 1483
D. Technology KDOC Will Provide
The KDOC will make the following communications technologies available at KDCO Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated to facilitate communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC facilities. This list of technological equipment is not exhaustive. The KDOC will keep abreast of evolving technology and will consider adding additional equipment to reflect technological advances, as it deems appropriate or as required by applicable federal and state law. KDOC will provide a list of available communications equipment to Deaf Inmates upon their arrival at the KDOC Adult Institutions in which they are housed.
TTY or TDD
The parties acknowledge that there may be reasonable concerns over the theft and destruction of the TTY/TDD device(s), and that the TTY/TDD device(s) therefore must be maintained in a secured location when not in use. The parties also acknowledge that access to the TTY/TDD device(s) will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate. Nonetheless, for every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, in no event will TTY/TDD access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones, except to the extent that Deaf Inmates must request access to the otherwise secured TTY/TDD device(s). A reasonable request by a Deaf Inmate to access the TTY/TDD device(s) will be granted. TTY/TDDs will be located in areas substantially as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. TTY/TDDs will be available for Deaf Inmate use during the same days and hours as conventional telephones. At each KDOC Adult Institution where any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will ensure that an alternate TTY or TDD unit is available for use when the regular TTY or TDD is broken or otherwise unavailable.
2. Relay Services
For every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will enable all TTYs and TDDs to access publicly available relay service phone numbers such as 711 and 1-800 numbers. Deaf Inmates will not be charged any more than similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates for the use of relay services,
Videophones
Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Videophones shall be installed and accessible to Deaf Inmates in any KDOC Adult Institution that houses Deaf Inmates. Access to the Videophone will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate, but in no event will Videophone access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones. Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use. Deaf Inmates will not be charged for the use of Videophones.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 16 of 38 - Page ID#: 1484
Videophones will allow voice carry-over features.
E. Responsibility for Maintaining Equipment and Training Staff
The KDOC will ensure that the technology used to permit communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC Adult Institutions is in good working order. Further, the KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC's control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order. KDOC staff shall attempt to resolve complaints about any malfunctioning equipment within a reasonable time of receiving that complaint. To the extent services, equipment, and resources that are outside KDOC's control are involved (for example services or equipment provided by cable, telephone, utilities, or various other companies), KDOC will agree to notify those providers/companies of any problems and, to the extent necessary or possible under the circumstances, work with them expeditiously to resolve the problem. The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.
X. MEDIA
The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Innate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Imnates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate's request.
The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closedcaptioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Innate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.
XI. HAND RESTRAINTS
A. General Policy
According to the KDOC's hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
• when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution;
when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit; and
• as needed in response to security threats.
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 17 of 38 - Page ID#: 1485
The applicable portions of the KDOC hand restraint policy, summarized above, have been reviewed to confirm when hand restraints are used on Inmates confined to KDOC Adult Institutions. While the policy does not specify the manner in which mechanical restraints are used during Off-site Medical Care, an Affidavit is included as Appendix A to this Agreement describing the two-point bed restraint system used during Off-site Medical Care. The two-point system would allow a Deaf Innate to use his or her hands for communicating via sign language to some degree. KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Innate to Effectively Communicate.
B. Off-site Medical Care
During Off-site Medical Care, the KDOC shall use a two-point hand restraint system to allow for the Deaf Imnate's need for Effective Communication while considering the safety and security of the Deaf Inmate and those located at Off-site Medical Care facilities. The KDOC will include training on use of the two-point hand restraint system in its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees.
In the event a medical decision made by medical professionals or medical staff that requires or calls for removal or adjustment of hand restraints, the KDOC will follow its secured policy regarding the removal of mechanical restraints where necessary for treatment or emergencies.
C. On-Site Medical Care
The KDOC's hand restraint policy, summarized above in Section XI.A., will be followed for Onsite Medical Care.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS DEVICES AND AIDS
Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC's decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk, The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination. Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary. Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Innate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be documented. The ADA
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 18 of 38 - Page ID#: 1486
Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.
XIII. TRAINING
A. General Policy
The KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will provide training as defined in Section XIILB below to KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population. The KDOC will incorporate this training into its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees. This training will be included in current KDOC training within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The KDOC will update the training materials as required by law, including but not limited to, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws.
The KDOC will provide any materials that may be used for training, as specified under Section XIV of this Agreement, to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session. In addition, the KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will update and allow the KCDHH and the Settlement Monitor to review the training as defined in Section XIII.B, at least every two years.
B. KDOC Employee Training Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will begin training KDOC employees on the following topics:
• best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals;
• the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened individuals;
• identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf;
• the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction with hearing corrections personnel;
• the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters;
• directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other telecommunication equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people;
• disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV;
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 19 of 38 - Page ID#: 1487
• the KDOC's anti-discrimination policy; • all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates; • hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and • the requirements of this Agreement. XIV. GRIEVANCES All KDOC grievance coordinators will inform Deaf Inmates who file a grievance of the option to share that grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator of the KDOC Adult Institution in which the Deaf Inmate is housed. If the Deaf Inmate agrees to share the grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator, the grievance coordinator will forward a copy of that grievance (or grievance response or outcome) to the ADA Coordinator for review. A written record of all Deaf Inmates' grievances (and any responses and outcomes) will be maintained by the KDOC. For five years following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor may request the records of any Deaf Inmate's grievances, as long as the Deaf Inmate signs a waiver of confidentiality pursuant to KRS 197,023, and a copy of that Deaf Inmate's records will be provided, free of charge, to the Settlement Monitor. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every three months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement. This written summary will describe, for each grievance, the issue raised by the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC Adult Institution where the grievance was filed, a summary of KDOC's response, and whether and how the grievance was resolved. XV. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE A. Plaintiffs' Counsels' Right of Access To the extent Plaintiffs' Counsel maintains a current or prospective attorney-client relationship with any Deaf inmate, they shall be provided the same access to that Deaf Inmate and to the records relating to that Deaf Inmate, as any other attorney with a similar relationship to another non-Deaf Inmate.
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 20 of 38 - Page ID#: 1488
B. The Settlement Monitor's Investigation
For a period of five years after the Effective Date, the following will apply to the extent necessary to permit the Settlement Monitor to thoroughly and objectively assess the KDOC's compliance with and implementation of this Agreement:
The Settlement Monitor will have unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC to provide any requested records, files, or papers, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
The Settlement Monitor will have access to all other materials relating to the case Adams, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case no. 14-cv00001, except for those materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Any requested materials protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine will be logged with information including the author, date, nature of the material, reason for the claim of privilege, and persons to whom the material was disseminated, and this log will be provided to the Settlement Monitor.
The Settlement Monitor will have access to all pertinent staff members and employees of the KDOC. The Settlement Monitor may engage in both formal and informal conferences with staff members and employees, including confidential or group interviews, and such persons will cooperate will the Settlement Monitor fully and will respond to all reasonable inquiries and requests relating to compliance efforts. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden's designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4,
The Settlement Monitor may conduct confidential interviews with any Deaf Inmate or with groups of Deaf Inmates incarcerated at Adult KDOC Institutions. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every six months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a current and up-to-date list of Deaf Inmates in the KDOC's custody, which identifies the name, DOC numbers and the KDOC Adult Institution for each Deaf Inmate. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden's designee to schedule these conferences andlor interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
• The Settlement Monitor may request KDOC staff members and employees to prepare, where appropriate, written responses to any questions by the Settlement Monitor related to the implementation of the Agreement or issues in this litigation, so long as the request does not interfere with security obligations of KDOC staff members and employees. The KDOC will not
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 21 of 38 - Page ID#: 1489
refuse or fail to respond to reasonable requests. Responses to these requests shall be provided in a timely manner that is reasonable and shall not interfere in the security obligations of any KDOC staff members or employees. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC staff members or employees to provide any requested responses, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court,
The Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution so long as the KDOC is provided notice a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the visit. All visits will be supervised by a KDOC employee. Visits will be limited to only those areas of a KDOC Adult Institution that are affected by this Agreement. Absent Court order or a separate agreement, the Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution only once in a calendar year. The KDOC will pay the cost of and associated with providing Qualified Interpreters for the Settlement Monitor's visits to KDOC Adult Institutions.
The parties will not refuse reasonable requests for records, files, papers, or other materials or for access to people or other information. The Settlement Monitor will conduct the bulleted monitoring, above, in a reasonable manner to minimize interference with the daily operations of the KDOC. Absent a Court order requiring otherwise, the KDOC retains discretion to prohibit the Settlement Monitor from conducting the aforementioned monitoring on the buildings and premises under the control of the KDOC, but the KDOC will not unreasonably refuse requests for visits.
The Settlement Monitor may hire other persons as the Settlement Monitor determines to be necessary to carry out the Settlement Monitor's duties.
For a period of five years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor will issue semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties detailing the parties' compliance with and implementation of this Agreement.
The KDOC will not pay for the fees and expenses due to the Settlement Monitor for the Settlement Monitor's services under this section.
XVI. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
A. Release
In consideration of the representations, promises and agreements set forth herein, including the payments as set forth in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Plaintiffs, on their behalf and on behalf of their assignees, heirs, executors, family members, beneficiaries, administrators, successors, and anyone acting, or claiming to act, on their behalf, hereby releases and forever discharges the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, KDOC, J. Michael Brown, Ladonna Thompson, Kimberly Potter-Blair, Paula Holden, Jim Erwin, Randy White, Gregory Howard, Clark Taylor, Aaron Smith, Kathy Litteral, Steve Haney, Gary Beckstrom, Alan Brown, Janet Conover, Joseph Meko, Don
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 22 of 38 - Page ID#: 1490
Bottoms, Ravonne Sims, Steve Woodward, and Bobbie Underwood from any and all claims and causes of action, known and unknown, asserted and unasserted, direct and indirect, and of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, which they had on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement arising out of the facts set forth in the discrimination charge they filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division.
B. Dismissal
The Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims of the Amended Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division (the "Court"), Case Number 3:1 4-cv-0000 1.
The parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this Agreement as set out in Section XVI.E of this Agreement, below.
C. Attorneys' Fees, Costs, Disbursements and Expenses
In settlement of all claims for attorneys' fees and costs, any disbursements and expenses, including expert fees, incurred on behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation up to and including the Effective Date, the parties agree that within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall pay $250,000.00 as directed by Plaintiffs' counsel.
D. Damages
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall directly pay (1) Plaintiff Oscar Adams $1,500.00 in damages and (2) Plaintiff Michael Knights $1,500.00 in damages. The KDOC also agrees to pay within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement Plaintiff Michael Knights $77.62 to compensate for lien charges assessed against him for communications with Plaintiffs' Counsel regarding this case and settlement.
E. Enforcement Powers
During the tern of the Agreement, as set out in Section XVII.H, Plaintiffs may move the court for reinstatement of the lawsuit, or may elect to seek specific performance or institute an action for breach. An action to enforce this Agreement does not include any action for damages, except for enforcement of Section XVI.D. A Plaintiff seeking to enforce this Agreement can only seek to have a court order the KDOC to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
The lawsuit may not be reinstated, nor a claim for breach or specific performance of this Agreement brought, before a Plaintiff first notifies the KDOC of the nature of the alleged material non-compliance and gives the KDOC sixty (60) days to cure the alleged breach. The parties agree to non-binding mediation prior to any Plaintiff moving to reinstate the lawsuit or filing an enforcement action.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 23 of 38 - Page ID#: 1491
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS A. Non -Admission
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, facts, or allegations. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, or the admission of the validity of any defense.
B. Private Settlement Agreement This Agreement is a private settlement agreement within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
C. Confidentiality No part of this Agreement is or will be considered confidential by the parties. This Agreement will be made available by request under the Freedom of Information Act.
D. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. There were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this document, except as stated within the document itself. The terms of this Agreement are contractual in nature. All parties agree that the relief provided in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs' federally protected rights.
E. Execution This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, all of which, when so executed and taken together, shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each counterpart may be delivered by email (as a .pdf attachment) or facsimile, and an email or facsimile signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.
F. Binding This Agreement is final and binding on the Parties. Each Party has a duty to so inform any such successor in interest.
G. Non-Waiver Failure by the Plaintiffs to seek enforcement of this Agreement pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision will not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances and provisions.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 24 of 38 - Page ID#: 1492

H. Severability
In the event that a court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, such provision will be severed from this Agreement and all other provisions will remain valid and enforceable, provided however that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, the Parties will attempt, through reasonable, good faith negotiations, to agree upon such other amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the Parties as closely as possible to the relative rights and obligations initially intended by them hereunder.
I. Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall remain in effect for five years from the Effective Date. The KDOC, however, will continue to provide all accommodations required under the law, including under the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, regardless of any term limit applicable to this Agreement,

Sign

t t~Ntiirr
:`.:

C,faiXuzw iJ4

Kentucky IY6partrnenf o"f'C'drrecti ns

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date

Date

24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 25 of 38 - Page ID#:

2703885529

1493

10:37:45 a.m. 05-18-2015

2/2

ML Ct
Printed me 0
Sign ture Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date

25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 26 of 38 - Page ID#:

I'IHT - 7.D c iD 1b-4b

Wtr1L UUTSHRL & 111A4N9G4E5

282 857 0940 P.27

Printed Name

Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name

Signature µ

~"

Date

Printed Name Signature Date

Printed Name Signature Date
Printed Name Signature
Date
P14nted Name
Signature
Date
Printed Name 1gnatuxe
Date

25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 27 of 38 - Page ID#: 1495
Approved as to ¶(XVI(e) WEIL, GOTSIIAL & MANGES LLP
for Ralph I. Miller with permission

Approved as to ¶XVI(e) WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE

By:

_

for Deborah M. Golden with permission

Dat

Approved as to ¶(XVI(c)
BELZLEYBATHURST ATTORNEYS
By:
Date:

for Greg Belzley with permission

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 28 of 38 - Page ID#: 1496
EXHIBIT 1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 29 of 38 - Page ID#: 1497
MARGO SCHLANGER http://tnargoschlan rer.net
nischlan@uinich.edu 734-615-2618
EMPLOYMENT
Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan (2009-present; on leave 2010 and 2011). Director, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, litq)://cleariiigliouse.iieG Visiting Professor of Law, Fall
2009. Counsel to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Special Government Employee, parttime, 2012-2013). Advised Secretary of I -Iomeland Security on civil rights matters. Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, U.S. Department of I -Iomeland Security (Presidential appointment, 2010 & 2011). (Chair, Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties Subcommittee of the federal Information Sharing Environment's Information Sharing and Access Interagency Policy Committee; Chair, Interagency Coord. Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities; Member, U.S. Delegation, Universal Periodic Review.) Visiting Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles (Spring 2009). Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis (2004-2009); Director, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Elected 2008 "David M. Becker Professor of the Year" by law students. Faculty Fellow, Harvard University Center for Ethics and the Professions (2001/02). Assistant Professor of Law, Harvard Law School (1998-2004). Senior Trial Attorney, U.S. Dept. ofjustice, Civil Rights Division, Special Litigation Section (19951998). Division Special Achievement Awards, 1996 and 1997. Law clerk, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Supreme Court of the United States (1993-1995). Fact-checker, The New Yorker (1989-1990).
COURSES TAUGHT Torts; Constitutional Law; Prisons and the Law; Constitutional Equality. Seminars include Civil Rights and Homeland Security; Empirical Inquiries into Civil Litigation; Institutional Reform Litigation.
OTHER APPOINTMENTS Reporter, American Bar Association task force on Standards relating to the Legal Status of Prisoners (2007-,Jana 2010). See lrttp://~vLV~v, ulicricazzbar.or r~>ublicat.ioi~s/ c rinunal Justice section archiv e/crimiust standards treatmnentln - isoners.lrt.ml . Commissioner, Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons (2006-2008). See
lift.p://wr~ryv.prisonommissionorY .
EDUCATION
Yale Law School, J.D. 1993. Book Reviews Editor, Yale Lawjourmd (Vol. 102); Vinson Prize for excellence in clinical casework. Yale College, B.A. 1989. Honors: magma cum laude, distinction in the History major, National Merit Scholar.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 30 of 38 - Page ID#: 1498

SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS, forthcoming and published

Schlanger cv, page 2 of 7 (10/27/2014)

Intelligelice Le, ath n a iid the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties Gap, forthcoming HARV. NAT• SEC. U. (2015), available at http://ssrii ,corri abstract:=219,5844,.

Trends in Prisoner Lihi ati'on as the PLRA Filters Adulthood, forthcoming, U.C, IRVINE L. REv (2015), available at http://ssril.cozim/abstract=2506378,

IIowPt:rsoiiers, Riglits Lawyers are Preserving the Role of the Courts, forthcoming, U. Miami L. Rev. (2015), available at hum/ssrri.com/abstract=2478884.

Offices of Goodness: Influence W thoutAuthorlty widilli Federal Agencies, 36 CARDO%O L. REV. 53 (2014).

The Equal Liriployinesit Opportunity Commission and Shrrlctulal Refti -in of the Amelicari Workplace (with Pauline Kim), forthcoming WASH, U. I.... REv. (2014) (draft available at
p:JLssrn.com/abstract23.514..

Prison Seg7 -Cgdtl011: Sympo,siuln Introduction and Preln7mnar)y Data on Racial Disparities, 18 MICH. J. RACE & LAW 241 (2013).

Plata v. Brown and Realigllinellt:Ja.ils, Prisons, Courts, amid Politics,48 1-IARV. CIV. RIGHTS-Clv. LIB. L. REv. 165 (2013).

14oinen Behind /lie 11 heel. Gender and Transportation L aw, 18601.930, in Tracy A. Thomas & Tracey Jean Boisseau, eds., FEMINIST LEGAL HISTORY: ESSAYS ON WOMEN AND LAW (2011).

Regulatnig Se'g7'egatioil: The Contribution of time ABA Criiniiial Justice Standards oil the Treatlneiit of Prisoners, 47 AM. CRIM. L. REv. 14.21 (2010)

Against Secret J?egu latl oil: Wily and How We .Should bid the Practical Obscurity of Injunctions and Consent Decrees, 59 DEPAULL. REv. 515 (2010).

How to .Study Di,SI17C t Judge Decision MaIClll; 29 WASH. U, J. LAW & POL'Y 83 (2009) (with Pauline Kim, Christina Boyd, Andrew D. Martin).

Present igg the Rule of iaaw11n Anie17ca2 S Prisons: Dil; Case forAln ending the Prison Litigation RefSrni Act, 11 U. PENN.J. CONST. LAW 139 (2008) (with Giovauuna Slhay).

,jail Strip-Search Cases.' Patterns and Particmoa1115', 71LAW & CONTEMP. PROB. 65 (2008).

Operationafiring Deterrence: Clailvs Mallagelne t (in Hospitlls, a Large Retailer, and jaiillss andl37'sons), 2 JOURNAL OIL TORT LAW (Aug. 2008).

Hedolmic Damages, I-Iedollle AdapGltion, and Disability; 60 VAND. L. REv. 745 (2007) (with Samuel B agenstos) .

The Washington University Civil Rights Litigation Cleai711gh0use; Usnig Court RecordsTOr Research, Teaching; and Policyn7akiiig, 75 UMKC L. REV. 153 (2006) (Symposium: Federal Civil Court. Records of the National Archives: Opportunities for Empirical, Historical and Legal Research and Curriculum Design) (with Denise Liebermain),

What We Know and What We Sliould KizowAhoutArrleiican Trial Trends, 2006,J. DISP. RES. 35 (2006) (Vannishinig Trial Symposium).

Civil Rights In,/illretloms Over Tilnc: A G:a,cc Sturdy ofJail and I'larson Court Order:S, 81 N.Y.U. L. REV. 550 (2006). Reprinted in 23 CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION AND ATTORNEY FEES ANNUAL HANDBOOK (Steven Saltzman, ed., 2007).

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 31 of 38 - Page ID#: 1499
Schlanger cv, page 3 of 7 (10/27/2014) Second Best Damage Action Deterrence, 55 DEPAUL L. REv, 517 (2006) (Clifford Symposium oii Tort Law and Social Policy). Deterin pants of Civil Rights Filings in Federal District Cm-t by, Jail and Pr con Imnates, 1 J. EMPIRICAL LEG. STUD. 79 (2004) (with Anne Piehi). The Reliability of the Aclinhnstrative Office of the U.S. Courts Database: All Initial FinpiricalAnalysis, 78 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 1455 (2003) (with Theodore Eisenberg) (symposium issue) Inmate Litigation, 116 HARV. L. REV. 1555 (2003). Gender Matters: Teaching a Reasonable Woman Standard in Personal IiljulyL are, 45 ST. LOUIS U. U. 769 (2001). 13eyoncl the Hero, judge: Institutional Reloim Litigation as Litigation, 76 MICH. L. REV. 1994 (1999). Injured Women Beforc Common Law Couirs, 1860-1930, 21 HARV. WOMEN'S L.J. 79 (1998).
NON-SCHOLARLY PUBLICATIONS 'The Supreme Court Gives a Subtle Boost to Free Speech, The New Republic, May 28, 2014, available at littl>: /www.ucwzepublic.com/article /117925/wood-v-moss-subtle-victory-free-speech. Even Conservative, judges Can 't Deny the C onstitutioilal Logic of Seine-Sex Marrthge, Daily Beast, May 18, 2014, available at http://www.tlie (lailybea.st.coin/articles/ 2014/05/18/even-coiiseivative-judges-caii-tdeuy-the-col)stitutioii<al-lo ic-of=saint-sex-inarriat .htnil. Iii the Story ol,Jonali, an Urgent Lesson About the Dangers ofSolilaly Conlineinent, TABLET MAGAZINE, Sept. 11, 2013. ABA CriininalJustice Standards on the Treatment ofPnsoners, CRIM. JUSTICE MAG,, Summer 2010, at 14 (with Margaret Colgate Love & Carl Reynolds). Prison Litigation Reform Act Update, in THE STATE OF CRIMINALJUSTICE, 2007-2008 (American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Apr. 2008). ProfessorNotes I'LRA Flaws: Will Congress Act to Correct Thcini , CORRECTIONAL LAW REP., Feb. /Mar. 2008, at 65 (reprints testimony before the House Judiciay Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security: Review of the Prison Litigation Refonii Act: A Decade of Re/in -in or an Increase in I'r:rson Abuses (Nov. 2007)). The Political Economy of Prison and/au Litigation, PRISON LEGAL NEWS, June 2007, at 1. Pfeser ruing the Rule ofl awin America Pr sons: The Case forAmending the Prison Litigation Refolin Act, American Constitution Society Issue Brief, Mar. 28, 2007 (with Giowuina Shay). National Pr on Commission Begins Work, CORRECTIONAL LAW REP., Julie/July 2005, at 1, and PRISON LEGAL NEWS, July 2005, at 17. Inmate Litigation: Results ol'e National Survey; NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS LARGEJAIL NETWORK EXCHANGE, July 2003, at 1.
OTHER WORKS IN PROGRESS
Executive Order 12,333 and Civil Liberties; California Realignment in the Counties

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 32 of 38 - Page ID#: 1500

GRANTS

Schlanger cv, page 4 of 7 (10/27/2014)

National Science Foundation SES-0718831 (co-PI, with Pauline Kim and Andrew Martin), "The 1.,itigation Process in Government-Initiated Employment Discrimination Suits" (2007), $213,999.

Harvard University William F. Milton Fund (with Anne Morrison Pichl), "Litigated Intervention in the Management of Correctional Facilities" (2002), $33,607.

SERVICE AND MEMBERSHIPS
Professional Bar admissions: New York, District of Columbia (inactive), Missouri; Supreme Court; 9th Cir., Eastern District of Missouri.
Organizing committee member, Prisoners' Advocates Conference (New Orleans, LA, Feb. 2014). Chair, Prison Litigation: A Workshop for Plaintiffs' Attorneys (Washington, DC, Mar. 2008);
Member, expert advisory committee on data collection and confidential reporting, Prison Rape Elimination Act Commission (2007).
Drafter, ABA Litigation Section Project, The Rule of Law in Times of Calamity (2006).
Counsel of record for amici curiae ACLU and other prison advocacy organizations, Woodford V. Ngo, 05-416 (U.S. Supreme Court, filed Feb. 2, 2006).
General Academic Co-editor (with Sharon Dolovich), SSRN abstracting "journal," Corrections & Sentencing Law &
Policy (2006-2009, 2012-present). See hip://ssrnn.com . Chair, American Association of Law Schools, Remedies Section (2014) Chair, Americain Association of Law Schools, Section on Law & the Social Sciences (2007/08). Member, Law & Society Association Dissertation Prize Committee (2007). Member, Law & Society Association.
Uxuvers fjycgx-i_ Chair, Senate Advisory Committee on University Affairs, Committee on Civil Liberties Member, L<aw School Curriculum Committee (2014/2014) Chair, Law School Tenure Committee (2013/2014), Member (2012/2013) Chair, University of Michigan Committee on Civil Liberties (2014/2015), Member (2013/2014) Faculty Advisor, Journal of Race & Law Symposium on Solitary Confinement (2013) Convenor, Prison Law & Scholarship Roundtable (2012)
Washn ton University in St. Louis Member, Law School Promotions Committee (2007/08) Advisory Board, Washington University Center for Empirical Research in the Law (2007/08) Standing participant: Workshop on Empirical Research in Law (2004-2009) Chair, Law School Lateral Appointments Committee (2006/07) Chair, Law School Dean's Advisory Group on Improving Student Career Prospects (2005/06) Chair, Law School Rules and Petitions Committee (2005/06) Chair, Law School Ad I-Ioc Committee on Tenure Standards and Process (2004/5) Member, University Committee on Senate By-Laws (2004/5) Member, Law School Clerkship Committee (Fall 2004)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 33 of 38 - Page ID#: 1501

PRESENTATIONS (2004-present)

Schlanger cv, page 5 of 7 (10/27/2014)

Intelligence Lcboah)on and the NSA's Civil Liberties Cap • Association of American Law Schools, Annual Conference, National Security .Law Section (chosen in call for papers) (Jan. 2014) • University of Iowa Law School Faculty Workshop (Nov. 2014) • University of Michigan Law School Legal Theory Workshop • 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop (May 2014)

Offices of Goodness: Influence without Audlority in Federal Agencies • Emory Law School (Mar. 2014) • Carclozo I.,aw School (Feb. 2014) • Law & Society Ass'n (May 2013)

The Equal Employment. Opportunity Commission and Structural Reforin of the Alnericall Workplace • EEOC Datrnret Conference (May 2014) • Labor Law Research Network (June 2013) • Stanford Law Faculty Workshop (Oct. 2009) • Broolclyn Law School Faculty Workshop (Sept. 2009) • Building Theory Through Empirical Legal Studies, Berkeley Center for the Study of Law & Society (April 2009) • UCLA Law Faculty Workshop (Feb. 2009) • University of Arizona Law Faculty Workshop (Feb. 2009)
The Prison I_.itlgation Refbrmn Act and IJtigatiou Dynvuics • Loyola University New Orleans College of Law, Prisoners' Advocates Conference (Feb. 2014)

The Present and Future of lnst tutiolmal Refbrmn Llt/ga(lore Current Tie li(ls 111 Prisoner Case.c • U.C. Irvine Law School, Prisoners Access to Justice Symposium (Feb. 2014) • University of Miami Law School, Leading from Below Symposium (Feb. 2014)
Marriage Equality and the Constitution, Anna College Constitution Day Speaker (Sept. 2013)
Plata v. Brown and Realignment:Jails, Prisons, Courts, and Politics, • Law & Society Ass'n (May 2013) (as discussant in panel on Plata v. Brown) • University of Illinois faculty workshop (Mar. 2013)
Race and (ll?llllrts Infilll! Uons, Ass'n of American Law Schools, Remedies Section (Jan. 2013)
Chair/discussant, panel on Immigration, Law & Society Association Conference (June 2012)
OperalionalizirlgDeterrence: Claims Mvragennent (in Hospitals, a Lar e Rettilel; ,vld,Jails and Prisons) • University of Michigan Law Faculty Workshop (Sept. 2008) • Insurance & Society Seminar, Boston (May 2008) • Southern Methodist University Law Faculty Workshop (Jan. 2008) • Law & Society Ass'n, Berlin (July 2007) • University of North Carolina Law Faculty Workshop (Nov. 2006) • Law & Society Ass' ii, Baltimore (July 2006)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 34 of 38 - Page ID#: 1502
Schlanger cv, page 6 of 7 (10/27/2014)
Seminar teaching • Ass'n of American Ixaw Schools, Workshop for New Law Teachers (June 2008) • Ass'n of American Law Schools, Workshop for New Law Teachers (June 2007)
Hedonic Damages, Hedonic Adaptation, and Disability • University of Illinois Law School, Seminar on Law, Psychology & Economics (Apr. 2008) • Washington University Law Faculty Workshop (Aug. 2006)
CIT?1R1ghis Illfunctions Over Iln)e: A Case Study ofJarl amid Prison Court Orders • University Management Team, Washington University in St. Louis (Apr. 2008) • Prison Litigation: A Workshop for Plaintiffs' Attorneys (Washington, D.C., Mar. 2008) • Law and Society Ass'n (Las Vegas, NV, June 2005) • Junior Scholars Empirical Legal Studies conference, Cornell I.,aw School (Oct. 2004)
The Prison Litigation Reform Act • Preserving the Rule ofLawin America Prisons: The Case for - Amending the PLRA, Symposium, Penn. J. of Constitutional I.aw, Litigating the Eighth Amendment (Feb. 2008) • Witness, National Prison Rape Elimination Corrnn'nn, The Role of Courts and Litigation in Regulating Prison and.jv1Preveution of Sexual Violence and Misconduct (Dec. 2007) • Witness, House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, hearing: Review of the Prison Litigation .Reform Act: A Decade ofRefonn or an Increase in Prison Abuses (Nov. 2007) • Congressional staff bricfing, proposed amendments to the PLRA (Sept_ 2007) • Preserving the Rude of La w in America's Persons: The Case for Amending the PLRA American Constitution Society issue brief presentation, Washington DC (Apr. 2007) • The Past amid Future of the PLRA, National Association of Attorneys General, Baltimore, MD (Feb. 2007) • Witness, ABA Criminal Justice Section Council, on proposed ABA policy to amend the Prison Litigation Reform Act (Nov. 2006).
The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse: Using Court Records for Research, Teaching amid 1'olicJanakiug.
• Association of American Law Schools annual conference, Washington University Law breakfast (Jan. 2008)
• Presentation to social studies coordinators, Missouri Cooperating School Districts (Feb. 2007) • Conference presentation ("Federal Civil Court Records of the National Archives: Opportunities
for Empirical, Historical and Legal Research and Curriculum Design"), University of Missouri at. Kansas City & National Archives and Records Administration (Oct. 2005)
Moderator/discussant, panel on Race, Empirical Legal Studies Conference (Nov. 2007).
Fault and the Constitirtlor)al Law ofEqualily. Invited response to David Strauss, Childress Lecture (Little Rock and the Legacy of Brown), Saint Louis University (Oct. 2007)
Teaching the Equal Protectror) Clause. Presentation to high school teachers, Street Law (Oct. 2007)
s' The 1'Izir)tifl Bar and the Conceptualizatiol) of 'Litigatrou
• Law & Society Ass'n, Berlin (July 2007) • Washington University Law Faculty Workshop (May 2007) • Conference presentation (The Plaintiff's Bar), New York Law School (Mar. 2006)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 35 of 38 - Page ID#: 1503
Schlanger cv, page 7 of 7 (10/27/2014) The Litigation Process in Govcrmnentlnitiated Employment Discrimination Suits (hypotheses and preliminary evidence). Duke Law School Faculty Workshop (Apr. 2007) Discussant, Katherine Banrics et al., Life and Dealt Decisions: Prosecutorial Discretion and Capital Punislnnent in A[ssourr; St. Louis U. conference (Mar. 2007). Discussant,,J,,J. Prescott, Ernpirica] Evidence of Prosecutorial Charging lt'lamp u/a lion; And What it Tells [Is About What Prosecutors are Trying to Do, Empirical Legal Studies Conference, Austin Texas (Oct. 2006). Moderator, panel on Empirical Inquiries in Cnirninaljustice, Law and Society Ass'n (July 2006). Women and the New Supreme Court: University of Missouri-St. Louis, Sue Shear Institute for Women in Public Life (Jan. 2006). Moderator, panel discussion of Problems and Solutions in American Criminal Justice, hi conjunction with hearing held at Washington University in St. Louis by the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America's (Oct. 2005). What We Know and What We Could Know About the Vanrslring Trim Featured Comment on Marc Galanter, "A World Without Trials," University of Missouri at Columbia, Distinguished Lecture on Alternative Dispute Resolution (Sept. 2005). Incarceration, Reform, and Politics: presentation to undergraduate student groups (Apr. 2005), Second Best Damage Action Deterrence
• University of' Missouri at Columbia (Apr. 2005). • Clifford Conference on Torts and Social Policy, DePaul University College of Law (Apr. 2005). • UCLA faculty workshop (Mar. 2005)
Collateral Consequences olIrncarcerltion: Background onn the ,Scope oft/me Carceral System: Symposium on Poverty, Wealth and the Working Poor: Clinical and Interdisciplinary Perspectives (Apr. 2005). Respondent to James B. Jacobs, 7iine .future ol'Innprisonnnernt: Leadership, and Prison Reform, St. Louis University Ass'n of Criminal, Justice and Sociology (Oct. 2004).

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 36 of 38 - Page ID#: 1504
APPENDIX A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 37 of 38 - Page ID#: 1505

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-00001-GPVT

ELECTRONICALLY FILED

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS,

PLAINTIFFS

v.

AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES ERWIN

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

Comes now the Affiant, James Erwin, and having been duly sworn and cautioned, states the following:
I. I, James Erwin, am the Deputy Commissioner for Adult Institutions for the Department of Corrections, Commonwealth of Kentucky.
2. In my official capacity, I am familiar with Corrections Policy and Procedure for the Kentucky Department of Corrections.
3. I have reviewed Corrections Policy and Procedure ("CPP") 9.14 (a secured policy), that addresses, among other matters, hospital security protocol.
4. CPP 9.14 provides that, typically, inmate patients admitted to a hospital are secured using arm bed restraints and leg bed restraints.
5. The use of arm bed restraints rather than handcuffs allows hand movement which should make it possible for Deaf inmates who need their hands to communicate, to do so.
6. While this should be the typical protocol, the Department as always has the responsibility to safe-guard officers, inmates, the public, etc., which could require an escalation of security depending upon the inmate and the situation.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 81-1 Filed: 06/24/15 Page: 38 of 38 - Page ID#: 1506

7. Further, the Affiant saith naught.

lmsErwin ATfi ant

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

)

COUNTY OF

)

Subscribed, sworn and acknowledged before me, a Notary Public, by James Erwin, on

this the

day of Febxoa

, 2015.

My commission expires: NpVemher 3, y

Notary Public

Adams et al v. Commonwealth of Kentucky et al, Docket No. 3:14-cv-00001 (E.D. Ky. Jan 01, 2014), Court Docket
General Information

Court
Federal Nature of Suit Docket Number Status

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition[555]
3:14-cv-00001
Closed

© 2016 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Service // PAGE 39

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 1 of 1 - Page ID#: 1574

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
CENTRAL DIVISION FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL

)

KNIGHTS, on behalf of themselves and all )

those similarly situated,,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

V.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et )

al,

Civil No. 14-01-GFVT ORDER

Defendants.

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on its own motion concerning the Second Semi-Annual

Report received in chambers on November 13, 2016, from Margo Schlanger, the court-appointed

settlement monitor in the above-referenced matter. Accordingly, the Court hereby DIRECTS

the Clerk to file this report in the record.

This 5th day of December, 2016.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 1 of 7 - Page ID#: 1575

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS )

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

Second Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor
November 13, 2016
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 2 of 7 - Page ID#: 1576
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is my second semi-annual report to the Court and the parties concerning the status of compliance with this case’s Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department”) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
As in my first report, I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the various affected institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement, and their professionalism and accommodation of my requests for information. The Department has continued to make progress towards compliance. In particular, since my last report, it has implemented training for staff and has worked towards prompt hearing aid evaluation and provision. Much remains to be done; as usual, implementation of any complex new initiative poses challenges, which I discuss below and in this report’s Appendices B and D.
In my first report, I explained that some of the Settlement Agreement’s terms set explicit deadlines, while others do not. I suggested that two interpretations of the absence of a date seemed plausible: Perhaps when no date is specified, the requirement should be considered effective immediately. Or perhaps the Department is required to implement the requirement moving with reasonable speed. Either way, at this point, over 16 months into the Agreement’s implementation period, I believe it should be deemed effective in its entirety. Thus this report and future ones can address all the Agreement’s terms.
Note: The Agreement included heading numbers, but not every paragraph and provision is clearly numbered. As in my prior report, to facilitate reference to specific paragraphs (the numbered agreement is Exhibit G to Appendix IV). In this report, I refer to the settlement provisions using these numbers.
This report has six Appendices (two with their own exhibits)
I) Site visit recommendations II) Site visit report for Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), with exhibits (April 21, 2016) III) KSR response to KSR site visit report (May 2, 2016) IV) Site visit report for six KYDOC institutions, with exhibits (Nov. 7, 2016) V) Recommended staff training (Sept. 7, 2016)
II. TIMING OF THIS REPORT
The Settlement Agreement does not specify precise timing for my semi-annual reports, but as I stated in my first report, I had planned to file them in February and July. Further experience suggests that this plan was not ideal: because I will generally do several site visits over the summer, October is better timing than July for each year’s second report. My goal had been to file this report in October, but it was delayed while I discussed next steps with the Department of Corrections. (See Part V, below.)
-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 3 of 7 - Page ID#: 1577
III. DEPARTMENT-LEVEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
Most of the Settlement Agreement is being implemented at the level of individual institutions. I discuss the relevant issues below, in Part IV. But a few of the Agreement’s requirements are being implemented at the Department level:
A. Designation of and public notice (via departmental website) of ADA Coordinators.
The Settlement Agreement requires that the “the name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC’s website.” (II.B.2)
Status: Partial compliance. In my last report, I pointed out that the Department’s webpage, http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx, was not up-to-date, and I recommended that the Department “implement a system to ensure timely updating of the webpage and report that system to me.” Keeping the web page up-to-date remains a problem: the listed ADA Coordinator is incorrect today (November 7, 2016) for three out of twelve institutions (Blackburn Correctional Complex; Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex; Luther Luckett Correctional Complex).
Necessary compliance steps: • The Department should implement a system to ensure timely updating of its ADA Coordinator webpage and report that system to me.
B. Training of KDOC employees.
As I explained in my first report, the Agreement includes very substantial provisions governing training, which was supposed to be provided by the end of September 2015 on numerous specified topics to “KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population.” (XIII.A.1) In addition, the Agreement requires that ADA Coordinators be “trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1) There are procedural requirements, as well: the Agreement instructs the Department to receive input from the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (KCDHH) and from me. (XIII.A.1)
Status: Partial compliance. In a very significant step toward Agreement compliance, the Department has initiated employee training on issues faced by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. I discuss the training in Part VIII of Appendix IV to this report, my site-visit report from summer visits to six institutions. While, as the Settlement Agreement requires, the training was developed with the assistance of the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, the training was not, as it should have been, “provide[d] . . . to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session.” (XIII.A.1) At this point, however, I have reviewed the training and in September offered comprehensive feedback to the Department. My recommended training materials are included as Appendix V to this report. I am meeting with the Department in early December to discuss that feedback.
-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 4 of 7 - Page ID#: 1578
As for the required ADA Coordinator training, the ADA Coordinators seem to all be ADA Title II training provided online by the ADA National Network, at http://www.adatitle2.org.. This is excellent training as far as it goes, but it covers only federal law, and does not discuss the Agreement at all. I plan to provide recommended ADA Coordinator training materials to the Department in the next several weeks; we will discuss this in the same early December meeting, and I will update the Court in my next semi-annual report.
Necessary compliance steps: • Review my recommendations on training, and improve the training offered, so that it is more comprehensive and more effective.
C. Parole hearings.
The Agreement requires that appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including qualified interpreters, be made available for parole hearings. (V.A.2) My April 2016 site visit report, about KSR, describes a parole hearing in February 2016 at which a deaf prisoner (who is also largely illiterate) was unable to communicate because no interpreter was provided. I am pleased to report that after reading that report, the Parole Board agreed to redo the hearing; KSR’s ADA Coordinator facilitated the provision of an in-person interpreter. At the first hearing, when he could not participate, the inmate was denied parole for five years; at the second, compliant, hearing, he was denied for one year. The Department is now working to provide him an inperson interpreter for the programming that may facilitate his parole at his next hearing.
More generally, it seems that the Parole Board and the Department of Corrections may now be working better together on provision of interpreter services more generally during parole hearings. I will monitor this going forward, but I commend both organizations for the progress they have made in this area.
IV. INSTITUTION-LEVEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
Now that I have visited seven of the Department’s twelve adult institutions, I am able to evaluate compliance in my site visit reports, which are attached. I plan a visit to four of the remaining five institutions for next month; that site visit report will be included in my next semiannual court report. The site visit reports both assess Settlement compliance as of the date of my visits and make recommendations for how to improve compliance. In fact, between the two site visit reports, covering my visits to seven institutions, I have made 79 recommendations to the Department, each designed to help the Department implement the Settlement Agreement. These recommendations are set out in Appendix I to this report.
I have developed the practice of giving both the Department and plaintiffs’ counsel an opportunity to comment on each site visit report before it becomes final. For the KSR report, both sides offered a few comments; I was then able to finalize the report, and asked the Department to respond in writing to each recommendation; the Department agreed to carry out each one. See Appendix II to this report. For the multiple-institution site visit covering my six visits made during the summer of 2016, in September, I offered the parties the same opportunity to comment. Again, plaintiffs’ counsel had two or three comments. But this time, after some
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 5 of 7 - Page ID#: 1579

weeks for review, the Department requested an in-person meeting to discuss my recommendations; this was just scheduled for early December. Rather than holding up finalization of my report for that meeting, the site-visit document is included in this filing. I will provide information on the Department’s response to the recommendations in my next semiannual court report.
The site visit reports are detailed, and I will not repeat them here. A few general comments on compliance trends may, however, be useful.
Inmate Tracking. The Settlement requires the ADA Coordinators to periodically report to me the names of their institution’s inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. During my first site visit, to the Kentucky State Reformatory, I discovered that many of the other institutions were mistakenly limiting their reporting to me to inmates with the most severe hearing impairments—those listed in the table below as “deaf.” Somewhat less-impaired inmates—listed below as “hard-of-hearing”—were not being reported to me. This problem is now solved, which has enabled me to accurately understand the size of the population affected by the Settlement Agreement, and prioritize accordingly.
Table 1: Distribution of Kentucky Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Institution

First Site Visit Date

Bell County Forestry Camp Blackburn Correctional Complex Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex Green River Correctional Complex Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women Kentucky State Penitentiary Kentucky State Reformatory Little Sandy Correctional Complex Luther Luckett Correctional Complex Northpoint Training Center Roederer Correctional Complex Western Kentucky Correctional Complex
Ross-Cash Center TOTAL

December 2016 December 2016 7/28/2016 6/23/2016 7/27/2016 2/24/2016 December 2016 6/24/2016 December 2016 6/22/2016 7/25/2016

Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Inmates (#)
0 5 9 26 13 6 64 18 6 15 10 5 1 178

But while institutional tracking of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates is far better now than a year ago, each quarter so far, there have been some glitches. These seem to mostly involve inmates who were transferred to the institution but failed to come to the attention of the ADA Coordinator. It is clear that a better tracking method is needed.
Videophone services. One of the most important compliance steps has been installation of videophones in each institution. This seems to mostly be working very well. Some small

-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 6 of 7 - Page ID#: 1580
problems remain. For example, at KSR, the phones are not yet in a place that is as accessible to inmates as the location of the conventional phones. In addition, most of the institutions have not yet figured out a way to allow inmates in segregated housing to access the videophones. I have made some recommendations to the Department about addressing these issues, and will continue to work with the institutions on them.
Qualified Intepreter Services. The institutions that house inmates who use sign language to communicate have begun to make qualified interpreter services available to them, using Video Remote Interpretation (VRI). This works reasonably well for some purposes, and as staff gain experience with it, perhaps it will work better yet. VRI is not, however, being used as routinely as the Settlement calls for. In addition, most institutions have not put in place the systems necessary to provide in-person qualified interpreter services, when necessary.
Hearing Aid Access. It is proving extremely challenging for the Department to identify inmates in need of a hearing aid and to timely provide that hearing aid. I have observed numerous process failures. For example, inmates who fail the hearing screening test sometimes never receive appropriate followup, and audiology consults are frequently not being carried out in a timely fashion. Provision of needed hearing aids sometimes stalls completely, and sometimes is extremely slow. The absence of a case-management approach means that often nobody at the prison notices when there is a problem or delay and it therefore goes unsolved. I have been facilitating the hearing-aid process, bringing issues to the ADA Coordinators’ attention—but a more systemic fix is needed. This is discussed in Part III of Appendix IV; I recommend that the Department provide necessary hearing aids within two months of when the inmate first reports a hearing issue, and that each facility’s ADA Coordinator use (and provide to me quarterly) a tracking form for the case management that will be necessary to meet that deadline.
Once existing inmates receive the hearing aids they need, the most crucial facility for diagnosis and hearing aid provision will be Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC), the Department’s men’s reception facility. I am informed that since my site visit to RCC, the Department has been able to bring in on-site audiology services, to make the process more efficient and effective. This is an excellent development; I look forward to seeing resulting improvements in the tracking forms.
Informational Materials for Deaf Inmates. The Agreement requires that all deaf and hardof-hearing inmates be provided with “materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services.” The language of these materials is required to be “designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate.” (III.F.1) The materials provided inmates have not, however, been either comprehensive or accessible. In my September site visit report, I recommended significant changes to those materials. See Appendix IV’s exhibit D-2.
Other Auxiliary Aids for Hard-of-Hearing Inmates. A variety of auxiliary aids can assist with effective communication for hard-of-hearing inmates. Different institutions have made different good moves in this direction. For example, some facilities broadcast television audio on a radio channel, so that inmates can listen via a personal radio and earbuds; this reduces ambient
-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-1 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 7 of 7 - Page ID#: 1581
noise in shared space and also enables inmates who need amplification to hear the tv. One institution is providing wireless personal amplification in congregate religious services. Much more work remains, but the steps already taken are starting the Department on the path it needs to follow.
V. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS The Kentucky Department of Corrections continues to progress towards compliance with
the Settlement Agreement. In this court report and the prior one, I have identified several department-wide “necessary compliance steps.” Much more detail is included in the attached site visit reports (Appendices III and IV), which assess both the progress made and remaining issues, along with recommendations (Appendix II) about how the Department should address those issues. I will meet with Department officials next month to discuss all my recommendations, and will describe the outcome of that discussion in my next semi-annual court report. That next report will also include a site-visit report for four more institutions. (The only institution for which I will not have conducted a site visit is Bell County Forestry Camp, which currently does not house any deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates.) In addition, once I have completed the next four site visits, I plan to implement some reporting structures that will enable me to assess both institution-specific and department-wide compliance more routinely, in between visits. Dated: November 13, 2016 Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 1 of 326 - Page ID#: 1582

Second Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (November 13, 2016) Appendices

I. Site Visit Recommendations

II. Site visit report for Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), with exhibits (Apr. 21, 2016)

Exhibit A

Staff interviewed

Exhibit B-1

[Current] Hearing Screening Questionnaire

B-2

[Recommended] Hearing Screening Questionnaire and Instructions

Exhibit C-1

[Current] memo to staff re. equipment for deaf and hearing

impaired inmates

C-2

[Current] memo to inmates re. equipment available

C-3

[Current] KSR Request for a Qualified Interpreter

C-4

[Current] KSR Request form – Auxiliary Aids and Services

Exhibit D-1

[Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-

hearing inmates (memo to staff)

D-2

[Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of

hearing inmates (memo to inmates)

D-3

[Recommended] Request for Qualified Interpreter Services

D-4

[Recommended] Request for communications assistance

D-5

[Recommended] Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

Exhibit E-1

[Current] Correct Care Solutions Healthcare Request

E-2

[Recommended] Addition to Healthcare Request

Exhibit F

Plaintiffs’ comments on draft report

III. KSR response to KSR site visit report (May 2, 2016)

IV. Site visit report for six KYDOC institutions, with exhibits (Nov. 7, 2016)

Exhibit A

Staff Interviewed

Exhibit B

Hearing Screening Questionnaire

B-1

Hearing Screening Questionnaire as given

B-2

Recommended Hearing Screening

Exhibit C

KSR Report (April 21, 2016)

Exhibit D

Recommended Forms and Memos

D-1

Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates

(memo to staff)

D-2

Informational Brochure for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

D-3

Request for Qualified Interpreter Services

D-4

Request for Communications Assistance

D-5

Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

Exhibit E

Healthcare Request

E-1

Current Correct Care Solutions Healthcare Request

E-2

Recommended addition to Healthcare Request

Exhibit F

Recommended Medical Tracking Form

Exhibit G

Settlement Agreement and summary for inmate law library

V. Recommended staff training (Sept. 7, 2016)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA

Doc

#:

84-2 Filed: 1583

1/2/P0W5/16$PPaVgSeU:32FQoPf S3U
2"6Q-QPFOaEgJeYI*D#:

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor June and July Site Visit Report Recommendations
Draft circulated to parties for comment: September 7, 2016 Final (November 7, 2016)
RECOMMENDATIONS
I present, first, the prior recommendations I made in April 2016, followed by the new recommendations. The numbering continues from one group to the next.
PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS (FROM KSR REPORT, APRIL 21, 2016)
Note: These are edited from their original wording in April; they are phrased more generally, in order eliminate the references to KSR.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
Recommendation 1: Each facility should identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates.
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
x Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? x Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? x Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t you use
it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
x If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
x Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider.

11/2016 Court Report, App-1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 3 of 326 - Page ID#: 1584
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronically-tracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them.
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for any backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to each applicable facility for two or three days.
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2.
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait.
B. Qualified Interpretation
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings.
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.
Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so.
11/2016 Court Report, App-2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 4 of 326 - Page ID#: 1585
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. Inperson interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. The facility should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KYDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically.
Recommendation 14: Each facility should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D.
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed.
Recommendation 16 [Applies to KSR only]: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services.
Recommendation 17 [Applies to KSR only]: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, staff at each facility should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf
11/2016 Court Report, App-3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 5 of 326 - Page ID#: 1586
Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur.
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming.
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.)
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. Each facility should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies.
C. Videos
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used to determine whether it has captioning and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged.
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 6 of 326 - Page ID#: 1587
D. Speech-to-text
Recommendation 25 [KSR only, for right now]: KSR should continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months.
E. Assistive listening systems
Recommendation 26 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
Recommendation 27: Each facility should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them.
F. Written communication
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5).
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 29: Each facility should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period.
Recommendation 30 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
Recommendation 31: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event.
H. Miscellaneous devices
Recommendation 32: Each facility’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA
11/2016 Court Report, App-5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 7 of 326 - Page ID#: 1588
Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk.
I. Other communications aids
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates.
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates.
Recommendation 35: Each facility should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted.
K. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 36: Each facility should try to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes.
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should require permission for use only if the facility requires inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. If an escort is required to use the videophone at night, on weekends, or in other circumstances, such an escort should be routinely provided.
Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well.
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count.
Recommendation 40 (Edited): Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. This could be done by escorting the prisoner to the videophone or by enabling videophone capabilities
11/2016 Court Report, App-6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 8 of 326 - Page ID#: 1589
on the VRI laptop. If there are individualized reasons that an inmate cannot have his hands unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request each facility to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why.
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY.
Recommendation 42 [New recommendation 74 substitutes for this recommendation]: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months.
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. Intake/Orientation
Recommendation 43: Each facility should develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary.
B. Literacy assessment
Recommendation 44: Staff at each facility should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used.
C. Individual assessment meetings
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.
11/2016 Court Report, App-7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 9 of 326 - Page ID#: 1590
D. Form and options
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
x To list available aids and services more comprehensively x To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances
they are available, and how to request them. x To explain how to use the various devices. x To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense.
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings.
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2.
Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all.
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program.
V. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
Recommendation 51: KYDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 10 of 326 - Page ID#: 1591
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 52 [Training slides have now been provided and comments offered]: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter.
VI. REPORTING
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place.
NEW RECOMMENDATIONS
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
Recommendation 54: Identification processes a) Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process. b) All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. Exhibit B-2 is the recommended form. (See also prior recommendation 2.) This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup. c) If an inmate answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he should be seen in the next several days by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—for further evaluation, including a “whisper test” or other examination to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem. d) If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation, the following should occur: x The inmate should receive an identification card to carry on his person, which states that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. x The inmate’s name should be shared with the facility’s ADA coordinator. x Two different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened. (See Figures A and B, above).
11/2016 Court Report, App-9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 11 of 326 - Page ID#: 1592
e) All inmates so identified should be included in the facility’s semi-annual reports to me; if a particular inmate turns out not to be deaf or hard-of-hearing, because, for example, a medical problem that was obstructing his or her hearing is solved, that can be explained. (Note: the decision to send an inmate to an audiologist for evaluation or treatment is not the same as the decision to flag the inmate as deaf or hard-ofhearing.)
Recommendation 55: In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2).
Recommendation 56: Each facility should ensure that the ID cards used to identify inmates as deaf or hard-of-hearing are clear, and should avoid abbreviations or other language that may not be clear. Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided.
II. ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION DURING INTAKE
Recommendation 57: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known by prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial medical screening or other intake medical encounters. Inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. Medical staff should ask inmates who have difficulty hearing if they use sign language to communicate, rather than waiting for the ADA Coordinator’s assessment.
Recommendation 58: Each facility’s medical office should keep pocket amplifiers on hand for all intake staff—medical, mental health, and custody—to use when the need arises.
III. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 59: The ADA Coordinator for each KYDOC facility should maintain a document that tracks each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate’s progress through the process of obtaining any needed hearing aid, including the dates and outcomes of:
x the initial request/questionnaire x each relevant medical visit x any audiology visit x hearing aid provision. In order to ensure that inmates do not wait longer than two months for a necessary hearing aid, the ADA coordinator should check for progress for each affected inmate every week or two, updating the tracking document and working with medical staff to solve any procedural hurdles that arise. A recommended sample tracking document is provided as Exhibit F.
11/2016 Court Report, App-10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 12 of 326 - Page ID#: 1593
IV. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Recommendation 60: I commend KYDOC for developing a user-friendly pamphlet to cover the information needed by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates; I recommend facilities use the edited version in Exhibit D-2; each facility should fill in the items marked with curly brackets ({ and }).
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 61: Inmates with hearing aids should be able to obtain replacement batteries seven days a week, without difficulty or charge, regardless of their housing or programming assignment.
Recommendation 62: Each facility should inform staff responsible for property moves that it is important for inmates to keep their hearing aids with them, even when they are moved into segregation or transferred. When an inmate is accidentally separated from his or her hearing aids, policy should allow the inmate to promptly obtain the hearing aids from storage or medical, or to get replacements.
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
Recommendation 63: Absent an emergency in which time is of the essence and VRI services are unavailable, no facility should rely on an inmate to interpret a communication that would ordinarily be private for another inmate.
Recommendation 64: Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer.
Recommendation 65: Each facility should ensure that the VRI laptop routinely receives necessary software updates.
2. Religious and Volunteer-provided programming
Recommendation 66: For any religious programming—worship services, counseling, bible study, etc.—that is provided directly by the chaplain, each facility should provide qualified interpretation when requested by an inmate who needs it.
Prior Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
11/2016 Court Report, App-11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 13 of 326 - Page ID#: 1594
C. Video captioning
D. Speech-to-text
E. Assistive listening systems
Recommendation 67: Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates. Recommendation 68: KSR should inform deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of the various ways in which religious, educational, rehabilitative, and recreational programming can be made more accessible to them; all programming providers (educational, rehabilitative, and recreational) should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them.
F. Written communication
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 69: In any unit where there are deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, each facility should implement (and ensure use of) written announcement boards. That is, all general announcements should also be promptly displayed on a written announcement board (e.g.: “X class is cancelled this evening,” or “all inmates in X category are allowed an X privilege this afternoon”). Staff use of this announcement board must be monitored and audited. Recommendation 70: In order to provide effective and equal communications to deaf and hardof-hearing inmates who are being individually paged, staff should check KOMS to see if that inmate has a deaf/hard-of-hearing alert; if a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate does not answer the auditory page in a minute or two, he or she should be individually alerted to the page by a staff member. This could be done by in-person notification or by provision of a personal paging system. Recommendation 71: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may be unable to hear an order or instruction issued verbally; training should cover strategies to avoid bad results.
H. Miscellaneous devices
I. Speech
Recommendation 71: In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-ofhearing inmate one-on-one, instead. For example, for someone who is having difficulty hearing a teacher in a group setting, even with assistive listening devices (see IV.E, above), a tutor might be a better option than a congregate GED class.
11/2016 Court Report, App-12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 14 of 326 - Page ID#: 1595
J. Teaching sign-language Recommendation 72: Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should be among those allowed to enroll in any classes in sign language. Each facility should obtain resources relating to sign language—books or computer-based instruction—and make those available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.
K. Telecommunications equipment and rules 1. Videophone and VRS 2. TTY
Recommendation 73: Each facility should maintain its TTY and develop a facility protocol for how to make it available to inmates, covering who the inmate should request it from, where it should be connected, etc. In addition, each facility should annually test its TTY and the protocol by calling me at an agreed upon time using direct TTY and the relay service. TTY instructions should be left with the TTY at all times.
3. Hard-of-hearing inmates Recommendation 74 (substitutes for prior recommendation 42): Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by:
(a) Allowing them access to TTYs. (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate. (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting. I will request a report on implementation each aspect of this recommendation.
V. THE INTERACTION OF COMMUNICATION NEEDS AND HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A. Segregated housing B. Other housing needs Recommendation 75: Each facility should develop a method for considering how communications difficulties with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates can be minimized by particular housing assignments, and shall make such assignments when appropriate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 15 of 326 - Page ID#: 1596
VI. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
VII. FORM AND OPTIONS
Recommendation 76: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
VIII. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 77: In addition to the computer-based KYDOC training, live, in-service training should cover, at least:
a) For all staff: x The identity and role of the ADA Coordinator x Existence of KOMS and EMR alerts for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and the obligation to check for the alerts. x The occasions and process for obtaining access to the VRI laptop, and how to use the laptop, including where different people should sit to maximize communication effectiveness. (For medical, educational, and housing staff, this training should be done on-site, so each affected staff member can see where and how the laptop can be set up.) x The occasions and process for obtaining an in-person qualified interpreter.
b) For housing area staff: x The use of cell/bed notices that an inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing x The use of the bed shaker switch.
11/2016 Court Report, App-14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 16 of 326 - Page ID#: 1597
x Telecommunications issues, including how to obtain and use a TTY, and the policies and procedures governing TTY and videophone usage.
x The obligation to notify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of alerts, including emergency alerts and non-emergency pages.
c) For all corrections staff: x The requirements to accommodate inmates who use sign language to communicate by using restraints that allow them to sign, and how to implement those requirements. x Strategies for dealing with inmates who may not hear directions or orders, especially when given from behind or above them.
d) For medical staff: x The responsibility of running a process to provide medically necessary hearing aids within two months, and what that actually entails, in terms of adjusting ordinary processes and timing. x The obligation to notify off-site medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care, and how this obligation is being assigned.
IX. REPORTING Recommendation 78: The ADA Coordinator should obtain monthly reports based on both KOMS and medical records of each inmate in the facility who is deaf or hard-of-hearing, and should check those reports too add to the Coordinator’s tracking list. Recommendation 79: Each facility’s quarterly written summary of grievances by deaf and hardof-hearing inmates should include all such grievances, not only the ones that are deemed related to effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, or other issues raised in the Settlement Agreement.
11/2016 Court Report, App-15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA

Doc

#: 84-2 Filed: ID#: 1598

12/0/5/P1W6Pag$eP:V1SU73oFfQ3P2SU6
"- QPQaFgOeEJY**

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016 Draft circulated to parties for comment: March 29, 2016
Final (April 21, 2016)
INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement in this case became effective June 28, 2015, and allows me to visit each of the 13 Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) facilities each calendar year. After consultation with both defendants and plaintiffs’ counsel, I decided that the most effective approach to monitoring would be to ask KDOC which facilities were in compliance with the Agreement, and start with those. I urged KDOC to begin with the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), because a large majority of the Deaf inmates who have been identified to me are housed at KSR. KDOC agreed, and I visited the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), in LaGrange, Kentucky, on February 24-25, 2016. KSR is functioning as a leader in KDOC’s compliance efforts. As my first site-visit report, this document is more discursive and explanatory than may be useful in future reports. It is intended to be helpful not just to KSR but to all of KDOC’s facilities, as they continue to move towards compliance with the Agreement in this case.
The visit was ably facilitated by KSR’s ADA Coordinator Anthony Hillebrandt and Deputy ADA Coordinator Paul Sloan, who, like the other KSR staff I spoke to, conducted themselves with exemplary professionalism throughout the tour. Prior to the visit, my assistant Abbye Klamann, a third-year law student, conducted seven phone interviews of KSR inmates, and I reviewed her notes and numerous other documents. During the visit, I was able to see every thing and every place I requested and to review all requested records. I spoke freely and confidentially with inmates and custody and non-custody staff. Warden Aaron Smith welcomed the visit and my feedback, which I shared at an exit interview with him and other senior staff. Everyone at the prison was helpful, and I found the visit extremely productive. Exhibit A lists the names and titles of each staff member I spoke with. Between the pre-tour phone interviews and more interviews conducted during my visit, I spoke with twenty inmates; to maximize their confidentiality I do not list them or use their names in this report, referring to them as Inmate A, Inmate B, etc. I am providing KSR staff and plaintiffs’ counsel a key that identifies those whose situations are specifically referenced in the report. (Note: when an inmate shared information with me confidentially, I do not identify that inmate at all.)
My recommendations are numbered and in bold; I have also pulled them out for ease of reference into their own document, which precedes this report. References to the Settlement Agreement appear in parentheses; such references use the fully numbered version of the

11/2016 Court Report, App-16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 18 of 326 - Page ID#: 1599
Agreement, which was Exhibit B to my first semi-annual report, in February 2016. (I have not reattached this version of the Agreement, but can provide it on request.)
On March 29, 2016, I provided this report in draft to KSR, KDOC, and plaintiffs’ counsel, giving each two weeks for comments or corrections. KSR’s ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me via email that KSR had no comments. I did not hear anything back from KDOC headquarters. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided a written response, which is attached as Exhibit F. In addition, I received a written response from plaintiff Michael Knights to my first semi-annual report, which prompted me to propose a change to Exhibit D-2, to better facilitate inmate contact with the ADA Coordinator. I am not submitting this report to the Court separately, but I will include this report and others in the future in my semi-annual reports.
KSR has made very significant progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Much remains to be done, but important groundwork has been laid. I look forward to working with KSR and KDOC personnel on the next steps.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
The Settlement Agreement covers both deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Although the phrase “Deaf Inmates” is used throughout the agreement, that phrase is defined broadly, to mean
“Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4).” (I.3)
Pursuant to the Agreement (XV.B.1.d) KSR has therefore shared with me their list of all inmates whose medical record includes any relevant diagnostic labels (“deaf,” “hearing impaired,” etc.). On the most recent list, provided to me on February 9, 2016, these totaled 53 inmates; three were noted as entirely deaf, the rest as hearing impaired. I note in this regard that out of all the Kentucky DOC facilities, so far only KSR and Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) have provided me with the names of any hard-of-hearing inmates; the other facilities have told me only about inmates who are entirely deaf. In fact, the total number of inmates whose names I have received from non-KSR prisons is 8, with just one noted as hard-of-hearing, even though I learned during this KSR visit that there are about 100 non-KSR inmates whose medical records include some indication that they have a hearing impairment.
Recommendation 1: I commend KSR for its identification practices; the other facilities are not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Agreement, and should emulate KSR’s procedure and identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates.
KSR medical staff are implementing a process to improve diagnosis and inclusion on the list, administering a 10-question questionnaire to inmates during their initial medical assessment. The questionnaire is included as Exhibit B-1; it is apparently used throughout KDOC facilities. If
11/2016 Court Report, App-17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 19 of 326 - Page ID#: 1600
an inmate answers three or more of the question with “sometimes” or “yes,” he is supposed to see a medical provider (a physician or nurse practitioner) who in turn can assess whether he should be referred to an audiologist.
The questionnaire itself appears to be adapted from a screening instrument posted online by the Rochester Hearing and Speech Center.1 But because KDOC is relying on the questionnaire to identify not just who needs to see an audiologist, but who should be flagged for assessment of hearing services, I recommend several changes.
x The questionnaire is designed to be part of a screening process to decide who should see an audiologist for fuller hearing testing. Presumably that’s why it begins, “If you use a hearing aid, please answer according to the way you hear with the aid.” Because KSR is using it to decide, in addition, who might need non-hearing-aid services, the questionnaire should include several other preliminary identification (rather than diagnostic) questions. My specific suggestions are described below.
x In addition, the questionnaire does not cover current problems with a hearing aid (such as pain or buzzing or other problems). Again, I recommend additional questions below.
I have provided a recommended revised version of the questionnaire, and written instructions for its administration, as Exhibit B-2.
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
x Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? x Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? x Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t
you use it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
x If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
1 See Rochester Hearing & Speech Center, Hearing Screening Questionnaire, available at http://www.rhsc.org/hearing/files/2014/01/HearingScreeningQuestionnaire1.pdf. Seven questions are identical; for three others, there are substitutions, two from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) SelfTest for Hearing Loss, and one that may be from the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S). See also American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Self-Test for Hearing Loss, available at http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Self-Test-for-Hearing-Loss/; The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly—Screening Version, available at http://familymed.uthscsa.edu/geriatrics/tools/Hearing_Assessment.pdf.
11/2016 Court Report, App-18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 20 of 326 - Page ID#: 1601
x Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
Finally, because use of a written questionnaire is problematic for inmates who are illiterate—and literacy rates are particularly high among people with hearing impairments—it is important for the questionnaire to be administered orally for any inmate whose literacy seems to be low. See Part IV.B, below, for a further discussion of literacy assessment. (Of course if an inmate’s hearing impairment seems to be making this ineffective, that alone should trigger further evaluation.)
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider.
For each inmate whose questionnaire indicates that he is or might have a hearing impairment, the next step is a medical assessment. I spoke with KSR physician Dr. Frederick Kemen about his screening protocols. Dr. Kemen explained that currently, at KSR, this is accomplished by use of a “whisper test.” The administrator of the test stands at arms’ length behind the patient (so he cannot read lips), and after instructing the patient to place one finger on the tragus of one ear to obscure sound, whispers three or four words towards the patient’s other ear, and asks the patient to repeat the word back. The test is then repeated for the other ear. If an inmate fails the test for either ear, he is referred to an audiologist.
Dr. Kemen stated that he plans to consult his corporate office to find out if there are other, better screening techniques that KSR medical staff might follow. In addition, he stated that he would like to have access to an audiometer, in order to use it in addition to the whisper test. He emphasized, however, that the whisper test has some advantages over audiometry because the whisper test is more function-based—it tests ability to understand words, not just hear tones.
The purpose of the follow-up provider visit is both to determine whether an inmate needs additional assessment or medical services and to determine whether he should be flagged as deaf or hard-of-hearing, offered auxiliary aids, and included on the inmate list provided to me semiannually. For example, an inmate with a functional hearing aid might not need additional medical services, but should be included on the list and provided any other necessary auxiliary aids.
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronically-tracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing.
KSR staff explained to me that a new Electronic Medical Record system will soon be implemented, which provides a perfect opportunity for necessary improvements.
11/2016 Court Report, App-19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 21 of 326 - Page ID#: 1602
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them.
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Currently, KSR sends inmates who fail the whisper test to an off-site audiologist (or, if indicated, an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor). This is expensive, and interviews with both inmates and staff suggest that there are frequently long waits for the assessment visit and for the eventual audiologist visits. In fact, in recent years, only in the past few months has KSR started sending inmates to an audiologist. Several KSR inmates reported to me that they had been seeking such a visit for over a year—whether for initial audiology assessment or because their hearing aid is either no longer working well for them or seems to be malfunctioning. When an inmate who needs hearing aids doesn’t receive them, KSR’s communication with that inmate is almost certain to be ineffective. Prompt assessment and provision of treatment is therefore very important. Both an inmate and Dr. Kemen told me that several years ago, there was an audiologist who came— perhaps just occasionally—to KSR and did assessments there. This approach seems like it might be a useful one to revive.
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. KSR should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for the current backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to KSR for two or three days.
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Once an inmate is identified as fitting the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf,” KSR is obligated (in the absence of a voluntary waiver) to provide effective communication by using auxiliary aids and services. The Agreement instructs that “[a]fter medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.” (III.C.1) Deaf inmates might need any of several different types of such aids/services. In this section, I discuss them in turn.
To figure out what services may be needed, it’s necessary to think through each type of communication that takes place at KSR. Different situations call for different services or devices. Much of this is covered in detail by the Agreement, but sometimes the Agreement just states the general obligation of effective communication and equal access to services, programs, and activities.
11/2016 Court Report, App-20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 22 of 326 - Page ID#: 1603
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
In Parts I-II, above, I discussed KSR’s approach to provision of audiology evaluation and hearing aids. KSR’s current (and appropriate) practice is that hearing aids must be prescribed by an audiologist, and the recommendations already offered are aimed at improving the effectiveness and timeliness of the necessary evaluations. My on-site interviews with KSR inmates also suggest that inmates with hearing loss who have not so far been prescribed hearing aids are not well informed about the process for requesting an evaluation, or about the fact that batteries are medical costs not billed to inmates. In fact, one inmate told me that even though he had used a hearing aid before he came to prison, he did not want one in prison because batteries were so hard to obtain and so expensive. And one health care provider told me that he/she believed one inmate, Inmate A, got himself sent to segregation because that was the only place he could get free hearing aid batteries. (I did not talk to Inmate A myself or otherwise confirm whether the provider’s belief was plausible.) In fact, I have been told both by KSR staff and by inmates who actually have hearing aids that they do not face battery access issues. The Agreement provides that batteries are available free of charge, without co-pay, “for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.” (V.B) Commendably, KSR has decided that since hearing aid batteries are medically necessary, no charge is appropriate even for inmates who do not meet this criterion. I do not think I spoke to any inmate who was being charged for hearing aid batteries.
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2.
While Deaf inmates are waiting for audiologist evaluation, or when their degree of hearing impairment is small, other medical staff at KSR sometimes provide those inmates with personal amplifiers, which both inmates and staff often refer to as “pocket talkers.” It seems that only some of the Deaf inmates who might benefit from amplifiers know that they are available. In fact, amplifiers are apparently readily available when requested by medical staff; in my interview of clinic assistant Barbara Handley, she explained that a stock is kept on hand, and that when more are needed, it takes a week or less to obtain them.
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait.
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. The availability of Qualified Interpreter services
For Deaf inmates who use sign language to communicate, interpreter services are essential. Most such inmates use American Sign Language (ASL), or a combination of ASL and gestures. ASL is not a version of English—it is a different language, with its own syntax. Native ASL-speakers are often not entirely fluent in English, including written English. Accordingly, trying to get by with writing is not just slower, it’s often quite ineffective.
The Agreement defines “Qualified Interpreter” to mean:
11/2016 Court Report, App-21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 23 of 326 - Page ID#: 1604
“[A] person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104. A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.” (I.18)
I will refer in this report to qualified interpreters, QI, or sometimes “interpreter” or “interpretive services”; in each case, I am referring to qualified interpretation.
The same section also explains that “A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.” (I.18) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a method by which a hearing person and a Deaf person in the same space can communicate with each other via a remote interpreter, often through software installed on a laptop. KSR has made important strides with respect to offering both in-person interpretation and VRI. The prison has entered an arrangement with a provider that can send an interpreter to the prison when needed, usually on 48 hours notice or more. In addition, KSR now has a VRI contract and owns two dedicated VRI laptops. So far, however, interpretation has been used at KSR only for certain types of communications—in particular, reclassification and disciplinary hearings (VRI), and Narcotics Anonymous (in person). When I did my visit, education and medical staff had not used the VRI laptops—and most staff members were, on my questioning, unaware of their availability.
The Settlement Agreement includes many provisions relating to both types of interpretation. In its most general relevant provision, the Agreement requires “[a]ppropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters,” in order to offer Deaf inmates the equal opportunity for participation in all aspects of prison life, including “orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.” (V.A.2) The Agreement then adds a number of specifics, both as to the situations in which effective communication may be needed and the particular need for interpretation to succeed in meeting the requirement of effective communication:
x Auxiliary aid/service assessment (III.F.2: “At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.”)
x All medical, dental, and mental health evaluations and healthcare appointments (VI.C.1: “[F]or many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication.”)
x Unscheduled medical and mental health emergencies (VI.C.4: “[T]he KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in
11/2016 Court Report, App-22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 24 of 326 - Page ID#: 1605
conjunction with medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible.”) x Classification and transfer hearings (VI.H: “The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate’s transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate’s status.”) x Meetings when a Deaf inmate has questions about written materials provided by the prison (III.E: “At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.”) x Disciplinary hearings, including when the inmate is a witness or facing charges. (VII.A.1: “The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction.”) This includes not just the hearing itself but also:
o staff investigations or investigative interviews involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel
o any other discipline-related encounter that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, including the shift supervisor’s or investigator’s review,
o rights or other advisements (Miranda warnings; right to consult with an assigned legal aide; advisement of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing;
o meetings with legal aides or advisors (VI.A.2: “To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.”)
x Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous (VI.E.3: “The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs.”)
x If the prison directly provides religious services (V.A.3: “To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.”; VI.G.3: essentially the same).
x Conversations between inmates and the individual supervising their post-release supervision. (VI.I: “Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under postrelease supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.”)
x Any other significant communications (VI.J: “The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement.”)
In addition: Paragraph VI.A.1 of the Agreement specifies:
11/2016 Court Report, App-23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 25 of 326 - Page ID#: 1606

“The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
x communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care
x disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
x transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate’s status; x transitional programming; x rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and x educational programming.”
And VI.A.2 requires, additionally, an in-person Qualified Interpreter “as circumstances warrant.”

The Agreement is thus ambiguous as to which method of qualified interpretive services is needed when. Table 1 summarizes all of the provisions just described:

Table 1: Settlement Agreement Provisions Relating to Interpretative Services

Situation

Auxiliary Aids, which

may include QI

Initial intake/assessment/classification III.A.1

Auxiliary aid/service assessment and III.B.3

other accommodation assistance

Orientation

V.A.2

Meetings about materials

Medical evaluations

V.A.2

Scheduled on-site medical, mental V.A.2, VI.C.1

health and dental care/ appointments

Emergency health care, on-site

V.A.2

Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings Grievance hearings Disciplinary hearings and all related processes Parole hearings Rehabilitative and educational programming Work Transitional programs Conversations with post-release supervisor Religious programming provided by KDOC Other significant communications

V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 VI.I: On request
VI.J

QI, via VRI or In-person qualified

in-person

interpreter

III.F.2: on request

VI.A.1

III.E: on request

VI.A.1

VI.C.4 VI.H

VI.C.4: when VRI services are inappropriate VI.A.1 VI.A.1

VII.A.1

VI.A.1

VI.E.3: NA and VI.A.1 AA
VI.A.1

V.A.3: On request

VI.A.2: as circumstances warrant

11/2016 Court Report, App-24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 26 of 326 - Page ID#: 1607
Bringing all this together into an operational rule is challenging. I do not think, for example, that in-person interpretation needs to be available for every single medical encounter— but it would be possible to read VI.A.1 to so require. In addition, the Agreement states, as one way of resolving the issue: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).” (I.5; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.)
I move to the choice between VRI and in-person interpretation in Part III.B.1, below. As far as when some kind of qualified interpretation is needed, I recommend the following:
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings. (Below, at IV.D, I address modifications to various forms to help operationalize this recommendation.)
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.
Recommendation 11: The items identified in Recommendation 10 are based on the Agreement’s language. Functionally, I also recommend that interpretation services be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so.
2. The choice between Video Relay Interpretation (VRI) and in-person interpretation
As explained above and demonstrated by Table 1, the Settlement Agreement is mostly ambiguous in terms of when interpretation services should be offered via VRI or an in-person interpreter. VRI is less costly than in-person interpretation, and therefore frequently more attractive to organizations responsible for ensuring effective communication. Deaf people who use sign language to communicate, however, tend to prefer in-person interpretation, for a number of reasons: VRI equipment is inconsistent in practice; technical difficulties are common. In addition, the environmental cues available in-person mean that a good in-person interpreter is better able than a good remote interpreter to check that the Deaf person is understanding what’s being said. And similarly, a good in-person interpreter may be better able to understand idiosyncratic signing. Finally, VRI technology requires that each person involved in the communication be close to the computer camera and microphone, so it doesn’t work well when more than two people are involved in the communication, or one or both of them cannot remain still and near the laptop.
11/2016 Court Report, App-25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 27 of 326 - Page ID#: 1608
In total, VRI may, generally, be suitable when only two people (the Deaf inmate and the hearing person) are communicating; the pace of communication can be slow; and there is no need to move around. VRI is less suitable when there are many people communicating (for example in a class or a parole hearing), or there is a need to move around (for example, during some physical medical exams). In those situations, an in-person interpreter is most appropriate, and likely necessary for effective communication.
At KSR, at the time of my visit, an in-person interpreter had been provided only in one situation, in response to a grievance filed January 2016. The record of that grievance (described in more detail below), includes ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt’s explanation that he hadn’t approved an in-person interpreter because he “thought the VRI was going to work for the meeting and cost is less for laptop.” In response, Inmate B wrote, “It only work for one on one to be effective but not group.”
In fact, Inmate B has brought two grievances on this question. The first, 15-0828, was initiated August 26, 2015, soon after the effective date of the agreement. In it, Inmate B argued that VRI was not sufficient for his NA meeting. The staff response at the informal resolution stage was “Kentucky State Reformatory has Video Remote Interpreting “VRI” available for reclassification, N.A., court call, or any other program meeting.”
The processing of this grievance shows one way that things can go wrong in efforts to provide interpretation. There was a delay in the grievance committee meeting with the inmate, because, the form notes, “Chair forgot to acquire VRI laptop.” Once the meeting was held, the answer provided was a flat ‘no’: “the committee agrees with the informal resolution and find[s] that the memo addresses any need for a physical interpreter.” There are two memos which are attached as Exhibits C-1 and C-2. The memo to staff (Exhibit C-1) says:
“In the event that KSR needs an outside-qualified interpreter [that is, an in-person interpreter], you are to contact my office 48 hours prior to the scheduled event. Outsidequalified interpreter will be scheduled to come in to provide communication between you and deaf/hearing-impaired inmate.”
And the corresponding memo to inmates (Exhibit C-2) states:
“To schedule an in person-qualified interpreter, you are to contact my office in writing 48 hours prior to the scheduled event place your letter in the institutional mail box. In person-qualified interpreter will be scheduled to come in to provide effective communication.”
(The grievance documentation does not mention the “Request for a Qualified Interpreter” form— which may not yet have been created; it is attached as Exhibit C-3. This form, provided to inmates seeking interpretation services, states, “In the event that VRI laptop is out of service, Anthony Hillebrandt, ADA Coordinator will schedule in-person qualified interpreter.”)
After this point in the grievance proceedings, it seems that the issue—Inmate B’s request for an in-person interpreter rather than a VRI—may have become confused, perhaps because there are some references in the grievance documents to the issue of how much advance notice was required for access to interpreter services. In any event, subsequent documentation does not clearly address the in-person vs. VRI issue.
11/2016 Court Report, App-26

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 28 of 326 - Page ID#: 1609
As discussed in Part IV.D, below, these memos and forms are not adequate: they must be modified to clearly present in-person interpretation as a possibility and to allow inmates to request it and explain the circumstances that may justify the request. See Agreement I.5: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2))”; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.
On Feb. 2, 2016, as already described, Inmate B filed another grievance, explaining that the VRI laptop had failed to working for his NA meeting. This time ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt agreed, and said KSR would provide an in-person interpreter for that meeting going forward.
Learning from experience, inmates who need interpretation services should be provided an in-person interpreter for classes or programs that involve more than one person talking, and for parole hearings. For these situations, it is inappropriate to delay the provision of effective communication by trying (nearly-certain-to-be-inadequate) remote interpretation first. In addition, going forward, if VRI has been attempted in a particular situation, Deaf inmates should be able to request in-person interpretation instead, if the VRI didn’t turn out to be effective. For example, in-person interpretation can cope more easily than VRI with unorthodox signing. There is one KSR inmate, Inmate D, whose signing is not conventional ASL, but an amalgamation of ASL, gestures, finger spelling, and “home signing.”2 As of the date of my visit, KSR had not yet tried to facilitate communication with this inmate using the VRI laptop. It may be that remote interpretation is ineffective because of his unconventional signing; in that case, an in-person interpreter will be needed whenever interpretive services are necessary for effective communication. (Note: Inmate D has a low level of literacy, so for him, written communication is almost certainly not effective.)
These considerations are almost certainly not the only ones worth including. It would be worthwhile in the Agreement’s next year or two to assess the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, to decide whether there are any such situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse.
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. In-person interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. KSR should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in
2 See N. Frishberg, Home Sign, in 3 GALLAUDET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DEAF PEOPLE AND DEAFNESS 128 (1987).
11/2016 Court Report, App-27

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 29 of 326 - Page ID#: 1610
particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically.
Recommendation 14: KSR should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D, discussed more fully below.
3. Hand Restraints
To be effective, communication must be two-way. It’s for that reason that the Agreement provides:
“According to the KDOC’s hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
x when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution; x when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit; and x as needed in response to security threats.” (XI.A.1)
“KDOC training will include . . . the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate.” (XI.A.2)
Under these provisions, it is vital that , for inmates who use sign language to communicate, decisions about using hand restraints be made individually, not merely on the basis of a policy that an inmate in a particular status must remain restrained. And it is equally important that other security devices that allow effective communication be used.
Inmate C is one of three KSR inmates who signs to communicate. At the time of my visit, he was designated “max assault status,” due to a recent finding that he had assaulted an officer. Under KSR’s rules, that status requires that inmates be handcuffed whenever they are out of their cell. But in order to interview him, I needed him to be able to sign. Warden Smith and his staff were able to implement an appropriate security response, using an alternative restraint technique (which they described as “side saddles”) that used a belt and chain to shackle him to the wall, but left his hands free. The interview proceeded without incident.
11/2016 Court Report, App-28

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 30 of 326 - Page ID#: 1611
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed.
4. Past problems with provision of in-person Qualified Interpreters
I examined the disciplinary records since June 2015 of each current and recent KSR inmate who uses sign language to communicate. In every one of disciplinary incidents, there was a communication-related problem.
In each incident, no qualified interpreter was provided for at least some stages of the process:
x Inmate C, Report dated 8/5/2015: “Lieutenant [] had Inmate [C] read the disciplinary due to having hearing impairment.”
x Inmate B, Report dated 10/9/2015: “Attached is written correspondence due to not being able to reach an interpreter thru the ‘purple’ machine.”
x Inmate C, Report dated 10/20/2015: “Inmate [C] was asked several questions written on paper . . . . Inmate [C] was asked what it was about?” he replied “Something Act With Other Inmate.”
x Inmate D, Report dated 12/10/2015: “Inmate [D] stated the following with the help of an Inmate interpreter . . .” No record of any offer of a qualified interpreter.
x Inmate E, Report dated 12/14/2015: “Inmate [E] is hearing impaired therefore, all questions pertaining to this hearing was handwritten by myself . . . and handwritten answered by Inmate [E].”
x Inmate C, Report dated 1/18/2016: “The above Disciplinary Report was discussed with inmate [C] using a note pad, due to inmate [C] being deaf.” There is no report from the eventual disciplinary hearing.
There is no way to tell whether use of a qualified interpreter would have enabled these inmates to communicate their side of events with greater detail or would have resulted in a different outcome. In all but the second of the incidents, the consequences seems to have been relatively small, and may now be past: 15 days or less in segregation. I do not know whether any of these incidents had additional, more attenuated impacts on the affected inmates (for example, triggering or influencing a reclassification).
The second of these incidents, however, in which Inmate C was found to have assaulted a staff member, was quite serious, resulting in 180 days of disciplinary segregation and the loss of two years good time credit. The communications problems continued throughout the disciplinary process: at the formal disciplinary hearing VRI was provided, but Inmate C remained handcuffed. Questions were put to him in yes/no format; the interpreter signed to relay those questions, and he could shake or nod his head in response. (The same approach was taken during Inmate C’s most recent reclassification.) This account is based on my interviews; the disciplinary documentation notes that VRI was provided. It is notable, however, that the
11/2016 Court Report, App-29

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 31 of 326 - Page ID#: 1612
documentation never states Inmate C’s position about any of the events in question. The cryptic sentence quoted above from Inmate C’s written response (“Inmate [C] was asked what it was about?” he replied “Something Act With Other Inmate”) is the only evidence of his account.
This is not effective communication, and it undermined the fairness of Inmate C’s disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing should be reheard. See Agreement VII.B.3: “If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.”
For the other incidents mentioned, the need to redo the hearings is less acute, given that the consequences seem to be already past. Still, under the Agreement, each of these inmates is entitled to a rehearing.
Recommendation 16: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services.
Inmate D’s 2016 parole hearing was an additional incident in which a failure of effective communication tainted an even more consequential encounter. Inmate D communicates via sign language (albeit an unconventional kind of sign language). This has long been known to some staff at KSR. At Inmate D’s parole hearing in 2011, he had a sign language interpreter. And in December 2015, in the disciplinary hearing described above, an inmate interpreter helped out. Finally, Licensed Psychological Associate Chris Wiggins, who provides mental health services in the segregation unit and who knows some sign language, notes that he was able to communicate with Inmate D using sign language. However, presumably because accommodations and auxiliary aids have not been formally tracked, and because the system for evaluating each inmate’s need for such services has not been robust, more recently, the ADA Coordinator did not realize that Inmate D uses sign language. Instead, communications with him have relied on writing; since he is not very literate, this is ineffective.
Inmate D had a parole hearing in February 2016; he was not given parole and his next hearing date was set for April 2021. He did not receive any communication assistance at the February 2016 hearing.
The Agreement provides:
“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.” (V.A.2; emphasis added)
11/2016 Court Report, App-30

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 32 of 326 - Page ID#: 1613
“When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate’s need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board’s duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate’s scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.” (VI.A.3)
These provisions were not followed for Inmate D’s February 2016 Parole hearing.
I raised the issue of Inmate D’s Parole hearing during the visit, and KSR in turn raised the matter to the Parole Board. On March 23, the Board declined to redo the hearing. In an email to KSR staff, Division of Parole and Victim Services staff member Melissa Chandler explained that it had been decided that any error was not very serious:
“We were made aware of [Inmate D’s] special needs prior to the hearing. DOC provided a staff person in the hearing with him and he seemed to be able to communicate with the Board Members. [Inmate D] had an LSCMI and Case plan with him, both of which would have required DOC staff to communication with him. The Board Members were under the impression that the form of communication that was present during the hearing was the best means to communicate with him for the hearing. He never asked for assistance during the hearing and the Board Members were able to proceed with the hearing and communicate with him for their purposes.”
But how was Inmate D supposed to ask for assistance? He writes poorly, if at all, and does not speak. There was no interpreter present to enable him to communicate even that he was unable to communicate.
In addition, Ms. Chandler’s email quoted the Board’s written decision:
“The inmate was given the written decision of the Board where it states: ‘The only reasons for reconsideration of this decision are: (a) If there is an allegation of misconduct by a board member that is substantiated by the record: (b) If there is significant procedural error by a board member; or (c) If there is significant new evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing. A request based on the availability of the new evidence or information shall be accompanied by adequate documentation. The inmate or his/her legal representative may submit a request for reconsideration within 21 days of the date the final disposition is made.’ Mr. Hatfield did not request a reconsideration.”
Inmate D is essentially illiterate, so unless this written decision was conveyed to him via an interpreter—which it was not—it was not functionally available to him. In my view, the failure to provide effective communication at the Parole hearing constitutes “significant procedural error.” And as Inmate D said to me (via interpreter): “I couldn’t understand anything. Where was the interpreter? I’m deaf.”
Recommendation 17: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-31

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 33 of 326 - Page ID#: 1614
5. Off-site medical providers
The Agreement distinguishes between on-site and off-site medical care. For off-site care, prison staff have the obligation to facilitate, but not provide, interpretive services. In particular, prison staff must inform off-site medical providers that “a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time,” or, in an emergency, that such a prisoner “is being transported to the off-site medical provider.”
I am not aware of any occasion since the Settlement Agreement’s effective date when an inmate who communicates via sign language has received off-site medical care. But considering that KSR medical staff have not themselves provided effective communication during care for Deaf inmates who use sign language to communicate, it seems unlikely that they are prepared and ready to inform off-site providers of the need to provide effective communication, and what is required.
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, KSR staff should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, KSR staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur.
6. Volunteer-provided programming
The Agreement also distinguishes between KDOC and volunteer-provided activities. For the latter, KSR is not obligated to provide a qualified interpreter, but is instead required to facilitate, by “allow[ing] the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements,” and “work[ing] with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteerprovided activities.” (V.A.3)
And similarly: “The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.” (VI.G.1)
The only volunteer-provided programming at KSR is religious programming, which is plentiful. Chaplains Art Turner and David Dillard told me that KSR religious programs are offered by 300 volunteers from several dozen organizations; they provide 130 services per month, in which about 25-30% of KSR’s inmates participate. None of them offers any interpretive services, although one of the chaplains did try several months ago to generally solicit them to do so, without success. (The chaplains thought if they knew a particular Deaf inmate who needed interpretation to understand services, they might be more successful in filling that more definite need.)
11/2016 Court Report, App-32

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 34 of 326 - Page ID#: 1615
The Agreement states that “[t]o the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.” (Agreement VI.G.3; V.A.3 is materially the same) The chaplains explained to me that they mostly coordinate volunteer programming, but that they do provide one service themselves: telling inmates when there is a death in the family and then facilitating the inmates’ communication with their family members. The chaplains were unaware of the existence of interpretive services at KSR, whether in-person or VRI. It certainly seems that sign language interpretation would be the only effective way to communicate this kind of message to a Deaf inmate who uses sign language. This seems to me covered by VI.G.3, and other aspects of the Agreement. It would not make sense to require a request by the affected inmate, given that this is a one-time notice.
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming. See Part IV.D, below.
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
7. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Procedures and Setup
Even when VRI is theoretically appropriate, it poses technical requirements that can be challenging—and especially so in a prison environment. In particular, VRI requires Internet access with sufficient band width, as well as a power outlet or a well-charged battery. During my visit, we made three different attempts to access VRI, only one of which was successful. We tried to use VRI in the KSR education area. To make this attempt, staff had to unplug one of their own computers and use that internet cable for the VRI laptop. Even then, the internet was apparently out for that moment, or some other technical difficulty interfered. The second attempt failed, as well, when we could not figure out how to get the program to behave properly. And of course, VRI can succeed only if the machine is timely obtained and has access to battery or outlet power.
KSR staff have not yet mastered the process of obtaining and using the VRI laptops. The laptop in the education area had not yet been used. The members of the medical staff who even knew about the VRI described it as available only to custody staff; they didn’t know it was available to them, much less the process required or how to use it effectively. And numerous records demonstrated that staff sometimes fail to request and obtain the VRI laptop in a timely manner, and are sometimes unable to operate it effectively. (What I understand to be frequent internet outages are also highly likely to disrupt VRI availability. Happily, Warden Smith informed me that an ongoing upgrade should soon improve internet availability at KSR.) The kinds of difficulties I am describing are very common in VRI usage, wherever it is attempted. Careful procedural planning and training are crucial for this approach to interpretation to succeed.
11/2016 Court Report, App-33

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 35 of 326 - Page ID#: 1616
In addition, even when VRI services have been used at KSR, the setup has not always been ideal. Correctional Unit Administrator John Grievious explained to me, for example, how the VRI was used during one “Court Call”—that is, disciplinary hearing, for Inmate C.
Figure 1: Use of the VRI (problematic)

Staff member 1 (Desk)

VRI laptop
Inmate Staff member 2

Staff member 1 spoke; and occasionally needed to have his words repeated by Staff member 2, who was nearer to the VRI laptop. The inmate was handcuffed, and therefore unable to sign, though he could see the interpretation of what the staff members said.
But for VRI to be effective, it is important that the person speaking be the one near (and in view of) the laptop. So if staff member 1 was going to be the most active speaker, he and staff member 2 should have switched locations. And if more than one staff member is going to play a major speaking role, in-person interpretation is called for.
Figure 2: Use of the VRI (recommended)
VRI laptop
Inmate Speaking staff member

Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the

11/2016 Court Report, App-34

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 36 of 326 - Page ID#: 1617
inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.)
Under KSR’s current VRI process, inmates must provide 48 hours notice for weekday usage; usage on the weekend is difficult even with that amount of notice. (At least, this is what I understand from ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt. The relevant memos do not list a timeframe for VRI scheduling.) This amount of notice is certainly useful, when possible—but it can be very impracticable, given that VRI is required to be available for situations that might happen faster— e.g., medical visits, medical emergencies, discussions of discipline, etc.
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. KSR should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies.
C. Videos
KSR uses video communication in several different situations: at orientation; for various rehabilitative programming sessions, both in the educational area and elsewhere; to provide inmates with information; and for entertainment. In each of these situations, some Deaf inmates will benefit from text captions—on-screen text descriptions that display a video product’s dialogue, identify speakers, and describe other relevant sounds otherwise inaccessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.3
In addition to its more general requirements governing effective communication, the Agreement includes five provisions relating to captions:
x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closedcaptioned education materials where available.” (VI.E.1)
x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closedcaptioned vocational/work materials where available.” (VI.E.2)
x “KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs. . . The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available.” (VI.E.3)
x “The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Inmate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate’s request.” (X.1)
x “The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closed-captioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Inmate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.” (X.2)
3 Open captions always are in view and cannot be turned off, whereas closed captions can be turned on and off by the viewer.
11/2016 Court Report, App-35

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 37 of 326 - Page ID#: 1618
KSR has taken steps towards compliance, but is not yet consistently providing captioning. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me that the videos used at KSR’s school are generally captioned; I did not confirm this for any particular videos. The availability of captioning should be checked for each video used, and replacements obtained if necessary and available. Two orientation movies are shown to inmates—one about KSR and its policies and procedures, and one about the Prison Rape Elimination Act. According to Casey Dowden, the intake unit’s Classification and Treatment Officer, neither is currently captioned. In addition, an inmate who works on “Ed TV,” preparing videos for use at the prison, explained to me that they had just the week before met with someone from outside the prison (a contractor, perhaps) who had begun to explain how they could caption the videos used at KSR. When inmates are given access to video for entertainment—TV or movies—captioning should likewise be easily and routinely available, so that an inmate who needs it does not face an accessibility hurdle. It appears that KSR’s televisions are capable of displaying closed captioning—and several of the inmates I interviewed confirmed that captioning has been available to them when they request it. However, the visit surfaced some technical difficulties in turning captioning on. For some of the TVs, turning on captioning apparently requires use of the remote—and remotes were not readily available during my visit. In addition, some remotes that could be located needed new batteries.
I did not observe or hear about any issues with respect to captioning on inmate-owned televisions.
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used at KSR to determine whether it has captioning and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged.
Sometimes, the reason that the prison uses video is because it is the most accessible and effective method of communicating vital information to inmates, including those whose literacy level is low. Of course, for inmates whose hearing impairment means they can’t hear even with a hearing aid or amplifier—or who have not yet received a hearing aid or amplifier—captioning will accomplish effective communication only if they are highly literate. For the two informative videos shown to inmates during intake, this is a particular problem. Two solutions seem possible: sign-language interpretation could be recorded for the videos and inset into it. This would require technological investigation and some investment, but would have the advantage of being reusable.4 Alternatively, when an inmate arriving at the prison communicates via sign language and is insufficiently literate to follow captions, an in-person Qualified Interpreter could be used to provide interpretation during the videos. (VRI would not be effective for a movie.) The interpreter might also be useful for other orienting conversations that take place at about the same time—for example, initial classification.
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative
4 For some background information, see The World Wide Web Consortium, Understanding WCAG 2.0: A guide to understanding and implementing WCAG 2.0, “Sign Language (Prerecorded): Understanding SC 1.2.6,” available at https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20160317/media-equiv-sign.html.
11/2016 Court Report, App-36

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 38 of 326 - Page ID#: 1619
method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
D. Speech-to-text
Several inmates who wear hearing aids told me that they have found educational programming inaccessible to them; they too-often need the teacher to repeat him or herself or end up relying on a fellow inmate to repeat what the teacher said. This section and the next describe methods that can help achieve effective communication in educational settings, and perhaps others, such as religious programming.
For Deaf inmates who read well, the accessibility of educational programming could be improved by use of speech-to-text devices. Donna McClamroch, KSR’s head school administrator, informed me that she was exploring the implementation of a software package that could convert speech to text and project it onto a classroom’s smartboard. This software might be very helpful for Deaf inmates, once tested and working in a realistic situation. (It might be able to be used for religious presentations, as well.)
Recommendation 25: Continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months.
E. Assistive listening systems
For situations in which a teacher or leader can use a microphone, inmates who are hard of hearing can benefit from amplification by way of an assistive listening system—a system in which sound is captured close to its source via a microphone (avoiding ambient noise) and transmitted directly to the ears or hearing aids of people with assistive listening devices.5 Ms. McClamroch told me that some kind of amplification system is under examination for educational programming, and Chaplains Art Turner and David Dillard emphasized that religious services are amplified—in fact, they are so loud, the Chaplains explained, that the noise sometimes interferes with nearby activity. The current amplification for religious services is general, however, and an assistive listening system is not used.
Recommendation 26: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
5 For more information on assistive listening devices and systems, see Hearing Loss Association of America, Get in the Hearing Loop, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/HLAA_ALDS_Brochure_0.pdf; David G. Myers, We’ve Looped in West Michigan. Could We Loop America?, HEARING LOSS MAGAZINE, September/October 2008, at 18, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/MeyerSepOct08 AudioLoopHLM.pdf. For a technical guide to choices available for educational settings in particular (though geared to children rather than adults), see American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, updated April 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/HAT_Guidelines_Supplement_A.pdf_53996ef7758497. 54419000.pdf; American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, Supplement B: Classroom Audio Distribution Systems—Selection and Verification, July 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/ 20110926_HAT_GuidelinesSupp_B.pdf_53996ef98259f2.45364934.pdf.
11/2016 Court Report, App-37

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 39 of 326 - Page ID#: 1620
While educational staff are exploring possibilities for various accommodations that would allow more effective communication to Deaf inmates enrolled in classes, KSR should ensure that those classes are accessible now, and that Deaf (including hard-of-hearing) inmates know that they can request classroom accommodations, such as sitting in the front row, getting materials in advance, interpretive services, etc. The school does not seem to have a process in place for either allowing requests for such accommodations or assessing the need for them. Several inmates told me about informal solutions. For example, one said that the person who sits next to him repeats what the teacher said. Despite this informal assistance, the inmates agreed that their hearing impairments make school a challenge for them.
Recommendation 27: KSR should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them.
F. Written communication
In many situations, writing can be a helpful communication method. The inmate handbook, for example, can explain to Deaf as well as non-Deaf inmates what prison rules and policies require. And writing a sentence on a piece of paper may enable quick communication on an uncomplicated topic. But while writing back and forth may work for simple communication, it takes too long and is too cumbersome for anything complex. In addition, it is important to recall that many Deaf inmates have a low literacy level. Before written communication can be relied upon to ensure effective communication with a Deaf inmate, it’s crucial to assess that inmate’s literacy. This is discussed in Part IV.B, below.
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5).
G. Non-auditory alerts
KSR frequently communicates with inmates using auditory alerts—fire alarms and PA announcements—which are routinely used for count (three times per day), chow (three times per day), pill call (two times per day), and more individual announcements (e.g., “Inmate Smith, please report to the Dorm 11 office”). The law’s requirement of non-discrimination means that this communication, like others, must be made effective for Deaf inmates. The Agreement includes several relevant provisions:
x “Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.” (VIII.A)
x “The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Inmates. The non-auditory alert
11/2016 Court Report, App-38

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 40 of 326 - Page ID#: 1621
system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.” (VIII.B.1) x “The KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.” (VIII.B.2) x “The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.” (VIII.B.3) x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in realtime and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers. The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.” (VIII.C.1)
KSR has taken significant steps along the necessary path. Some Deaf inmates are housed in strobe-light cells, which translate the fire alarm from auditory to visual. There are 18 such cells in the prison, spread through the housing areas. In addition, at the time of my visit, one cell had just been equipped with a “bed shaker”—a non-auditory vibrating device that sits under a pillow, and flashing light on a bed stand. The device is linked to the unit’s fire alarm, so whenever that alarm is triggered, so too are both the shaker and flasher. In addition, the device can be used as an alarm clock, and can be linked to a switch that’s been installed in the dorm’s control center. This enables staff in that area to flash the lights/shaker when there is an announcement for count or chow. As required, ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt did consult with me prior to installing this system, and received my feedback.
Recommendation 29: KSR should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period.
One non-auditory system that has not been tried at KSR is a “visual paging system.” These systems create digital signage networks; messages are displayed on existing TV screens. I do not know enough about KSR’s existing infrastructure to assess how expensive or even possible it would be to implement this kind of system, but if such a system were practicable, it would provide some significant benefits, including allowing announcements to run across the TV screen, making them accessible to Deaf inmates. (On the other hand, it seems that Deaf inmates
11/2016 Court Report, App-39

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 41 of 326 - Page ID#: 1622
at KSR don’t often watch the common-space televisions in the housing units, so it’s possible the benefits I’m envisioning would not actually accrue.)
Recommendation 30: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
Some inmates will not have non-auditory alerts, and even inmates who do have them will not always be in their cells when alerts are triggered. Given the difficulties with providing effective communication of alerts, it is unsurprising that occasionally Deaf inmates will miss count, chow, pill call, etc. I heard from more than one inmate that he occasionally or usually has trouble knowing when count or pill call is signaled. It is important that staff accommodate such situations. Disciplining an inmate for a missed count that he didn’t hear called, or refusing to provide an inmate with necessary medicine when he couldn’t hear pill call, would violate the ADA.
Recommendation 31: Train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event.
H. Miscellaneous devices
The Agreement provides:
“Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.” (XII)
KSR has informed me that no such decision has been made since June 2015.
In addition, the Agreement states: “Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary.” (XII) KSR’s commissary includes several televisions that allow closed captioning; in addition, ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt told me that if a Deaf inmate sought to buy some device not on the commissary list, he would facilitate that.
Finally, the Agreement states:
“Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Inmate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be
11/2016 Court Report, App-40

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 42 of 326 - Page ID#: 1623
documented. The ADA Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.” (XII)
KSR—like all the other KDOC institutions—has informed me that no such request has been made since June 28, 2015.
Recommendation 32: KSR’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk.
I. Other communications aids
Prompted by the medical needs of tracheotomy patients (who cannot speak), KSR medical staff have obtained what are called “EZ Boards” for them. These are two-sided heavy cardboard dry-erase boards. They are available in several versions: some use pictures and others words, and they cover different situations. (The boards available during my visit had been ordered by mistake: they were designed for Spanish-language speakers.) These boards could provide a useful method for medical staff to communicate with Deaf inmates in a pinch.
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates.
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
No technologies or devices can entirely meet the communications needs of all hard-ofhearing inmates. The Agreement provides that KSR’s staff should be trained on “best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals.” (XIII.B) A number of inmates described to me the difficulties they have communicating with staff who are reluctant to repeat their communications, or unpracticed at such best practices. Training (and implementation) should include:
x Getting the Deaf inmate’s attention first, prior to beginning to speak. x Asking how to best facilitate communication. x Facing the Deaf inmate directly. x Ensuring that light is on the staff member’s face (not behind it) x Avoiding noisy backgrounds. x Avoiding shouting. x Speaking clearly, at a moderate pace. x Ensuring that the speaker’s mouth is uncovered, and that the speaker is not chewing gum
or food. x Rephrasing if the inmate does not seem to understand (and checking on understanding) x Using facial expressions and gestures.
11/2016 Court Report, App-41

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 43 of 326 - Page ID#: 1624
These tips are taken from the Hearing Loss Association of America’s “Communication Tips for Hearing People in Communicating with Those Who Have a Hearing Loss,” which is available as an easy-to-distribute “tip card” at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/TipCards.pdf. I’ve also included this information in Exhibit D-2, a recommended memo to staff on “Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates”
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates.
In order is to provide staff with the knowledge that particular inmates are Deaf or hardof-hearing, and thereby facilitate these sorts of strategies, that the Agreement requires various notices that inmates are Deaf. There are three such notices required (III.D.3, III.D.4):
x At the entrance to the institution. (I did not check whether this notice was present.) x Outside each housing unit where Deaf inmates are housed. (I did not check whether this
notice was present.) x On each affected inmate’s ID card. (Each inmate I checked had such a notice.)
KSR has taken the valuable additional step—which seems to me functionally necessary, though not explicitly required in the Agreement—of posting a similar notice outside each Deaf inmate’s cell.
Recommendation 35: KSR should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted.
K. Teaching sign-language
Among the classes occasionally offered by KSR’s staff educators is one in sign language. There are at least a few inmates whose degree of hearing impairment is very severe, but who do not sign. For example, I found that I was almost entirely unable to communicate with Inmate F. Such inmates might find it very helpful to learn sign language.
Recommendation 36: KSR should continue to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes.
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
As the Settlement requires, KSR has made two types of telecommunications devices available for deaf inmates: TTYs (TeleTYpewriters) and a videophone. The facility has two TTYs; one is kept in the administration control center, the other in the Dorm 11 security office. (I did not see them during my tour.) The videophone is referred to by inmates and staff alike as “Purple,” after the telecom company that provided it. See http://www.purple.us/. It is installed in the Dorm 11 security office. Access is allowed only for inmates who use sign language to communicate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-42

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 44 of 326 - Page ID#: 1625
The videophone allows two types of phone calls: inmates can communicate visually (via sign language) with the person on the other side, who also has a videophone. Or, by linking the videophone to a Video Relay Service (VRS), the inmate can sign to a remote interpreter, who then speaks to a person at the other end on a regular phone. (For information about VRS, see https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/video-relay-services). While the videophone itself is in the Dorm 11 control center, KSR uses the same laptop for VRI and VRS; that computer is kept in the administration control center.
1. Videophone and VRS
According to KSR’s rules, the videophone and VRS access are supposed to be available during the same time periods as conventional phones. But because the videophone is in staff space, an inmate must request access in order to use it. For an inmate housed in Unit B’s Dorm 11, or one of the other Dorms in Unit B, it should be that getting access to the phone is pretty easy; staff must simply allow the inmate in. It seems that this hasn’t worked very smoothly in practice, however. Inmate B is in fact housed in Dorm 11—but in August 2015, he filed a grievance explaining, “No night time I can’t be able to reach my loved ones family on weekend, and weekday, holidays not equal as non deaf inmates using blue telephones.” The answer he received was that the VRS was available “daytime, night and weekends,” and that “hearing impaired inmates are to get with Unit B staff to schedule use of the ‘VRS.’” The memos issued the next day that set out the policy on access (Exhibits C-1, C-2) confirmed that use of the videophone “[m]ust be scheduled.” Several weeks later the grievance committee found that implementation was a challenge: “The committee finds that staff need to be made aware of how VRS are to be allowed to use the system, off days, weekends & evening.”
As of my visit, there had been little further use of the videophone to allow me to see if implementation had improved, because Inmate B was barred from phone usage for 6 months; Inmate C was confined in disciplinary seg on max assault status, which meant the KSR deemed him ineligible for videophone usage; and Inmate D had not been offered use of the videophone, because the ADA Coordinator was not aware that he communicated via sign language. (When I interviewed Inmate D, he seemed not to know that a videophone was available.)
Even in theory, though, for inmates housed in a different Unit, videophone access is more constrained. Such inmates need permission (and a written pass) to get to and from the space where the phone is located. In addition, inmate movement after dark (or during a not-unusual dense fog) occurs only with staff escort. So while the phone is available after dark until 11:30 pm, there are substantial obstacles to its use by any inmate who is not housed in Unit B.
I have heard complaints from inmates at other KDOC institutions that the time they spend in transit on their way to the videophone is being counted against their allotted phone time. (Under the Agreement, that allowed time is twice the minutes allowed for a conventional phone call.) This issue has not arisen at KSR because no inmate who needs videophone access has received such access from anywhere except Dorm 11. But the issue could come up in the future.
There is another obstacle to access, as well. If the inmate using the videophone is speaking to someone who does not sign—that is, if he needs VRS, not just the videophone— KSR’s process is that he is supposed to request access to the VRI/VRS laptop well in advance,
11/2016 Court Report, App-43

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 45 of 326 - Page ID#: 1626
absent an emergency. I am not clear on how much notice is required: the forms provided to inmates do not seem to specify. But the amount of time required may be as much as 48 hours.
The Settlement Agreement provides:
“Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use.” (IX.D.3.a)
In explaining the requirements for where videophones are to be installed, the Agreement draws a sharp distinction between videophones (required to be in accessible areas) and TTYs (“the TTY/TDD device(s) . . . must be maintained in a secured location when not in use” IX.D.1). KSR is not in compliance with the videophone provisions, for several reasons. First, the videophone is in a staff-only area, and for that reason effectively requires permission for inmates to use it. Similarly, for inmates who are not housed in the relevant KSR unit, an escort is needed during certain hours. In addition, the access rules for the videophone are more limited than for a conventional phone: KSR policy instructs inmates that use of the videophone “[m]ust be scheduled”—which is not a requirement for the conventional phone. And use of the VRS requires staff to obtain the necessary laptop in advance, which takes time and planning.
Note: while KSR should not require in-advance scheduling of the videophone, it may occur that a Deaf inmate has to wait for access, because someone else is using the device. This is nondiscriminatory, and is not a breach of the Agreement.
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should not require permission for use, given that KSR does not require inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. It is regrettable that an escort is required to use the videophone at night and on weekends, but it seems unavoidable given that there is just one videophone (which is currently sufficient for the population of Deaf inmates at KSR).
Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well. To allow use of a VRS without advance scheduling, KSR may need an additional laptop that is kept near the videophone.
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count.
Finally, there are special obstacles to access for Deaf inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation. Most such inmates are allowed to make one phone call per week. If a Deaf inmate were in this category, I understand that he could be escorted to the videophone, on request, once per week. This approach seems non-discriminatory. Inmates on “max assault status” receive one call per month. But for Deaf inmates on this status (such as Inmate C), the
11/2016 Court Report, App-44

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 46 of 326 - Page ID#: 1627
videophone is unavailable even on that limited basis, because “max assault status” comes with a requirement to wear handcuffs at all times out-of-cell—a requirement that makes signing impossible. See Part III.B.3. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt told me that perhaps a TTY could be made available to Inmate C, but I’m not clear how, given that using a TTY also requires unfettered hands.
Recommendation 40: Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. When safety allows the unshackling of Inmate C, and others in the same situation, they should have their hands unshackled and be allowed to use the videophone, as frequently as non-Deaf inmates are allowed phone calls. If there are individualized reasons that Inmate C, or others like him, cannot be unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request KSR to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why.
In the first month the videophone was available, Inmate B received two disciplinary write-ups for its misuse: one when a woman to whom he was speaking was deemed inappropriately dressed and seen by a staff member to expose her underwear to Inmate B. It seems that he was immediately placed on a phone restriction. While he was subject to that phone restriction, he received a second write-up for “three-way calling.” The incident in question occurred when Inmate E was using the videophone, and Inmate B signed to him through the office window; KSR officials deemed this a three-way call. For the two write-ups together, Inmate B received a 6-month ban on phone usage.
It is not my intent to second-guess these particular impositions of discipline, but I do note that it is important that Deaf inmates using the videophone not be subjected to stricter supervision or more exacting discipline than non-Deaf inmates using the conventional phone. The Agreement provides: “The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.” (IX.B)
Applying this rule, the first disciplinary charge would be appropriate only if an inmate using the conventional phone would face discipline for having a similarly “sexy” conversation. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt assured me that this would indeed be the case. And the second disciplinary charge would be appropriate only if an inmate on the conventional phone would be similarly disciplined for talking with someone who was simultaneously speaking on the phone. Again, I asked Mr. Hillebrandt if this would be considered misconduct, and his answer was yes.
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY.
11/2016 Court Report, App-45

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 47 of 326 - Page ID#: 1628
2. Hard-of-hearing inmates
Hard-of-hearing inmates mostly don’t sign, so the videophone is not helpful to them. But several told me that they are unable to use a conventional phone, because their hearing is too impaired. And when my assistant has conducted telephone interviews with other hard-of-hearing inmates at KSR, communication has sometimes been very difficult and ineffective. Three solutions may help: (a) KSR could give hard-of-hearing inmates access to a TTY, and provide them the necessary training; (b) KSR could provide one or more captioned telephones, which simultaneously allow the user to listen to the speech and read it via real-time captioning (see, e.g., http://www.captel.com/captel); (c) KSR could provide handset amplification that is compatible with hearing aids but does not require them.
Recommendation 42: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months.
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
KSR has started but not routinized the process of assessment and assignment of services for Deaf inmates. This section develops what should be routine processes.
A. Intake/Orientation
For Deaf inmates, the first few days at the prison pose particular challenges because hearing and accommodations assessment comes after many important communications that occur in those first few days. Staff must be sensitive to the possibility that an inmate is Deaf or hard of hearing, and ensure effective communication from the beginning of his incarceration. Recommendations 23-24, above, are directed at predictable communication difficulties with respect to the orientation videos, but there are other situations in which effective communication is likewise necessary and which will require auxiliary aids/services, potentially including qualified interpretation. While partial hearing impairments cannot be easily ascertained prior to medical visits and assessments, a degree of impairment that substantially impedes communication should be able to be detected in the very first encounter prison staff have with an arriving inmate. This should trigger immediate steps to ensure effective communication.
Recommendation 43: Develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary.
The difficulty just described should be ameliorated over time, as the initial intake, assessment, and classification currently done for male Inmates at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women
11/2016 Court Report, App-46

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 48 of 326 - Page ID#: 1629
(KCIW) comes into compliance with the Agreement, and inmates who received that initial assessment become a larger proportion of the population.
B. Literacy assessment
Very often, effective communication can be furthered by written materials—handbooks, captioning, etc. In addition, the best way to inform inmates of the variety of auxiliary aids and services may often be use of written forms or other materials. But for inmates who are illiterate, different approaches must be used—and, again, illiteracy is particularly likely for Deaf inmates. Thus in order to understand how best to provide effective communication, and to comply with the Agreement’s requirements about it, it is necessary to assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy. The level of literacy required for captioning varies with the vocabulary and scroll rate of the text. Television programs have a captioning rate of between 74 and 231 words per minute.6 The average silent reading rate for students with an 8th grade reading level is between 150 and 200 words per minute7; for deaf students, the average reading rate for someone who reads at the 7th to 9th grade level is 185 words per minute.8
Recommendation 44: Staff should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used.
C. Individual assessment meetings
The Agreement (III.C) requires an “auxiliary aids and services assessment.” The best way to assess the need for aids/services necessary for effective communication and to avoid discrimination is an individual meeting with each Deaf inmate. (This approach is similar to the “interactive process” required by the ADA under Title I, which deals with employment.) The idea of the meeting is for KSR staff to understand the communications needs of the inmate. At the meeting, the ADA coordinator or deputy ADA coordinator can inform the inmate about available aids and the inmate can discuss his communication needs. The inmate’s request is entitled, both under the Agreement and the operative regulation, to “primary consideration.” (I.5: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2))”; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.)
6 Margaret Jelinek Lewis, Television Literacy: Comprehension of Program Content Using Closed-Captions for the Deaf (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1998), citing Carl Jensema, Ralph McCann & Scott Ramsey, Closed-Captioned Television Presentation Speed and Vocabulary, 141 AM. ANN. OF THE DEAF 284 (1996). 7 Ronald P. Carver, Silent Reading Rates in Grade Equivalents, 21 J. READING BEHAVIOR 155 (1989) (citing three studies). 8 Edgar H. Shroyer and Jack Birch, Captions and Reading Rates of Hearing-Impaired Students, 125 AM. ANNALS OF THE DEAF 916, 921 (1980).
11/2016 Court Report, App-47

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 49 of 326 - Page ID#: 1630
KSR has not yet done such a meeting for most of its Deaf inmates. The meeting must itself constitute effective communication. A complex written form, alone, is unlikely to do so— the items described are technical and the inmate may well not understand the available options. It seems likely that a meeting like this could have prevented the problem described above when Inmate D’s need for sign language interpretation was not understood by relevant prison staff.
Given that over eight months have passed since the Agreement’s effective date, these meetings should be done right away.
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.
D. Form and options
KSR has done substantial work to develop a menu of auxiliary aids and services, and to provide staff and inmates written information about what is available. This includes:
x A memo to staff describing some of the available auxiliary aids/services and procedures for their use (Exhibit C-1)
x A similar memo for inmates describing some of the available auxiliary aids/services and how to request them (Exhibit C-2)
x KSR Request for a Qualified Interpreter (Exhibit C-3) x KSR Request form—Auxiliary Aids and Services (Exhibit C-4)
These forms are not adequate, for several reasons. First, the inmate memo, which is supposed to explain the available aids/services, is very technical and no doubt difficult to understand for many inmates. (The Agreement requires the materials to “us[e] language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate.” III.F.1) The memos are also incomplete, as is the Auxiliary Aids/Services form. In addition, the qualified interpreter form does not adequately provide inmates a chance to request an in-person interpreter. And none of the forms offer inmates a chance to explain why their requested aid/service is necessary for effective communication.
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
x To list available aids and services more comprehensively
11/2016 Court Report, App-48

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 50 of 326 - Page ID#: 1631
x To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances they are available, and how to request them.
x To explain how to use the various devices. x To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. x To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the
inmate’s expense.
Finally, inmates who communicate by signing may not realize that they need to request an interpreter separately at each occasion they need one. Not unreasonably, they may think that when they have received an interpreter for a particular type of encounter (say, a medical appointment, or a classification meeting), the prison authorities know that they continue to need interpretive services. And similarly, if they have been denied an interpreter, they may—again not unreasonably—conclude that there’s little point in renewing the request.
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings discussed in Part IV.C, above. Note: I have not provided the recommended memos to staff and inmates explaining precisely how to use the various devices, but that too should be developed, and should cover all the devices deployed.
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
In addition to forms like those just discussed, when Deaf inmates request medical, mental health, dental, or vision care, they may need auxiliary aids or services. The Agreement requires that they have a way to indicate that need on the form used for a request: “The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Inmates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services.” (VI.C.3) The “Healthcare Request” form currently used for medical requests is attached as Exhibit E-1; it does not comply with this requirement.
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2.
More generally, the opportunity to request auxiliary aids/services, including qualified interpretation, could usefully be incorporated into the other KSR/KDOC forms related to programs, services, and activities provided at the prison. That way, the request will be made more timely and provision of the services will be more routine.
Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of
11/2016 Court Report, App-49

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 51 of 326 - Page ID#: 1632
impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all.
Sometimes when inmates make a request—for a job assignment, course enrollment, etc. —KSR does not use a form at all, but rather assigns staff to receive and assess the request. In this situation, it’s important that communication be effective. Staff evaluating requests for a job assignment or course enrollment must be alert to the fact that Deaf inmates may need various accommodations, and/or auxiliary aids/services to ensure effective communication, both during the discussion and during the assignment/program. The availability of those accommodations should be communicated to inmates who might need them. This issue seems particularly related to educational programming: Several inmates told me that they had not enrolled in classes because in past education efforts, they have not been able to understand the teacher. The kinds of accommodations in question could be as simple as assigning an inmate to a seat close to the front of a classroom or giving him copies of projected materials. Or they might include auxiliary aids/services or a qualified interpreter.
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program.
V. TRAINING
The Agreement requires training for the ADA Coordinator and for all staff who interact with inmates.
A. ADA Coordinator Training
The Agreement requires: “The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1)
KDOC has not yet developed training on the Settlement Agreement, so as I understand the situation, KSR ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt has become familiar with the Agreement by reading it many times. Mr. Hillebrandt also himself located high-quality ADA Title II training provided online by the ADA National Network, at http://www.adatitle2.org. As that site explains (http://www.adatitle2.org/objectives.php#content):
“This free self-paced, online tutorial is designed to provide the basic principles and core concepts of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This tutorial is a valuable educational tool to orient ADA coordinators to their roles and how to address key ADA-related requirements applicable to state and local government under Title II of the ADA.”
This on-line class covers the following objectives:
11/2016 Court Report, App-50

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 52 of 326 - Page ID#: 1633
x Discuss the purpose of the ADA using a civil rights framework. x Summarize what is required under Title II of the ADA. x Explain each nondiscrimination requirement for Title II of the ADA. x Identify the defenses or limitations of each nondiscrimination requirement for Title II of
the ADA. x Locate and use various resources for information on the ADA.
And it includes:
x Introduction and Overview of the ADA (6 pages) x Overview of Title II of the ADA (8 pages) x Steps to Achieve Compliance for Title II (7 pages) x General Nondiscrimination Requirements of Title II (9 pages) x Equally Effective Communication under Title II (10 pages) x Serving & Working with Individuals with Disabilities (4 pages) x Interacting with Individuals who have Disabilities (5 pages) x Employment - Self Evaluation of Employment Practices (7 pages) x Nondiscrimination in Employment (8 pages)
This was a very good choice of training source. Indeed, some of the training materials can be adapted for use in the general staff training.
Recommendation 51: KDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate. This training is already long overdue; it should be developed and delivered to each ADA Coordinator no later than July 1, 2016.
B. Staff Training
The Agreement (XIII.B) requires training of all KDOC employees who have contact with inmates on:
x best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals; x the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened individuals; x identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf; x the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction with hearing
corrections personnel; x the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters; x directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other telecommunication
equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people; x disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV; x the KDOC’s anti-discrimination policy; x all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates (see also IX.E.2); x hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and
11/2016 Court Report, App-51

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 53 of 326 - Page ID#: 1634
x the requirements of this Agreement.
In addition, the Agreement sets out additional details on the restraint training (XI.A.2: “KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate”) and ID cards (III.D.2: “All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards.”)
This training has not yet been developed. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt has developed training on a couple of these topics (best practices for communicating; how to obtain telecommunication and VRI equipment); but not on the others.
Recommendation 52: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter.
VI. REPORTING
As described in my February 2016 semi-annual report, the Agreement specifies five situations in which the Department is supposed to notify me promptly. They are:
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a program or activity because the Department has determined that participation would present a “Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates.” (II.A)
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a work assignment because that assignment would “present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others” (VI.F)
x When the Department is considering a non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates, in real time, of prison-wide events and emergencies, and events specific to that inmate (VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C)
x When the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adjust the number of minutes afforded Deaf Inmates to make TTY and videophone calls. (IX.C)
x When the Department has made a determination to allow or disallow a Deaf Inmate to use devices such as vibrating clocks or in-line amplifiers, if those devices are not deemed medically necessary. (XII)
KSR has provided me with appropriate notice of the third item—a non-auditory alert system. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me that none of the other events has taken place.
As far as the more routine quarterly reporting, KSR has timely provided all reports and information I have requested.
11/2016 Court Report, App-52

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 54 of 326 - Page ID#: 1635
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place.
11/2016 Court Report, App-53

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 55 of 326 - Page ID#: 1636
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Draft circulated to parties for comment: March 29, 2016 Final (April 21, 2016) Exhibits
A: Staff interviewed B-1: [Current] Hearing Screening Questionnaire B-2: [Recommended] Hearing Screening Questionnaire and Instructions C-1: [Current] memo to staff re. equipment for deaf and hearing impaired inmates C-2: [Current] memo to inmates re. equipment available C-3: [Current] KSR Request for a Qualified Interpreter C-4: [Current] KSR Request form – Auxiliary Aids and Services D-1: [Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(memo to staff) D-2: [Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(memo to inmates) D-3: [Recommended] Request for Qualified Interpreter Services D-4: [Recommended] Request for communications assistance D-5: [Recommended] Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form
E-1: [Current] Correct Care Solutions Healthcare Request E-2: [Recommended] Addition to Healthcare Request F: Plaintiffs’ comments on draft report
11/2016 Court Report, App-54

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 56 of 326 - Page ID#: 1637
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit A Staff interviewed David Dillard, Chaplain Casey Dowden, Classification and Treatment Officer John Grevious, Correctional Unit Administrator I Barbara Handley, LPN, Clinic Assistant Anthony Hillebrandt, ADA Coordinator Brooke Howard, LPN Frederick Kemen, M.D. Donna McClamroch, Administration Director, Education Department Kristy Mullins, Medical Director, Correct Care Solutions Kristen Schramm, Psy. D. Paul Sloan, Deputy ADA Coordinator (Lieutenant) Art Turner, Chaplain Chris Wiggins, Licensed Psychological Associate
11/2016 Court Report, App-55

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 57 of 326 - Page

ID#: 1638

&YIJCJU#

11/2016 Court Report, App-56

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 58 of 326 - Page ID#: 1639

Exhibit B-2 [Recommended] Hearing Screening Questionnaire and Instructions

Preliminary questions: a. Do you currently have and use a hearing aid?

No Yes

Ƒ

Ƒ

If you answered yes, is the hearing aid working ok?

____________________________________________________________________ (Describe)

b. Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss?

Ƒ

Ƒ

c. Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use?

Ƒ

Ƒ

If the answer to question c is yes, why don’t you use the hearing aid any longer?

____________________________________________________________________ (Describe)

Below are ten situations typically difficult for people with hearing loss.
Please check the boxes that apply to you. x Answer No, Sometimes, or Yes for each question x Do not skip a question x If you currently have a hearing aid, please answer according to the way your hear with
the aid

No Sometimes Yes

1. I feel frustrated when talking to others.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

2. I hear but I don't always understand what others are saying. Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

3. I hear but have trouble hearing when people speak softly.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

4. I have trouble hearing others speak when they are not

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

facing me.

5. People tell me to turn down the TV/radio.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

6. I find it hard to hear when I am in a group setting.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

7. I have trouble hearing on the telephone.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

8. I need to ask people to repeat themselves when talking.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

9. I have trouble hearing with noise in the background.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

10. I have trouble hearing others when I am at a restaurant /

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

chow hall.

If you answered “Sometimes” or “Yes” to three or more of these questions, a hearing loss is likely present and a hearing evaluation is recommended.

Note for medical staff: Was this questionnaire administered ƑLQZULWWHQIRUPRUƑRUDOO\"

11/2016 Court Report, App-57

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 59 of 326 - Page ID#: 1640
Instructions for person administering this questionnaire: The purpose of this questionnaire is both to identify inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing and to screen inmates to see which should receive further hearing evaluation. Literacy:
x You must ensure that the patient is sufficiently literate to answer these questions in written format, or else ask them out loud. Check the appropriate box at the bottom of the form.
Ability to hear the questions: x If the patient seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider followup is indicated and should be promptly scheduled.
Preliminary questions: x A “yes” answer to any of the three preliminary questions (a, b, and c) should be followed up by a promptly scheduled provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses a hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary. x If in the followup to question a, the patient reports that the hearing aid is not working well, that should be followed up by a promptly scheduled provider visit.
Evaluation questions: x If the patient answers “sometimes” or “yes” to three or more of these questions, a hearing loss is likely present and a hearing evaluation is recommended. The next step is a visit with the provider, which should be promptly scheduled.
11/2016 Court Report, App-58

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Pag&e:Y6I0JCoJfU3$26- Page
ID#: 1641
11/2016 Court Report, App-59

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA

Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 ID#: 1642

Pa&gYeI: J6C1JUof$326 - Page

11/2016 Court Report, App-60

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA

Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 ID#: 1643

&PaYgIeJ:C6J2U$of326 - Page

11/2016 Court Report, App-61

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Pag&e:Y6I3JCoJfU3$26- Page
ID#: 1644
11/2016 Court Report, App-62

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 64 of 326 - Page ID#: 1645
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D D-1: [Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(memo to staff) D-2: [Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(memo to inmates) D-3: [Recommended] Request for Qualified Interpreter Services D-4: [Recommended] Request for communications assistance D-5: [Recommended] Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form
11/2016 Court Report, App-63

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 65 of 326 - Page ID#: 1646
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D-1 Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(Recommended memo for staff)
The ADA Coordinator for KSR is Anthony Hillebrandt; the Deputy ADA Coordinator is Paul Sloan. Call either of them to discuss any questions about anything in this memo.
1) ID and notice cards. Unless the inmate has signed a waiver, KSR lists hearing impairments on inmate ID card and on a notice outside their cells. These notices inform you that the inmate has a hearing impairment, so that you can take steps to make your communication with the inmate effective.
2) Hearing aids and amplifiers. Hearing aids and amplifiers are available if medical staff finds that they are appropriate. If an inmate tells you that he needs a hearing aid or amplifier, or batteries, {WHAT SHOULD THEY DO?}
3) Video captioning. Turn on TV/movie captioning at an inmate’s request.
4) Communications strategies. When you are speaking with an inmate with a hearing impairment, use the best practices from the attached “tip card.” Write simple things down. If these strategies are not working and the communication is important, you should use Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); see item 7.
5) Non-auditory alerts KSR has several devices for inmates unable to hear announcements. a. Strobe-light cells. In these cells, fire alarms automatically trigger a very bright flashing light. You don’t need to do anything for this. b. Bed shakers/flashing light alerts. This device sits under a bed pillow and vibrates/buzzes automatically when the housing unit’s fire alarm goes off. There is also what looks like a light switch installed in the control center of the dorm; when count or chow is announced, the on-duty officer is assigned to flip that switch, to notify the inmate of count/chow. This should be logged {HOW?}
6) Telecommunications devices. a. For inmates who communicate via sign language, KSR has a videophone with access to Video Relay Service (VRS) {Note: I’ve written this memo assuming my recommendation re. a laptop dedicated to the videophone is followed.} x The videophone is in the Dorm 11 security office, along with a laptop to hook up when needed for VRS. x Both are available during the same hours non-Deaf inmates have access to the regular phone: during the day, nights until 11:30 pm, weekends, and holidays. x If inmates with to use the videophone, with or without VRS, they can simply request access when they need it. No scheduling in advance should be required. They are allowed 30 minutes per call. b. KSR owns two TTY (TeleTYpewriter) machines.
11/2016 Court Report, App-64

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 66 of 326 - Page ID#: 1647
x One is in the Unit B office; the other is in the administration control center. Both must be logged out and logged back in after use.
x Inmates are allowed 45 minutes per TTY call. x Training for inmates is available if they don’t know how to use the TTY: they
should ask the ADA Coordinator.
7) Qualified Interpreter Services. For deaf inmates who communicate using sign language, qualified interpreter services are provided for significant communications, either using Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) or an in-person qualified interpreter.
For inmates who need it, interpretation is provided for: x Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance x On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments x Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings x Grievance hearings x Adjustment committee and court call x All meetings related to discipline x Parole hearings x Rehabilitative and educational classes and clubs x Transitional programs x Conversations with post-release supervisors x Other significant communications, on request
Inmates who use sign language to communicate are not required to specially request interpretation for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. In those situations, VRI should be used for these inmates without their special request, unless the inmate has requested and the ADA Coordinator approved in-person interpretation. If you are arranging one of those events for an inmate who uses sign language, you need to obtain the VRI.
Inmates must have their hands unrestrained in order to communicate via sign language. If an inmate’s status requires that his hands be cuffed or otherwise restrained, alternative methods are available during the interpreted communication. Consult with the ADA Coordinator.
a. KSR has two VRI laptops; one in the administration control center and the other in the school area. x Use of the laptops should be scheduled in advance if possible {HOW? AND HOW MUCH IN ADVANCE} and the laptop logged out and logged back in after use. x After a VRI laptop has been used, have the inmate fill out the bottom of form {Exhibit D-4} and return that form to the ADA Coordinator.
11/2016 Court Report, App-65

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 67 of 326 - Page ID#: 1648
b. Inmates can request an in-person qualified interpreter by filling out the top of form {Exhibit D-4}; that form should be sent to the ADA Coordinator 48 hours prior to the scheduled event if possible.
c. The inmate has the right to waive interpreter services. If an inmate waives his right to an interpreter, a waiver form shall be completed, signed, and placed into KOMS for documentation. You must ensure that the inmate understands what he is waiving.
11/2016 Court Report, App-66

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 68 of 326 - Page ID#: 1649 {NOTE: THIS TIP CARD COULD BE MODIFIED TO BETTER SUIT THE PRISON SETTING}
11/2016 Court Report, App-67

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 69 of 326 - Page ID#: 1650
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D-2 [Recommended] Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates (memo
for inmates)
The ADA Coordinator for KSR is Anthony Hillebrandt; the Deputy ADA Coordinator is Paul Sloan. Contact either of them to discuss any questions about anything in this memo, by {FILL THIS IN}.
For inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, KSR has numerous devices and processes to help make sure prison staff communication with you is effective and that you receive equal access to prison programs, services, and activities. This document is for you to save: it is a guide to all those devices and processes.
For each of the listed devices or processes, if you do not want them, you can tell the ADA Coordinator. If you have any questions now or later, you should contact the ADA Coordinator.
1) ID and notice cards. KSR will list your hearing impairment on your ID card and on a notice outside your cell. These notices inform staff that you have a hearing impairment.
2) Hearing aids and amplifiers. Hearing aids and amplifiers are available if medical staff finds that they are appropriate. If you believe you would benefit from a hearing aid or amplifier, you can request an evaluation by filling out a Healthcare Request Form. These devices and their batteries are provided to you without charge, if they are medically necessary.
3) Video captioning. Most videos shown at KSR, and all television programs, can have captioning turned on. This includes educational and entertainment movies, orientation videos, etc. You can request that a video or movie display captions, if they are available, by asking {FILL THIS IN}. If you are taking a class, ask {FILL THIS IN} if you want any class videos to display captioning. In addition, the commissary sells personal TVs that can show captioning. If you need assistance getting captioning turned on, ask the ADA Coordinator.
4) Written materials. If you are unable to understand something that a staff member tells you verbally, you can ask the staff to write it down. If you are given written materials that you have questions about, and you communicate using sign language, you can ask for a meeting with the appropriate staff member to be interpreted using the VRI or, if needed, and inperson sign language interpreter.
5) Non-auditory alerts KSR has several devices available for inmates unable to hear announcements. These include: x Strobe-light cells. In these cells, fire alarms trigger a very bright flashing light.
11/2016 Court Report, App-68

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 70 of 326 - Page ID#: 1651
x Bed shakers/flashing light alerts. This device sits under a bed pillow and vibrates/buzzes when the housing unit’s fire alarm or other announcements go off. It can be set to alert for count and chow.
x At your own expense, you can buy a vibrating alarm clock or other adaptive equipment you may find useful, via the commissary or by making a request to the ADA coordinator.
6) Telecommunications devices. x For inmates who communicate via sign language, KSR has a videophone which makes it possible for you to sign to a person at the other end. Or, if you sign but the other person does not, you can link the videophone to a Video Relay Service (VRS) and then a remote interpreter will translate your signing into English, and the other person’s English into sign language. ¾ The videophone is in the Dorm 11 security office. ¾ Deaf inmates who communicate using sign language have access to the videophone during the same hours non-Deaf inmates have access to the regular phone. It is available during the day, nights until 11:30 pm, weekends, and holidays. ¾ Request general access to the videophone using the “Request for communications assistance” form. Once access is granted, you will be trained in how to use the videophone, with or without the VRS laptop. ¾ Once you are approved for videophone use, if you want to use the videophone, with or without the VRS laptop, let Unit staff or your dorm officer know. No advance scheduling is required. x KSR owns two TTY (TeleTYpewriter) machines, which allow you to type a phone message to another TTY-user; access to a relay service is available, which allows you to type and a relay operator then speaks the message to a voice-phone user at the other end. One is in the administration control center; the other is in the Dorm 11 security office. {HOW CAN INMATES GET ACCESS?}
7) Qualified Interpreter Services. If you are deaf and communicate using sign language, KSR will provide a qualified interpreter for significant communications. Once you are approved for interpreter services, KSR will provide one for disciplinary meetings and hearings, classification meetings and hearings, grievance meetings and hearings, and emergency health care. You need to request an interpreter each other time you want one, using the Communications Assistance Request Form. If possible, make requests 48 hours in advance.
Interpreter services are available if needed for: x Initial intake/classification x Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance x On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments x Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings x Grievance hearings x Adjustment committee and court call x All meetings related to discipline x Parole hearings
11/2016 Court Report, App-69

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 71 of 326 - Page ID#: 1652
x Rehabilitative and educational programming, including clubs x Transitional programs x Conversations with post-release supervisors x Other significant communications, on request Interpreter services may be available if needed and requested for religious programming. Qualified interpreter services are provided in one of two ways. Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) allows a hearing person and a Deaf person who signs, who are next to each other, to communicate with each other. The hearing person speaks into a laptop microphone and an interpreter on the other end translates the speech into sign language, which the Deaf person can see on the laptop screen. The Deaf person signs into the laptop camera, and the interpreter on the other end translates the sign language into English, which the hearing person can hear. KSR has two VRI laptops; one in the administration control center and the other in the school area. When necessary for effective communication, KSR will provide an in-person qualified interpreter. If you want an in-person qualified interpreter, your request must explain why VRI will probably not be effective.
11/2016 Court Report, App-70

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 72 of 326 - Page ID#: 1653

Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D-3 [Recommended] KSR: Request for Qualified Interpreter Services

Please make your request at least 48 hours in advance, or explain why below. Send this form to the ADA Coordinator, using the institutional mail box.

I,___________________, inmate # ________ request a qualified interpreter for:

Ƒ(GXFDWLRQPlease specify: ____________________________________________________

Ƒ&OXEPlease specify: _________________________________________________________

Ƒ3DUROHERDUGPHHWLQJKHDULQJ

Ƒ0HGLFDO'HQWDO9LVLRQDSSRLQWPHnt or other on-site health care services } Please also use

Ƒ0HGLFDO'HQWDO9LVLRQDSSRLQWPHQWRURWKHURII-site health care services } the Healthcare

Ƒ0HQWDOKHDOWKHYDOXDWLRQRUVHUYLFHV

} Request form

Ƒ6LJQLILFDQW conversation with staff about communications needs or other topic.

Ƒ5HOLJLRXVSURJUDPPLQJ1RWHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQPD\RUPD\QRWEHDYDLODEOHIRUUHOLJLRXV

programming). Please specify:____________________________________________________

Ƒ2WKHUPlease specify:__________________________________________________________

ƑI request that the interpreter be in-person, rather than via the Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) laptop. Please explain why an in-person interpreter is more effective than VRI: ________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Date of scheduled event: _____________ Date you are making this request: __________________ If this request is less than 48 hours in advance of the event, please explain why: _____________ _____________________________________________________________________________

Action taken by ADA Coordinator: _________________________________________________ Type of interpretation (if any) authorized: Ƒ95,RUƑ,Q-SHUVRQRUƑ1RQH Why? ________________________________________________________________________ Date interpreter utilized: ___________________________
Feedback from inmate: Please check the box that best indicates your views. The Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the interpretation/communication effectiveness, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________

Inmate signature _____________________ Date_______________________ Staff signature _______________________ Date_______________________

11/2016 Court Report, App-71

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 73 of 326 - Page ID#: 1654
Kentucky State Reformatory
Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D-4
[Recommended] KSR: Request for communications assistance
I,____________________, inmate # ________ request communications assistance.
I request each of the following items:
Ƒ+HDULQJDLGRUDPplifier (or evaluation for a hearing aid) ƑDeaf/hearing impaired Inmate ID card Ƒ'HDIKHDULQJLPSDLUHG+RXVLQJVLJQ Ƒ9LGHRFDSWLRQLQJ
For what video/situation? (e.g., orientation, education, etc.)
______________________________________________________________
Ƒ6WUREHOLJKWFHOORUEHGVKDNHUDOHUWGHYLFH Ƒ$FFHVVWRWKHYLGHRSKRQHZLWKRUZLWKRXWWKH9LGHR5HOD\6HUYLFHODSWRS Ƒ$FFHVVWRWKH77<7H[WWHOHSKRQH Ƒ2WKHU device or services. Please specify: __________________________________________________________________
ƑQualified Interpreter Services: I communicate best using sign language, and need qualified interpreter services for significant communications. (NOTE: this request is a general one; once you are approved to receive interpreter services, they will be provided via Video Remote Interpreter (VRI) for:
x Orientation x Auxiliary aid/service assessment x Emergency Health Care on-site x Classification and transfer meetings and hearings x Grievance meetings and hearings x Disciplinary meetings and hearings x Parole meetings and hearings
In addition, you can use the “Request for Qualified Interpreter” to ask for interpreter services at additional meetings or encounters, or to request an in-person qualified interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-72

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 74 of 326 - Page ID#: 1655

Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit D-5 [Recommended] KSR: Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

Inmate Name: _______________________________ Inmate #: ___________________________________ Date of assessment: ___________________________ Date arrived at KSR: __________________________

Hearing situation:

Ƒ(IIHFWLYHO\FRPSOHWHO\GHDI

Ƒ9HU\KDUG-of-hearing

Ƒ0LOGO\KDUG-of-hearing

Ƒ&XUUHQWO\KDVKHDULQJDLGVƑ&XUUHQWO\KDVKHDULQJDLGƑ&XUUHQWO\KDVDPSOLILHU

Preferred communication method: Ƒ6LJQODQJXDJH6SHFLI\W\SHRIVLJQLQJ$6/HWFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Ƒ6SRNHQ(QJOLVK
Was VRI or in-person LQWHUSUHWDWLRQXVHGIRUWKLVPHHWLQJ"Ƒ95, ƑIn-person interpretation For inmates who communicate using sign language, some form of interpretation should be used.
Literacy level: ___________________________ Source of literacy level information: ___________________________ *LYHQOLWHUDF\OHYHOFDSWLRQVDQGWH[WƑDUHƑDUHQRWDSSURSULDWHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVPHWKRGV
Auxiliary aids assigned: Ƒ+HDULQJDLGRUDPSOLILHUNote particulars: _____________________________________ Ƒ(YDOXDWLRQIRUKHDUing aid or amplifier. Date requested: ___________________________ Ƒ'HDIKHDULQJLPSDLUHG,QPDWH,'FDUG Ƒ'HDIKHDULQJLPSDLUHG+RXVLQJVLJQ Ƒ9LGHRFDSWLRQLQJ
For what situation? (e.g., orientation, education, etc.) Please be specific.
______________________________________________________________
Ƒ6WUREHOLJKWFHOORUEHGVKDNHUDOHUWGHYLFH Ƒ$FFHVVWRWKHYLGHRSKRQHZLWKRUZLWKRXWWKH9LGHR5HOD\6HUYLFHODSWRS Ƒ$FFHVVWRWKH77<7H[WWHOHSKRQH Ƒ2WKHUGHYLFHRUVHUYLFHVPlease specify: __________________________________________________________________
Assessment conducted by: ______________________________________ Notes and comments:

11/2016 Court Report, App-73

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 &PYaIgJeC:J7U5&of326 - Page
ID#: 1656
11/2016 Court Report, App-74

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 76 of 326 - Page ID#: 1657
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016
Exhibit E-2 [Recommended] Addition to Healthcare Request If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, do you need any communication assistance for this healthcare visit? Ƒ No Ƒ Yes: Video Remote Interpreter (VRI) (via “purple” laptop) Ƒ Yes: in-person qualified interpreter Please explain why you need an in-person interpreter rather than VRI:______________ _______________________________________________________________________ Ƒ Yes: other: _________________________________________________________________ (please specify)
11/2016 Court Report, App-75

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA

Doc

#: 84-2 Filed: ID#: 1658

12/05/16

&PYaIgJCe:JU77'of

326

-

Page

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor – COMMENTS Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit Date: February 24-25, 2016

Global Comment.
Essential to implementation of the Agreement are timelines and accountability. We believe a deadline, and a method of tracking compliance, should be made explicit for every recommendation. In particular, a timeline for KDOC staff training is absolutely necessary.

Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait for no more than 2 months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. KSR should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for the current backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to KSR for two or three days.
Comment:
We believe two months is too long for an inmate who needs a hearing aid to wait. We do not believe this should take longer than a few weeks, or at most, one month.

Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. KSR should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D.
Comment:
Each of the revised KDOC forms should be implemented. In particular, Exhibit D-5 includes a section for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates to identify their preferred methods of communication. This information should be made available to any KDOC staff member who needs it, e.g., instructors, medical staff, etc. We recommend this information—the inmate’s

11/2016 Court Report, App-76

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 78 of 326 - Page ID#: 1659
preferred method of communication—not be kept in the inmate’s confidential medical files, but be made easily accessible.
Recommendation 17: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be done over, with an inperson Qualified Interpreter.
Comment:
Inmate D’s treatment is nothing short of appalling. We understand the KDOC does not have statutory authority to require the Parole Board to grant a new hearing, but we nevertheless emphatically support Recommendation 17. Any assistance the KDOC can provide in this matter would be understood as a clear showing of its intention to provide dignity to its inmates under the law, in addition to its good faith in complying with the spirit of the Settlement Agreement.
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used at KSR to determine whether it has captioning; obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option requires periodic testing and training for staff about how to turn it on. This should be done on a schedule: perhaps quarterly or twice a year.
Comment:
Closed-captioning capability should also be recorded and tracked, for example, in the maintenance log of each piece of equipment.
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required.
Comment:
KDOC staff communicating with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates should be made aware of inmates’s preferred methods of communication, and should make their best effort to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate in that preferred way. This recommendation should emphasize the standard by which effective communication is evaluated: from the perspective of the inmate, not the KDOC staff member. It should be clear that this recommendation is intended to limit the current—unacceptable— overuse of written communication.

2

11/2016 Court Report, App-77

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 79 of 326 - Page ID#: 1660
Recommendation 32: KSR’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they can request assistance from the ADA Coordinator.
Comment:
It is not enough that the inmate “can request” assistance. The ADA Coordinator should be required to assist the inmate, whenever possible, in purchasing other adaptive equipment when not provided at the commissary.
Recommendation 42: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements—perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process.
Comment:
This recommendation should be formalized and documented over time. Recording the feedback will allow the KDOC to efficiently identify communication problems. As an example, consider Recommendation 14, which provides a mechanism to rack the effectiveness of communication via VRI.
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required.
Comment:
Inmate needs change over time, such as with worsening deafness, or loss of eyesight (and the ability to communicate via sign). The individual services assessment is an important recommendation, and it should also include a method for updating inmate information. For example, the services assessment should be made annual, or the inmate should be able to submit a form to update their preferences. This important recommendation should be flexible to meet the changing needs of the deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates.

3

11/2016 Court Report, App-78

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 80 of 326 - Page

ID#: 1661

/PW$PVSU3FQPSU
"QQFOEJY***

Matthew G. Bevin Governor
John C. Tilley Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Aaron Smith, Warden
Kentucky State Reformatory 3001 W. Hwy 146
Lagrange, KY 40032 Phone: 502-222-9441 www.kentucky.gov

Rodney Ballard Commissioner
James Erwin Deputy Commissioner

Kentucky State Reformatory Response to Recommendations

I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT x Recommendation 1: KSR is compliant on this recommendation. In
addition, KSR will hold a meeting for all ADA coordinators to review
the process of identifying the inmates who are deaf or hard of hearing. x Recommendation 2: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation.
KSR is currently in the process of updating the forms and is awaiting
approval from the Medical Department to implement new forms. x Recommendation 3: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation.
KSR is in the process of having all staff trained in how to assist low
literacy inmates. x Recommendation 4: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation.
Medical staff will document necessary information in the EMR in
order to identify the deaf and hard of hearing inmates. x Recommendation 5: Current EMR functions are under contract and not
up for revision at this time.

II. PROVISIONS OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES x Recommendation 6: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation. Staff have been advised to refer inmates to the Medical Department
for audiology services.

III. AUXILIARY AIDS & SERVICES

A. Personal Hearing Devices x Recommendation 7: KSR is in agreement that information should be provided to inmates regarding hearing evaluations and shall be posted in all living areas. Also, KSR will make replacement batteries available without charge.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D
11/2016 Court Report, App-79

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 81 of 326 - Page ID#: 1662
x Recommendation 8: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation and is providing amplifiers at no cost to inmates awaiting an audiology exam.
B. Qualified Interpretation x Recommendation 9: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation and will make changes to the D-3 form to request an interpreter. x Recommendation10: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation. A spreadsheet of the deaf and hearing impaired inmates will be maintained on the H: Drive for staff to access. x Recommendation 11: KSR agrees with the recommendation that interpretation services shall be offered without a special request from the inmate and will ensure that all staff are made aware. x Recommendation 12: KSR agrees with the recommendation that an inperson interpreter shall be provided when VRI is not available. x Recommendation 13: KSR agrees that forms shall be provided and scanned into inmate files for record keeping. x Recommendation 14: KSR agrees with the recommendation that a D-3 form should be used for feedback and will employ such in practice. x Recommendation 15: KSR agrees with the recommendation and a special benches been installed to allow inmates to use their hands to sign in areas where they are typically in restraints. x Recommendation 16: As the disciplinary action referenced in this recommendation is finalized, policy does not allow for a rehearing. Given the severity of the incident and the facts presented, the disciplinary action taken appears to be appropriate and justified, thus it does not appear to warrant being voided which would be the only action allowable by policy. x Recommendation 17: KSR made three requests for a rehearing and was ultimately denied by the Parole Board. x Recommendation 18: KSR agrees with the recommendation. Information and training will be provided to all necessary staff. x Recommendation 19: KSR agrees with the recommendation that information should be provided for volunteers coming into the institution. x Recommendation 20: KSR agrees with the recommendation and training will be provided to the Chaplains on how to appropriately work with the hearing impaired inmates. x Recommendation 21: KSR agrees with the recommendation and VRI laptop training will be provided for all necessary staff.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

11/2016 Court Report, App-80

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 82 of 326 - Page ID#: 1663
x Recommendation 22: KSR agrees with the recommendation that a VRI laptop shall be available at all times and will ensure that all staff are made aware.
C. Videos x Recommendation 23: KSR is in agreement on this recommendation. Televisions currently have closed captioning capabilities and all staff will be trained on turning on this feature for inmates. Necessary changes will be made to orientation, educational and PREA videos.
x Recommendation 24: KSR agrees with the recommendation that a qualified interpreter shall be provided.
D. Speech-to-text x Recommendation 25: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation and the Educational Director is currently working on speech-to-text software.
E. Assistive Listening System x Recommendation 26: KSR agrees with this recommendation and the Educational Director is working on a listening system. x Recommendation 27: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation and necessary forms will be provided at the academic school.
F. Written Communication x Recommendation 28: KSR is in agreement and staff will avoid the use of written communication with more complex communications and with less literate inmates.
G. Non-Auditory Alerts x Recommendation 29: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. KSR is currently working on the expansion of non-auditory alert systems as well as providing testing for inmates to identify need. x Recommendation 30: KSR is currently investigating the cost and benefit of providing a paging system via the television. x Recommendation 31: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation and training is being provided to ensure that inmates are being notified.
H. Miscellaneous Devices x Recommendation 32: Information on contacting the ADA coordinator for necessary items has been posted in all living areas.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

11/2016 Court Report, App-81

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 83 of 326 - Page ID#: 1664
I. Other Communication Aids x Recommendation 33: KSR agrees with this recommendation and both word and picture versions of EZ Boards are being provided.
J. Methods of Communicating with Deaf Inmates x Recommendation 34: KSR agrees with this recommendation and training will be implemented via annual Common Core for all staff. x Recommendation 35: KSR is in agreement with recommendation. Signs and identification cards have been posted in all living units.
K. Teaching Sign Language x Recommendation 36: KSR agrees with this recommendation and the deaf and hard of hearing inmates will be given preference for sign language classes.
L. Telecommunication’s Equipment & Rules x Recommendation 37: KSR currently provides the use of a videophone for deaf inmates. KSR will look into adding additional videophones to provide better accessibility. x Recommendation 38: KSR does not require the use of the VRS to be scheduled. Videophones are available on the same schedule as all other inmate telephones at the institution. x Recommendation 39: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. All staff will be trained on the use of the VRI Laptop and TTY phones. x Recommendation 40: KSR agrees with the recommendation and is currently looking into a VRS machine for Segregation. x Recommendation 41: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. Inmates who use the VRS or TTY will still need to adhere to the same rules as with a standard inmate telephone. x Recommendation 42: Telephones are under Departmental contract with Securus Phone Services and any upgrades would need to be approved at the Department level.
IV. PROCESS FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. Intake/Orientation x Recommendation 43: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. A questionnaire will be implemented in orientation to ensure inmates receive immediate interpretive services.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

11/2016 Court Report, App-82

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 84 of 326 - Page ID#: 1665
B. Literacy Assessment x Recommendation 44: KSR agrees with the recommendation and the SORT-R process is being revised for the inmates.
C. Individual Assessment Meetings x Recommendation 45: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. Assessment meetings are taking place and are being documented.
D. Form and Option x Recommendation 46: KSR agrees with the recommendation and the provided forms will be used. x Recommendation 47: KSR is in agreement with this recommendation. Provided forms will be used and a memo will be sent out on the use of various devices.
E. Additional Methods for Inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services x Recommendation 48: KSR agrees with this recommendation and the E-2 form will be put into use. x Recommendation 49: KSR agrees with the recommendation and the E-2 form will be implemented into current job, educational, and program forms. x Recommendation 50: KSR agrees with the recommendation and staff will be required to assess the need for auxiliary aids or services during the application process.
V. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training x Recommendation 51: KSR agrees that settlement agreement training should be available to all ADA coordinators.
B. Staff Training x Recommendation 52: KSR agrees with the recommendation and training material on the settlement agreement will be developed and shared with the settlement monitor as well as KCDHH.
C. Reporting x Recommendation 53: KSR agrees with the recommendation and staff will be made aware of the proper reporting obligations.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

11/2016 Court Report, App-83

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 85 of 326 - Page

ID#: 1666

/PW$PVSU3FQPSU
"QQFOEJY*7

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
June and July 2016 Site Visits
Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) – June 22, 2016 Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women (KCIW) – June 23, 2016
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) – June 24, 2016 Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC), including the Ross-Cash Center – July 25, 2016 Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) – July 26-27, 2016
Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC) – July 28, 2016
Draft circulated to parties for comment: September 7, 2016 Final (November 7, 2016)

INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement in this case addressing conditions for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in Kentucky became effective June 28, 2015, and allows me to visit each of the twelve Kentucky Department of Corrections (KYDOC) facilities each calendar year. After consultation with KYDOC officials, I decided that my second group of site visits in this case would be to three prisons in La Grange, Kentucky: Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC), Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women (KCIW), and Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), from June 22, 2016 to June 24, 2016; and my third group of site visits to three prisons in Western Kentucky: Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) (including the RossCash Center), Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP), and Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC), from July 25 to July 28, 2016.
For efficiency, I have decided to write a group report covering all six visits. As with my previous site-visit report, this report is intended to be helpful not just to a particular prison, but to all of KYDOC’s facilities, as they continue to move towards compliance with the Agreement in this case.
The visits were each facilitated by the institutions’ ADA Coordinators, who, like the other staff I spoke to, conducted themselves with professionalism throughout the tour. Prior to the visit, two law students working as my assistants conducted 25 phone interviews of KYDOC inmates, and I reviewed their interview notes and numerous other documents provided by each facility. During the visits, I was able to see every thing and every place I requested and to review all requested records. I spoke freely and confidentially with inmates and custody and noncustody staff. Each Warden welcomed the visits and my feedback, which I shared at exit interviews at each facility. I found each of the visits extremely productive. Exhibit A lists the

11/2016 Court Report, App-84

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 86 of 326 - Page ID#: 1667
name and title of each staff member I spoke with, by prison. I also spoke to many inmates: between the pre-tour phone inmate interviews (many of which I followed up with in-person interviews), and in-person inmate interviews conducted during my visit, this report incorporates information learned from conversations with 36 inmates, out of the 47 inmates identified to me from those facilities as deaf or hard-of-hearing (several of whom had been transferred or been released). To maximize the confidentiality of the inmates I spoke to, I do not list them or use their names in this report, referring to them instead as Inmate A, Inmate B, etc. I am providing each institution’s staff and plaintiffs’ counsel a key that identifies those inmates whose situations are specifically referenced in the report. (Note: when an inmate shared information with me confidentially, I do not identify that inmate at all.)
In my Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) Report, finalized April 21, 2016, and attached here as Exhibit C, I made 53 (numbered) recommendations. Nearly all of these are equally pertinent in the six institutions covered here. I repeat them in the body of this report when useful, preserving the recommendation numbering from the KSR report (but editing the phrasing slightly, to excise particular references to KSR), and then continuing with number 54. (I also indent the prior recommendations and put them in italics.) All new recommendations are numbered and in bold. I have also pulled both sets of recommendations out for ease of reference into their own document, which precedes this report. References to the Settlement Agreement appear in parentheses; such references use the fully numbered version of the Agreement, which was Exhibit B to my first semi-annual court report, in February 2016. I have not reattached this version of the Agreement, but can provide it on request. Finally, for those exhibits to this report that also were attached to the KSR report, I have kept their numbering the same between the two reports. That includes Exhibits B-1 (current Hearing Screening) and B-2 (recommended Hearing Screening); Exhibits D-1, D-3, D-4, and D-5 (Recommended Forms); and Exhibits E-1 (current Correct Care Solutions Healthcare Request) and E-2 (recommended addition to Healthcare Request). I changed the D exhibits a little bit, to generalize them where the prior text was KSRspecific and to clarify some of the wording. In addition, I have substituted a largely new version of Exhibit D-2, building on some good work done by KYDOC. The other exhibits to this report (A, C, F) are entirely new.
On September 7, 2016, I provided this report in draft to the Warden and ADA Coordinator at each referenced facility; KYDOC Director of Operations Chris Kleymeyer; KYDOC counsel Angela Dunham; and plaintiffs’ counsel, giving each two weeks for comments or corrections. I received some limited comments from plaintiffs’ counsel, and several requested factual details from the ADA Coordinators. Rather than offering comments on the report, however, Director Kleymeyer requested an in-person meeting; this will take place in December 2016. Accordingly, I have not yet asked KYDOC to respond in writing by telling me which of the recommendations the Department will accept; I will do that after the December meeting.
KYDOC has made very significant progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Not all processes are yet working smoothly, but the situation for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates is much better than it was. I look forward to working with KYDOC headquarters and institution personnel on the next steps. This report and the KSR report that preceded it are evaluative—but in both I have concentrated more attention on advice. I am hopeful that this
11/2016 Court Report, App-85

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 87 of 326 - Page ID#: 1668
report and the prior one will be sufficiently helpful to both the facilities covered and the rest of KYDOC’s institutions that I can focus more simply on evaluation, going forward.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
The Settlement Agreement covers both deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The phrase “Deaf Inmates” is used throughout the agreement, and is defined broadly, to mean:
Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). (I.3)
Because often the appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aids and services vary depending on an inmate’s degree of hearing impairment, I will use the terms more specifically in this report. I will refer to someone as hard-of-hearing if he or she is able—with or without amplification—to hear substantial spoken language. I will refer to someone as deaf if he or she has very little or no functional hearing.
Identification of deaf inmates is mostly easy; their disability is usually obvious (particularly if they are non-verbal). But identification of hard-of-hearing inmates can be more difficult. The term covers a range of impairment, and inmates are unlikely to self-identify as hard-of-hearing if they are not asked. In addition, hard-of-hearing people use a variety of methods to try to minimize their difficulties or the appearance of difficulties—they ask friends to repeat things, or perhaps they nod and pretend to understand what’s being said, or they make do with 30% or less comprehension from lipreading. In prison, in particular, inmates may seek to avoid appearing vulnerable—so they will often not inform anyone that they are having trouble understanding verbal communication.
Accordingly, each KYDOC institution needs a process to screen both new and other inmates for hearing difficulty in a private setting in which inmates are unembarrassed to answer honestly. All six institutions that are the subject of this report have, indeed, begun to implement such a process.
Going forward, the most important facilities for systemwide identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are RCC and KCIW, because they are KYDOC’s reception facilities and will at least briefly house each new deaf or hard-of-hearing male inmate. They will be the first place for most inmates where hearing issues can be identified and the need for auxiliary aids assessed. Male inmates typically spend several months in the RCC Assessment Center before they move on to a more permanent housing assignment; this should usually be sufficient time to complete that assessment and provide equipment such as a hearing aid, if needed. Similarly, female inmates usually spend about 2 months in the KCIW Assessment Center.
RCC’s identification process was the most developed of the facilities I visited, so I will describe that. By the time of my visit, RCC had started to use a multi-step process to identify
11/2016 Court Report, App-86

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 88 of 326 - Page ID#: 1669
incoming deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates: 1) Inmates are asked about their hearing during the initial medical screening. (See Figure A, below.) 2) Whether or not an inmate reports any hearing difficulty in response to that single question, he is given a multiple-question hearing screening by a nurse. (See Exhibit B-1) 3) If he answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he is seen within a day or two by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—who further evaluates him, administering the “whisper test” to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem, and conducting an examination to try to understand the cause of the problem (e.g., ear wax buildup, infection, etc.). 4) If the inmate fails the “whisper test,” he is given a “pink card”—an identification card to carry with his inmate ID, which states that he is hard-of-hearing. This is useful, for example, if he needs to explain to a correctional officer why he didn’t hear something. 5) In addition, if the inmate fails the whisper test, his name is shared with RCC’s ADA Coordinator, Amy Robey, and two different alerts are placed in his record. One is placed in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file. (See Figure B, below.) The other is placed in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. (See Figure C, below.)
11/2016 Court Report, App-87

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 89 of 326 - Page ID#: 1670
Figure A: Systems Review in Medical Intake
Figure B: RCC KOMS Alert.
11/2016 Court Report, App-88

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 90 of 326 - Page ID#: 1671
Figure C: RCC EMR Precautions
This approach is generally reasonable—indeed, exemplary—and needs only two minor changes: Figure A, above, sets out the “systems review” part of the medical intake interview. The
interviews are conducted orally. The question about hearing difficulties is well down in the screen, meaning most of the interview will happen before the hearing question is asked. So the hearing question in Figure A (in Section 2: “Difficulty Hearing”) should be moved to the top of that screening, because if a patient has trouble hearing, that can undermine the effectiveness of the rest of the screening. In addition, the more complete hearing screening described in step 2, above (Exhibit B-1) should be modified as recommended in my KSR report, to conform to Exhibit B-2. See Part I of that report, which applies here, as well.
Other facilities vary from RCC’s practice in a variety of ways, some of which are less effective:
x Several facilities do not enter effective KOMS or EMR alerts for all deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates. In those facilities, it is not immediately obvious in an inmate’s correctional or health record that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. For example, in the KCIW inmates’ medical records, the inmate’s status as deaf or hard-of-hearing is listed under “problems,” but not as a header in the record. The header-type alert is necessary because difficulty in hearing impacts all staff interactions with the inmate, so it should be immediately apparent, without staff needing to go searching.
x LLCC has non-medical staff do the hearing screening in step 2. This makes it harder for the inmate to receive the necessary medical followup.
x Sometimes, inmates don’t get a pink card until after a doctor or nurse practitioner confirms that they have a hearing impairment, which can take several weeks after arrival.
11/2016 Court Report, App-89

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 91 of 326 - Page ID#: 1672
Recommendation 54: Identification processes
a) Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process.
b) All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. Exhibit B-2 is the recommended form. (See also prior recommendation 2.) This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup.
c) If an inmate answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he should be seen in the next several days by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—for further evaluation, including a “whisper test” or other examination to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem.
d) If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation, the following should occur: x The inmate should receive an identification card to carry on his person, which states that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. x The inmate’s name should be shared with the facility’s ADA coordinator. x Two different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened. (See Figures A and B, above).
e) All inmates so identified should be included in the facility’s semi-annual reports to me; if a particular inmate turns out not to be deaf or hard-of-hearing, because, for example, a medical problem that was obstructing his or her hearing is solved, that can be explained. (Note: the decision to send an inmate to an audiologist for evaluation or treatment is not the same as the decision to flag the inmate as deaf or hard-of-hearing.)
Because these screening processes are new, not all of KYDOC’s inmates have been through them. Therefore, it is important for the new screening processes to be included in other medical encounters, as well. Depending on their health status, some inmates get annual physicals; for others, their routine medical check-up is less often. Either way, the routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire:
Recommendation 55: In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2).
Once identification is complete, it needs to be tracked and made obvious in several ways. The ADA coordinator needs to know, of course, so that he or she can track the inmate’s information and ensure appropriate auxiliary aids and services. But more generally, staff need to know that particular inmates are deaf or hard-of-hearing in order to facilitate effective
11/2016 Court Report, App-90

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 92 of 326 - Page ID#: 1673
communication. It’s for this reason that the Settlement Agreement requires various notices: a notice outside each unit that houses a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate (III.D.3) and an ID card (usually pink or faded red in color) that identifies the inmate as deaf or hard-of-hearing (III.D.1). The facilities I visited were in compliance with these requirements, and each has taken the valuable additional step—which seems to me functionally necessary, though not explicitly required in the Agreement—of offering inmates the option of posting a similar notice for the outside of each their cell, or (in a dorm setting) their bed.
One purpose of the pink or red card is to be available if the inmate needs to explain to an officer why the inmate didn’t hear a question, or the like. The inmates I spoke to said that the card really is helpful in this regard—that they occasionally have a problem when an officer asks them a question or issues an order from behind them, which they cannot hear, and the card is useful to explain that the inmate was not willfully ignoring the officer. However, one minor change would be useful. The Settlement Agreement requires that the ID card “clearly identif[y]” each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate. (III.D.1) In some facilities, the ID card simply states “hoh.” This is a little cryptic; the card should say “Deaf” or “Hard-of-Hearing,” spelling out the words, for clarity. In addition, I heard, as well, that facilities have not always promptly replaced misplaced cards; facilitating such replacements is important.
Prior Recommendation 35: Each facility should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted.
Recommendation 56: Each facility should ensure that the ID cards used to identify inmates as deaf or hard-of-hearing are clear, and should avoid abbreviations or other language that may not be clear. Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided.
II. ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION DURING INTAKE
During intake, a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is unlikely to know what accommodations or auxiliary aids and services are available. So in this setting in particular, it’s important that assistance be offered to the inmate, rather than waiting for his or her request. In addition, this is an especially bad occasion to rely on lip-reading, which offers only partial comprehension to even its most skilled users. Accordingly, interpretive services should be offered.
Each facility I visited has taken steps to provide Qualified Interpretation, via remote video interpreter. Intake and medical staff generally seemed to know about the existence of the Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) laptop, although several staff members did not entirely understand how to obtain the laptop—particularly if the ADA Coordinator was not available, as on a weekend—or how to use it. Some staff did not seem to realize that it was up to them to offer interpretive services to the inmate during intake; this applies particularly to medical staff for intake physicals. The prior recommendation that interpretive services be offered in this situation was perhaps less clear than it should have been that it includes medical intake as well as other orientation.
11/2016 Court Report, App-91

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 93 of 326 - Page ID#: 1674
Prior Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so.
Recommendation 57: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known by prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial medical screening or other intake medical encounters. Inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. Medical staff should ask inmates who have difficulty hearing if they use sign language to communicate, rather than waiting for the ADA Coordinator’s assessment.
For hard-of-hearing inmates, too, it’s important that staff immediately work to ensure effective communication while the remaining evaluation and accommodation process takes place. This can involve many different approaches—and in several facilities, medical staff explained to me the steps they take to improve communication with hard-of-hearing patients, including making sure that the inmate can see their face, speaking slowly and clearly, etc. None had received training on best approaches, however. For recommendations related to training, see Part VIII, below. In addition, even though several of the facilities had begun to issue pocket amplifiers to hard-of-hearing inmates awaiting audiology consult, none was using them during intake, while inmates were still being evaluated.
Recommendation 58: Each facility’s medical office should keep pocket amplifiers on hand for all intake staff—medical, mental health, and custody—to use when the need arises.
III. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Medical care at all KYDOC institutions is provided by Correct Care. At all of the facilities I visited, medical staff have worked to facilitate inmate access to audiology services. Each sends inmates who fail the whisper test to an off-site audiologist (or, if indicated, an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor), for hearing testing, hearing aid evaluation, and hearing aid fitting.
Again, RCC provides a good model. At first, RCC was using University of Louisville audiology services, but when staff were unable to obtain services in a timely way, they switched to a new provider, Norton Hospital, and now are able to schedule audiology assessment visits in about two weeks. The process now works as follows:
1) The medical provider decides that an audiology consult is appropriate. This referral must be approved by Correct Care’s regional medical director, which takes about a week.
2) While the inmate is waiting to get to the audiologist, he is provided with a pocket amplifier. (RCC started providing these devices only a few days before my visit.)
3) At the time of my visit, staff had managed to schedule audiology visits within a week or two of the consult request. (Under Correct Care’s rules, the scheduling is allowed
11/2016 Court Report, App-92

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 94 of 326 - Page ID#: 1675
to take up to 6 weeks; using this amount of time would be inconsistent with prior recommendation 6, below.) 4) The audiologist conducts a hearing test, and if the impairment is sufficiently significant that he or she is recommending a hearing aid, does the necessary evaluation for that hearing aid at the same time. 5) Under KYDOC policy 13.2, effective July 31, 2015, “Hearing aids shall be provided to any inmate who has a hearing loss of a severe nature (greater than or equal to 80dB) at the department’s expense.” Once medical staff approve the ordering of the hearing aid, it takes about two weeks for it to arrive and for the inmate’s fitting to be scheduled and take place. 6) Once the inmate receives his hearing aid, he is told how he can get replacement batteries at no cost to him, by going to the nurses’ station.
Of the six KYDOC facilities I have visited, RCC seems to have by far the smoothest audiology process—the others take more time, require more specialist visits, and several have in fact not yet successfully provided anyone with hearing aids, though the process is underway for several inmates in each. At both KSP and WKCC, for example, I observed numerous process failures: inmates who failed the whisper test were never scheduled for a provider followup, or received only a chart review, without the provider actually understanding that the purpose of the followup was supposed to be for him or her to evaluate whether an audiology consult was appropriate. At several of the facilities, the audiology consults were not being carried out in a timely fashion, and/or the process required three trips out of the institution, rather than two: one to receive an audiology evaluation, a second for earmold impressions to be taken, and a third for them to be actually given to the inmate. This approach to appointments greatly increased the time and cost, and undermined effective communication for the inmate during that extra time. And LLCC has been relying on KSR staff to do the transport—which has sometimes meant that difficult-to-schedule audiology appointments may get cancelled, the day of the appointment, because transport officers are overbooked.
At each facility I tracked numerous inmates through the process, using their medical records; only at RCC did it appear that the process was actually proceeding reliably from one step to the next, and getting inmates evaluated and fitted for hearing aids. Even at RCC, moreover, there had been frequent glitches and difficulties. For example, inmates who arrived at RCC several months ago described to me that it took multiple requests and staff members “going to bat” for them to get hearing evaluations. On the other hand, an inmate who arrived shortly before my visit experienced a much smoother and faster process. For the progress that has been made to be maintained, it will be crucial for an assigned person to systematically track each inmate’s progress through the process, not just every quarter or six months, but every week or two.
I have been told, as well, that after my visit, RCC contracted with an audiology provider who comes on site. I do not know the details, but this is a welcome development; I look forward to finding out more about it.
My prior recommendation 6 continues to apply:
11/2016 Court Report, App-93

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 95 of 326 - Page ID#: 1676
Prior Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for any backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to each applicable facility for two or three days.
The way that RCC has improved its process can be a model for how other facilities can meet this recommendation:
x Find an audiologist whose schedule and recordkeeping are sufficiently robust to facilitate timely scheduling.
x Schedule the hearing test and hearing aid evaluation in the same appointment. x Medical staff should track each inmate who is deaf or hard-of-hearing to ensure
prompt scheduling and service provision, through each step: - identification/request for evaluation - hearing screening questionnaire - provider visit - audiology consult request - audiology scheduling - audiology visit - hearing aid order - hearing aid provision
x The ADA Coordinator should also monitor this progress, to ensure nobody gets stalled.
RCC staff who have worked through these issues are likely to have systems advice for staff at other facilities.
More detail may help compliance with the tracking recommendation (prior recommendation 6):
Recommendation 59: The ADA Coordinator for each KYDOC facility should maintain a document that tracks each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate’s progress through the process of obtaining any needed hearing aid, including the dates and outcomes of:
x the initial request/questionnaire x each relevant medical visit x any audiology visit x hearing aid provision. In order to ensure that inmates do not wait longer than two months for a necessary hearing aid, the ADA coordinator should check for progress for each affected inmate every week or two, updating the tracking document and working with medical staff to solve any procedural hurdles that arise. A recommended sample tracking document is provided as Exhibit F.
11/2016 Court Report, App-94

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 96 of 326 - Page ID#: 1677
Exhibit F is based on real medical records, though it has been altered and anonymized. It demonstrates the kinds of obstacles to audiology services that can arise. Not one of the inmates listed has actually received a hearing aid; each had audiology service provisions stall at some point. The point is, someone needs to do case management work to ensure that this complicated pipeline actually keeps moving. If an audiology consult has been requested, has it been approved? If it’s been approved, has it been scheduled? If it’s been scheduled, did it actually take place, and has the second visit been scheduled? If it got cancelled, has it been rescheduled? And so on.
One special obstacle to timely provision of audiology services may arise when an inmate is transferred from one institution to another. If this occurs, it is important for any progress made at the transferring prison be continued in the receiving prison, rather than making the inmate start over. For example, if an inmate has already been evaluated and scheduled for an audiology visit, a new visit may need to be scheduled—but the evaluation that preceded it should not have to be done over. Similarly, if an audiologist has already fit the inmate for hearing aids, but the inmate has not yet received them, those hearing aids should be able to be delivered to the inmate after his transfer.
IV. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
As I explained in my KSR report, once an inmate is identified as fitting the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf,” each KYDOC facility is obligated (in the absence of a voluntary waiver) to provide effective communication by using auxiliary aids and services. The Agreement instructs that “[a]fter medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.” (III.C.1) Deaf inmates might need any of several different types of such aids/services. In this section, I discuss them in turn.
To figure out what services may be needed, it is necessary to think through each type of communication that takes place at the facility. Different situations call for different services or devices. Much of this is covered in detail by the Agreement, but sometimes the Agreement just states the general obligation of effective communication and equal access to services, programs, and activities.
All of the facilities covered in this report use an identical pamphlet (except that RCC’s is a little more comprehensive than the others) to explain the available auxiliary aids to inmates. I am not sure who first created this document, which brings together information provided by the telecommunications company Purple and other descriptions of services and processes. Using such a pamphlet is a great idea; it is important that inmates know what services are available and how to access and use them. However, the pamphlet is sometimes vague, sometimes inaccurate, and quite incomplete. It should be improved. I have created a draft that combines the pamphlet with the memo I recommended for KSR; this recommended document is Exhibit D-2.
My prior recommendation 46 covered some of this territory:
11/2016 Court Report, App-95

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 97 of 326 - Page ID#: 1678
Prior Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
• To list available aids and services more comprehensively • To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are,
in what circumstances they are available, and how to request them. • To explain how to use the various devices. • To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed services, and why those are useful. • To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense.
Recommendation 60: I commend KYDOC for developing a user-friendly pamphlet to cover the information needed by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates; I recommend facilities use the edited version in Exhibit D-2; each facility should fill in the items marked with curly brackets ({ and }).
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
In Part III, above, I discuss provision of audiology evaluation and hearing aids. Here I discuss some additional important issues related to personal hearing devices.
While deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates are waiting for audiologist evaluation, or when their degree of hearing impairment is small, medical staff at several facilities began a few days before my visit to provide personal amplifiers, which both inmates and staff often refer to as “pocket talkers.” It seems that only some of the inmates who might benefit from amplifiers know that they are available. At several of the facilities amplifiers are readily available when requested by medical staff; some facilities keep a small stock on hand. But in others, they have to be specially ordered. In some, they are considered “formulary” items; in others, they are “offformulary.” As far as I understand, all the KYDOC institutions order medical supplies from a company called McKesson, which does stock personal amplifiers. So all the institutions should be able to follow the recommendation that follows:
Prior Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait.
Once provided, hearing aids need batteries (which require frequent changes). In addition, they need to stay with the inmate even when he is moved or transferred.
Hearing aid batteries come in many different types, and when the hearing aid is working correctly, they may last as little as 3 days or as long as 3 weeks. So each facility needs to work out a way for inmates who use hearing aids to easily obtain replacement batteries. This includes inmates in segregated housing or special programming housing. It might even be a good idea to allow inmates to keep one extra set of batteries with them, so that when their batteries run out, they are not without their hearing aid for the time it takes to get a new set. (If inmates were allowed to keep an extra set of batteries with them, then it would be acceptable to provide
11/2016 Court Report, App-96

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 98 of 326 - Page ID#: 1679
replacement batteries only on weekdays, because the extra set would be available for any weekend need.)
Recommendation 61: Inmates with hearing aids should be able to obtain replacement batteries seven days a week, without difficulty or charge, regardless of their housing or programming assignment.
Inmates are occasionally moved from one cell to another, or one prison to another. Either way, their hearing aids need to be moved with them. At KSP, Inmate A was transferred from regular housing into disciplinary segregation; apparently he was not wearing his hearing aids when he was moved, so they were put in storage, like his other property. The result was that he had difficulty hearing in disciplinary housing. During my visit, I requested that his hearing aids be restored to him, but that took several days. Similarly, when inmates are transferred from one prison to another, their hearing aids may sometimes not be moved with them. (This may have been the situation for Inmate B, when he was moved from LLCC to KSR.) If this occurs, it is an expensive mistake, since KYDOC likely paid for the device. In addition, it obstructs effective communication for the inmate for the months it takes for him to get replacements.
Recommendation 62: Each facility should inform staff responsible for property moves that it is important for inmates to keep their hearing aids with them, even when they are moved into segregation or transferred. When an inmate is accidentally separated from his or her hearing aids, policy should allow the inmate to promptly obtain the hearing aids from storage or medical, or to get replacements.
B. Qualified Interpretation
Some of the six facilities covered by this report did not have any inmates there who use sign language and therefore needed interpretive services. My recommendations in this section are based on the experiences of five inmates who used sign language to communicate at four of the six facilities.
x Inmate C, at the Green River Correctional Complex x Inmate D, at the Kentucky State Penitentiary x Inmates E & F, at KCIW x Inmate G, who spent several months at RCC, but was transferred before my visit.
1. The choice between in-person and remote interpretation methods
Generally speaking, each facility I visited that has had an inmate who uses sign language to communicate has successfully implemented use of Video Remote Interpretation (VRI), via laptop. I discuss some issues in this regard in the next subsection (IV.B.2).
The issue that is harder is whether in-person interpretive services are being provided when necessary. As I explained in Part III.B.2 of my report on KSR, which I here incorporate by reference, the Settlement Agreement is mostly ambiguous in terms of when interpretation services should be offered via VRI or an in-person interpreter. But it is clear that there will be occasions when an in-person interpreter is required for effective communication; each facility
11/2016 Court Report, App-97

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 99 of 326 - Page ID#: 1680
needs to prepare the ground for this situation, finding providers in advance, and working out when they may be required. Most of the facilities have apparently never provided an in-person interpreter in any situation.
My prior recommendations 12-14 hold:
Prior Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. In-person interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.
Prior Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. The facility should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in particular, the preferred communication method— should be made available to all KYDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically.
Prior Recommendation 14: Each facility should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D.
2. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
In each facility, the VRI laptop was available and staff seemed to know that it existed. I tested each one, and they all worked. This is a good base on which to build. Quite a few problems remain, however.
Most important, it is clear that VRI services are not being used in some situations when they should. The VRI laptops are being used in certain formal communication settings— classification and disciplinary hearings and meetings, for example. But there are many other
11/2016 Court Report, App-98

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 100 of 326 - Page ID#: 1681
situations where effective communication is necessary but obstacles to VRI usage remain. These include medical appointments, investigation meetings to prepare for discipline, meetings with grievance or other legal aides (inmates who assist other inmates with grievances or disciplinary hearings), and other conversations between staff and inmates who sign to communicate. Each facility needs to set up an easy process by which the VRI laptop can be available for interpretation of conversations with deaf inmates, without the need to cancel and reschedule meetings or the like. In order to make this work, staff must be trained that use of the VRI laptop is not a big deal or special, but is simply the most effective way for them to communicate with inmates who sign. It is particularly important that the VRI laptop be used routinely in segregated (or “restrictive”) housing, because various features of segregation obstruct many of the coping mechanisms deaf inmates might use to understand what someone is telling them—the ambient noise is extreme, visual cues are scarce, etc.
A particular issue has arisen at KCIW, where there are two inmates who use sign language to communicate. Inmate E is nearly entirely non-verbal as well as deaf (and not highly literate). Inmate F is a very skilled lip reader, and can speak as well as sign. I heard both from the inmates and from staff that staff frequently call upon Inmate F to interpret for Inmate E. Except in an emergency, this is bad practice. Inmate F is not certified as an interpreter, and cannot herself hear. So the quality of the interpretive services may well be too low. In addition, having one inmate interpret for another means that the inmate-interpreter knows about and has some responsibility for the other inmate’s business. This is inappropriate in a facility with real security risks. A solution is readily available: the laptop can be used for interpretation.
Perhaps the obstacle to more prevalent use of the VRI laptop is that not all staff know how to operate it. Lack of experience with the machine has also contributed to another problem. Similar to the situation I described in my KSR report, even when VRI services have been used, the setup has not always been ideal. The participants in several VRI sessions—both staff and inmates—reported to me that the interpreter sometimes had trouble hearing what was going on. In part, this seems likely to be because of the physical arrangement used, illustrated in Figure D:
Figure D: Use of the VRI (problematic)
Staff member 1
(Desk or table)
VRI laptop
Inmate
For VRI to be effective, it is important that the person speaking be near the laptop’s microphone—ideally in visual range. Two setups that can probably work are illustrated in Figure E:
11/2016 Court Report, App-99

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 101 of 326 - Page ID#: 1682

Figure E: Use of the VRI (recommended)

1.

2.

Staff member

(Desk or table)

(Desk or table)

Staff member Inmate

Inmate

Setup E.1 is the ideal—it puts both people conducting the conversation within both sound and sight range of the laptop camera and microphone. But where there is a security need for the inmate and the staff member to be on opposite sides of a table, setup E.2 may be adequate.

Setup E.2 and perhaps even the not-recommended spacing of Figure D are likely to work substantially better if a better microphone is plugged into the laptop. The microphone that comes built into the laptop computer has a very limited range. The type of microphone that seems most appropriate is a “conference microphone.”1 In fact, with a better microphone, if people are careful not to speak at the same time, it’s possible the VRI will even prove adequate for interpretation of a situation in which several people are speaking—for example, a class that includes some, though not a great deal, of class discussion. It would be worthwhile to try this out.

An additional technical issue that the visits revealed is that in

a number of facilities, staff using the laptop often cannot

simultaneously use their computer, because the internet cord for the

computer is unplugged from the computer and transferred to the

laptop. Sometimes two computers are within reach, so one internet

cord is taken out of a computer and used for the VRI laptop, and the

other computer is used. At least once, this was done by stringing a

cord many yards from an office down the hall into a medical exam

room. But generally, in these facilities, if a deaf inmate is having an

interpreted conversation—say, if he is being asked medical or intake

Figure F: KCIW Splitter

questions—the computer on which his answers would ordinarily be

recorded is unavailable until later. This can lead to ineffective recordkeeping and even

ineffective health care. Luckily, this is an easy problem to solve: KCIW and a couple other

facilities have implemented use of a “splitter” that allows one internet line to feed both the VRI

laptop and a computer. The splitter can be easily stored in the laptop bag.

1 Just to reference one, picked because it has good consumer ratings, see, e.g., MXL AC404 USB Conference Microphone, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TGTDFM/.

11/2016 Court Report, App-100

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 102 of 326 - Page ID#: 1683
Another technical issue that these visits revealed is that the intermittent use of the VRI means that it may not receive necessary software updates. This needs to be planned for and dealt with. (The method for solving the problem will vary depending on how a particular facility handles software updates more generally.)
Finally, I am not sure about how far in advance the various facilities require scheduling of the VRI to occur. (It’s not a good idea to require any particular time frame, because that bars use of VRI for routine conversations that are not typically scheduled at all. Of course encouraging in-advance scheduling is fine, where practicable.) In any event, I did hear numerous times that the basic method for obtaining the VRI is that the requesting staff member contacts the ADA Coordinator. That means that the VRI is, in practice if not policy, unavailable for situations that develop quickly or after hours, when the ADA Coordinator is not available. This can include some very important communication events—e.g., medical emergencies, investigations, etc.—as well as more routine communications that could benefit from interpretation.
Most of these issues are covered by my prior recommendations:
Prior Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.
Prior Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so.
Prior Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.)
Prior Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. Each facility should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies.
To cover the additional issues just described:
11/2016 Court Report, App-101

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 103 of 326 - Page ID#: 1684
Recommendation 63: Absent an emergency in which time is of the essence and VRI services are unavailable, no facility should rely on an inmate to interpret a communication that would ordinarily be private for another inmate.
Recommendation 64: Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer.
Recommendation 65: Each facility should ensure that the VRI laptop routinely receives necessary software updates.
3. Religious and volunteer-provided programming
As I discussed in my KSR report, the Agreement distinguishes between KYDOCprovided and volunteer-provided activities. For the latter, facilities are not obligated to provide a qualified interpreter, but are instead required to facilitate, by “allow[ing] the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements,” and “work[ing] with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteer-provided activities.” (V.A.3) And similarly: “The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.” (VI.G.1)
It is my understanding that the only volunteer-provided programming at any of the facilities I visited is religious programming. As at KSR, the chaplains at each facility explained to me that they mostly coordinate volunteer programming. What emerged from my visits, however, is that a portion of religious programming is actually provided by the chaplain himself, a state employee. At LLCC, for example, the chaplain provides faith-based reentry programming; at KCIW and GRCC, the chaplain leads two worship services each month; and at KSP, the chaplain leads occasional worship services and bible study. (In addition, the sound system used by volunteers, like the other equipment they use—the chairs, projectors, and the like—are state-provided, which means that the sound equipment should be accessible even for volunteer-led programming. See Part IV.E, below.) The Agreement states that “[t]o the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.” (Agreement VI.G.3; V.A.3 is materially the same). That provision covers all chaplain-provided services, but facility policy and practice have not yet implemented it.
In addition, as at KSR, the chaplains also confirmed that they have the role of telling inmates when there is a death in the family and then facilitating the inmates’ communication with their family members. Accordingly, the chaplains too need to be trained about the availability of VRI for interpreting conversations with a deaf inmate who uses sign language. As I noted in my KSR report, it would not make sense to require an interpretation request for this kind of communication by the affected inmate, given that this is a one-time notice. So like other KYDOC staff, the chaplains will need to be trained, as well, to look in the KOMS systems to see if an inmate they are about to talk with might need qualified interpretation.
11/2016 Court Report, App-102

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 104 of 326 - Page ID#: 1685
Prior Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming.
Recommendation 66: For any religious programming—worship services, counseling, bible study, etc.—that is provided directly by the chaplain, each facility should provide qualified interpretation when requested by an inmate who needs it.
Prior Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
C. Video captioning
Each facility uses video communication in several different situations: some use an orientation video; others use videos for various programming or education sessions; all use videos for entertainment. In each of these situations, some deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates will benefit from text captions—on-screen text descriptions that display a video product’s dialogue, identify speakers, and describe other relevant sounds otherwise inaccessible to people who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.2
My KSR report discusses the Agreement’s five provisions relating to captions. Each facility has taken steps towards compliance, but not all are yet consistently providing captioning. For the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) video, for example, KCIW sent its DVD out to KYDOC’s Central Region Training Center to be captioned, specially. But the PREA video used elsewhere had not been captioned. (I was, however, given this link of a captioned PREA video by Dan Smith, the KSP ADA Coordinator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ag-__vbx5Mg.) It seems that the AV Club at LLCC, which makes videos for use by the institution, has not yet figured out how to ensure that those videos are captioned. I do not know about other similar clubs. In addition, I do not know if the videos used for educational programming are generally captioned. The availability of captioning should be checked for each video used, and replacements obtained if necessary and available. This includes videos/DVDs used in religious programming: KYDOC’s equipment makes captioning available, and volunteer church groups should be instructed to turn it on.
On the other hand, compliance seems much more consistent with respect to programming aired on the common-space televisions. Each one I tested was able to have captioning enabled, and I was told by staff and inmates alike that captioning is consistently activated for the institutional movies (which are played on a continuous loop over the weekends).
I did not observe or hear about any issues with respect to captioning on inmate-owned televisions.
2 Open captions always are in view and cannot be turned off, whereas closed captions can be turned on and off by the viewer.
11/2016 Court Report, App-103

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 105 of 326 - Page ID#: 1686
So compliance with my prior recommendation 23 is under way, but not yet complete:
Prior Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used to determine whether it has captioning and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged.
D. Speech-to-text
Several inmates who are hard-of-hearing told me that they have found educational programming inaccessible to them; they too-often need the teacher to repeat him or herself or end up relying on a fellow inmate to repeat what the teacher said. This section and the next describe methods that can help achieve effective communication in educational settings, and perhaps others, such as religious programming.
For deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates who read well, the accessibility of educational programming could be improved by use of speech-to-text devices. KSR is investigating this possibility, and is reporting back to me what it finds (Prior recommendation 25). If these investigations are fruitful, other facilities should implement solutions as well.
E. Assistive listening systems
An assistive listening system is a system in which sound is captured close to its source via a microphone (avoiding ambient noise) and transmitted directly to the ears or hearing aids of people with assistive listening devices.3 Some assistive listening systems transmit sound to special earphones or earbuds, via a receiver worn (say, hooked to a pocket) by the listener. Such systems can be extremely helpful to people who are hard-of-hearing, because they allow the listener to amplify the sound inside the ear, and without amplifying the ambient noise.
Several KYDOC facilities already use what is in effect an assistive listening system for their common-space televisions; they broadcast the institutionally available channels on a radio frequency, and then require inmates listening to the common televisions to use radio receivers, with earbuds, rather than playing the sound out loud. The purpose of this has been to keep the sound level down in common spaces—but there is a major benefit for hard-of-hearing inmates,
3 For more information on assistive listening devices and systems, see Hearing Loss Association of America, Get in the Hearing Loop, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/HLAA_ALDS_Brochure_0.pdf; David G. Myers, We’ve Looped in West Michigan. Could We Loop America?, HEARING LOSS MAGAZINE, September/October 2008, at 18, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/MeyerSepOct08 AudioLoopHLM.pdf. For a technical guide to choices available for educational settings in particular (though geared to children rather than adults), see American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years (updated April 2011) available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/HAT_Guidelines_Supplement_A.pdf_53996ef7758497. 54419000.pdf; American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, Supplement B: Classroom Audio Distribution Systems—Selection and Verification, July 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/ 20110926_HAT_GuidelinesSupp_B.pdf_53996ef98259f2.45364934.pdf.
11/2016 Court Report, App-104

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 106 of 326 - Page ID#: 1687
who report that they can hear TVs that use that set up. Not every facility uses this approach, and even in facilities that do, some dorms are not set up with the necessary equipment. At the least, this is a good system to use in any dorm where hard-of-hearing inmates are housed.
Facilities should review their other communications venues and make available similar accommodations for hard-of-hearing inmates whenever possible. Here, RCC is ahead of the other KYDOC facilities I have visited. LLCC Chaplain Casey Heilman showed me a wireless system he had obtained that allows those speaking to use a microphone that transmits directly to a receiver, connected to earbuds worn by an inmate attending worship services who would otherwise have trouble hearing. This kind of system is not new—other chaplains said to me that they are very common in churches outside the prison system. On the inside, they could be enormously helpful, not just for religious services but for education, programming, and other settings. The necessary equipment could allow multiple microphones and multiple receivers, so that several hard-of-hearing inmates could use them at the same time.4
Recommendation 67: Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates.
It is important that information about the availability of these devices be shared with inmates, so they know to ask for them if needed. My prior recommendation 27 was narrower than the need, so I broaden it here:
Recommendation 68: KSR should inform deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of the various ways in which religious, educational, rehabilitative, and recreational programming can be made more accessible to them; all programming providers (educational, rehabilitative, and recreational) should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them.
F. Written communication
As I noted in my KSR report, in many situations, writing can be a helpful communication method. However, it takes too long and is too cumbersome for any complex communication— and for someone who has a low level of literacy, it is mostly ineffective. During these visits, I heard numerous times about overreliance on writing, both for hard-of-hearing and deaf inmates. Inmate E explained to me, for example, that her language is ASL—she really does not know English, including written English, very well. Yet when she was housed in segregation, she was not provided access to interpretation services; instead, both custody and medical/mental health staff relied on writing. My prior recommendation 28 is particularly important in segregated housing, which I discuss in more depth in Part V.A, below.
Prior Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less
4 Two examples of assistive listening systems that seem to allow both multiple microphones and multiple receivers are: https://www.conversorproducts.com/conversor-3rx-multi-channel-group-system.html; https://www.listentech.com/shop/product/portable-display-rf-receiver-72-or-216-mhz/. It would be useful to do further research into these potential products, and I would be happy to assist further on request. In addition, Rev. Heilman may have some insight into various systems.
11/2016 Court Report, App-105

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 107 of 326 - Page ID#: 1688
literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5).
G. Non-auditory alerts
Each facility I visited frequently communicates with inmates using auditory alerts—fire alarms and PA announcements—which are routinely used for count, chow, pill call, and more individual announcements (e.g., “Inmate Smith, please report to the Dorm 11 office”). The law’s requirement of non-discrimination means that this communication, like others, must be made effective for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. I discussed the Settlement Agreement’s numerous relevant requirements in Part III.G of my KSR report.
The facilities I have visited have started to address the needs in this area, but have not yet come into compliance. In most, non-auditory alert systems have been installed. These are “bed shakers”—non-auditory vibrating devices that sit under a mattress, and also trigger a flashing light on a bed stand. Currently, in some facilities, the devices are linked to the unit’s fire alarm, so whenever that alarm is set off, so too are both the shaker and flasher. But it seems that in some facilities, the devices are not yet linked. In addition, the advantage of a bed shaker device is that it can be used as an alarm clock, and can be linked to a switch that’s been installed in a control center, enabling staff in that area to flash the lights/shaker when there is an announcement for count or chow. However, this functionality is not yet operative in most of the facilities—and where it is (KSP), seems not to be being used in that way. In KSP, the system is installed for Inmate D, who is housed in Protective Custody. Because he spends most of each day in-cell, and auditory announcements seem not to be used much in the unit, he does not have much need for the bed shaker. But if he did, it seems that staff are not actually flipping the switch for count and the like. In KCIW, the bed shaker is installed but it has insufficient range to be triggered from the staff area.
The point is, at many facilities, there are numerous alerts that are not being communicated to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates even when they are in their cells; they have reported to me missing morning count, early morning alerts about medical care, special warning announcements about emergencies, calls to stand up to be let out for recreation, and the like. (The issue is less concerning for inmates in dorm-style housing, because the commotion caused by everyone else waking up for count or the like is itself a non-auditory alert.)
My prior recommendation 29 covers the needs I heard:
Prior Recommendation 29: Each facility should expand the availability of nonauditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each nonauditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period.
11/2016 Court Report, App-106

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 108 of 326 - Page ID#: 1689
As I mentioned in my KSR report, the bed shaker is unlikely to meet the full need for non-auditory alerts and announcements. Some inmates will not have bed shakers installed, and even inmates who do have them will not always be in their cells when alerts are triggered. It is important to develop systems for communicating effectively with such inmates. I heard repeatedly that hard-of-hearing inmates cannot hear count (particularly early morning count, because their hearing aids are not yet on), cannot hear individualized yard or dorm pages, and cannot hear any unusual announcements. Many told me they rely on their friends to tell them about what they are missing, but several emphasized various times that this had not worked out. Two accommodations seem particularly useful: a written announcement board, whether (as I suggested in my prior recommendation 30) a TV-based visual paging system or something lower tech, and a system for individual notifications.
Recommendation 69: In any unit where there are deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, each facility should implement (and ensure use of) written announcement boards. That is, all general announcements should also be promptly displayed on a written announcement board (e.g.: “X class is cancelled this evening,” or “all inmates in X category are allowed an X privilege this afternoon”). Staff use of this announcement board must be monitored and audited.
Recommendation 70: In order to provide effective and equal communications to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates who are being individually paged, staff should check KOMS to see if that inmate has a deaf/hard-of-hearing alert; if a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate does not answer the auditory page in a minute or two, he or she should be individually alerted to the page by a staff member. This could be done by in-person notification or by provision of a personal paging system.
As I noted in my KSR report, given the difficulties with providing effective communication of alerts, it is unsurprising that occasionally deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates will miss count, chow, pill call, etc. I heard from more than one inmate that he or she occasionally or usually has trouble knowing when count or pill call is signaled. It is important that staff accommodate such situations. Disciplining an inmate for a missed count that he didn’t hear called, or refusing to provide an inmate with necessary medicine when she couldn’t hear pill call, would violate the ADA. This is adequately covered by prior recommendation 31. That recommendation also covers a situation I heard about during my recent visits. In some rehabilitative programs, inmates are given some authority over each other—so that if one inmate misses count, there are “accountability” consequences decided by other inmates. If such a situation adversely affects a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate who could not hear the announcement in question, staff must be alert to intervene and ensure nondiscrimination. It seems that the ADA Coordinator at RCC did, in fact, intervene in this way, over a situation involving a hard-of-hearing inmate in the prison’s Substance Abuse Program (SAP).
Prior Recommendation 31: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event.
In addition, it is important that correctional officers remain aware that some inmates cannot hear orders they issue verbally, particularly if the officers are behind the inmate, or above him or her (as from a tower). I heard of several incidents in which an officer had instructed an
11/2016 Court Report, App-107

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 109 of 326 - Page ID#: 1690
inmate to do something—step away from a gate, for example—from a spot behind or above the inmate, who couldn’t hear him and had no visual cues that he or she was being directed. In one such incident, the officer reportedly told the inmate she was lucky to avoid being tackled or pepper sprayed.
Recommendation 71: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may be unable to hear an order or instruction issued verbally; training should cover strategies to avoid bad results.
H. Miscellaneous devices
The settlement agreement has several provisions that are designed to facilitate inmates’ personal purchase of accommodating devices (XII). These are discussed in more detail in my KSR report, at Part III.H. So far, the facilities have been focused on less personal needs, and have not yet put in place any systems to deal with these kinds of requests. My prior recommendation 32 applies to the facilities covered in this report, as well:
Prior Recommendation 32: Each facility’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk.
I. Speech
As I discussed in my KSR report, no technologies or devices can entirely meet the communications needs of all hard-of-hearing inmates. The Agreement provides that all staff— custody, medical care, mental health care, chaplains, educational, etc.—should be trained on “best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals.” (XIII.B) Even more than during my KSR visit, during the visits described here, inmates repeatedly told me about difficulties they have communicating with staff who are reluctant to repeat their communications, or unexperienced in implementing good communications practices. The KYDOC training that has been promulgated since that report includes a good list of tips, taken from the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section. A similar list is available from the Hearing Loss Association of America’s “Communication Tips for Hearing People in Communicating with Those Who Have a Hearing Loss,” and is available as an easy-to-distribute “tip card” at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/TipCards.pdf. This card is also included in Exhibit D-1, a recommended memo to staff on “Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.”
I note that some of these tips were included in live on-site training that I observed at RCC. That training was excellent in this regard. In particular, the trainer did a great job explaining how the kind of focus that facilitates communication with a hard-of-hearing inmate is unusual in a correctional setting, where staff are taught to maintain a high degree of situational awareness. If the location chosen for communication is insecure or very busy, some of the
11/2016 Court Report, App-108

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 110 of 326 - Page ID#: 1691
methods that facilitate communication—especially, facing the inmate directly without swiveling—may feel inappropriate. In that event, the staff member should pick a different, quieter, location for the conversation.
I discuss training issues more generally in Part VIII, below.
In group settings, in particular, these tips are very difficult to implement—which means that one accommodation that should be considered for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates is to substitute one-on-one conversation for groups.
Recommendation 71: In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-of-hearing inmate one-on-one, instead. For example, for someone who is having difficulty hearing a teacher in a group setting, even with assistive listening devices (see IV.E, above), a tutor might be a better option than a congregate GED class.
J. Teaching sign language
Among the classes occasionally offered at some of the facilities I visited is one in sign language. (This seems often to be offered as a college-level class, which would make it unavailable for any inmate who does not have his or her GED.) There are at least a few inmates whose degree of hearing impairment is very severe, or progressively getting more severe, but who do not sign. For example, Inmate H reported to me that his hearing is getting worse and he has been told that soon his hearing aids will no longer help very much. He is anxious to learn sign language, to prepare for that day. But, he says, he has been unable to get access even to an instructional book. I supplement my prior Recommendation 36 to cover not only classes but other resources, and to make clear that deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should nonetheless be among those allowed to enroll in any sign language classes.
Prior Recommendation 36: Each facility should try to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes.
Recommendation 72: Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should be among those allowed to enroll in any classes in sign language. Each facility should obtain resources relating to sign language—books or computer-based instruction—and make those available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.
K. Telecommunications equipment and rules
As the Settlement requires, each facility has made two types of telecommunications devices available for deaf inmates: TTYs (TeleTYpewriters) and videophones. The videophones are referred to by inmates and staff alike as “Purple,” the name of the telecom company that provides them. See http://www.purple.us/. Access is allowed only for inmates who use sign language to communicate. KSP has chosen to provide two different videophones—one provided by Purple and another by Sorenson.
11/2016 Court Report, App-109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 111 of 326 - Page ID#: 1692
The videophones allow two types of phone calls: inmates can communicate visually (via sign language) with a person on the other side who also has a videophone. Or, using Video Relay Service (VRS), the inmate can sign to a remote interpreter, who then speaks to a person at the other end on a regular phone. (For information about VRS, see https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/video-relay-services) My report on VRS for KSR may not have been entirely accurate. Although I was told that somehow VRS at KSR required use of a laptop (the same laptop as KSR used for VRI), I have since learned—and tested—that both the Purple and Sorenson systems at other prisons actually allow VRS calls without any additional devices. (This is probably true at KSR, too.)
1. Videophone and VRS
The videophones are supposed to be available during the same periods of time as ordinary phones, and in each of the facilities I visited, this was generally the practice. At KCIW and GRCC, a videophone is available inside each unit in which an inmate who uses it is housed. At KSP, most inmates are housed in units that do not have any phones; phones are available to them on the yard. So the location of the videophones in the law library space, which is available during yard hours, provides equal access.
However, there has sometimes been a situation where an inmate who needs access to a videophone is housed in a location that constrains such access. Such inmates may, for example, need permission (and a written pass) to get to and from the space where the phone is located. My prior recommendations 37-39 (slightly reworded, to make them more general) apply to this circumstance:
Prior Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should require permission for use only if the facility requires inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. If an escort is required to use the videophone at night, on weekends, or in other circumstances, such an escort should be routinely provided.
Prior Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well.
Prior Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count.
Finally, there are special obstacles to access for deaf inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation. Such inmates may be allowed to make limited phone calls—one call per week or even per month. Because the Settlement requires equal access, a deaf inmate in segregated housing must receive that same privilege (and the Settlement requires that the allowed call be twice as long, in minutes). But it is difficult to get a prisoner from segregation to
11/2016 Court Report, App-110

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 112 of 326 - Page ID#: 1693
the videophone. Luckily, the facilities have a choice. They can choose to escort prisoners from segregation to the videophone, or they can contract with Purple, which provides not only the existing videophones but also the VRI laptops, to provide videophone service via laptop. (ADA Coordinators looking for more insight about how to accomplish this can discuss it with KSP ADA Coordinator Dan Smith.) This capability, which I did not know about when I wrote my KSR report, makes it much easier for facilities to comply with the Settlement, and with my prior Recommendation 40, which I have reworded slightly to make it more accurate and more general:
Prior Recommendation 40 (Edited): Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates—including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. This could be done by escorting the prisoner to the videophone or by enabling videophone capabilities on the VRI laptop. If there are individualized reasons that an inmate cannot have his hands unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request each facility to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why.
2. TTY
My KSR report did not describe the issues raised by TTYs in any detail. These are not currently very popular devices; they use 1960s and 1970s technology, and are far more cumbersome than most text messaging programs, which of course have grown ubiquitous. TTYs are increasingly unfamiliar, even to deaf users. (As reported recently in an academic journal, “TTY/TTD use, once overwhelmingly popular within the deaf community, was reportedly used rarely if ever by 70.1% of [a robust national] sample [of deaf adults].”5) TTYs can be used to communicate directly only with other TTYs, which have grown few and far between. And (like any text communication method) TTYs require their users to be literate.
On the other hand, the advantage of using a TTY is that each KYDOC facility already owns the device, and it does not require any additional phone lines or other technology. A TTY relay service allows communication with any person using a telephone, and the relay service is reachable simply by dialing 7-1-1, from any phone line. After I returned from the June site visits, I tested the TTYs by having the ADA coordinator call me using the facility’s TTY, first to my own TTY number, and then using the relay service to my regular phone. For each, making the calls took several attempts and false starts, but eventually we were able to complete each one. For my July site visits, I myself called out to a non-TTY phone using the relay.
All that is required for each facility’s TTY to work is for staff to facilitate access by connecting the device to a phone line that can reach the outside, dialing to the outside line using the universal 7-1-1 number, and (if necessary) showing the inmate how to use it. All this takes training—but Exhibit D-2 includes all the necessary instructions. These should be left with the
5 Michella Maiorana-Basas & Claudia M. Pagliaro, Technology Use Among Adults Who Are Deaf and Hard of Hearing: A National Survey, J. Deaf Stud. & Deaf Educ. (Mar. 2014).
11/2016 Court Report, App-111

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 113 of 326 - Page ID#: 1694
TTY machine itself. In order to be sure that someone stays informed about how to use the TTY, I will be asking each KYDOC facility to contact me via TTY and TTY relay, once each year. Recommendation 73: Each facility should maintain its TTY and develop a facility protocol for how to make it available to inmates, covering who the inmate should request it from, where it should be connected, etc. In addition, each facility should annually test its TTY and the protocol by calling me at an agreed upon time using direct TTY and the relay service. TTY instructions should be left with the TTY at all times.
3. Hard-of-hearing inmates Hard-of-hearing (as opposed to deaf) inmates mostly don’t sign, so the videophone is not helpful to them. But several told me that they are unable to use a conventional phone, because their hearing is too impaired. I heard numerous times that only one, or a few, or none, of a particular prison’s phones had handset amplification, and that without such amplification, phones were inaccessible. I discussed this issue in my KSR report, and proposed three solutions: (a) TTY access for hard-of-hearing inmates, (b) amplified handsets, and (c) captioned telephones. I here discuss my further investigation of each of these options: TTY. The pros and cons of the TTY are discussed above; hard-of-hearing inmates are likely to be even less familiar with the devices than are deaf inmates. Nonetheless, they are an option that can be used as a fallback solution for hard-of-hearing inmates. Amplified phones. Each facility I visited has at least some amplified phones. On some of the phones, these are obvious, but on others, the availability of the amplification is more subtle— easier to see if you know what you’re looking for. See Figure G.
Figure G: Amplified Phones
(Side of payphone)
At some facilities, most of the hard-of-hearing inmates I spoke to were unaware that any of the ordinary phones had amplification; others, at different facilities, told me that they could only make phone calls if they used one of the amplified phones, but that these were very popular
11/2016 Court Report, App-112

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 114 of 326 - Page ID#: 1695
among inmates and therefore only sporadically available to them. Some inmates in particular housing units—for example, the housing for KCIW’s Substance Abuse Program—did not have access to volume-controlled telephones and reported that they therefore could not make phone calls.
Captioned telephone. Out of prison, captioned telephones have been growing in popularity. These are phones that simultaneously allow the user to listen to the speech and read it via real-time captioning.6 The captioning service is free.7 Some models of captioned telephone require two phone lines or a phone line and an internet line. But there is at least one model of captioned telephone that can operate on a single (analog) phone line.8 This could be used in the same way as the TTYs are currently used, by plugging it into an existing outside line. Ideally, the phone could even be plugged into an existing (Securus) payphone, but this would need to be worked out by KYDOC with Securus. Purple, the company that provides the videophones, has a pending FCC application for an institutional kiosk captioned telephone. If that is approved, that might become a good option.
In light of the additional information just set out, Recommendation 74 substitutes for prior recommendation 42:
Recommendation 74: Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by:
(a) Allowing them access to TTYs. (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate. (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.
I will request a report on implementation each aspect of this recommendation.
V. THE INTERACTION OF COMMUNICATION NEEDS AND HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A. Segregated housing
I discuss interpretive services and telecommunications issues for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in segregated housing in Part IV.B and IV.K, above, respectively. But it’s worth noting that such housing creates special obstacles to effective communication with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Much of the staff-inmate communication in segregated housing takes
6 See, e.g., Sergei Kochkin, The Importance of Captioned Telephone Service in Meeting the Communication Needs of People with Hearing Loss, HEARING REVIEW (March 5, 2013), http://www.hearingreview.com/2013/03/the-importance-of-captioned-telephone-service-in-meeting-thecommunication-needs-of-people-with-hearing-loss/. 7 The costs are subsidized by the Federal Communications Commission. 8 See http://www.captel.com/captel/840.
11/2016 Court Report, App-113

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 115 of 326 - Page ID#: 1696
place through the solid cell doors, or through the “crack”—the thin opening between the door and the cell wall. For someone who relies in part on visual cues to understand speech—that is, for most hard-of-hearing people—this undermines communication. Talking through an open meal tray is possible, but may raise security concerns. So if there is someone hard-of-hearing in segregated housing, staff need to actively problem solve, to make sure communication is effective; they may need to use the meal tray slot, or regularly pull the inmate out into an office to check in, or the like. This should be covered in training. (See Part VIII, below)
B. Other housing needs
Hearing needs may interact with housing assignments in other ways, as well. For example, it would often make sense to assign deaf inmates, who may use the videophone, to the unit where that phone is available. An inmate who needs a bed shaker should be assigned to a cell that is close enough to the staff office to allow it to be triggered. An inmate who wears a hearing aid may do much better in a quieter unit, and not need special alerts there, even though in a noisier unit he would need such alerts. And so on.
Recommendation 75: Each facility should develop a method for considering how communications difficulties with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates can be minimized by particular housing assignments, and shall make such assignments when appropriate.
VI. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
My KSR report discusses the need for routinized processes of non-medical assessment and assignment of services for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Its recommendations apply. The idea of these recommendations is that while medical staff is responsible for medical decision making, the ADA coordinator is responsible for ensuring that—apart from hearing aids— appropriate auxiliary aids and services, and other accommodations, are made. In addition, the assessment and resulting decision making should be part of the inmate’s KOMS file. Prior recommendation 44 discusses literacy testing; in some facilities, it may be possible to use already-conducted TABE (Test of Adult Basic Education) testing for this purpose.
Prior Recommendation 43: Each facility should develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary.
Prior Recommendation 44: Staff at each facility should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORTR) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used.
11/2016 Court Report, App-114

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 116 of 326 - Page ID#: 1697
The Agreement (III.C) requires an “auxiliary aids and services assessment.” The best way to assess the need for aids/services necessary for effective communication and to avoid discrimination is an individual meeting with each Deaf inmate. (This approach is similar to the “interactive process” required by the ADA under Title I, which deals with employment.) The idea of the meeting is for KSR staff to understand the communications needs of the inmate. At the meeting, the ADA coordinator or deputy ADA coordinator can inform the inmate about available aids and the inmate can discuss his communication needs. The inmate’s request is entitled, both under the Agreement and the operative regulation, to “primary consideration.” (I.5: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2))”; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.)
Most of the facilities have done this kind of meeting for their deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Unfortunately, the meetings have occasionally become more an occasion for paperwork than a real assessment of needed services. The idea is not simply to obtain waivers, but rather to explain to the inmate the various accommodations available, and figure out the best path forward to ensure effective communication and avoid discrimination.
Prior Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.
VII. FORM AND OPTIONS
Each facility has worked to develop a menu of auxiliary aids and services, and to provide staff and inmates written information about what is available. As discussed above at Part IV, the major document provided at the six facilities discussed in this report is a pamphlet; my recommended revisions are in Exhibit D-2. In addition, many of the facilities are continuing to use the inadequate forms I reviewed in my KSR report. I am therefore simply repeating my recommendations in this area, and resupplying my recommended forms. (Apparently Correct Care has revised its Healthcare Request Form to comply with my recommendation, which is in Exhibit E-2, but I have not yet seen the new version.)
The recommendations and forms have two changes: First, as part of my prior recommendation 47, I wrote the following: “Note: I have not provided the recommended memos to staff and inmates explaining precisely how to use the various devices, but that too should be developed, and should cover all the devices deployed.” I have now crossed this sentence out,
11/2016 Court Report, App-115

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 117 of 326 - Page ID#: 1698
because it is covered by the brochure described above; my recommended version of this brochure is Exhibit D-2. In addition, I have changed the form attached as Exhibit D-4 in two respects. First, based on feedback from Dan Smith, KSP’s ADA Coordinator, it now explains to inmates that hearing aids are medical decisions and instructs them to submit a healthcare request if they have a hearing aid issue. Second, it now includes volume-assisted telephones and assistive listening devices.
Prior Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways: x To list available aids and services more comprehensively x To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what
circumstances they are available, and how to request them. x To explain how to use the various devices. x To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or
needed services, and why those are useful. x To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the
inmate’s expense.
Prior Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings discussed in Part IV.C, above.
Prior Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2.
Prior Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all.
Sometimes when inmates make a request—for a job assignment, course enrollment, etc. —the facility does not use a form at all, but rather assigns staff to receive and assess the request. In this situation, it’s important that communication be effective. Staff evaluating requests for a job assignment or course enrollment must be alert to the fact that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates may need various accommodations, and/or auxiliary aids/services to ensure effective communication, both during the discussion and during the assignment/program. The availability of those accommodations should be communicated to inmates who might need them. This issue seems particularly related to educational programming: inmates previously unable to understand the teacher are often reluctant to enroll in education. The kinds of accommodations in question could be as simple as assigning an inmate to a seat close to the front of a classroom or giving him
11/2016 Court Report, App-116

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 118 of 326 - Page ID#: 1699
copies of projected materials. Or they might include auxiliary aids/services or a qualified interpreter.
Prior Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective— which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program.
In addition, so that inmates can know their rights, a copy of the Settlement Agreement itself should be available to them in their institution’s law library, along with a summary of it which I have drafted and attach as Exhibit G. The availability of these documents should be mentioned in the pamphlet attached as Exhibit D-2.
Finally, it is important that inmates not identified as deaf or hard-of-hearing receive notice about what they should do if they newly face communications difficulties because of a hearing impairment, or if somehow they were passed over in the screening. The other facilities should follow the steps taken in this regard by KSP, which includes relevant notice in its Inmate Handbook, which all inmates receive.
Recommendation 76: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
VIII. TRAINING
The Agreement requires training for the ADA Coordinator and for all staff who interact with inmates.
11/2016 Court Report, App-117

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 119 of 326 - Page ID#: 1700
A. ADA Coordinator Training
The Agreement requires: “The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KYDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1)
KYDOC has decided that ADA Coordinators should use ADA Title II training provided online by the ADA National Network, at http://www.adatitle2.org. As I previously described (KSR Report Part V.A), this is a very good choice of training source. Indeed, some of the training materials can be adapted for use in the general staff training. However, it does not cover the Agreement itself, or the ADA Coordinator’s role. Therefore, it needs augmentation. My prior recommendation covers this:
Prior Recommendation 51: KYDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate.
In light of the delay in development of this training, I will plan to provide a substantial outline/recommended draft by early December. I hope this will assist KYDOC in meeting this important requirement.
B. Staff Training
The Agreement requires that the training be developed “with input from the KCDHH [the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing], and that the KYDOC “provide any materials that may be used for training, . . . to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session.” (XIII.A) Subsequently, training is to be updated (again with “input from the KCDHH,” and KCDHH’s and my “review”) “at least every two years.” (XIII.A)
At last report, KYDOC had not developed this training. In a significant step forward, it now has; the training is posted on the KYDOC Computer Based Training “crimcast” system, and has been taken by many employees. One ADA Coordinator told me that the plan is to incorporate the training into the KYDOC Common Core In-Service training in 2017. Unfortunately, however, the Department did not give me an opportunity for review prior to the training’s promulgation, as the Agreement requires.
I do have many comments on coverage of required subjects, accuracy of information conveyed, and training effectiveness. I am providing detailed feedback on the KYDOC computer-based training in the form of a separate powerpoint recommended training document. To create the powerpoint, I first reproduced the existing training, supplemented it with some excellent information provided during in-service training offered at RCC, and then revised it. I have been unable to perfectly match the formatting of the existing training, but that should be easy enough to fix. (A few notes on various small issues that need decisions by KYDOC are included as slide 2.) My training document is titled KYDOC Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Training: Settlement Monitor’s Recommended Revision. That training should be required for all staff who may come into contact with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—including correctional staff, programming staff, medical and mental health care staff, chaplains, etc.
11/2016 Court Report, App-118

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 120 of 326 - Page ID#: 1701
In addition to computer based training, some training will need to be live and on-site, in order to cover the facility’s particular processes and to improve effectiveness.
Recommendation 77: In addition to the computer-based KYDOC training, live, in-service training should cover, at least:
a) For all staff: x The identity and role of the ADA Coordinator x Existence of KOMS and EMR alerts for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and the obligation to check for the alerts. x The occasions and process for obtaining access to the VRI laptop, and how to use the laptop, including where different people should sit to maximize communication effectiveness. (For medical, educational, and housing staff, this training should be done on-site, so each affected staff member can see where and how the laptop can be set up.) x The occasions and process for obtaining an in-person qualified interpreter.
b) For housing area staff: x The use of cell/bed notices that an inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. x The use of the bed shaker switch. x Telecommunications issues, including how to obtain and use a TTY, and the policies and procedures governing TTY and videophone usage. x The obligation to notify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of alerts, including emergency alerts and non-emergency pages.
c) For all corrections staff: x The requirements to accommodate inmates who use sign language to communicate by using restraints that allow them to sign, and how to implement those requirements. x Strategies for dealing with inmates who may not hear directions or orders, especially when given from behind or above them.
d) For medical staff: x The responsibility of running a process to provide medically necessary hearing aids within two months, and what that actually entails, in terms of adjusting ordinary processes and timing. x The obligation to notify off-site medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care, and how this obligation is being assigned.
IX. REPORTING
It was not until June or July 2016 that I began to get full reporting (pursuant to Agreement XV.B.1.d) from these six institutions; prior to that time, I was told only about deaf inmates, not hard-of-hearing inmates. At this point, however, it seems that this basic reporting problem is solved for all six facilities. However, the quarterly reports continue to demonstrate that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates who transfer facilities are not always coming to the attention of the ADA Coordinator, leading to a small but real continuing reporting problem, which is the topic of Recommendation 78:
11/2016 Court Report, App-119

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 121 of 326 - Page ID#: 1702
Recommendation 78: The ADA Coordinator should obtain monthly reports based on both KOMS and medical records of each inmate in the facility who is deaf or hard-of-hearing, and should check those reports too add to the Coordinator’s tracking list.
I have two additional reporting-related concerns. First, the Settlement Agreement provides that I should receive, every quarter “a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement.” (XIV.3) I do not seem to be getting all the appropriate grievances, perhaps because they are not always explicitly framed as relating to an accommodation. For example, if a deaf inmate files a medical grievance that she is not getting her medications because she can’t hear pill call announcements, I need to get that grievance. It seems that the safest method for ensuring compliance with the Settlement Agreement in this respect is just to send me a written summary of every grievance filed by any deaf or hard-ofhearing inmate, and let me sort it out.
Recommendation 79: Each facility’s quarterly written summary of grievances by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates should include all such grievances, not only the ones that are deemed related to effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, or other issues raised in the Settlement Agreement.
The Agreement specifies five situations in which the Department is supposed to notify me promptly. They are:
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a program or activity because the Department has determined that participation would present a “Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates.” (II.A)
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a work assignment because that assignment would “present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others” (VI.F)
x When the Department is considering a non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates, in real time, of prison-wide events and emergencies, and events specific to that inmate (VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C)
x When the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adjust the number of minutes afforded Deaf Inmates to make TTY and videophone calls. (IX.C)
x When the Department has made a determination to allow or disallow a Deaf Inmate to use devices such as vibrating clocks or in-line amplifiers, if those devices are not deemed medically necessary. (XII)
I am not yet confident that I am receiving all such notifications in real time, but there has certainly been progress.
Prior Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reportingtriggering events takes place.
11/2016 Court Report, App-120

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 122 of 326 - Page ID#: 1703

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)

Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor

June and July 2016 Site Visit Report

EXHIBITS TABLE OF CONTENTS NOVEMBER 7, 2016

Exhibit A

Staff Interviewed

Exhibit B B-1* B-2*

Hearing Screening Questionnaire Hearing Screening Questionnaire as given Recommended Hearing Screening

Exhibit C

KSR Report (April 21, 2016)

Exhibit D D-1*
D-2 D-3* D-4* D-5*

Recommended Forms and Memos Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates (memo to staff) Informational Brochure for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates Request for Qualified Interpreter Services Request for Communications Assistance Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

Exhibit E E-1* E-2*

Healthcare Request Current Correct Care Solutions Healthcare Request Recommended addition to Healthcare Request

Exhibit F

Recommended Medical Tracking Form

Exhibit G

Settlement Agreement and summary for inmate law library

* These same documents were exhibits (with the same exhibit numbers) to my KSR Report. I have edited to eliminate the KSR-specific language.

Note: I am providing all recommended forms (Exhibits B-2, and D-1 to D-5, and F) separately in word processing and/or excel formats, to facilitate their use at the different facilities.

11/2016 Court Report, App-121

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 123 of 326 - Page ID#: 1704
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor June and July 2016 Site Visit Report
EXHIBIT A – STAFF INTERVIEWED
Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC) Ronald Carey, Health Services Administrator Sgt. Shivez Creecy (Intake) Stacy Dortch, ADA Coordinator Janetta Fulkerson, Director of Nursing Lt. Angela Hampton DeEdra Hart, Warden David Higgs, Deputy Warden, Operations William Kizziar, Chaplain Tina Moore, CTO, Reception Brian Noffsinger, CTO, Restricted Housing Unit Sherry Piper, Correctional education administrator Michael Robinson, Unit Administrator Robert Romans, Unit Administrator Darrell Wheeler, Unit Administrator
Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) Rachel Buchner, Psychology Associate Chris Buzick, Recreation Supervisor Amanda Chapman, Corrections Officer Janet Conover, Warden Tressi Cravens, Medical Scheduler Dawn Deckard, Unit Administrator Debra Gernert, LPN Kevin Hayes, Unit Manager (Administrator) Vanessa Kennedy, Deputy Warden and ADA Coordinator Brian King, Program Administrator Tina Lyons, Nurse Practitioner Capt. Lydia Ogletree Catherine Partlow, Classification and Treatment Officer Terry Seitz, PhD, Psychologist Kenny Talbott, Chaplain Jennifer Westphal, Education director Dr. Charity Whitehill, Teacher
11/2016 Court Report, App-122

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 124 of 326 - Page ID#: 1705
Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) Ms. Valetta Bledsoe, Teacher Darime Ellis, Unit Administrator Matt Herring, Educational Director Tim Lane, Deputy Warden Ben Mitchell, Classification and Treatment Officer Joy Myers, Social Clinician John Neece, Chaplain Gene Reaney, Licensed Psychology Associate John Shawn, Legal Officer Jill Shelton, Health Services Administrator, RN Daniel Smith, ADA Coordinator Karen Vickery, Nurse Practitioner Randy White, Warden
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) Jennifer Bogard, Corrections Program Administrator, licensed Psychology Associate Shera Brown, LPN Cathy Buck, Grievance Coordinator Kevin Drake, Intake Lynn Hillebrandt, Medical Scheduler Susan Goss, Director of Nursing Jeff Ingram, Nurse Practitioner Rev. Casey Heilman, Chaplain Phil Johnson, PhD Psychologist Scott Jordan, Warden Helen Long, Classification and Treatment Officer, Caseworker Michelle Maguire, Unit Administrator Amanda Mason, Sgt. Charles Spofford, ADA Coordinator Jesse Stack, Deputy Warden Lindsay Stemle, Unit Administrator Webb Strang, Deputy Warden Muhammad Thomas, Recreation Supervisor Hezzie Turner, Fire Safety Jennifer Westphal, Education Director
Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) Dr. Elton Amos, Medical Director Bridgette Banta, Health Services Administrator Rebecca Barker, Unit Director and Back-up ADA Coordinator Aimee Harper, Medical Administrative Assistant Sgt. Josh Mattingly Donna McClamrock, Education Director Ann Raisor, LPN Marsha Recupero, Classification and Treatment Officer
11/2016 Court Report, App-123

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 125 of 326 - Page ID#: 1706
Amy Robey, Deputy Warden and ADA Coordinator Ravonne Sims, Warden Angela Steele, PhD Psychologist Western Kentucky Correctional Complex/Ross Cash (WKCC / RC) Kimberly Balentine, Correctional Officer Bobbi Jo Butts, Unit Administrator (RC) Dennis Cartwright, CTO Debbie Grimes, ADA Coordinator (WKCC) Chris Hatton, Deputy Warden Monique Jones, Health Services Administrator Ellen Hedges, Nurse Practitioner Shelia Joyce, Correctional Officer (RC) Vanessa Ladd, Correctional officer Cindy Neal, LPN Renata Putzek, LPN Paul Sesock, Chaplain John Tangerose, Unit Administrator Karen Vickery, Nurse Practitioner Frida Wallace, ADA Coordinator (RC) Steve Woodward, Warden
11/2016 Court Report, App-124

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 126 of 326 - Page

ID#: 1707

&YIJCJU#

11/2016 Court Report, App-125

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 127 of 326 - Page ID#: 1708

EXHIBIT B-2 RECOMMENDED HEARING SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE AND INSTRUCTIONS

Preliminary questions: a. Do you currently have and use a hearing aid?

No Yes

Ƒ

Ƒ

If you answered “yes,” is the hearing aid working ok?

____________________________________________________________________ (Describe)

b. Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss?

Ƒ

Ƒ

c. Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use?

Ƒ

Ƒ

If the answer to question (c) is “yes,” why don’t you use the hearing aid any longer?

____________________________________________________________________ (Describe)

Below are ten situations typically difficult for people with hearing loss.

Please check the boxes that apply to you.

x Answer “No,” “Sometimes,” or “Yes” for each question.

x Do not skip a question.

x If you currently have a hearing aid, please answer according to the way your hear with

the aid.

No Sometimes Yes

1. I feel frustrated when talking to others.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

2. I hear but I don't always understand what others are

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

saying.

3. I hear but have trouble hearing when people speak softly. Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

4. I have trouble hearing others speak when they are not

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

facing me.

5. People tell me to turn down the TV/radio.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

6. I find it hard to hear when I am in a group setting.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

7. I have trouble hearing on the telephone.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

8. I need to ask people to repeat themselves when talking.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

9. I have trouble hearing with noise in the background.

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

10. I have trouble hearing others when I am at a restaurant /

Ƒ

Ƒ

Ƒ

chow hall.

If you answered “Sometimes” or “Yes” to three or more of these questions, a hearing loss is likely present and a hearing evaluation is recommended.

Note for medical staff: Was this questionnaire administered ƑLQZULWWHQIRUPRUƑRUDOO\"

11/2016 Court Report, App-126

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 128 of 326 - Page ID#: 1709
Instructions for person administering this questionnaire: The purpose of this questionnaire is both to identify inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing and to screen inmates to see which should receive further hearing evaluation. Literacy:
x You must ensure that the patient is sufficiently literate to answer these questions in written format, or else ask them out loud. Check the appropriate box at the bottom of the form.
Ability to hear the questions: x If the patient seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider followup is indicated and should be promptly scheduled.
Preliminary questions: x A “yes” answer to any of the three preliminary questions (a, b, and c) should be followed up by a promptly-scheduled provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he or she no longer uses a hearing aid because hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary. x If in the follow-up to question (a), the patient reports that the hearing aid is not working well, that should be followed up by a promptly scheduled provider visit.
Evaluation questions: x If the patient answers “sometimes” or “yes” to three or more of these questions, hearing loss is likely present and a hearing evaluation is recommended. The next step is a visit with the provider, which should be promptly scheduled.
11/2016 Court Report, App-127

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 P&a9g)e*:#1*259$of 326 - Page ID#: 1710
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
Kentucky State Reformatory Visit date: February 24-25, 2016 Draft circulated to parties for comment: March 29, 2016
Final (April 21, 2016)
INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement in this case became effective June 28, 2015, and allows me to visit each of the 13 Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) facilities each calendar year. After consultation with both defendants and plaintiffs’ counsel, I decided that the most effective approach to monitoring would be to ask KDOC which facilities were in compliance with the Agreement, and start with those. I urged KDOC to begin with the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), because a large majority of the Deaf inmates who have been identified to me are housed at KSR. KDOC agreed, and I visited the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), in LaGrange, Kentucky, on February 24-25, 2016. KSR is functioning as a leader in KDOC’s compliance efforts. As my first site-visit report, this document is more discursive and explanatory than may be useful in future reports. It is intended to be helpful not just to KSR but to all of KDOC’s facilities, as they continue to move towards compliance with the Agreement in this case.
The visit was ably facilitated by KSR’s ADA Coordinator Anthony Hillebrandt and Deputy ADA Coordinator Paul Sloan, who, like the other KSR staff I spoke to, conducted themselves with exemplary professionalism throughout the tour. Prior to the visit, my assistant Abbye Klamann, a third-year law student, conducted seven phone interviews of KSR inmates, and I reviewed her notes and numerous other documents. During the visit, I was able to see every thing and every place I requested and to review all requested records. I spoke freely and confidentially with inmates and custody and non-custody staff. Warden Aaron Smith welcomed the visit and my feedback, which I shared at an exit interview with him and other senior staff. Everyone at the prison was helpful, and I found the visit extremely productive. Exhibit A lists the names and titles of each staff member I spoke with. Between the pre-tour phone interviews and more interviews conducted during my visit, I spoke with twenty inmates; to maximize their confidentiality I do not list them or use their names in this report, referring to them as Inmate A, Inmate B, etc. I am providing KSR staff and plaintiffs’ counsel a key that identifies those whose situations are specifically referenced in the report. (Note: when an inmate shared information with me confidentially, I do not identify that inmate at all.)
My recommendations are numbered and in bold; I have also pulled them out for ease of reference into their own document, which precedes this report. References to the Settlement Agreement appear in parentheses; such references use the fully numbered version of the
11/2016 Court Report, App-128

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 130 of 326 - Page ID#: 1711
Agreement, which was Exhibit B to my first semi-annual report, in February 2016. (I have not reattached this version of the Agreement, but can provide it on request.)
On March 29, 2016, I provided this report in draft to KSR, KDOC, and plaintiffs’ counsel, giving each two weeks for comments or corrections. KSR’s ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me via email that KSR had no comments. I did not hear anything back from KDOC headquarters. Plaintiffs’ counsel provided a written response, which is attached as Exhibit F. In addition, I received a written response from plaintiff Michael Knights to my first semi-annual report, which prompted me to propose a change to Exhibit D-2, to better facilitate inmate contact with the ADA Coordinator. I am not submitting this report to the Court separately, but I will include this report and others in the future in my semi-annual reports.
KSR has made very significant progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Much remains to be done, but important groundwork has been laid. I look forward to working with KSR and KDOC personnel on the next steps.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
The Settlement Agreement covers both deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. Although the phrase “Deaf Inmates” is used throughout the agreement, that phrase is defined broadly, to mean
“Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4).” (I.3)
Pursuant to the Agreement (XV.B.1.d) KSR has therefore shared with me their list of all inmates whose medical record includes any relevant diagnostic labels (“deaf,” “hearing impaired,” etc.). On the most recent list, provided to me on February 9, 2016, these totaled 53 inmates; three were noted as entirely deaf, the rest as hearing impaired. I note in this regard that out of all the Kentucky DOC facilities, so far only KSR and Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) have provided me with the names of any hard-of-hearing inmates; the other facilities have told me only about inmates who are entirely deaf. In fact, the total number of inmates whose names I have received from non-KSR prisons is 8, with just one noted as hard-of-hearing, even though I learned during this KSR visit that there are about 100 non-KSR inmates whose medical records include some indication that they have a hearing impairment.
Recommendation 1: I commend KSR for its identification practices; the other facilities are not in compliance with the reporting requirements of the Agreement, and should emulate KSR’s procedure and identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates.
KSR medical staff are implementing a process to improve diagnosis and inclusion on the list, administering a 10-question questionnaire to inmates during their initial medical assessment. The questionnaire is included as Exhibit B-1; it is apparently used throughout KDOC facilities. If
11/2016 Court Report, App-129

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 131 of 326 - Page ID#: 1712
an inmate answers three or more of the question with “sometimes” or “yes,” he is supposed to see a medical provider (a physician or nurse practitioner) who in turn can assess whether he should be referred to an audiologist.
The questionnaire itself appears to be adapted from a screening instrument posted online by the Rochester Hearing and Speech Center.1 But because KDOC is relying on the questionnaire to identify not just who needs to see an audiologist, but who should be flagged for assessment of hearing services, I recommend several changes.
x The questionnaire is designed to be part of a screening process to decide who should see an audiologist for fuller hearing testing. Presumably that’s why it begins, “If you use a hearing aid, please answer according to the way you hear with the aid.” Because KSR is using it to decide, in addition, who might need non-hearing-aid services, the questionnaire should include several other preliminary identification (rather than diagnostic) questions. My specific suggestions are described below.
x In addition, the questionnaire does not cover current problems with a hearing aid (such as pain or buzzing or other problems). Again, I recommend additional questions below.
I have provided a recommended revised version of the questionnaire, and written instructions for its administration, as Exhibit B-2.
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
x Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? x Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? x Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t
you use it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
x If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
1 See Rochester Hearing & Speech Center, Hearing Screening Questionnaire, available at http://www.rhsc.org/hearing/files/2014/01/HearingScreeningQuestionnaire1.pdf. Seven questions are identical; for three others, there are substitutions, two from the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) SelfTest for Hearing Loss, and one that may be from the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly-Screening Version (HHIE-S). See also American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Self-Test for Hearing Loss, available at http://www.asha.org/public/hearing/Self-Test-for-Hearing-Loss/; The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly—Screening Version, available at http://familymed.uthscsa.edu/geriatrics/tools/Hearing_Assessment.pdf.
11/2016 Court Report, App-130

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 132 of 326 - Page ID#: 1713
x Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
Finally, because use of a written questionnaire is problematic for inmates who are illiterate—and literacy rates are particularly high among people with hearing impairments—it is important for the questionnaire to be administered orally for any inmate whose literacy seems to be low. See Part IV.B, below, for a further discussion of literacy assessment. (Of course if an inmate’s hearing impairment seems to be making this ineffective, that alone should trigger further evaluation.)
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider.
For each inmate whose questionnaire indicates that he is or might have a hearing impairment, the next step is a medical assessment. I spoke with KSR physician Dr. Frederick Kemen about his screening protocols. Dr. Kemen explained that currently, at KSR, this is accomplished by use of a “whisper test.” The administrator of the test stands at arms’ length behind the patient (so he cannot read lips), and after instructing the patient to place one finger on the tragus of one ear to obscure sound, whispers three or four words towards the patient’s other ear, and asks the patient to repeat the word back. The test is then repeated for the other ear. If an inmate fails the test for either ear, he is referred to an audiologist.
Dr. Kemen stated that he plans to consult his corporate office to find out if there are other, better screening techniques that KSR medical staff might follow. In addition, he stated that he would like to have access to an audiometer, in order to use it in addition to the whisper test. He emphasized, however, that the whisper test has some advantages over audiometry because the whisper test is more function-based—it tests ability to understand words, not just hear tones.
The purpose of the follow-up provider visit is both to determine whether an inmate needs additional assessment or medical services and to determine whether he should be flagged as deaf or hard-of-hearing, offered auxiliary aids, and included on the inmate list provided to me semiannually. For example, an inmate with a functional hearing aid might not need additional medical services, but should be included on the list and provided any other necessary auxiliary aids.
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronically-tracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing.
KSR staff explained to me that a new Electronic Medical Record system will soon be implemented, which provides a perfect opportunity for necessary improvements.
11/2016 Court Report, App-131

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 133 of 326 - Page ID#: 1714
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them.
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Currently, KSR sends inmates who fail the whisper test to an off-site audiologist (or, if indicated, an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor). This is expensive, and interviews with both inmates and staff suggest that there are frequently long waits for the assessment visit and for the eventual audiologist visits. In fact, in recent years, only in the past few months has KSR started sending inmates to an audiologist. Several KSR inmates reported to me that they had been seeking such a visit for over a year—whether for initial audiology assessment or because their hearing aid is either no longer working well for them or seems to be malfunctioning. When an inmate who needs hearing aids doesn’t receive them, KSR’s communication with that inmate is almost certain to be ineffective. Prompt assessment and provision of treatment is therefore very important. Both an inmate and Dr. Kemen told me that several years ago, there was an audiologist who came— perhaps just occasionally—to KSR and did assessments there. This approach seems like it might be a useful one to revive.
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. KSR should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for the current backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to KSR for two or three days.
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Once an inmate is identified as fitting the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf,” KSR is obligated (in the absence of a voluntary waiver) to provide effective communication by using auxiliary aids and services. The Agreement instructs that “[a]fter medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.” (III.C.1) Deaf inmates might need any of several different types of such aids/services. In this section, I discuss them in turn.
To figure out what services may be needed, it’s necessary to think through each type of communication that takes place at KSR. Different situations call for different services or devices. Much of this is covered in detail by the Agreement, but sometimes the Agreement just states the general obligation of effective communication and equal access to services, programs, and activities.
11/2016 Court Report, App-132

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 134 of 326 - Page ID#: 1715
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
In Parts I-II, above, I discussed KSR’s approach to provision of audiology evaluation and hearing aids. KSR’s current (and appropriate) practice is that hearing aids must be prescribed by an audiologist, and the recommendations already offered are aimed at improving the effectiveness and timeliness of the necessary evaluations. My on-site interviews with KSR inmates also suggest that inmates with hearing loss who have not so far been prescribed hearing aids are not well informed about the process for requesting an evaluation, or about the fact that batteries are medical costs not billed to inmates. In fact, one inmate told me that even though he had used a hearing aid before he came to prison, he did not want one in prison because batteries were so hard to obtain and so expensive. And one health care provider told me that he/she believed one inmate, Inmate A, got himself sent to segregation because that was the only place he could get free hearing aid batteries. (I did not talk to Inmate A myself or otherwise confirm whether the provider’s belief was plausible.) In fact, I have been told both by KSR staff and by inmates who actually have hearing aids that they do not face battery access issues. The Agreement provides that batteries are available free of charge, without co-pay, “for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.” (V.B) Commendably, KSR has decided that since hearing aid batteries are medically necessary, no charge is appropriate even for inmates who do not meet this criterion. I do not think I spoke to any inmate who was being charged for hearing aid batteries.
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2.
While Deaf inmates are waiting for audiologist evaluation, or when their degree of hearing impairment is small, other medical staff at KSR sometimes provide those inmates with personal amplifiers, which both inmates and staff often refer to as “pocket talkers.” It seems that only some of the Deaf inmates who might benefit from amplifiers know that they are available. In fact, amplifiers are apparently readily available when requested by medical staff; in my interview of clinic assistant Barbara Handley, she explained that a stock is kept on hand, and that when more are needed, it takes a week or less to obtain them.
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait.
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. The availability of Qualified Interpreter services
For Deaf inmates who use sign language to communicate, interpreter services are essential. Most such inmates use American Sign Language (ASL), or a combination of ASL and gestures. ASL is not a version of English—it is a different language, with its own syntax. Native ASL-speakers are often not entirely fluent in English, including written English. Accordingly, trying to get by with writing is not just slower, it’s often quite ineffective.
The Agreement defines “Qualified Interpreter” to mean:
11/2016 Court Report, App-133

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 135 of 326 - Page ID#: 1716
“[A] person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104. A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.” (I.18)
I will refer in this report to qualified interpreters, QI, or sometimes “interpreter” or “interpretive services”; in each case, I am referring to qualified interpretation.
The same section also explains that “A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.” (I.18) Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a method by which a hearing person and a Deaf person in the same space can communicate with each other via a remote interpreter, often through software installed on a laptop. KSR has made important strides with respect to offering both in-person interpretation and VRI. The prison has entered an arrangement with a provider that can send an interpreter to the prison when needed, usually on 48 hours notice or more. In addition, KSR now has a VRI contract and owns two dedicated VRI laptops. So far, however, interpretation has been used at KSR only for certain types of communications—in particular, reclassification and disciplinary hearings (VRI), and Narcotics Anonymous (in person). When I did my visit, education and medical staff had not used the VRI laptops—and most staff members were, on my questioning, unaware of their availability.
The Settlement Agreement includes many provisions relating to both types of interpretation. In its most general relevant provision, the Agreement requires “[a]ppropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters,” in order to offer Deaf inmates the equal opportunity for participation in all aspects of prison life, including “orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.” (V.A.2) The Agreement then adds a number of specifics, both as to the situations in which effective communication may be needed and the particular need for interpretation to succeed in meeting the requirement of effective communication:
x Auxiliary aid/service assessment (III.F.2: “At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.”)
x All medical, dental, and mental health evaluations and healthcare appointments (VI.C.1: “[F]or many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication.”)
x Unscheduled medical and mental health emergencies (VI.C.4: “[T]he KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in
11/2016 Court Report, App-134

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 136 of 326 - Page ID#: 1717
conjunction with medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible.”) x Classification and transfer hearings (VI.H: “The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate’s transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate’s status.”) x Meetings when a Deaf inmate has questions about written materials provided by the prison (III.E: “At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.”) x Disciplinary hearings, including when the inmate is a witness or facing charges. (VII.A.1: “The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction.”) This includes not just the hearing itself but also:
o staff investigations or investigative interviews involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel
o any other discipline-related encounter that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, including the shift supervisor’s or investigator’s review,
o rights or other advisements (Miranda warnings; right to consult with an assigned legal aide; advisement of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing;
o meetings with legal aides or advisors (VI.A.2: “To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.”)
x Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous (VI.E.3: “The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs.”)
x If the prison directly provides religious services (V.A.3: “To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.”; VI.G.3: essentially the same).
x Conversations between inmates and the individual supervising their post-release supervision. (VI.I: “Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under postrelease supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.”)
x Any other significant communications (VI.J: “The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement.”)
In addition: Paragraph VI.A.1 of the Agreement specifies:
11/2016 Court Report, App-135

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 137 of 326 - Page ID#: 1718

“The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
x communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care
x disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
x transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate’s status; x transitional programming; x rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and x educational programming.”
And VI.A.2 requires, additionally, an in-person Qualified Interpreter “as circumstances warrant.”

The Agreement is thus ambiguous as to which method of qualified interpretive services is needed when. Table 1 summarizes all of the provisions just described:

Table 1: Settlement Agreement Provisions Relating to Interpretative Services

Situation

Auxiliary Aids, which

may include QI

Initial intake/assessment/classification III.A.1

Auxiliary aid/service assessment and III.B.3

other accommodation assistance

Orientation

V.A.2

Meetings about materials

Medical evaluations

V.A.2

Scheduled on-site medical, mental V.A.2, VI.C.1

health and dental care/ appointments

Emergency health care, on-site

V.A.2

Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings Grievance hearings Disciplinary hearings and all related processes Parole hearings Rehabilitative and educational programming Work Transitional programs Conversations with post-release supervisor Religious programming provided by KDOC Other significant communications

V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 V.A.2 VI.I: On request
VI.J

QI, via VRI or In-person qualified

in-person

interpreter

III.F.2: on request

VI.A.1

III.E: on request

VI.A.1

VI.C.4 VI.H

VI.C.4: when VRI services are inappropriate VI.A.1 VI.A.1

VII.A.1

VI.A.1

VI.E.3: NA and VI.A.1 AA
VI.A.1

V.A.3: On request

VI.A.2: as circumstances warrant

11/2016 Court Report, App-136

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 138 of 326 - Page ID#: 1719
Bringing all this together into an operational rule is challenging. I do not think, for example, that in-person interpretation needs to be available for every single medical encounter— but it would be possible to read VI.A.1 to so require. In addition, the Agreement states, as one way of resolving the issue: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).” (I.5; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.)
I move to the choice between VRI and in-person interpretation in Part III.B.1, below. As far as when some kind of qualified interpretation is needed, I recommend the following:
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings. (Below, at IV.D, I address modifications to various forms to help operationalize this recommendation.)
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.
Recommendation 11: The items identified in Recommendation 10 are based on the Agreement’s language. Functionally, I also recommend that interpretation services be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so.
2. The choice between Video Relay Interpretation (VRI) and in-person interpretation
As explained above and demonstrated by Table 1, the Settlement Agreement is mostly ambiguous in terms of when interpretation services should be offered via VRI or an in-person interpreter. VRI is less costly than in-person interpretation, and therefore frequently more attractive to organizations responsible for ensuring effective communication. Deaf people who use sign language to communicate, however, tend to prefer in-person interpretation, for a number of reasons: VRI equipment is inconsistent in practice; technical difficulties are common. In addition, the environmental cues available in-person mean that a good in-person interpreter is better able than a good remote interpreter to check that the Deaf person is understanding what’s being said. And similarly, a good in-person interpreter may be better able to understand idiosyncratic signing. Finally, VRI technology requires that each person involved in the communication be close to the computer camera and microphone, so it doesn’t work well when more than two people are involved in the communication, or one or both of them cannot remain still and near the laptop.
11/2016 Court Report, App-137

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 139 of 326 - Page ID#: 1720
In total, VRI may, generally, be suitable when only two people (the Deaf inmate and the hearing person) are communicating; the pace of communication can be slow; and there is no need to move around. VRI is less suitable when there are many people communicating (for example in a class or a parole hearing), or there is a need to move around (for example, during some physical medical exams). In those situations, an in-person interpreter is most appropriate, and likely necessary for effective communication.
At KSR, at the time of my visit, an in-person interpreter had been provided only in one situation, in response to a grievance filed January 2016. The record of that grievance (described in more detail below), includes ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt’s explanation that he hadn’t approved an in-person interpreter because he “thought the VRI was going to work for the meeting and cost is less for laptop.” In response, Inmate B wrote, “It only work for one on one to be effective but not group.”
In fact, Inmate B has brought two grievances on this question. The first, 15-0828, was initiated August 26, 2015, soon after the effective date of the agreement. In it, Inmate B argued that VRI was not sufficient for his NA meeting. The staff response at the informal resolution stage was “Kentucky State Reformatory has Video Remote Interpreting “VRI” available for reclassification, N.A., court call, or any other program meeting.”
The processing of this grievance shows one way that things can go wrong in efforts to provide interpretation. There was a delay in the grievance committee meeting with the inmate, because, the form notes, “Chair forgot to acquire VRI laptop.” Once the meeting was held, the answer provided was a flat ‘no’: “the committee agrees with the informal resolution and find[s] that the memo addresses any need for a physical interpreter.” There are two memos which are attached as Exhibits C-1 and C-2. The memo to staff (Exhibit C-1) says:
“In the event that KSR needs an outside-qualified interpreter [that is, an in-person interpreter], you are to contact my office 48 hours prior to the scheduled event. Outsidequalified interpreter will be scheduled to come in to provide communication between you and deaf/hearing-impaired inmate.”
And the corresponding memo to inmates (Exhibit C-2) states:
“To schedule an in person-qualified interpreter, you are to contact my office in writing 48 hours prior to the scheduled event place your letter in the institutional mail box. In person-qualified interpreter will be scheduled to come in to provide effective communication.”
(The grievance documentation does not mention the “Request for a Qualified Interpreter” form— which may not yet have been created; it is attached as Exhibit C-3. This form, provided to inmates seeking interpretation services, states, “In the event that VRI laptop is out of service, Anthony Hillebrandt, ADA Coordinator will schedule in-person qualified interpreter.”)
After this point in the grievance proceedings, it seems that the issue—Inmate B’s request for an in-person interpreter rather than a VRI—may have become confused, perhaps because there are some references in the grievance documents to the issue of how much advance notice was required for access to interpreter services. In any event, subsequent documentation does not clearly address the in-person vs. VRI issue.
11/2016 Court Report, App-138

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 140 of 326 - Page ID#: 1721
As discussed in Part IV.D, below, these memos and forms are not adequate: they must be modified to clearly present in-person interpretation as a possibility and to allow inmates to request it and explain the circumstances that may justify the request. See Agreement I.5: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2))”; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.
On Feb. 2, 2016, as already described, Inmate B filed another grievance, explaining that the VRI laptop had failed to working for his NA meeting. This time ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt agreed, and said KSR would provide an in-person interpreter for that meeting going forward.
Learning from experience, inmates who need interpretation services should be provided an in-person interpreter for classes or programs that involve more than one person talking, and for parole hearings. For these situations, it is inappropriate to delay the provision of effective communication by trying (nearly-certain-to-be-inadequate) remote interpretation first. In addition, going forward, if VRI has been attempted in a particular situation, Deaf inmates should be able to request in-person interpretation instead, if the VRI didn’t turn out to be effective. For example, in-person interpretation can cope more easily than VRI with unorthodox signing. There is one KSR inmate, Inmate D, whose signing is not conventional ASL, but an amalgamation of ASL, gestures, finger spelling, and “home signing.”2 As of the date of my visit, KSR had not yet tried to facilitate communication with this inmate using the VRI laptop. It may be that remote interpretation is ineffective because of his unconventional signing; in that case, an in-person interpreter will be needed whenever interpretive services are necessary for effective communication. (Note: Inmate D has a low level of literacy, so for him, written communication is almost certainly not effective.)
These considerations are almost certainly not the only ones worth including. It would be worthwhile in the Agreement’s next year or two to assess the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, to decide whether there are any such situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse.
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. In-person interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. KSR should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in
2 See N. Frishberg, Home Sign, in 3 GALLAUDET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF DEAF PEOPLE AND DEAFNESS 128 (1987).
11/2016 Court Report, App-139

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 141 of 326 - Page ID#: 1722
particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically.
Recommendation 14: KSR should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D, discussed more fully below.
3. Hand Restraints
To be effective, communication must be two-way. It’s for that reason that the Agreement provides:
“According to the KDOC’s hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
x when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution; x when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit; and x as needed in response to security threats.” (XI.A.1)
“KDOC training will include . . . the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate.” (XI.A.2)
Under these provisions, it is vital that , for inmates who use sign language to communicate, decisions about using hand restraints be made individually, not merely on the basis of a policy that an inmate in a particular status must remain restrained. And it is equally important that other security devices that allow effective communication be used.
Inmate C is one of three KSR inmates who signs to communicate. At the time of my visit, he was designated “max assault status,” due to a recent finding that he had assaulted an officer. Under KSR’s rules, that status requires that inmates be handcuffed whenever they are out of their cell. But in order to interview him, I needed him to be able to sign. Warden Smith and his staff were able to implement an appropriate security response, using an alternative restraint technique (which they described as “side saddles”) that used a belt and chain to shackle him to the wall, but left his hands free. The interview proceeded without incident.
11/2016 Court Report, App-140

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 142 of 326 - Page ID#: 1723
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed.
4. Past problems with provision of in-person Qualified Interpreters
I examined the disciplinary records since June 2015 of each current and recent KSR inmate who uses sign language to communicate. In every one of disciplinary incidents, there was a communication-related problem.
In each incident, no qualified interpreter was provided for at least some stages of the process:
x Inmate C, Report dated 8/5/2015: “Lieutenant [] had Inmate [C] read the disciplinary due to having hearing impairment.”
x Inmate B, Report dated 10/9/2015: “Attached is written correspondence due to not being able to reach an interpreter thru the ‘purple’ machine.”
x Inmate C, Report dated 10/20/2015: “Inmate [C] was asked several questions written on paper . . . . Inmate [C] was asked what it was about?” he replied “Something Act With Other Inmate.”
x Inmate D, Report dated 12/10/2015: “Inmate [D] stated the following with the help of an Inmate interpreter . . .” No record of any offer of a qualified interpreter.
x Inmate E, Report dated 12/14/2015: “Inmate [E] is hearing impaired therefore, all questions pertaining to this hearing was handwritten by myself . . . and handwritten answered by Inmate [E].”
x Inmate C, Report dated 1/18/2016: “The above Disciplinary Report was discussed with inmate [C] using a note pad, due to inmate [C] being deaf.” There is no report from the eventual disciplinary hearing.
There is no way to tell whether use of a qualified interpreter would have enabled these inmates to communicate their side of events with greater detail or would have resulted in a different outcome. In all but the second of the incidents, the consequences seems to have been relatively small, and may now be past: 15 days or less in segregation. I do not know whether any of these incidents had additional, more attenuated impacts on the affected inmates (for example, triggering or influencing a reclassification).
The second of these incidents, however, in which Inmate C was found to have assaulted a staff member, was quite serious, resulting in 180 days of disciplinary segregation and the loss of two years good time credit. The communications problems continued throughout the disciplinary process: at the formal disciplinary hearing VRI was provided, but Inmate C remained handcuffed. Questions were put to him in yes/no format; the interpreter signed to relay those questions, and he could shake or nod his head in response. (The same approach was taken during Inmate C’s most recent reclassification.) This account is based on my interviews; the disciplinary documentation notes that VRI was provided. It is notable, however, that the
11/2016 Court Report, App-141

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 143 of 326 - Page ID#: 1724
documentation never states Inmate C’s position about any of the events in question. The cryptic sentence quoted above from Inmate C’s written response (“Inmate [C] was asked what it was about?” he replied “Something Act With Other Inmate”) is the only evidence of his account.
This is not effective communication, and it undermined the fairness of Inmate C’s disciplinary hearing. The disciplinary hearing should be reheard. See Agreement VII.B.3: “If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.”
For the other incidents mentioned, the need to redo the hearings is less acute, given that the consequences seem to be already past. Still, under the Agreement, each of these inmates is entitled to a rehearing.
Recommendation 16: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services.
Inmate D’s 2016 parole hearing was an additional incident in which a failure of effective communication tainted an even more consequential encounter. Inmate D communicates via sign language (albeit an unconventional kind of sign language). This has long been known to some staff at KSR. At Inmate D’s parole hearing in 2011, he had a sign language interpreter. And in December 2015, in the disciplinary hearing described above, an inmate interpreter helped out. Finally, Licensed Psychological Associate Chris Wiggins, who provides mental health services in the segregation unit and who knows some sign language, notes that he was able to communicate with Inmate D using sign language. However, presumably because accommodations and auxiliary aids have not been formally tracked, and because the system for evaluating each inmate’s need for such services has not been robust, more recently, the ADA Coordinator did not realize that Inmate D uses sign language. Instead, communications with him have relied on writing; since he is not very literate, this is ineffective.
Inmate D had a parole hearing in February 2016; he was not given parole and his next hearing date was set for April 2021. He did not receive any communication assistance at the February 2016 hearing.
The Agreement provides:
“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.” (V.A.2; emphasis added)
11/2016 Court Report, App-142

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 144 of 326 - Page ID#: 1725
“When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate’s need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board’s duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate’s scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.” (VI.A.3)
These provisions were not followed for Inmate D’s February 2016 Parole hearing.
I raised the issue of Inmate D’s Parole hearing during the visit, and KSR in turn raised the matter to the Parole Board. On March 23, the Board declined to redo the hearing. In an email to KSR staff, Division of Parole and Victim Services staff member Melissa Chandler explained that it had been decided that any error was not very serious:
“We were made aware of [Inmate D’s] special needs prior to the hearing. DOC provided a staff person in the hearing with him and he seemed to be able to communicate with the Board Members. [Inmate D] had an LSCMI and Case plan with him, both of which would have required DOC staff to communication with him. The Board Members were under the impression that the form of communication that was present during the hearing was the best means to communicate with him for the hearing. He never asked for assistance during the hearing and the Board Members were able to proceed with the hearing and communicate with him for their purposes.”
But how was Inmate D supposed to ask for assistance? He writes poorly, if at all, and does not speak. There was no interpreter present to enable him to communicate even that he was unable to communicate.
In addition, Ms. Chandler’s email quoted the Board’s written decision:
“The inmate was given the written decision of the Board where it states: ‘The only reasons for reconsideration of this decision are: (a) If there is an allegation of misconduct by a board member that is substantiated by the record: (b) If there is significant procedural error by a board member; or (c) If there is significant new evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing. A request based on the availability of the new evidence or information shall be accompanied by adequate documentation. The inmate or his/her legal representative may submit a request for reconsideration within 21 days of the date the final disposition is made.’ Mr. Hatfield did not request a reconsideration.”
Inmate D is essentially illiterate, so unless this written decision was conveyed to him via an interpreter—which it was not—it was not functionally available to him. In my view, the failure to provide effective communication at the Parole hearing constitutes “significant procedural error.” And as Inmate D said to me (via interpreter): “I couldn’t understand anything. Where was the interpreter? I’m deaf.”
Recommendation 17: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-143

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 145 of 326 - Page ID#: 1726
5. Off-site medical providers
The Agreement distinguishes between on-site and off-site medical care. For off-site care, prison staff have the obligation to facilitate, but not provide, interpretive services. In particular, prison staff must inform off-site medical providers that “a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time,” or, in an emergency, that such a prisoner “is being transported to the off-site medical provider.”
I am not aware of any occasion since the Settlement Agreement’s effective date when an inmate who communicates via sign language has received off-site medical care. But considering that KSR medical staff have not themselves provided effective communication during care for Deaf inmates who use sign language to communicate, it seems unlikely that they are prepared and ready to inform off-site providers of the need to provide effective communication, and what is required.
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, KSR staff should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, KSR staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur.
6. Volunteer-provided programming
The Agreement also distinguishes between KDOC and volunteer-provided activities. For the latter, KSR is not obligated to provide a qualified interpreter, but is instead required to facilitate, by “allow[ing] the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements,” and “work[ing] with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteerprovided activities.” (V.A.3)
And similarly: “The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.” (VI.G.1)
The only volunteer-provided programming at KSR is religious programming, which is plentiful. Chaplains Art Turner and David Dillard told me that KSR religious programs are offered by 300 volunteers from several dozen organizations; they provide 130 services per month, in which about 25-30% of KSR’s inmates participate. None of them offers any interpretive services, although one of the chaplains did try several months ago to generally solicit them to do so, without success. (The chaplains thought if they knew a particular Deaf inmate who needed interpretation to understand services, they might be more successful in filling that more definite need.)
11/2016 Court Report, App-144

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 146 of 326 - Page ID#: 1727
The Agreement states that “[t]o the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.” (Agreement VI.G.3; V.A.3 is materially the same) The chaplains explained to me that they mostly coordinate volunteer programming, but that they do provide one service themselves: telling inmates when there is a death in the family and then facilitating the inmates’ communication with their family members. The chaplains were unaware of the existence of interpretive services at KSR, whether in-person or VRI. It certainly seems that sign language interpretation would be the only effective way to communicate this kind of message to a Deaf inmate who uses sign language. This seems to me covered by VI.G.3, and other aspects of the Agreement. It would not make sense to require a request by the affected inmate, given that this is a one-time notice.
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming. See Part IV.D, below.
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
7. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Procedures and Setup
Even when VRI is theoretically appropriate, it poses technical requirements that can be challenging—and especially so in a prison environment. In particular, VRI requires Internet access with sufficient band width, as well as a power outlet or a well-charged battery. During my visit, we made three different attempts to access VRI, only one of which was successful. We tried to use VRI in the KSR education area. To make this attempt, staff had to unplug one of their own computers and use that internet cable for the VRI laptop. Even then, the internet was apparently out for that moment, or some other technical difficulty interfered. The second attempt failed, as well, when we could not figure out how to get the program to behave properly. And of course, VRI can succeed only if the machine is timely obtained and has access to battery or outlet power.
KSR staff have not yet mastered the process of obtaining and using the VRI laptops. The laptop in the education area had not yet been used. The members of the medical staff who even knew about the VRI described it as available only to custody staff; they didn’t know it was available to them, much less the process required or how to use it effectively. And numerous records demonstrated that staff sometimes fail to request and obtain the VRI laptop in a timely manner, and are sometimes unable to operate it effectively. (What I understand to be frequent internet outages are also highly likely to disrupt VRI availability. Happily, Warden Smith informed me that an ongoing upgrade should soon improve internet availability at KSR.) The kinds of difficulties I am describing are very common in VRI usage, wherever it is attempted. Careful procedural planning and training are crucial for this approach to interpretation to succeed.
11/2016 Court Report, App-145

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 147 of 326 - Page ID#: 1728
In addition, even when VRI services have been used at KSR, the setup has not always been ideal. Correctional Unit Administrator John Grievious explained to me, for example, how the VRI was used during one “Court Call”—that is, disciplinary hearing, for Inmate C.
Figure 1: Use of the VRI (problematic)

Staff member 1 (Desk)

VRI laptop
Inmate Staff member 2

Staff member 1 spoke; and occasionally needed to have his words repeated by Staff member 2, who was nearer to the VRI laptop. The inmate was handcuffed, and therefore unable to sign, though he could see the interpretation of what the staff members said.
But for VRI to be effective, it is important that the person speaking be the one near (and in view of) the laptop. So if staff member 1 was going to be the most active speaker, he and staff member 2 should have switched locations. And if more than one staff member is going to play a major speaking role, in-person interpretation is called for.
Figure 2: Use of the VRI (recommended)
VRI laptop
Inmate Speaking staff member

Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the

11/2016 Court Report, App-146

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 148 of 326 - Page ID#: 1729
inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.)
Under KSR’s current VRI process, inmates must provide 48 hours notice for weekday usage; usage on the weekend is difficult even with that amount of notice. (At least, this is what I understand from ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt. The relevant memos do not list a timeframe for VRI scheduling.) This amount of notice is certainly useful, when possible—but it can be very impracticable, given that VRI is required to be available for situations that might happen faster— e.g., medical visits, medical emergencies, discussions of discipline, etc.
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. KSR should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies.
C. Videos
KSR uses video communication in several different situations: at orientation; for various rehabilitative programming sessions, both in the educational area and elsewhere; to provide inmates with information; and for entertainment. In each of these situations, some Deaf inmates will benefit from text captions—on-screen text descriptions that display a video product’s dialogue, identify speakers, and describe other relevant sounds otherwise inaccessible to people who are deaf or hard of hearing.3
In addition to its more general requirements governing effective communication, the Agreement includes five provisions relating to captions:
x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closedcaptioned education materials where available.” (VI.E.1)
x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closedcaptioned vocational/work materials where available.” (VI.E.2)
x “KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs. . . The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available.” (VI.E.3)
x “The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Inmate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate’s request.” (X.1)
x “The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closed-captioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Inmate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.” (X.2)
3 Open captions always are in view and cannot be turned off, whereas closed captions can be turned on and off by the viewer.
11/2016 Court Report, App-147

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 149 of 326 - Page ID#: 1730
KSR has taken steps towards compliance, but is not yet consistently providing captioning. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me that the videos used at KSR’s school are generally captioned; I did not confirm this for any particular videos. The availability of captioning should be checked for each video used, and replacements obtained if necessary and available. Two orientation movies are shown to inmates—one about KSR and its policies and procedures, and one about the Prison Rape Elimination Act. According to Casey Dowden, the intake unit’s Classification and Treatment Officer, neither is currently captioned. In addition, an inmate who works on “Ed TV,” preparing videos for use at the prison, explained to me that they had just the week before met with someone from outside the prison (a contractor, perhaps) who had begun to explain how they could caption the videos used at KSR. When inmates are given access to video for entertainment—TV or movies—captioning should likewise be easily and routinely available, so that an inmate who needs it does not face an accessibility hurdle. It appears that KSR’s televisions are capable of displaying closed captioning—and several of the inmates I interviewed confirmed that captioning has been available to them when they request it. However, the visit surfaced some technical difficulties in turning captioning on. For some of the TVs, turning on captioning apparently requires use of the remote—and remotes were not readily available during my visit. In addition, some remotes that could be located needed new batteries.
I did not observe or hear about any issues with respect to captioning on inmate-owned televisions.
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used at KSR to determine whether it has captioning and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged.
Sometimes, the reason that the prison uses video is because it is the most accessible and effective method of communicating vital information to inmates, including those whose literacy level is low. Of course, for inmates whose hearing impairment means they can’t hear even with a hearing aid or amplifier—or who have not yet received a hearing aid or amplifier—captioning will accomplish effective communication only if they are highly literate. For the two informative videos shown to inmates during intake, this is a particular problem. Two solutions seem possible: sign-language interpretation could be recorded for the videos and inset into it. This would require technological investigation and some investment, but would have the advantage of being reusable.4 Alternatively, when an inmate arriving at the prison communicates via sign language and is insufficiently literate to follow captions, an in-person Qualified Interpreter could be used to provide interpretation during the videos. (VRI would not be effective for a movie.) The interpreter might also be useful for other orienting conversations that take place at about the same time—for example, initial classification.
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative
4 For some background information, see The World Wide Web Consortium, Understanding WCAG 2.0: A guide to understanding and implementing WCAG 2.0, “Sign Language (Prerecorded): Understanding SC 1.2.6,” available at https://www.w3.org/TR/2016/NOTE-UNDERSTANDING-WCAG20-20160317/media-equiv-sign.html.
11/2016 Court Report, App-148

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 150 of 326 - Page ID#: 1731
method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter.
D. Speech-to-text
Several inmates who wear hearing aids told me that they have found educational programming inaccessible to them; they too-often need the teacher to repeat him or herself or end up relying on a fellow inmate to repeat what the teacher said. This section and the next describe methods that can help achieve effective communication in educational settings, and perhaps others, such as religious programming.
For Deaf inmates who read well, the accessibility of educational programming could be improved by use of speech-to-text devices. Donna McClamroch, KSR’s head school administrator, informed me that she was exploring the implementation of a software package that could convert speech to text and project it onto a classroom’s smartboard. This software might be very helpful for Deaf inmates, once tested and working in a realistic situation. (It might be able to be used for religious presentations, as well.)
Recommendation 25: Continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months.
E. Assistive listening systems
For situations in which a teacher or leader can use a microphone, inmates who are hard of hearing can benefit from amplification by way of an assistive listening system—a system in which sound is captured close to its source via a microphone (avoiding ambient noise) and transmitted directly to the ears or hearing aids of people with assistive listening devices.5 Ms. McClamroch told me that some kind of amplification system is under examination for educational programming, and Chaplains Art Turner and David Dillard emphasized that religious services are amplified—in fact, they are so loud, the Chaplains explained, that the noise sometimes interferes with nearby activity. The current amplification for religious services is general, however, and an assistive listening system is not used.
Recommendation 26: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
5 For more information on assistive listening devices and systems, see Hearing Loss Association of America, Get in the Hearing Loop, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/HLAA_ALDS_Brochure_0.pdf; David G. Myers, We’ve Looped in West Michigan. Could We Loop America?, HEARING LOSS MAGAZINE, September/October 2008, at 18, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/MeyerSepOct08 AudioLoopHLM.pdf. For a technical guide to choices available for educational settings in particular (though geared to children rather than adults), see American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, updated April 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/HAT_Guidelines_Supplement_A.pdf_53996ef7758497. 54419000.pdf; American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, Supplement B: Classroom Audio Distribution Systems—Selection and Verification, July 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/ 20110926_HAT_GuidelinesSupp_B.pdf_53996ef98259f2.45364934.pdf.
11/2016 Court Report, App-149

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 151 of 326 - Page ID#: 1732
While educational staff are exploring possibilities for various accommodations that would allow more effective communication to Deaf inmates enrolled in classes, KSR should ensure that those classes are accessible now, and that Deaf (including hard-of-hearing) inmates know that they can request classroom accommodations, such as sitting in the front row, getting materials in advance, interpretive services, etc. The school does not seem to have a process in place for either allowing requests for such accommodations or assessing the need for them. Several inmates told me about informal solutions. For example, one said that the person who sits next to him repeats what the teacher said. Despite this informal assistance, the inmates agreed that their hearing impairments make school a challenge for them.
Recommendation 27: KSR should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them.
F. Written communication
In many situations, writing can be a helpful communication method. The inmate handbook, for example, can explain to Deaf as well as non-Deaf inmates what prison rules and policies require. And writing a sentence on a piece of paper may enable quick communication on an uncomplicated topic. But while writing back and forth may work for simple communication, it takes too long and is too cumbersome for anything complex. In addition, it is important to recall that many Deaf inmates have a low literacy level. Before written communication can be relied upon to ensure effective communication with a Deaf inmate, it’s crucial to assess that inmate’s literacy. This is discussed in Part IV.B, below.
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5).
G. Non-auditory alerts
KSR frequently communicates with inmates using auditory alerts—fire alarms and PA announcements—which are routinely used for count (three times per day), chow (three times per day), pill call (two times per day), and more individual announcements (e.g., “Inmate Smith, please report to the Dorm 11 office”). The law’s requirement of non-discrimination means that this communication, like others, must be made effective for Deaf inmates. The Agreement includes several relevant provisions:
x “Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.” (VIII.A)
x “The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Inmates. The non-auditory alert
11/2016 Court Report, App-150

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 152 of 326 - Page ID#: 1733
system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.” (VIII.B.1) x “The KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.” (VIII.B.2) x “The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.” (VIII.B.3) x “The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in realtime and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers. The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.” (VIII.C.1)
KSR has taken significant steps along the necessary path. Some Deaf inmates are housed in strobe-light cells, which translate the fire alarm from auditory to visual. There are 18 such cells in the prison, spread through the housing areas. In addition, at the time of my visit, one cell had just been equipped with a “bed shaker”—a non-auditory vibrating device that sits under a pillow, and flashing light on a bed stand. The device is linked to the unit’s fire alarm, so whenever that alarm is triggered, so too are both the shaker and flasher. In addition, the device can be used as an alarm clock, and can be linked to a switch that’s been installed in the dorm’s control center. This enables staff in that area to flash the lights/shaker when there is an announcement for count or chow. As required, ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt did consult with me prior to installing this system, and received my feedback.
Recommendation 29: KSR should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period.
One non-auditory system that has not been tried at KSR is a “visual paging system.” These systems create digital signage networks; messages are displayed on existing TV screens. I do not know enough about KSR’s existing infrastructure to assess how expensive or even possible it would be to implement this kind of system, but if such a system were practicable, it would provide some significant benefits, including allowing announcements to run across the TV screen, making them accessible to Deaf inmates. (On the other hand, it seems that Deaf inmates
11/2016 Court Report, App-151

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 153 of 326 - Page ID#: 1734
at KSR don’t often watch the common-space televisions in the housing units, so it’s possible the benefits I’m envisioning would not actually accrue.)
Recommendation 30: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months.
Some inmates will not have non-auditory alerts, and even inmates who do have them will not always be in their cells when alerts are triggered. Given the difficulties with providing effective communication of alerts, it is unsurprising that occasionally Deaf inmates will miss count, chow, pill call, etc. I heard from more than one inmate that he occasionally or usually has trouble knowing when count or pill call is signaled. It is important that staff accommodate such situations. Disciplining an inmate for a missed count that he didn’t hear called, or refusing to provide an inmate with necessary medicine when he couldn’t hear pill call, would violate the ADA.
Recommendation 31: Train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event.
H. Miscellaneous devices
The Agreement provides:
“Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.” (XII)
KSR has informed me that no such decision has been made since June 2015.
In addition, the Agreement states: “Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary.” (XII) KSR’s commissary includes several televisions that allow closed captioning; in addition, ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt told me that if a Deaf inmate sought to buy some device not on the commissary list, he would facilitate that.
Finally, the Agreement states:
“Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Inmate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be
11/2016 Court Report, App-152

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 154 of 326 - Page ID#: 1735
documented. The ADA Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.” (XII)
KSR—like all the other KDOC institutions—has informed me that no such request has been made since June 28, 2015.
Recommendation 32: KSR’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk.
I. Other communications aids
Prompted by the medical needs of tracheotomy patients (who cannot speak), KSR medical staff have obtained what are called “EZ Boards” for them. These are two-sided heavy cardboard dry-erase boards. They are available in several versions: some use pictures and others words, and they cover different situations. (The boards available during my visit had been ordered by mistake: they were designed for Spanish-language speakers.) These boards could provide a useful method for medical staff to communicate with Deaf inmates in a pinch.
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates.
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
No technologies or devices can entirely meet the communications needs of all hard-ofhearing inmates. The Agreement provides that KSR’s staff should be trained on “best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals.” (XIII.B) A number of inmates described to me the difficulties they have communicating with staff who are reluctant to repeat their communications, or unpracticed at such best practices. Training (and implementation) should include:
x Getting the Deaf inmate’s attention first, prior to beginning to speak. x Asking how to best facilitate communication. x Facing the Deaf inmate directly. x Ensuring that light is on the staff member’s face (not behind it) x Avoiding noisy backgrounds. x Avoiding shouting. x Speaking clearly, at a moderate pace. x Ensuring that the speaker’s mouth is uncovered, and that the speaker is not chewing gum
or food. x Rephrasing if the inmate does not seem to understand (and checking on understanding) x Using facial expressions and gestures.
11/2016 Court Report, App-153

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 155 of 326 - Page ID#: 1736
These tips are taken from the Hearing Loss Association of America’s “Communication Tips for Hearing People in Communicating with Those Who Have a Hearing Loss,” which is available as an easy-to-distribute “tip card” at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/TipCards.pdf. I’ve also included this information in Exhibit D-2, a recommended memo to staff on “Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates”
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates.
In order is to provide staff with the knowledge that particular inmates are Deaf or hardof-hearing, and thereby facilitate these sorts of strategies, that the Agreement requires various notices that inmates are Deaf. There are three such notices required (III.D.3, III.D.4):
x At the entrance to the institution. (I did not check whether this notice was present.) x Outside each housing unit where Deaf inmates are housed. (I did not check whether this
notice was present.) x On each affected inmate’s ID card. (Each inmate I checked had such a notice.)
KSR has taken the valuable additional step—which seems to me functionally necessary, though not explicitly required in the Agreement—of posting a similar notice outside each Deaf inmate’s cell.
Recommendation 35: KSR should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted.
K. Teaching sign-language
Among the classes occasionally offered by KSR’s staff educators is one in sign language. There are at least a few inmates whose degree of hearing impairment is very severe, but who do not sign. For example, I found that I was almost entirely unable to communicate with Inmate F. Such inmates might find it very helpful to learn sign language.
Recommendation 36: KSR should continue to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes.
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
As the Settlement requires, KSR has made two types of telecommunications devices available for deaf inmates: TTYs (TeleTYpewriters) and a videophone. The facility has two TTYs; one is kept in the administration control center, the other in the Dorm 11 security office. (I did not see them during my tour.) The videophone is referred to by inmates and staff alike as “Purple,” after the telecom company that provided it. See http://www.purple.us/. It is installed in the Dorm 11 security office. Access is allowed only for inmates who use sign language to communicate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-154

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 156 of 326 - Page ID#: 1737
The videophone allows two types of phone calls: inmates can communicate visually (via sign language) with the person on the other side, who also has a videophone. Or, by linking the videophone to a Video Relay Service (VRS), the inmate can sign to a remote interpreter, who then speaks to a person at the other end on a regular phone. (For information about VRS, see https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/video-relay-services). While the videophone itself is in the Dorm 11 control center, KSR uses the same laptop for VRI and VRS; that computer is kept in the administration control center.
1. Videophone and VRS
According to KSR’s rules, the videophone and VRS access are supposed to be available during the same time periods as conventional phones. But because the videophone is in staff space, an inmate must request access in order to use it. For an inmate housed in Unit B’s Dorm 11, or one of the other Dorms in Unit B, it should be that getting access to the phone is pretty easy; staff must simply allow the inmate in. It seems that this hasn’t worked very smoothly in practice, however. Inmate B is in fact housed in Dorm 11—but in August 2015, he filed a grievance explaining, “No night time I can’t be able to reach my loved ones family on weekend, and weekday, holidays not equal as non deaf inmates using blue telephones.” The answer he received was that the VRS was available “daytime, night and weekends,” and that “hearing impaired inmates are to get with Unit B staff to schedule use of the ‘VRS.’” The memos issued the next day that set out the policy on access (Exhibits C-1, C-2) confirmed that use of the videophone “[m]ust be scheduled.” Several weeks later the grievance committee found that implementation was a challenge: “The committee finds that staff need to be made aware of how VRS are to be allowed to use the system, off days, weekends & evening.”
As of my visit, there had been little further use of the videophone to allow me to see if implementation had improved, because Inmate B was barred from phone usage for 6 months; Inmate C was confined in disciplinary seg on max assault status, which meant the KSR deemed him ineligible for videophone usage; and Inmate D had not been offered use of the videophone, because the ADA Coordinator was not aware that he communicated via sign language. (When I interviewed Inmate D, he seemed not to know that a videophone was available.)
Even in theory, though, for inmates housed in a different Unit, videophone access is more constrained. Such inmates need permission (and a written pass) to get to and from the space where the phone is located. In addition, inmate movement after dark (or during a not-unusual dense fog) occurs only with staff escort. So while the phone is available after dark until 11:30 pm, there are substantial obstacles to its use by any inmate who is not housed in Unit B.
I have heard complaints from inmates at other KDOC institutions that the time they spend in transit on their way to the videophone is being counted against their allotted phone time. (Under the Agreement, that allowed time is twice the minutes allowed for a conventional phone call.) This issue has not arisen at KSR because no inmate who needs videophone access has received such access from anywhere except Dorm 11. But the issue could come up in the future.
There is another obstacle to access, as well. If the inmate using the videophone is speaking to someone who does not sign—that is, if he needs VRS, not just the videophone— KSR’s process is that he is supposed to request access to the VRI/VRS laptop well in advance,
11/2016 Court Report, App-155

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 157 of 326 - Page ID#: 1738
absent an emergency. I am not clear on how much notice is required: the forms provided to inmates do not seem to specify. But the amount of time required may be as much as 48 hours.
The Settlement Agreement provides:
“Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use.” (IX.D.3.a)
In explaining the requirements for where videophones are to be installed, the Agreement draws a sharp distinction between videophones (required to be in accessible areas) and TTYs (“the TTY/TDD device(s) . . . must be maintained in a secured location when not in use” IX.D.1). KSR is not in compliance with the videophone provisions, for several reasons. First, the videophone is in a staff-only area, and for that reason effectively requires permission for inmates to use it. Similarly, for inmates who are not housed in the relevant KSR unit, an escort is needed during certain hours. In addition, the access rules for the videophone are more limited than for a conventional phone: KSR policy instructs inmates that use of the videophone “[m]ust be scheduled”—which is not a requirement for the conventional phone. And use of the VRS requires staff to obtain the necessary laptop in advance, which takes time and planning.
Note: while KSR should not require in-advance scheduling of the videophone, it may occur that a Deaf inmate has to wait for access, because someone else is using the device. This is nondiscriminatory, and is not a breach of the Agreement.
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should not require permission for use, given that KSR does not require inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. It is regrettable that an escort is required to use the videophone at night and on weekends, but it seems unavoidable given that there is just one videophone (which is currently sufficient for the population of Deaf inmates at KSR).
Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well. To allow use of a VRS without advance scheduling, KSR may need an additional laptop that is kept near the videophone.
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count.
Finally, there are special obstacles to access for Deaf inmates in disciplinary or administrative segregation. Most such inmates are allowed to make one phone call per week. If a Deaf inmate were in this category, I understand that he could be escorted to the videophone, on request, once per week. This approach seems non-discriminatory. Inmates on “max assault status” receive one call per month. But for Deaf inmates on this status (such as Inmate C), the
11/2016 Court Report, App-156

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 158 of 326 - Page ID#: 1739
videophone is unavailable even on that limited basis, because “max assault status” comes with a requirement to wear handcuffs at all times out-of-cell—a requirement that makes signing impossible. See Part III.B.3. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt told me that perhaps a TTY could be made available to Inmate C, but I’m not clear how, given that using a TTY also requires unfettered hands.
Recommendation 40: Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. When safety allows the unshackling of Inmate C, and others in the same situation, they should have their hands unshackled and be allowed to use the videophone, as frequently as non-Deaf inmates are allowed phone calls. If there are individualized reasons that Inmate C, or others like him, cannot be unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request KSR to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why.
In the first month the videophone was available, Inmate B received two disciplinary write-ups for its misuse: one when a woman to whom he was speaking was deemed inappropriately dressed and seen by a staff member to expose her underwear to Inmate B. It seems that he was immediately placed on a phone restriction. While he was subject to that phone restriction, he received a second write-up for “three-way calling.” The incident in question occurred when Inmate E was using the videophone, and Inmate B signed to him through the office window; KSR officials deemed this a three-way call. For the two write-ups together, Inmate B received a 6-month ban on phone usage.
It is not my intent to second-guess these particular impositions of discipline, but I do note that it is important that Deaf inmates using the videophone not be subjected to stricter supervision or more exacting discipline than non-Deaf inmates using the conventional phone. The Agreement provides: “The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.” (IX.B)
Applying this rule, the first disciplinary charge would be appropriate only if an inmate using the conventional phone would face discipline for having a similarly “sexy” conversation. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt assured me that this would indeed be the case. And the second disciplinary charge would be appropriate only if an inmate on the conventional phone would be similarly disciplined for talking with someone who was simultaneously speaking on the phone. Again, I asked Mr. Hillebrandt if this would be considered misconduct, and his answer was yes.
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY.
11/2016 Court Report, App-157

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 159 of 326 - Page ID#: 1740
2. Hard-of-hearing inmates
Hard-of-hearing inmates mostly don’t sign, so the videophone is not helpful to them. But several told me that they are unable to use a conventional phone, because their hearing is too impaired. And when my assistant has conducted telephone interviews with other hard-of-hearing inmates at KSR, communication has sometimes been very difficult and ineffective. Three solutions may help: (a) KSR could give hard-of-hearing inmates access to a TTY, and provide them the necessary training; (b) KSR could provide one or more captioned telephones, which simultaneously allow the user to listen to the speech and read it via real-time captioning (see, e.g., http://www.captel.com/captel); (c) KSR could provide handset amplification that is compatible with hearing aids but does not require them.
Recommendation 42: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months.
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
KSR has started but not routinized the process of assessment and assignment of services for Deaf inmates. This section develops what should be routine processes.
A. Intake/Orientation
For Deaf inmates, the first few days at the prison pose particular challenges because hearing and accommodations assessment comes after many important communications that occur in those first few days. Staff must be sensitive to the possibility that an inmate is Deaf or hard of hearing, and ensure effective communication from the beginning of his incarceration. Recommendations 23-24, above, are directed at predictable communication difficulties with respect to the orientation videos, but there are other situations in which effective communication is likewise necessary and which will require auxiliary aids/services, potentially including qualified interpretation. While partial hearing impairments cannot be easily ascertained prior to medical visits and assessments, a degree of impairment that substantially impedes communication should be able to be detected in the very first encounter prison staff have with an arriving inmate. This should trigger immediate steps to ensure effective communication.
Recommendation 43: Develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary.
The difficulty just described should be ameliorated over time, as the initial intake, assessment, and classification currently done for male Inmates at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women
11/2016 Court Report, App-158

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 160 of 326 - Page ID#: 1741
(KCIW) comes into compliance with the Agreement, and inmates who received that initial assessment become a larger proportion of the population.
B. Literacy assessment
Very often, effective communication can be furthered by written materials—handbooks, captioning, etc. In addition, the best way to inform inmates of the variety of auxiliary aids and services may often be use of written forms or other materials. But for inmates who are illiterate, different approaches must be used—and, again, illiteracy is particularly likely for Deaf inmates. Thus in order to understand how best to provide effective communication, and to comply with the Agreement’s requirements about it, it is necessary to assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy. The level of literacy required for captioning varies with the vocabulary and scroll rate of the text. Television programs have a captioning rate of between 74 and 231 words per minute.6 The average silent reading rate for students with an 8th grade reading level is between 150 and 200 words per minute7; for deaf students, the average reading rate for someone who reads at the 7th to 9th grade level is 185 words per minute.8
Recommendation 44: Staff should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used.
C. Individual assessment meetings
The Agreement (III.C) requires an “auxiliary aids and services assessment.” The best way to assess the need for aids/services necessary for effective communication and to avoid discrimination is an individual meeting with each Deaf inmate. (This approach is similar to the “interactive process” required by the ADA under Title I, which deals with employment.) The idea of the meeting is for KSR staff to understand the communications needs of the inmate. At the meeting, the ADA coordinator or deputy ADA coordinator can inform the inmate about available aids and the inmate can discuss his communication needs. The inmate’s request is entitled, both under the Agreement and the operative regulation, to “primary consideration.” (I.5: “In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2))”; 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language.)
6 Margaret Jelinek Lewis, Television Literacy: Comprehension of Program Content Using Closed-Captions for the Deaf (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1998), citing Carl Jensema, Ralph McCann & Scott Ramsey, Closed-Captioned Television Presentation Speed and Vocabulary, 141 AM. ANN. OF THE DEAF 284 (1996). 7 Ronald P. Carver, Silent Reading Rates in Grade Equivalents, 21 J. READING BEHAVIOR 155 (1989) (citing three studies). 8 Edgar H. Shroyer and Jack Birch, Captions and Reading Rates of Hearing-Impaired Students, 125 AM. ANNALS OF THE DEAF 916, 921 (1980).
11/2016 Court Report, App-159

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 161 of 326 - Page ID#: 1742
KSR has not yet done such a meeting for most of its Deaf inmates. The meeting must itself constitute effective communication. A complex written form, alone, is unlikely to do so— the items described are technical and the inmate may well not understand the available options. It seems likely that a meeting like this could have prevented the problem described above when Inmate D’s need for sign language interpretation was not understood by relevant prison staff.
Given that over eight months have passed since the Agreement’s effective date, these meetings should be done right away.
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.
D. Form and options
KSR has done substantial work to develop a menu of auxiliary aids and services, and to provide staff and inmates written information about what is available. This includes:
x A memo to staff describing some of the available auxiliary aids/services and procedures for their use (Exhibit C-1)
x A similar memo for inmates describing some of the available auxiliary aids/services and how to request them (Exhibit C-2)
x KSR Request for a Qualified Interpreter (Exhibit C-3) x KSR Request form—Auxiliary Aids and Services (Exhibit C-4)
These forms are not adequate, for several reasons. First, the inmate memo, which is supposed to explain the available aids/services, is very technical and no doubt difficult to understand for many inmates. (The Agreement requires the materials to “us[e] language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate.” III.F.1) The memos are also incomplete, as is the Auxiliary Aids/Services form. In addition, the qualified interpreter form does not adequately provide inmates a chance to request an in-person interpreter. And none of the forms offer inmates a chance to explain why their requested aid/service is necessary for effective communication.
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
x To list available aids and services more comprehensively
11/2016 Court Report, App-160

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 162 of 326 - Page ID#: 1743
x To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances they are available, and how to request them.
x To explain how to use the various devices. x To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. x To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the
inmate’s expense.
Finally, inmates who communicate by signing may not realize that they need to request an interpreter separately at each occasion they need one. Not unreasonably, they may think that when they have received an interpreter for a particular type of encounter (say, a medical appointment, or a classification meeting), the prison authorities know that they continue to need interpretive services. And similarly, if they have been denied an interpreter, they may—again not unreasonably—conclude that there’s little point in renewing the request.
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings discussed in Part IV.C, above. Note: I have not provided the recommended memos to staff and inmates explaining precisely how to use the various devices, but that too should be developed, and should cover all the devices deployed.
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
In addition to forms like those just discussed, when Deaf inmates request medical, mental health, dental, or vision care, they may need auxiliary aids or services. The Agreement requires that they have a way to indicate that need on the form used for a request: “The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Inmates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services.” (VI.C.3) The “Healthcare Request” form currently used for medical requests is attached as Exhibit E-1; it does not comply with this requirement.
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2.
More generally, the opportunity to request auxiliary aids/services, including qualified interpretation, could usefully be incorporated into the other KSR/KDOC forms related to programs, services, and activities provided at the prison. That way, the request will be made more timely and provision of the services will be more routine.
Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of
11/2016 Court Report, App-161

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 163 of 326 - Page ID#: 1744
impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all.
Sometimes when inmates make a request—for a job assignment, course enrollment, etc. —KSR does not use a form at all, but rather assigns staff to receive and assess the request. In this situation, it’s important that communication be effective. Staff evaluating requests for a job assignment or course enrollment must be alert to the fact that Deaf inmates may need various accommodations, and/or auxiliary aids/services to ensure effective communication, both during the discussion and during the assignment/program. The availability of those accommodations should be communicated to inmates who might need them. This issue seems particularly related to educational programming: Several inmates told me that they had not enrolled in classes because in past education efforts, they have not been able to understand the teacher. The kinds of accommodations in question could be as simple as assigning an inmate to a seat close to the front of a classroom or giving him copies of projected materials. Or they might include auxiliary aids/services or a qualified interpreter.
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program.
V. TRAINING
The Agreement requires training for the ADA Coordinator and for all staff who interact with inmates.
A. ADA Coordinator Training
The Agreement requires: “The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1)
KDOC has not yet developed training on the Settlement Agreement, so as I understand the situation, KSR ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt has become familiar with the Agreement by reading it many times. Mr. Hillebrandt also himself located high-quality ADA Title II training provided online by the ADA National Network, at http://www.adatitle2.org. As that site explains (http://www.adatitle2.org/objectives.php#content):
“This free self-paced, online tutorial is designed to provide the basic principles and core concepts of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This tutorial is a valuable educational tool to orient ADA coordinators to their roles and how to address key ADA-related requirements applicable to state and local government under Title II of the ADA.”
This on-line class covers the following objectives:
11/2016 Court Report, App-162

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 164 of 326 - Page ID#: 1745
x Discuss the purpose of the ADA using a civil rights framework. x Summarize what is required under Title II of the ADA. x Explain each nondiscrimination requirement for Title II of the ADA. x Identify the defenses or limitations of each nondiscrimination requirement for Title II of
the ADA. x Locate and use various resources for information on the ADA.
And it includes:
x Introduction and Overview of the ADA (6 pages) x Overview of Title II of the ADA (8 pages) x Steps to Achieve Compliance for Title II (7 pages) x General Nondiscrimination Requirements of Title II (9 pages) x Equally Effective Communication under Title II (10 pages) x Serving & Working with Individuals with Disabilities (4 pages) x Interacting with Individuals who have Disabilities (5 pages) x Employment - Self Evaluation of Employment Practices (7 pages) x Nondiscrimination in Employment (8 pages)
This was a very good choice of training source. Indeed, some of the training materials can be adapted for use in the general staff training.
Recommendation 51: KDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate. This training is already long overdue; it should be developed and delivered to each ADA Coordinator no later than July 1, 2016.
B. Staff Training
The Agreement (XIII.B) requires training of all KDOC employees who have contact with inmates on:
x best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals; x the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened individuals; x identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf; x the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction with hearing
corrections personnel; x the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters; x directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other telecommunication
equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people; x disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV; x the KDOC’s anti-discrimination policy; x all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates (see also IX.E.2); x hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and
11/2016 Court Report, App-163

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 165 of 326 - Page ID#: 1746
x the requirements of this Agreement.
In addition, the Agreement sets out additional details on the restraint training (XI.A.2: “KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate”) and ID cards (III.D.2: “All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards.”)
This training has not yet been developed. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt has developed training on a couple of these topics (best practices for communicating; how to obtain telecommunication and VRI equipment); but not on the others.
Recommendation 52: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter.
VI. REPORTING
As described in my February 2016 semi-annual report, the Agreement specifies five situations in which the Department is supposed to notify me promptly. They are:
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a program or activity because the Department has determined that participation would present a “Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates.” (II.A)
x When a Deaf Inmate is barred from a work assignment because that assignment would “present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others” (VI.F)
x When the Department is considering a non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates, in real time, of prison-wide events and emergencies, and events specific to that inmate (VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C)
x When the Department has determined that it is appropriate to adjust the number of minutes afforded Deaf Inmates to make TTY and videophone calls. (IX.C)
x When the Department has made a determination to allow or disallow a Deaf Inmate to use devices such as vibrating clocks or in-line amplifiers, if those devices are not deemed medically necessary. (XII)
KSR has provided me with appropriate notice of the third item—a non-auditory alert system. ADA Coordinator Hillebrandt informed me that none of the other events has taken place.
As far as the more routine quarterly reporting, KSR has timely provided all reports and information I have requested.
11/2016 Court Report, App-164

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 166 of 326 - Page ID#: 1747
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place.
11/2016 Court Report, App-165

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 167 of 326 - Page ID#: 1748

Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor June and July 2016 Site Visit Report
EXHIBIT D: RECOMMENDED FORMS AND MEMOS, TABLE OF CONTENTS

D-1

Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates

(memo to staff)

D-2

Informational Pamphlet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

D-3

Request for Qualified Interpreter Services

D-4

Request for Communications Assistance

D-5

Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

11/2016 Court Report, App-166

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 168 of 326 - Page ID#: 1749
Exhibit D-1 Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates
(RECOMMENDED MEMO FOR STAFF)
{ADD ORDINARY MEMO HEADING HERE}
This memo tells you about the various devices available to provide communications assistance to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. You may find it useful to also review the Informational Pamphlet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates, which is attached; it includes pictures of many of the devices described here. Inmates can use the Request for Communications Assistance form and the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form to seek access to the items described here.
1) ID and notice cards. Unless the inmate has signed a waiver, {FACILITY} lists hearing impairments on inmate ID card and on a notice outside their cells. These notices inform you that the inmate has a hearing impairment, so that you can take steps to make your communication with the inmate effective.
2) Hearing aids and amplifiers. Hearing aids and amplifiers are available if medical staff finds that they are appropriate. If an inmate tells you that he needs a hearing aid or amplifier, notify the ADA Coordinator and tell the inmate to submit a Healthcare Request form and a Request for Communications Assistance form. For batteries {DESCRIBE HERE HOW INMATES ARE SUPPOSED TO GET BATTERIES}
3) Video captioning. Turn on TV/movie captioning at an inmate’s request.
4) Communications strategies. When you are speaking with an inmate with a hearing impairment, use the best practices from the attached “tip card.” Write simple things down. If these strategies are not working for an inmate who signs to communicate, and the communication is important, you should use Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); see item 7.
5) Non-auditory alerts This facility has several devices for inmates unable to hear announcements. a. Strobe-light cells. In these cells, fire alarms automatically trigger a very bright flashing light. You don’t need to do anything for this. b. Bed shakers/flashing light alerts. This device sits under a bed pillow and vibrates/buzzes automatically when the housing unit’s fire alarm goes off. There is also what looks like a light switch installed in the control center of the dorm; when count or chow is announced, the on-duty officer is assigned to flip that switch, to notify the inmate of count/chow. This should be logged {HOW?}
6) Telecommunications devices. a. For inmates who communicate via sign language, {Facility} has a videophone, which also has access to Video Relay Service (VRS); it can be used to talk to someone who is also using a videophone, or to someone who is using a regular telephone. x The videophone is {WHERE}.
11/2016 Court Report, App-167

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 169 of 326 - Page ID#: 1750
x It is available during the same hours non-Deaf inmates have access to the regular phone: {WHAT ARE THOSE HOURS?} {E.g.: during the day, nights until 11:30 pm, weekends, and holidays.}
x If inmates wish to use the videophone, with or without VRS, they can simply request access when they need it. No scheduling in advance should be required. They are allowed 30 minutes per call.
b. {FACILITY} owns {one? two} TTY (TeleTYpewriter) machine(s). x {WHERE ARE THEY? WHAT PHONE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE HOOKED UP TO?} TTYs must be logged out and logged back in after use. x Inmates are allowed 45 minutes per TTY call. x Training for inmates is available if they don’t know how to use the TTY: they should ask the ADA Coordinator.
7) Qualified Interpreter Services. For deaf inmates who communicate using sign language, qualified interpreter services are provided for significant communications, either using Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) or an in-person qualified interpreter.
For inmates who need it, interpretation is provided for: x Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance x On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments x Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings x Grievance hearings x Adjustment committee and court call x All meetings related to discipline x Parole hearings x Rehabilitative and educational classes and clubs x Transitional programs x Conversations with post-release supervisors x Other significant communications, on request
Inmates who use sign language to communicate are not required to specially request interpretation for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. In those situations, VRI should be used for these inmates without their special request, unless the inmate has requested and the ADA Coordinator has approved in-person interpretation. If you are arranging one of those events for an inmate who uses sign language, you need to obtain the VRI.
Inmates must have their hands unrestrained in order to communicate via sign language. If an inmate’s status requires that his hands be cuffed or otherwise restrained, alternative methods are available during the interpreted communication. Consult with the ADA Coordinator.
a. {FACILTY} has {one? two? } VRI laptops; {List here where they are}.
11/2016 Court Report, App-168

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 170 of 326 - Page ID#: 1751
x Use of the laptops should be scheduled 48 hours in advance if possible, but VRI laptops can be used if available even if not scheduled in advance.{HOW?}
x Log out the laptop each time you use it, and log it back in after use. x After a VRI laptop has been used, have the inmate fill out the bottom of the
Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form; return that form to the ADA Coordinator. b. Inmates can request an in-person qualified interpreter by filling out the top of the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form; that form should be sent to the ADA Coordinator at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled event if possible. c. The inmate has the right to waive interpreter services. If an inmate waives his right to an interpreter, a waiver form shall be completed, signed, and placed into KOMS for documentation. You must ensure that the inmate understands what he is waiving. {NOTE: THIS TIP CARD COULD BE MODIFIED TO BETTER SUIT THE PRISON SETTING}
11/2016 Court Report, App-169

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 171 of 326 - Page ID#: 1752
&9)*#*5%
11/2016 Court Report, App-170

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 172 of 326 - Page ID#: 1753
Kentucky Department of Corrections {NAME OF FACILITY}
Information for Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
11/2016 Court Report, App-171

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 173 of 326 - Page ID#: 1754
I. {FACILITY}’S OBLIGATIONS
{FACILITY} will provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates: x Non-discrimination x Effective Communication x Auxiliary Aids and Services
Non-discrimination: {FACILITY} will provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates.
Effective Communication: {FACILITY} will communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—ensuring that inmates can receive information from and provide information to {FACILITY} staff.
Auxiliary Aids and Services: When needed for effective communication, {FACILITY} will provide “auxiliary aids and services.” This means devices or services that assist in communication. These may include, but are not limited to:
x Hearing aids x Amplifiers x Video captioning x Visual or other non-auditory alert or alarm systems x Videophone/Video Relay Service x TTY/TDD, including telephone relay services x Written materials x Qualified interpreters, via remote video interpretation or in-person x Computer-aided transcription services x Assistive listening systems
11/2016 Court Report, App-172

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 174 of 326 - Page ID#: 1755
II. PROCEDURES
For inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, {FACILITY} has numerous devices and processes to help make sure prison staff communication with you is effective and that you receive equal access to prison programs, services, and activities. This brochure is for you to save: it is a guide to all those devices and processes.
For each of the listed devices or processes, if you do not want them, you can tell the ADA Coordinator. If you have any questions now or later, you should contact the ADA Coordinator. The ADA Coordinator is responsible for facilitating effective communication, including arranging for needed Qualified Interpreters.
x {FACILITY} provides notice of the availability of and procedure for requesting auxiliary aids and services through this brochure and through posted notices.
x Medical staff will assess whether an inmate is deaf or hard of hearing at initial intake and during annual assessments or when an inmate identifies himself as deaf, hard-of-hearing, or having difficulty hearing.
x If medical staff determines that an offender is deaf or hard-of-hearing, medical will note that in the inmate’s Electronic Medical Record, and will notify the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator will note the same thing in the Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) record.
x The inmate will be given this brochure and copies of the Request for Communication Assistance, and (if applicable) the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services forms
x The ADA Coordinator will consult with the individual and medical to determine what aids or services are necessary to provide effective communication in particular situations.
x The ADA Coordinator will note the inmate’s status as deaf or hard-ofhearing in the inmate’s electronic file.
x The offender may ask for services at this time or later, by requesting the services from the ADA Coordinator or other staff and/or completing the Request for Communication Assistance or the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form.
x The offender may waive services. x At any time, the offender may request a service that he previously waived.
11/2016 Court Report, App-173

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 175 of 326 - Page ID#: 1756
III. AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
To request any auxiliary aid, submit a Request for Communications Assistance to the ADA Coordinator. If you are requesting a hearing aid or amplifier—or a repair or batteries for an existing hearing aid or amplifier—you must also submit a Healthcare Request Form.
When you request a particular auxiliary aid or service, {FACILITY} must give primary consideration to your request, but may meet the need for effective communication by providing some alternative aid or service.
COST: All necessary auxiliary aids and services shall be provided without cost to the offender, except for medical devices that are subject to standard co-payment. {WHICH ARE THESE? I THINK YOU’RE NOT CHARGING FOR ANY. SO CROSS THAT OUT.} Sick-call has the standard $3 co-pay.
The Auxiliary Aids and Services provided when necessary for effective communication (and described in this brochure) include:
A. Hard-of-hearing/Deaf ID Card B. Hard-of-hearing/Deaf Notice cards C. Hearing Aids and Amplifiers D. Qualified Interpreters (remote and in-person) E. Telecommunications Devices:
o Videophone (with or without interpreter relay) o TDD/TTY (with or without interpreter relay) o Volume-assisted telephone F. Video captioning G. Written materials H. Non-auditory alerts I. Assistive listening systems
11/2016 Court Report, App-174

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 176 of 326 - Page ID#: 1757
A. Hard-of-hearing ID Card
This card will be given to you by Medical, when they determine that you are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Carry it with your inmate ID.
Hard-of-Hearing ID card. If you lose or damage this card request a replacement from Medical. If this is not promptly provided, bring the issue to the attention of the ADA Coordinator.
B. Notice Cards
Unless you sign a waiver, {FACILITY} will alert others to your hearing impairment with a notice by your cell or bed.
Hard-of-Hearing [or Deaf] Inmate
11/2016 Court Report, App-175

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 177 of 326 - Page ID#: 1758

C. Hearing Aids and Amplifiers
If medical determines that you need a hearing aid, one will be provided. You can request evaluation for a hearing aid by using the standard healthcare request form; you should also alert the ADA coordinator to your request by filling out a {} form.
x If you have a hearing aid already—at prison or at home—you may be allowed to use that.
x If your hearing aid—whether provided by KYDOC or otherwise—needs a repair, you should bring that to the attention of medical staff and they will try to get the repair.
x Hearing aids are complex devices, and several medical visits may be necessary to test your hearing, evaluate the appropriateness of a hearing aid, and fit the hearing aid.
x Assuming there are no complications, it should take under two months for you to get a hearing aid, if one is necessary. If the process is taking longer than that, bring that issue to the attention of the ADA Coordinator.
x There is no co-pay for the hearing aid, but the standard $3 fee applies for your sick-call visit. You will be charged only one $3 fee for the related visits.
x Hearing aid batteries typically last two to three weeks. They are free to you, and available {HOW (varies by facility)}
While you are waiting for a hearing aid, if medical has determined that you are hard-of-hearing, they will give you a personal amplifier. This device is sometimes called a “pocket talker.”

Amplifier

11/2016 Court Report, App-176

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 178 of 326 - Page ID#: 1759
D. Qualified Interpreters
If you use sign language to communicate, you can request sign language interpretation by filling out a Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form, available from the ADA Coordinator {or how else?}. A qualified interpreter is “a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary.”
If you use sign language to communicate, {FACILITY} will provide an interpreter (unless you sign a waiver) for disciplinary meetings and hearings, classification meetings and hearings, grievance meetings and hearings, and emergency health care. You need to request an interpreter each other time you want one, using the Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form. If possible, make requests 48 hours in advance. The form will then need to be submitted to the ADA Coordinator. The ADA Coordinator will schedule the qualified interpreter.
Qualified interpreters are available at {FACILITY} using a Video Remote Interpreting laptop, or—if necessary—in-person, for:
x Initial intake/classification x Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance x On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments x Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings x Grievance hearings x Adjustment committee and court call x All meetings related to discipline x Parole hearings x Rehabilitative and educational programming, including clubs x Transitional programs x Conversations with post-release supervisors x PREA reporting and/or follow-up with any PREA concerns x Inmate work and education programs x Other significant communications, on request x Interpreter services may be available if needed and requested for religious
programming.
11/2016 Court Report, App-177

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 179 of 326 - Page ID#: 1760
Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) allows a hearing person and a Deaf person who signs, who are next to each other, to communicate with each other. The hearing person speaks into a laptop microphone and an interpreter on the other end translates the speech into sign language, which the Deaf person can see on the laptop screen. The Deaf person signs into the laptop camera, and the interpreter on the other end translates the sign language into English, which the hearing person can hear. {FACILITY} has {one? two?} VRI laptops; {WHERE?}.
VRI using a laptop To request a Video Remote Interpreter, fill out the Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form, available from the ADA Coordinator. Video interpretation may not accomplish the goal of effective communication in some situations—for example, when there are many people communicating (as in a class or a parole hearing), or there is a need to move around (for example, during some physical medical exams). In those situations, an in-person interpreter may be necessary. When necessary for effective communication, {FACILITY} will provide an inperson qualified interpreter. If you want an in-person qualified interpreter, your request should explain why VRI will probably not be effective and if possible you should make the request several days before you need the interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-178

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 180 of 326 - Page ID#: 1761
At some point, {FACILITY} may arrange with an in-person qualified interpreter to be here on a regular basis (for example, for a weekly class). If this happens, and you use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator will notify you about the schedule, so that you can request needed other interpretation services more conveniently.
E. Telephone Communications
{FACILITY} has several types of devices available for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates to have equal access to telephone communications.
x Videophone (with or without interpreter relay) x TDD/TTY (with or without interpreter relay) x Volume-assisted telephone
Videophone
Videophone “kiosk” x What is a Videophone? KYDOC uses ADA prison videophones provided by
the company “Purple.” They are locked-down videophone kiosks, where you can make videophone calls during the same periods as regular phones are available.
11/2016 Court Report, App-179

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 181 of 326 - Page ID#: 1762
x What types of calls can you make? {FACILITY’S}’s videophone allows two kinds of calls: ¾ “Point to point” or “video to video” calls allow a deaf sign language user to call anyone with a videophone, and communicate using sign language. ¾ Video Relay Service (“VRS”) calls allow a deaf inmate who uses sign language to call a hearing person who uses a regular telephone; sign language interpreters are connected automatically. The inmate signs and the remote interpreter then interprets, and speaks to the person on the regular telephone. ¾ For either point-to-point or video relay calls simply key in a 10-digit number and “dial.”
x Who qualifies for this service? Any KYDOC deaf inmate who uses sign language to communicate qualifies for this free, ADA-public-use video and video relay service, so the inmate can call anyone using a Purple ADA prison videophone. Purple Video Interpreters will terminate calls if inmates who do not use sign language try to use the ADA videophone.
x Prison restrictions. Videophones implement standard prison restrictions: ¾ No in-bound calls ¾ No 3-way calls ¾ No call history or contact list ¾ Ability to include call timer ¾ 911 button disabled ¾ Announcement to called party ¾ HIPAA privacy ¾ No video mail
x Rules for inmate use ¾ Purple VRS and point to point calls are recorded and monitored by KYDOC staff. ¾ Except if you have a specific phone restriction, deaf inmates are allowed to use the videophone during the same periods of time that non-deaf inmates can use the regular phone.
11/2016 Court Report, App-180

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 182 of 326 - Page ID#: 1763
¾ Videophones are provided as a part of Federal government program to provide sign language interpreters to relay communication between deaf person and a hearing person at no cost.
¾ Each call can last up to twice as long as {FACILITY} allows for regular phone calls.
¾ Because group calls are not allowed, you may not talk (or sign) to another inmate while you are using the videophone.
x How to use the videophone. ¾ Just turn on the videophone, and start making calls. There is no need to turn it off. If it is off, power it back on. ¾ Dial the telephone number you want to call to, by touching the telephone number on dial pad. Then, click on green “call” button. ¾ Choose your language preferences—click on English or Spanish before you dial your telephone number. Interpreters in either language are available to relay communication in English or Spanish. ¾ Callers who want other end user to hear the caller in voice can use Voice Carry Over (VCO) by simply clicking on VCO button. ¾ Announce Relay will tell the interpreter to let the other end-user know that this is a Video Relay Service (VRS) call. Click on Announce Relay button if this is a VRS call. ¾ After you are finished with your call, click on red button to “hang up”.
TTY/TTD
The second type of telecommunications device available at {FACILITY} for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates is a TTY or TTD.
11/2016 Court Report, App-181

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 183 of 326 - Page ID#: 1764
x What is a TTY? A TTY (Teletypewriter) (sometimes called a TTD) is a device that allows users to send typed messages across a phone line. Many people who are deaf or hard of hearing use TTYs to call other individuals. The TTY has a keyboard and display that lets the user send and receive typed messages over telephone lines.
x What types of calls can you make? A stand-alone TTY cannot communicate directly with a regular phone; it can communicate only with another TTY. So TTY users can directly call other TTY numbers or they can call a regular phone using a Relay Service. The Relay Service operator will receive the messages on a TTY and relay the messages, by standard phone, to a person who does not have a TTY.
x Who qualifies for this service? Any KYDOC deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate who can use the TTY. And a non-deaf inmate can, too, if he needs to call someone who uses a TTY.
x Prison restrictions. TTYs conform to standard prison restrictions: ¾ No in-bound calls ¾ No 3-way calls ¾ No call history or contact list
x Rules ¾ Except if you have a specific phone restriction, deaf inmates are allowed to use the videophone during the same periods of time that non-deaf inmates can use the regular phone. ¾ Each call can last up to three times as long as {FACILITY} allows for regular phone calls.
x How to use the TTY 1. Request use of the TTY {How? From who? How long in advance?} 2. The TTY must be connected to a phone line with access to outside the prison. At {FACILITY}, {WHAT PHONE LINE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO USE?, IN WHAT OFFICE} 3. Once you’re in the right place, plug the TTY in and push the “ON” switch.
11/2016 Court Report, App-182

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 184 of 326 - Page ID#: 1765
4. Place the telephone receiver on the TTY's rubber receptacles. Make sure that the receiver is firmly in place and that the telephone's receiver cord is on the LEFT side of the TTY.
5. Check the telephone indicator light; if it is lit, you have the line. 6. If you are making a direct TTY call:
x Dial the number of the receiving TTY, and watch the telephone light; if it is flashing slowly, this indicates that the device on the other end is ringing.
x When the person you are calling answers, you will see a phrase appear on the screen such as: "Hello, this is Richard GA." The "GA" stands for Go Ahead -- Don't forget to use "GA" whenever you have finished what you are saying, so that the other person will know it is his/her turn. Note: The person who receives the call is always the one who starts typing first.
x When you wish the call to end and you wish to advise the other person, type GA or SK ("Stop keying"). The person will respond by "SK" if he/she agrees. Be courteous - wait until the other person indicates "SK" before hanging up.
7. If you are making a relay call (that is, using the TTY to call a regular phone used by a hearing person), you will use the Kentucky Relay program: x Dial 711. x A Communication Assistant (CA) will answer by identifying Kentucky Relay and providing his/her CA number and gender. The CA will then type “NUMBER TO CALL PLS Q GA.” x Type the area code and telephone number you want to call and any additional instructions. x Once the call is connected, the CA will ask the person you are calling if he/she is familiar with Relay. If the person is not, the CA will explain how Relay works before the conversation begins. x The CA will type everything said by the other party, word for word, along with any background noises. x When you see GA, it is your turn to respond. x Type your response, and then “GA” when you are ready for a response.
11/2016 Court Report, App-183

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 185 of 326 - Page ID#: 1766
x The conversation will proceed in this manner until the call is complete. When you have completed the conversation, type “GA to SK” and the CA will close your call.
x Always switch the TTY "OFF" as soon as you have finished the call.
Phone volume control
Some but not all the payphones at {FACILITY} have volume controls. If you need to turn up the volume in order to use a phone, and none of the phones in your housing area have a volume control, you can submit a Request for Communications Assistance form to request that a volume control be added to at least one phone. The phones with volume controls have varied indicators:
11/2016 Court Report, App-184

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 186 of 326 - Page ID#: 1767
Payphone Volume Controls
F. Video captioning
Most videos shown at {FACILITY}, and all television programs, can have captioning turned on. This includes educational and entertainment movies, orientation videos, religious programming DVDs, etc. You can request that a video or movie display captions, if they are available, by asking {FILL THIS IN}. If you are taking a class, ask the teacher if you want any class videos to display captioning. In addition, the commissary sells personal TVs that can show captioning. If you need assistance getting captioning turned on, ask the ADA Coordinator.
G. Written materials
If you are unable to understand something that a staff member tells you verbally, you can ask the staff to write it down. If you are given written materials that you have questions about, and you communicate using sign language, you can ask for a meeting with the appropriate staff member to be interpreted using the VRI or, if needed, an in-person sign language interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-185

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 187 of 326 - Page ID#: 1768

H. Non-auditory alerts

Bed Shaker

{FACILITY} has several devices

available for inmates unable to hear

announcements. These include:

x Strobe-light cells. In these

cells, fire alarms trigger a

very bright flashing light.

x Bed shakers/flashing light

alerts. This device sits under

a bed and vibrates/buzzes

when the housing unit’s fire

alarm or other announcements

go off. It can be set to alert

for count and chow.

x At your own expense, you can buy a vibrating alarm clock or other

adaptive equipment you may find useful, via the commissary or by making

a request to the ADA coordinator.

In addition, staff are trained to post written versions of announcements made over

the loudspeaker.

I. Assistive Listening Systems

If you are hard of hearing and have trouble hearing in some other situation, it may be possible to provide you an assistive listening system. For example, in church, programming, or a class, the teacher or other students could use a wireless microphone that sends the signal to an earbud that you wear. If you think a system like this would help you hear in a particular situation, submit a Request for Communications Assistance form to the ADA Coordinator.

11/2016 Court Report, App-186

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 188 of 326 - Page ID#: 1769
IV. FOR MORE INFORMATION
{Facility’s} obligations for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are controlled by the Americans with Disabilities Act and by a settlement entered in the federal district court in a lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement and a summary of it are available in the law library. If you have a problem related to your hearing, discuss it with the ADA Coordinator. If necessary, you can file a grievance. The court monitor appointed by the federal court to track KYDOC’s compliance with the Agreement will receive a summary of the grievance and, if you give your permission, the grievance itself and the KYDOC response to it.
11/2016 Court Report, App-187

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 189 of 326 - Page ID#: 1770

Exhibit D-3 Request for Qualified Interpreter Services

Please make your request at least 48 hours in advance, or explain why below. Send this form to the ADA Coordinator, using the institutional mail box.

I,___________________, inmate # ________ request a qualified interpreter for:

Ƒ Education: Please specify: ____________________________________________________

Ƒ &OXEPlease specify: _________________________________________________________

Ƒ 3DUROHERDUGPHHWLQJKHDULQJ

Ƒ 0HGLFDO'HQWDO9LVLRQDSSRLQWPHQWRURWKHUon-site health care services } Please also use

Ƒ 0HGLFDO'HQWDO9LVLRQDSSRLQWPHQWRURWKHUoff-site health care services } the Healthcare

Ƒ 0HQWDOKHDOWKHYDOXDWLRQRUVHUYLFHV

} Request form

Ƒ 6LJQLILFDQWFRQYHUVDWLRQZLWKVWDIIDERXWFRPPXQLFDWLRQVQHHGVRUother topic.

Ƒ 5HOLJLRXVSURJUDPPLQJ1RWHLQWHUSUHWDWLRQPD\RUPD\QRWEHDYDLODEOHIRUUHOLJLRXV

programming). Please specify:____________________________________________________

Ƒ 2WKHUPlease specify:__________________________________________________________

Ƒ I request that the interpreter be in-person, rather than via the Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) laptop. Please explain why an in-person interpreter is more effective than VRI: ________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Date of scheduled event: _____________ Date you are making this request: __________________ If this request is less than 48 hours in advance of the event, please explain why: _____________ _____________________________________________________________________________

Action taken by ADA Coordinator: _________________________________________________ Type of interpretation (if any) authorized: Ƒ95,RUƑ,Q-SHUVRQRUƑ1RQH Why? ________________________________________________________________________ Date interpreter utilized: ___________________________
Feedback from inmate: Please check the box that best indicates your views. The Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the interpretation/communication effectiveness, please explain: _____________________________________________________________________________

Inmate signature _____________________ Date_______________________ Staff signature _______________________ Date_______________________

11/2016 Court Report, App-188

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 190 of 326 - Page ID#: 1771
Exhibit D-4 Request for Communications Assistance
I,____________________, inmate # ________ request communications assistance.
NOTE: If you have a request related to a hearing aid or amplifier, please submit it using the ordinary Healthcare Request, and use this form just to notify the ADA Coordinator that you are submitting that request.
Ƒ ,KDYHVXEPLWWHGDUHTXHVWIRUDKHDULQJDLGRUDPSOLILHURUDUHSDLURUHYDOXDWLRQRID hearing aid or amplifier to Medical.
I request each of the following items: Ƒ Deaf/hard-of-hearing Inmate ID card Ƒ 'HDIhard-of-hearing Housing sign Ƒ 9LGHRFDSWLRQLQJ
For what video/situation? (e.g., orientation, education, etc.)
______________________________________________________________
Ƒ 6WUREHOLJKWFHOORUEHGVKDNHUDOHUWGHYLFH Ƒ $FFHVVWRWKHYLGHRSKRQH Ƒ $FFHVVWRWKH77<7H[WWHOHSKRQH Ƒ $FFHVVWRDYROXPH-assisted telephone Ƒ $VVLVWLYHOLVWHQLQJGHYLFHWRDPSOLI\DVSHDNHUGXULQJSURJUDPPLQJRUFODVV Ƒ 2WKHUGHYLFHRUVHUYLFHV3OHDVHVSHFLI\ __________________________________________________________________
Ƒ Qualified Interpreter Services: I communicate best using sign language, and need qualified interpreter services for significant communications. *NOTE: this request is a general one; once you are approved to receive interpreter services, they will be provided via Video Remote Interpreter (VRI) for:
x Orientation x Auxiliary aid/service assessment x Emergency Health Care on-site x Classification and transfer meetings and hearings x Grievance meetings and hearings x Disciplinary meetings and hearings x Parole meetings and hearings
In addition, you can use the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form to ask for interpreter services at additional meetings or encounters, or to request an in-person qualified interpreter.
11/2016 Court Report, App-189

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 191 of 326 - Page ID#: 1772

Exhibit D-5 Auxiliary Aids/Services Assessment Form

Inmate Name: _______________________________ Inmate #: ___________________________________ Date of assessment: ___________________________ Date arrived at {INSTITUTION}: __________________________

Hearing situation: (note: you may select more than one if applicable)

Ƒ (IIHFWLYHO\FRPSOHWHO\GHDI

Ƒ 9HU\KDUG-of-hearing

Ƒ 0LOGO\KDUG-of-hearing

Ƒ &XUUHQWO\KDVKHDULQJDLGV

Ƒ &XUUHQWO\KDVKHDULQJDLGƑ&XUUHQtly has amplifier

Preferred communication method: Ƒ 6LJQODQJXDJH6SHFLI\W\SHRIVLJQLQJ$6/HWFBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB Ƒ 6SRNHQ(QJOLVK Ƒ :ULWWHQ(QJOLVK
Was VRI or in-SHUVRQLQWHUSUHWDWLRQXVHGIRUWKLVPHHWLQJ"Ƒ95, ƑIn-person interpretation For inmates who communicate using sign language, some form of interpretation should be used.
Literacy level: ___________________________ Source of literacy level information: ___________________________ *LYHQOLWHUDF\OHYHOFDSWLRQVDQGWH[WƑDUHƑDUHQRWDSSURSULDWHFRPPXQLFDWLRQVPHWKRGV
Auxiliary aids assigned: Ƒ +HDULQJDLGRUDPSOLILHUNote particulars: _____________________________________ Ƒ (YDOXDWLRQIRUKHDULQJDLGRUDPSOLILHUDate requested: ___________________________ Ƒ 'HDIKHDULQJLPSDLUHG,QPDWH,'FDUG Ƒ 'HDIKHDULQJLPSDLUHG+RXVLQJVLJQ Ƒ 9LGHRFDSWLRQLQJ
For what situation? (e.g., orientation, education, etc.) Please be specific.
______________________________________________________________
Ƒ 6WUREHOLJKWFHOORUEHGVKDNHUDOHUWGHYLFH Ƒ $FFHVVWRWKHYLGHRSKRQHZLWKRUZLWKRXWWKH9LGHR5HOD\6HUYLFHODSWRS Ƒ $FFHVVWRWKH77<7H[WWHOHSKRQH Ƒ 2WKHUGHYLFHRUVHUYLFHVPlease specify: __________________________________________________________________
Assessment conducted by: ______________________________________ Notes and comments:

11/2016 Court Report, App-190

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 &PYagIeJC: 1JU92&of 326 - Page
ID#: 1773
11/2016 Court Report, App-191

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 193 of 326 - Page ID#: 1774 Exhibit E-2
Recommended addition to Healthcare Request If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, do you need any communication assistance for this healthcare visit? Ƒ No Ƒ Yes: Video Remote Interpreter (VRI) (via “purple” laptop) Ƒ Yes: in-person qualified interpreter
Please explain why you need an in-person interpreter rather than VRI:______________ _______________________________________________________________________ Ƒ Yes: other: _________________________________________________________________
(please specify)
11/2016 Court Report, App-192

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 194 of 326 - Page ID#: 1775

Inmate LName

Johnson

Inmate Fname

David

Institution

LLCC

DOC number

Arrival at Institution

Screening results

Reported hearing issues

When was hearing problem first

presented to KYDOC?

Date hearing aid provided or finally

found inappropriate

Days to provide hearing aid

IN PROCESS

Days so far, if not provided yet

Medical visit/step 1, Date

Williams Joe LLCC 12345 6/1/2016 Reported hearing problem

23456 2/1/2013

6/7/2016

5/25/2016

IN PROCESS 91 6/17/2016

104 6/20/2016

Medical visit/step 1, outcome Medical visit/step 2, date

Needs to wait till cardiology issues are dealt with to work on hearing issues. Provider visit; ENT eval sought.

Medical visit/step 2 outcome Medical visit/step 3, date

Medical visit/step 3, outcome Medical visit/step 4, date

Medical visit/step 4, outcome Medical visit/step 5, date
Medical visit/step 5, outcome Etc.

11/2016 Court Report, App-193

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 195 of 326 - Page ID#: 1776

Inmate LName

Smith

Jones

Inmate Fname

Bill

John

Institution

LLCC

RCC

DOC number

34567

45678

Arrival at Institution

9/29/2015

4/15/2016

Screening results

Reported hearing problem

Reported hearing difficulty

When was hearing problem first

presented to KYDOC?

5/12/2016

4/15/2016

Date hearing aid provided or finally

found inappropriate

Days to provide hearing aid

IN PROCESS

IN PROCESS

Days so far, if not provided yet

117

144

Medical visit/step 1, Date

5/12/2016

4/15/2016

Medical visit/step 1, outcome Medical visit/step 2, date
Medical visit/step 2 outcome Medical visit/step 3, date
Medical visit/step 3, outcome Medical visit/step 4, date
Medical visit/step 4, outcome Medical visit/step 5, date
Medical visit/step 5, outcome Etc.

Care plan "Hard of Hearing" noted Hearing difficulty noted.

5/25/2016

6/16/2016

Plan for audiology consult

Audiology consult sought

5/31/2016

6/20/2016

Hearing screening offered; amplifier

Audiology consult approved

issued.

6/21/2016

Audiology consult scheduled for this

day, but cancelled; KSR overbooked

transport.

7/19/2016

Audiology visit rescheduled for this

day.

11/2016 Court Report, App-194

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 196 of 326 - Page ID#: 1777

Inmate LName

Jones

Inmate Fname

John

Institution

WKCC

DOC number

Arrival at Institution

Screening results

Reported hearing difficulty

When was hearing problem first

presented to KYDOC?

Date hearing aid provided or finally

found inappropriate

Days to provide hearing aid

IN PROCESS

Days so far, if not provided yet

Medical visit/step 1, Date

Williams

Joe

WKCC

45678

56789

7/7/2016

6/21/2016

Hearing aid noted on arrival

7/7/2016

6/21/2016

IN PROCESS 61 7/7/2016

77 7/6/2016

Medical visit/step 1, outcome Medical visit/step 2, date
Medical visit/step 2 outcome Medical visit/step 3, date

Screening given; needs next steps.

(Note transfer from RCC)

Hearing screen; 4 yesses.

7/25/2016

Saw provider, but no audiology

assessment done.

Medical visit/step 3, outcome Medical visit/step 4, date

Medical visit/step 4, outcome Medical visit/step 5, date
Medical visit/step 5, outcome Etc.

11/2016 Court Report, App-195

Inmate LName

(Column with forumulas only)

Inmate Fname

Institution

DOC number

Arrival at Institution

Screening results

When was hearing problem first

presented to KYDOC?

Date hearing aid provided or finally

found inappropriate

Days to provide hearing aid

IN PROCESS

Days so far, if not provided yet

42619

Medical visit/step 1, Date

Medical visit/step 1, outcome Medical visit/step 2, date
Medical visit/step 2 outcome Medical visit/step 3, date
Medical visit/step 3, outcome Medical visit/step 4, date

Medical visit/step 4, outcome Medical visit/step 5, date
Medical visit/step 5, outcome Etc.

11/2016 Court Report, App-196

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 197 of 326 - Page ID#: 1778

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 198 of 326 - Page ID#: 1779
&9)*#*5(
11/2016 Court Report, App-197

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 199 of 326 - Page ID#: 1780
Knights & Adams v. Kentucky Department of Corrections: Summary of the Settlement Agreement
In a federal lawsuit, Knights and Adams v. Kentucky Department of Corrections, the Department was sued because of the way it was treating deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The case was settled in May 2014, with an agreement about policies and implementation going forward. This document summarizes the Knights & Adams agreement, to help you understand the general areas that agreement covers. To simplify and summarize, this summary uses different language than the agreement. If there’s any significant difference between them, the formal agreement wins. Not every detail of the settlement is included in this summary. In addition, a copy of the entire agreement is attached.
Note: When this summary (and the agreement) use the word “deaf,” that includes hard-ofhearing.
Timing and Grievances: Ɣ Only a few of the items in the agreement have a set deadline. Especially for the others, it may take the prison authorities some time before they actually do all the items here. Ɣ If there are any problems, now or in the future, you should file a grievance with the grievance coordinator for your facility. You have the option to share your grievances with the ADA coordinator, as well. Ɣ The Settlement Monitor assesses compliance with the Agreement and reports any problems to the court. She is not able to serve as a lawyer for any inmate, and is involved only in the issues covered by the Agreement. Ɣ The prison will keep records of all deaf prisoners’ grievances, and will tell the Settlement Monitor about them. The Settlement Monitor may request to review grievances in more detail, but will be able to do that only if you sign a waiver of confidentiality. Ɣ In addition, you can yourself report problems to the Settlement Monitor, by sending a letter to: Margo Schlanger, Kentucky Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street, LR 910 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 For a letter to the Settlement Monitor to be confidential, mark it “LEGAL MAIL.”
No Discrimination: Ɣ Deaf prisoners should not be discriminated against because they are deaf. This means you should have access to services, privileges, facilities, and accommodations that is equal to other, non-deaf prisoners.
ADA Coordinator: Ɣ Every prison has an ADA coordinator. The name of the ADA coordinator for your prison should be posted in your housing unit. Ɣ The ADA coordinator is responsible for assisting with implementing the agreement, including requested accommodations and ensuring effective communication with deaf prisoners.
11/2016 Court Report, App-198

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 200 of 326 - Page ID#: 1781
Ɣ You should talk to the ADA coordinator if you want to request aids or services related to your status as deaf or hard-of-hearing.
Intake and Classification: Ɣ Inmates who arrive to prison beginning August 2015 should undergo a hearing assessment. If you were already in prison before then, your hearing will be assessed at your annual classification review. Ɣ During this assessment, medical staff will test your hearing and document the results. Ɣ If the medical team decides that you have a hearing impairment, they will assume you need aids and/or services--like a sign language interpreter, visual notification, or telecommunication devices. You can waive this if you would like.
Housing: Ɣ The prison gets to decide where to house you, just like they do with every other prisoner.
Identification Cards: Ɣ If you are identified as deaf, you will be given a special identification card saying you have a hearing impairment. These ID cards are to make sure that staff knows about your hearing impairment, so they can communicate effectively with you, and for your safety. Ɣ If you do not want the special ID card, you can sign a waiver. If you sign that waiver, you can change your mind. Ɣ There should be a notice at the entrance of your prison facility and outside your housing unit saying that deaf prisoners live there.
Materials: Ɣ The prison will provide you all the same materials it provides to other prisoners. Ɣ If you cannot understand the materials, you can ask to meet with a staff member and an interpreter to help.
Aids and Services: Ɣ The prison will give you appropriate aids and services so that you can participate in the same privileges, services, and programs as non-deaf prisoners. o Some examples of privileges, services, and programs are orientation, medical appointments, classification or transfer hearings, grievance or discipline hearings, educational or work programs, and religious services. o Some examples of aids and services are qualified interpreters, bed shakers, and videophones. Ɣ During orientation and intake, prison employees will give deaf prisoners information about what aids and services are available, and how to make a request for those aids and services. o If you don’t understand any of the materials, you can ask to meet with a staff member and a qualified interpreter and ask questions. Ɣ If the prison officials decide an aid or service is medically necessary for you, they will give it to you quickly and for free. o Officials will consider on a case-by-case basis whether you can purchase devices with your own money that the officials do not think are medically necessary.
11/2016 Court Report, App-199

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 201 of 326 - Page ID#: 1782
ƒ This might include devices like vibrating clocks, headset amplifiers, and special televisions. Prison officials will consider whether the device is a security risk when making this decision.
o Prison employees can decide whether devices are allowed and can limit what is available at commissary.
o You can request a device from the ADA Coordinator if it is not sold at commissary.
Paying for Medical Devices: Ɣ Deaf prisoners will have to pay a co-payment for any device, just as non-deaf prisoners are charged for medical applications or devices. Ɣ Prisoners who are deemed indigent will not be charged for medically necessary devices. Ɣ You will not be charged for hearing aid batteries.
Sign Language Interpreters: Ɣ The prison should provide in-person qualified interpreter for: o Medical care or medical appointments (including dental, hearing, mental health appointments and off-site medical care) o Disciplinary hearings o Transfer or classification processes that might affect your status o Transitional programming o Rehabilitative programming (for example, AA or NA) o Educational programs (for example, GED classes, literacy classes, or technical education and certification classes) Ɣ You can also request a qualified interpreter or other assistance that allow effective communication for: o Vocational or work programs and work assignments o Communication with whoever is responsible for your post-release supervision o Parole hearings (but the obligation to provide necessary assistance is the Parole Board’s, not the prison) o Religious services (but where the religious service is provided by an outside volunteer, the prison is not responsible for communication at that service) Ɣ The prison will give you a schedule of when qualified interpreters and other aids or services will be available. This schedule should be up to date. Ɣ You can request qualified interpreters for other communications, too, but you will need approval from the ADA coordinator or the warden.
Hand Restraints: Ɣ The prison will use hand restraints only when: o Transporting a deaf prisoner to or from a prison o Transferring a deaf prisoner into or out of a special management unit o As needed in response to security threats Ɣ In most circumstances, a two-point system will be used. Ɣ Hand restraints should be removed in secure environments, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place.
11/2016 Court Report, App-200

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 202 of 326 - Page ID#: 1783
Ɣ Two-point restraints are used during off-site and on-site medical care visits, unless a medical professional requires or asks that they be removed or adjusted.
Discipline: Ɣ You can request a qualified interpreter for any disciplinary hearing where you are suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, an infraction. Ɣ The prison must provide an interpreter in the following situations: o staff investigations where you are exchanging information with a prison employee, even before a disciplinary report is filled out o investigative interviews between you and a prison employee o during preparation of the disciplinary report, if it involves the exchange of information between you and a prison employee o during the shift supervisor’s review of the disciplinary report, if it involves the exchange of information between you and a prison employee o during the investigator’s review of the disciplinary report, if it involves the exchange of information between you and a prison employee o if you are given Miranda warnings (when the prison employee tells you about your right to remain silent and to request a lawyer or that anything you say can be used against you) o if an employee tells you about your right to consult with an assigned legal aide o when employees tell you about the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing o during any part of the hearing or re-hearing that involves the exchange of information between you and a prison employee o if you are a witness during a disciplinary hearing for someone else Ɣ You can waive your right to an interpreter. Ɣ Like a non-deaf prisoner, if you are suspected of, charged with, or witness to a disciplinary infraction, you may be entitled to an inmate or staff adviser. If you do have an adviser, you are entitled to a sign language interpreter during these meetings. Ɣ Your disciplinary hearings must be held within the same time frame as disciplinary hearings for non-deaf prisoners.
Telecommunications: Ɣ The prison will give you access to telecommunication devices so that you can communicate with people outside the prison. Ɣ You should have access to TTY/TDD devices, relay services, and videophones. Ɣ These devices should enable you to communicate as effectively as non-deaf prisoners can communicate via telephone. Ɣ These devices should be available to you during the same days and hours as the phones. Ɣ You can request to use the TTY/TDD, relay services, or videophones; reasonable requests should be granted. Ɣ Your conversations will be monitored as much as and in the same way that non-deaf prisoners’ calls are monitored. Ɣ So if you want to use the system to talk to your lawyer, or to the Settlement Monitor, you need to request that from your Corrections Treatment Officer.
11/2016 Court Report, App-201

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 203 of 326 - Page ID#: 1784
Ɣ You can have twice as many minutes to complete a videophone call and three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call as non-deaf prisoners can have to use a traditional telephone.
Ɣ You will not be charged for the use of videophones. Ɣ Videophones will have voice carry-over features. Ɣ The prison is responsible for making sure this equipment is in good working order and
will address complaints in a reasonable amount of time. Ɣ Prison employees should be trained in how to use this equipment.
Media: Ɣ All audio-visual media should have open- or closed-captioning. Ɣ Captioning should be turned on and remain on if a deaf prisoner requests it. Ɣ You may purchase TVs with your own funds that have open- or closed-captioning. Ɣ If the captioning stops working, the prison employees will work with you to fix it within a reasonable time in the same way that they work with other prisoners to address their property.
Non-Auditory Alert Notifications: Ɣ Being deaf should not get in the way of your ability to receive any announcements, alarms, or other information. Ɣ The prison should have a non-auditory alert system to tell you about any prison-wide events at the same time that non-deaf prisoners are alerted (for example, announcements, visits, and roll-calls). Ɣ The prison will publish the institution schedule in your handbook and promptly post any schedule changes in all dormitories, the library, and the gym.
Emergency Evacuations: Ɣ An effective non-auditory alert system will go off in an emergency. This system might include flashing lights and bed shakers. Ɣ Prison staff will be trained to safely relocate you during an emergency.
Staff Training: Ɣ Prison employees should be trained to interact with the deaf prisoner population. Ɣ Employees will be trained in topics like: best practices to communicate with deaf prisoners, the unique needs and problems of deaf prisoners, identifying communication needs of deaf prisoners, psychological implications of deafness, proper role and use of interpreters, how to use TTY/TDD/videophones and other telecommunication systems, how to use auxiliary aids and services, disciplinary matters, the anti-discrimination policy, the hand restraint policy, and the requirements of this agreement.
11/2016 Court Report, App-202

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 204 of 326 - Page ID#: 1785

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ET AL. AND PLAINTIFFS OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL KNIGHTS [NUMBERED FOR USE IN COMPLIANCE MONITORING]

I. DEFINITIONS

[I.]1. “ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325).

[I.]2.

“Auxiliary Aids and Services” include, but are not limited to, “Qualified Interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments,” 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as hearing aids, computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, “TDDs” or “TTYs” as defined below, videotext displays, written materials (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.104); as well as Videophones, access to telephone relay services, visual alert or alarm systems, and bed shakers.

[I.]3.

“Deaf Inmates” means Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). .

[I.]4.

“Direct Threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.

[I.]5.

“Effective Communication” and “Effectively Communicate” means communication with Deaf Inmates that is substantially as effective as communication with the general Inmate population (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)) and will, when necessary, include the provision of appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, such as Qualified Interpreters. Effective Communication affords Deaf Inmates an opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the KDOC’s services, programs, or activities in a way that is substantially equal to the opportunity provided to a similarly situated non-Deaf Inmate. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).

[I.]6. “Effective Date” means thirty (30) days after this Agreement is filed with the Court.

[I.]7. “Inmate” means any person in the custody of the KDOC.

11/2016 Court Report, App-203

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 205 of 326 - Page ID#: 1786
[I.]8. “KCDHH” means the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
[I.]9. “KDOC” means Kentucky Department of Corrections.
[I.]10. “KDOC program” means any program or activity, or aid, benefit, or service as defined by the ADA and Section 504 (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, § 41.51) available to Inmates of KDOC for which the KDOC does more than only provide physical space at its facilities, including but not limited to, programs, activities, aids, benefits, or services mandated by law, qualifying for educational or early release credits, and/or ordered as part of an Inmate’s sentence.
[I.]11. “KDOC employees,” “KDOC staff,” and “KDOC personnel” each and collectively include all employees, contractors, agents, and other staff of the KDOC whose job responsibilities place them on a regular basis in contact with Deaf Inmates, and the supervisors of those employees, contractors, agents, or other staff.
[I.]12. “KDOC Adult Institution” means any facility owned or operated by the KDOC for the care and custody Inmates, including but not limited to Bell Country Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
[I.]13. “Off-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a location not owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]14. “On-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a KDOC facility, including medical care provided by third parties in facilities owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]15. “Parole hearing” means any hearing or meeting during which an Inmate is being offered the opportunity to be released from KDOC custody on parole.
[I.]16. “Plaintiffs” means, for purposes of this Agreement, Oscar Adams (inmate #243676) and Michael Knights (inmate #233021).
[I.]17. “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means attorneys-of-record for Plaintiffs in Oscar Adams and Michael Knights, et al., v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv00001 (E.D. Ky.) at the time this Agreement is signed.
[I.]18. “Qualified Interpreter” means a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104.
11/2016 Court Report, App-204

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 206 of 326 - Page ID#: 1787
A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.
[I.]19. “Section 504” means Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2014).
[I.]20. “Settlement Monitor” means Margo Schlanger, whose curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
[I.]21. “TTYs” or “TDDs” means teletypewriters or telecommunications devices for the Deaf, which are devices used with a telephone to communicate with persons who are Deaf by typing and reading communications.
[I.]22. “Video Remote Interpreting” or “VRI” means a video-telecommunication interpreting service, which uses Qualified Interpreters and is delivered over a high-speed Internet connection. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d).
[I.]23. “Videophone” means a telephone with a camera and screen for visual, real-time communications. The term Videophone as used in this Agreement is limited to Videophones intended for the use by Deaf Inmates within the custody of the KDOC, and does not include Videophones within KDOC Adult Institutions intended for the use of the general Inmate population.
II. GENERAL POLICIES
[II.]A. Non-discrimination Based on Disability
The KDOC will ensure that Deaf Inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC shall provide Deaf Inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
11/2016 Court Report, App-205

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 207 of 326 - Page ID#: 1788

[II.]B. ADA Coordinator

[II.B.1.] Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will assign a staff member at each KDOC Adult Institution the title, duties, and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The KDOC will maintain the ADA Coordinator position at each KDOC Adult Institution as required by law. The ADA Coordinator responsibilities will be a part of the official duties assigned to the person in this role. The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.

[II.B.2.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will notify the Settlement Monitor of the identity of each KDOC employee assigned the title, duties and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC’s website. The name and contact information of each KDOC Adult Institution’s ADA Coordinator will be communicated to all Deaf Inmates incarcerated in each respective KDOC Adult Institution, and will also be prominently posted in a secure area in any housing unit in which Deaf Inmates are held.

[II.B.3.] ADA Coordinators will assist with providing, coordinating, and overseeing Auxiliary Aids and Services for Deaf Inmates and for implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be provided with and responsible for knowing the contents of this Agreement, and will assist with implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be available to assist with various aspects of accommodating Deaf Inmates. In such situations, ADA Coordinators will ensure Effective Communication for the Deaf Inmates.

III. INITIAL CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT

[III.]A. General Policy

[III.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification with Effective Communication. The purpose is to facilitate communication between the Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (or other persons) during medical, psychological, and educational testing and evaluation, as well as to provide an explanation of prison policies and procedures, including Inmate discipline, grievances, and how to utilize the TTY, Videophone and other Auxiliary Aids and Services.

[III.A.2.] As of the date of this Agreement, initial intake, assessment, and classification for male Inmates occurs at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW).

[III.]B.

Hearing Assessment

As part of the initial intake, assessment, and classification, medical staff will assess and, if necessary, test all persons who may be a Deaf Inmate for Deafness. If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate’s institutional file, and

11/2016 Court Report, App-206

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 208 of 326 - Page ID#: 1789
will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator. Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.
[III.]C. Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment
[III.C.1.] After medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.
[III.C.2.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not require any or all of the Auxiliary Aids and Services set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Auxiliary Aids and Services and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file.
[III.C.3.] If an Inmate is not found to have a hearing impairment at his or her initial intake, assessment, and classification, initially refuses, or does not request Auxiliary Aids and Services, but later believes that Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary to ensure Effective Communication, he or she will fill out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form. KDOC will provide the Inmate who was initially not found to have a hearing impairment with a hearing assessment if so ordered by medical staff. If that individual is found to be Deaf, KDOC will follow the procedures set forth in this section.
[III.]D. Ensuring Staff Awareness Through Identification Cards
[III.D.1.] The KDOC will take appropriate steps to ensure that all KDOC personnel having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate are made aware of such Inmate’s need for Auxiliary Aids and Services so that Effective Communication with, and the safety of, the Deaf Inmate will be ensured. Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Inmate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Inmate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services. If any KDOC staff takes any Deaf Inmate’s ID card, the Deaf Inmate will be given another official indicator of his or her Deaf status.
[III.D.2.] All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards.
[III.D.3.] The KDOC will post at the entrance to all KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates a notice clearly stating that the KDOC Adult Institution houses Deaf Inmates and that the Deaf Inmates carry an ID card or other official indicator with them. The notice will include a picture of the ID card and other official indicator carried by Deaf Inmates. The Notice will also be posted outside each housing unit where Deaf Inmates are held.
11/2016 Court Report, App-207

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 209 of 326 - Page ID#: 1790

[III.D.4.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not wish to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file. If any Deaf Inmate signs a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card but later requests to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will promptly be provided an opportunity to fill out a Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card form. The KDOC will then promptly provide the Inmate with a Deaf Inmate ID card and update the Deaf Inmate’s institutional file.

[III.]E.

Interpretation of Materials

The KDOC will provide the Deaf Inmate materials it provides to all Inmates. In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

[III.]F. Creation and Interpretation of Rights Materials

[III.F.1.] Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services. The KDOC will create these materials using language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate. The KDOC will provide these materials to Deaf Inmates with the orientation materials provided to all other Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification.

[III.F.2.] In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

IV. HOUSING

[IV.]A. General Policy

[IV.A.1.] The KDOC has the discretion to house Deaf Inmates at whatever KDOC Adult Institution it deems appropriate. See, e.g., KY Corrections Policy and Procedure 18.7.

[IV.A.2.] Wherever a Deaf Inmate is housed, that Deaf Inmate retains all rights as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, and this Agreement.

[IV.]B. Schedule of Accommodations

11/2016 Court Report, App-208

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 210 of 326 - Page ID#: 1791
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, KDOC personnel at those KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed shall provide each Deaf Inmate with a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available. When the schedule of accommodations changes, including when a Qualified Interpreter will be available, an updated schedule of accommodations will be given to all Deaf Inmates.
V. PROVISION OF AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
[V.]A. General Policy
[V.A.1.] In order to ensure substantial equality for Deaf Inmates, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. This substantial equality will extend to include KDOC programs for or to Deaf Inmates provided by third party vendors, contractors, or state-funded entities, such as community colleges.
[V.A.2.] Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.
[V.A.3.] In those instances where the KDOC permits volunteers to provide activities (religious or otherwise)—including programs, services, or meetings—to Inmates in KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed, the KDOC will allow the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements, and will work with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteer-provided activities. Such an accommodation must be initiated by request from the Deaf Inmate to the volunteer organization or individual. The responsibility for finding the interpreter will not rest with the KDOC, and proper notice allowing the KDOC to conduct appropriate security clearances must be provided. To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.
[V.A.4.] The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and may therefore choose not to provide such Deaf Inmates substantially equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
11/2016 Court Report, App-209

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 211 of 326 - Page ID#: 1792
[V.A.5.] The KDOC will provide instructions for the use of all Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Deaf Inmates’ full use and enjoyment of the Auxiliary Aids and Services.
[V.]B. Medical Devices
All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to a co-payment for that medical device, just as non-Deaf Inmates are charged a co-payment for other medical appliances or devices. This copay shall not apply, however, to hearing aid batteries or for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.
[V.]C. Maintenance of Auxiliary Aids and Services
The KDOC shall maintain all Auxiliary Aids and Services in its custody in good working condition at all times.
VI. QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
[VI.]A. General Policy
[VI.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. The KDOC agrees that Deaf Inmates in need of interpreter services will receive a Qualified Interpreter able to facilitate Effective Communication with that particular Deaf Inmate. The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
Ɣ communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care;
Ɣ disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
Ɣ transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate’s status; Ɣ transitional programming; Ɣ rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and Ɣ educational programming.
[VI.A.2.] The KDOC shall also provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated as circumstances warrant. The KDOC will be responsible for scheduling and overseeing the provision of Qualified Interpreters.
11/2016 Court Report, App-210

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 212 of 326 - Page ID#: 1793
[VI.A.3.] When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate’s need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board’s duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate’s scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.
[VI.]B. Other Means of Communication
KDOC employees will communicate with Deaf Inmates for such purposes, and to the same extent, as they would communicate with non-Deaf Inmates using all available means of communication. This provision in no way lessens the KDOC’s obligation to provide Qualified Interpreters in certain situations and in a timely manner.
[VI.]C. On-site Medical Care
[VI.C.]1. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication for all scheduled appointments between Deaf Inmates and medical personnel at KDOC facilities, including, but not limited to, review of medical history, medical appointments, follow up meetings or appointments, and treatment meetings. The parties agree that for many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication in these circumstances.
[VI.C.]2. Informing Appropriate Medical Staff
The KDOC will ensure that all medical staff are made aware of an Inmate’s Deafness. For each Deaf Inmate, the medical staff will note, in bold marking, the Deaf Inmate’s disability on the medical file cover and in the Deaf Inmate’s medical file.
[VI.C.]3. Scheduling Medical Appointments with Qualified Interpreters
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with the ability to request Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Effective Communication at medical appointments. The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Inmates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services. Appointments for Deaf Inmates requiring Auxiliary Aids and Services will be scheduled within the same time period from the initial request as those for similarly situated nonDeaf Inmates.
[VI.C.]4. Emergency Events
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in conjunction with
11/2016 Court Report, App-211

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 213 of 326 - Page ID#: 1794
medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible. Lifesaving medical care should never be delayed because no interpretation services are available.
[VI.]D. Off-site Medical Care
[VI.D.1.] As early as practicable, the KDOC will inform all off-site medical providers that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time.
[VI.D.2.] In the case of an emergency, the KDOC will, as soon as possible, inform an off-site medical provider that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service is being transported to the off-site medical provider. Notification will include the Deaf Inmate’s estimated time of arrival.
[VI.]E. Educational, Vocational, and Rehabilitative Programming
The KDOC shall provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services for all KDOC programs, which are offered at KDOC Adult Institutions and which Deaf Inmates are qualified for, admitted into, or in which Deaf Inmates are actively participating. The following appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services will be provided:
[VI.E.]1. Educational Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned education materials where available. In addition, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for educational KDOC program classes. The educational program classes include, without limitation, literacy, adult basic education, GED preparatory, and technical education and certification classes. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]2. Vocational/Work Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned vocational/work materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for vocational/work KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]3. KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse, and evidence-based KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the
11/2016 Court Report, App-212

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 214 of 326 - Page ID#: 1795
KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)). The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs. (
[VI.]F. Work Assignments
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates opportunities for institutional work assignments that are consistent with the opportunities for the same assignments given to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
[VI.]G. Religious Services
[VI.G.1.] The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.
[VI.G.2.] No Deaf Inmate will be required to attend a religious service where a Qualified Interpreter is not provided in order to receive any religious meal, diet, or otherwise offered religious accommodation.
[VI.G.3.] To the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.
[VI.]H. Transfer and Classification Matters
The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate’s transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate’s status.
[VI.]I. Transitional Programming – Post-Release Supervision (Including Parole)
Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under post-release supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.
[VI.]J. Additional Communications
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement. A significant communication includes any
11/2016 Court Report, App-213

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 215 of 326 - Page ID#: 1796
communication for which the Deaf Inmate requests an interpreter, subject to approval by the ADA Coordinator, the Warden, and/or the Warden’s designee.
VII. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
[VII.]A. Qualified Interpreters For Disciplinary Proceedings
[VII.A.1.] The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction, including those proceedings carried out under Chapter 15 of the Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure and any other disciplinary policies and procedures now in force or subsequently adopted by the KDOC. A Qualified Interpreter must be available to a Deaf Inmate at the following stages of the above-described disciplinary proceedings:
Ɣ staff investigations involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, prior to filing a disciplinary report or equivalent;
Ɣ investigative interviews that involve the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (such as when an adverse party is interviewed);
Ɣ during any part of the preparation of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
Ɣ during any part of the shift supervisor’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
Ɣ during any part of the investigator’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
Ɣ giving Miranda warnings to a Deaf Inmate; Ɣ advising a Deaf Inmate of his or her right to consult with an assigned legal
aide; Ɣ advising a Deaf Inmate of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing; and Ɣ during any part of the hearing, or re-hearing, before the Adjustment
Committee, Adjustment Officer or Unit Hearing Officer that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel. [VII.A.2.] Inmate or staff advisors will be provided and accessible to Deaf Inmates who are suspected of, charged with, or witnesses to a disciplinary infraction, on the same terms as they are provided to non-Deaf Inmates. To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.
11/2016 Court Report, App-214

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 216 of 326 - Page ID#: 1797
[VII.]B. Miscellaneous
[VII.B.1.] If any Deaf Inmate is a witness at a disciplinary hearing, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter at the hearing.
[VII.B.2.] The KDOC must hold disciplinary hearings for Deaf Inmates within the same time frame as it holds disciplinary hearings for non-Deaf Inmates.
[VII.B.3.] Nothing in this Agreement precludes any Deaf Inmate who is suspected of or charged with a disciplinary infraction from voluntarily waiving his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter and to proceed through any stage of a disciplinary proceeding without the benefits of a Qualified Interpreter. If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.
VIII. NON-AUDITORY ALERT NOTIFICATIONS
[VIII.]A. General Policy
Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.
[VIII.]B. Relaying Information
[VIII.B.1.] The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Inmates. The non-auditory alert system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.
[VIII.B.2.] In addition, the KDOC will continue to publish the institution schedule in the handbook that every Inmate receives and to post promptly any schedule changes, which are done by memorandum from the Warden, in all dormitories, the library, and the gym at each KDOC Adult Institution in which a Deaf Inmate is housed. Further, the KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.
[VIII.B.3.] The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.
11/2016 Court Report, App-215

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 217 of 326 - Page ID#: 1798
[VIII.]C. Non-Auditory Alarms and Emergency Evacuation
[VIII.C.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in real-time and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers. The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.
[VIII.C.2.] KDOC personnel shall be responsible for the evacuation or safe relocation of Deaf Inmates during an emergency. Therefore, during emergencies, KDOC employees will personally and Effectively Communicate adequate information about the emergency to Deaf Inmates.
IX. TELECOMMUNICATIONS
[IX.]A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with access to telecommunication devices that enable them to have communication with people outside of the KDOC and that are substantially equivalent—in terms of the amount and quality of the information conveyed—to the communications that non-Deaf Inmates have with people outside of the KDOC using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones.
[IX.]B. Monitoring Communications
The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.
[IX.]C. Additional Time for Communication
The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
11/2016 Court Report, App-216

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 218 of 326 - Page ID#: 1799
[IX.]D. Technology KDOC Will Provide
The KDOC will make the following communications technologies available at KDCO Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated to facilitate communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC facilities. This list of technological equipment is not exhaustive. The KDOC will keep abreast of evolving technology and will consider adding additional equipment to reflect technological advances, as it deems appropriate or as required by applicable federal and state law. KDOC will provide a list of available communications equipment to Deaf Inmates upon their arrival at the KDOC Adult Institutions in which they are housed.
[IX.D.]1. TTY or TDD
The parties acknowledge that there may be reasonable concerns over the theft and destruction of the TTY/TDD device(s), and that the TTY/TDD device(s) therefore must be maintained in a secured location when not in use. The parties also acknowledge that access to the TTY/TDD device(s) will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate. Nonetheless, for every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, in no event will TTY/TDD access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones, except to the extent that Deaf Inmates must request access to the otherwise secured TTY/TDD device(s). A reasonable request by a Deaf Inmate to access the TTY/TDD device(s) will be granted. TTY/TDDs will be located in areas substantially as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. TTY/TDDs will be available for Deaf Inmate use during the same days and hours as conventional telephones. At each KDOC Adult Institution where any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will ensure that an alternate TTY or TDD unit is available for use when the regular TTY or TDD is broken or otherwise unavailable.
[IX.D.]2. Relay Services
For every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will enable all TTYs and TDDs to access publicly available relay service phone numbers such as 711 and 1-800 numbers. Deaf Inmates will not be charged any more than similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates for the use of relay services.
[IX.D.]3. Videophones
[IX.D.3.a.] Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Videophones shall be installed and accessible to Deaf Inmates in any KDOC Adult Institution that houses Deaf Inmates. Access to the Videophone will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate, but in no event will Videophone access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones. Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use. Deaf Inmates will not be charged for the use of Videophones.
11/2016 Court Report, App-217

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 219 of 326 - Page ID#: 1800
[IX.D.3.b.] Videophones will allow voice carry-over features.
[IX.]E. Responsibility for Maintaining Equipment and Training Staff [IX.E.1.] The KDOC will ensure that the technology used to permit communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC Adult Institutions is in good working order. Further, the KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC’s control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order. KDOC staff shall attempt to resolve complaints about any malfunctioning equipment within a reasonable time of receiving that complaint. To the extent services, equipment, and resources that are outside KDOC’s control are involved (for example services or equipment provided by cable, telephone, utilities, or various other companies), KDOC will agree to notify those providers/companies of any problems and, to the extent necessary or possible under the circumstances, work with them expeditiously to resolve the problem. [IX.E.2.] The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.
X. MEDIA [X.1.] The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Inmate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate’s request. [X.2.] The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closed-captioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Inmate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.
XI. HAND RESTRAINTS [XI.]A. General Policy
[XI.A.1.] According to the KDOC’s hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
11/2016 Court Report, App-218

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 220 of 326 - Page ID#: 1801
Ɣ when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution; Ɣ when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit;
and Ɣ as needed in response to security threats. [XI.A.2.] The applicable portions of the KDOC hand restraint policy, summarized above, have been reviewed to confirm when hand restraints are used on Inmates confined to KDOC Adult Institutions. While the policy does not specify the manner in which mechanical restraints are used during Off-site Medical Care, an Affidavit is included as Appendix A to this Agreement describing the two-point bed restraint system used during Off-site Medical Care. The two-point system would allow a Deaf Inmate to use his or her hands for communicating via sign language to some degree. KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate.
[XI.]B. Off-site Medical Care
[XI.B.1.] During Off-site Medical Care, the KDOC shall use a two-point hand restraint system to allow for the Deaf Inmate’s need for Effective Communication while considering the safety and security of the Deaf Inmate and those located at Off-site Medical Care facilities. The KDOC will include training on use of the two-point hand restraint system in its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees.
[XI.B.2.] In the event a medical decision made by medical professionals or medical staff that requires or calls for removal or adjustment of hand restraints, the KDOC will follow its secured policy regarding the removal of mechanical restraints where necessary for treatment or emergencies.
[XI.]C. On-Site Medical Care
The KDOC’s hand restraint policy, summarized above in Section XI.A., will be followed for Onsite Medical Care.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS DEVICES AND AIDS
Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination. Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of
11/2016 Court Report, App-219

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 221 of 326 - Page ID#: 1802
their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary. Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Inmate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be documented. The ADA Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.
XIII. TRAINING
[XIII.]A. General Policy
[XIII.A.1.] The KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will provide training as defined in Section XIII.B below to KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population. The KDOC will incorporate this training into its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees. This training will be included in current KDOC training within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The KDOC will update the training materials as required by law, including but not limited to, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws.
[XIII.A.2.] The KDOC will provide any materials that may be used for training, as specified under Section XIV of this Agreement, to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session. In addition, the KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will update and allow the KCDHH and the Settlement Monitor to review the training as defined in Section XIII.B. at least every two years.
[XIII.]B. KDOC Employee Training
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will begin training KDOC employees on the following topics:
Ɣ best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals; Ɣ the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened
individuals; Ɣ identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf; Ɣ the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction
with hearing corrections personnel; Ɣ the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters; Ɣ directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other
telecommunication equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people;
11/2016 Court Report, App-220

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 222 of 326 - Page ID#: 1803
Ɣ disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV;
Ɣ the KDOC’s anti-discrimination policy; Ɣ all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates; Ɣ hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and Ɣ the requirements of this Agreement.
XIV. GRIEVANCES
[XIV.1.] All KDOC grievance coordinators will inform Deaf Inmates who file a grievance of the option to share that grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator of the KDOC Adult Institution in which the Deaf Inmate is housed. If the Deaf Inmate agrees to share the grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator, the grievance coordinator will forward a copy of that grievance (or grievance response or outcome) to the ADA Coordinator for review.
[XIV.2.] A written record of all Deaf Inmates’ grievances (and any responses and outcomes) will be maintained by the KDOC. For five years following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor may request the records of any Deaf Inmate’s grievances, as long as the Deaf Inmate signs a waiver of confidentiality pursuant to KRS 197.023, and a copy of that Deaf Inmate’s records will be provided, free of charge, to the Settlement Monitor.
[XIV.3.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every three months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement. This written summary will describe, for each grievance, the issue raised by the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC Adult Institution where the grievance was filed, a summary of KDOC’s response, and whether and how the grievance was resolved.
XV. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
[XV.]A. Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Right of Access
To the extent Plaintiffs’ Counsel maintains a current or prospective attorney-client relationship with any Deaf Inmate, they shall be provided the same access to that Deaf Inmate and to the records relating to that Deaf Inmate, as any other attorney with a similar relationship to another non-Deaf Inmate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-221

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 223 of 326 - Page ID#: 1804
[XV.]B. The Settlement Monitor’s Investigation
[XV.B.1.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date, the following will apply to the extent necessary to permit the Settlement Monitor to thoroughly and objectively assess the KDOC’s compliance with and implementation of this Agreement:
Ɣ [XV.B.1.a] The Settlement Monitor will have unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC to provide any requested records, files, or papers, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
Ɣ [XV.B.1.b] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all other materials relating to the case Adams, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case no. 14-cv-00001, except for those materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Any requested materials protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine will be logged with information including the author, date, nature of the material, reason for the claim of privilege, and persons to whom the material was disseminated, and this log will be provided to the Settlement Monitor.
Ɣ [XV.B.1.c] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all pertinent staff members and employees of the KDOC. The Settlement Monitor may engage in both formal and informal conferences with staff members and employees, including confidential or group interviews, and such persons will cooperate will the Settlement Monitor fully and will respond to all reasonable inquiries and requests relating to compliance efforts. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
Ɣ [XV.B.1.d] The Settlement Monitor may conduct confidential interviews with any Deaf Inmate or with groups of Deaf Inmates incarcerated at Adult KDOC Institutions. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every six months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a current and up-to-date list of Deaf Inmates in the KDOC’s custody, which identifies the name, DOC numbers and the KDOC Adult Institution for each Deaf Inmate. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
Ɣ [XV.B.1.e] The Settlement Monitor may request KDOC staff members and employees to prepare, where appropriate, written responses to any questions by the Settlement Monitor related to the implementation of the Agreement or issues in this litigation, so long as the request does not interfere with security
11/2016 Court Report, App-222

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 224 of 326 - Page ID#: 1805
obligations of KDOC staff members and employees. The KDOC will not refuse or fail to respond to reasonable requests. Responses to these requests shall be provided in a timely manner that is reasonable and shall not interfere in the security obligations of any KDOC staff members or employees. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC staff members or employees to provide any requested responses, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
Ɣ [XV.B.1.f] The Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution so long as the KDOC is provided notice a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the visit. All visits will be supervised by a KDOC employee. Visits will be limited to only those areas of a KDOC Adult Institution that are affected by this Agreement. Absent Court order or a separate agreement, the Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution only once in a calendar year. The KDOC will pay the cost of and associated with providing Qualified Interpreters for the Settlement Monitor’s visits to KDOC Adult Institutions.
[XV.B.2.] The parties will not refuse reasonable requests for records, files, papers, or other materials or for access to people or other information. The Settlement Monitor will conduct the bulleted monitoring, above, in a reasonable manner to minimize interference with the daily operations of the KDOC. Absent a Court order requiring otherwise, the KDOC retains discretion to prohibit the Settlement Monitor from conducting the aforementioned monitoring on the buildings and premises under the control of the KDOC, but the KDOC will not unreasonably refuse requests for visits.
[XV.B.3.] The Settlement Monitor may hire other persons as the Settlement Monitor determines to be necessary to carry out the Settlement Monitor’s duties.
[XV.B.4.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor will issue semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties detailing the parties’ compliance with and implementation of this Agreement.
[XV.B.5.] The KDOC will not pay for the fees and expenses due to the Settlement Monitor for the Settlement Monitor’s services under this section.
XVI. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
[XVI.]A. Release
In consideration of the representations, promises and agreements set forth herein, including the payments as set forth in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Plaintiffs, on their behalf and on behalf of their assignees, heirs, executors, family members, beneficiaries, administrators, successors, and anyone acting, or claiming to act, on their behalf, hereby releases and forever discharges the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, KDOC, J. Michael Brown, Ladonna Thompson, Kimberly Potter-Blair,
11/2016 Court Report, App-223

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 225 of 326 - Page ID#: 1806
Paula Holden, Jim Erwin, Randy White, Gregory Howard, Clark Taylor, Aaron Smith, Kathy Litteral, Steve Haney, Gary Beckstrom, Alan Brown, Janet Conover, Joseph Meko, Don Bottoms, Ravonne Sims, Steve Woodward, and Bobbie Underwood from any and all claims and causes of action, known and unknown, asserted and unasserted, direct and indirect, and of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, which they had on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement arising out of the facts set forth in the discrimination charge they filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division.
[XVI.]B. Dismissal
[XVI.B.1.] The Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims of the Amended Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division (the “Court”), Case Number 3:14-cv-00001.
[XVI.B.2.] The parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this Agreement as set out in Section XVI.E of this Agreement, below.
[XVI.]C. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Disbursements and Expenses
In settlement of all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, any disbursements and expenses, including expert fees, incurred on behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation up to and including the Effective Date, the parties agree that within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall pay $250,000.00 as directed by Plaintiffs’ counsel.
[XVI.]D. Damages
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall directly pay (1) Plaintiff Oscar Adams $1,500.00 in damages and (2) Plaintiff Michael Knights $1,500.00 in damages. The KDOC also agrees to pay within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement Plaintiff Michael Knights $77.62 to compensate for lien charges assessed against him for communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel regarding this case and settlement.
[XVI.]E. Enforcement Powers
[XVI.E.1.] During the term of the Agreement, as set out in Section XVII.H, Plaintiffs may move the court for reinstatement of the lawsuit, or may elect to seek specific performance or institute an action for breach. An action to enforce this Agreement does not include any action for damages, except for enforcement of Section XVI.D. A Plaintiff seeking to enforce this Agreement can only seek to have a court order the KDOC to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
[XVI.E.2.] The lawsuit may not be reinstated, nor a claim for breach or specific performance of this Agreement brought, before a Plaintiff first notifies the KDOC of the nature of the alleged material non-compliance and gives the KDOC sixty (60) days to cure the alleged breach. The parties agree to non-binding mediation prior to any Plaintiff moving to reinstate the lawsuit or filing an enforcement action.
11/2016 Court Report, App-224

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 226 of 326 - Page ID#: 1807
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS [XVII.]A. Non-Admission
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, facts, or allegations. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, or the admission of the validity of any defense.
[XVII.]B. Private Settlement Agreement This Agreement is a private settlement agreement within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
[XVII.]C. Confidentiality No part of this Agreement is or will be considered confidential by the parties. This Agreement will be made available by request under the Freedom of Information Act.
[XVII.]D. Entire Agreement [XVII.D.1.] This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. There were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this document, except as stated within the document itself. The terms of this Agreement are contractual in nature. [XVII.D.2.] All parties agree that the relief provided in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.
[XVII.]E. Execution This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, all of which, when so executed and taken together, shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each counterpart may be delivered by email (as a .pdf attachment) or facsimile, and an email or facsimile signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.
[XVII.]F. Binding This Agreement is final and binding on the Parties. Each Party has a duty to so inform any such successor in interest.
[XVII.]G. Non-Waiver Failure by the Plaintiffs to seek enforcement of this Agreement pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision will not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances and provisions.
11/2016 Court Report, App-225

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 227 of 326 - Page ID#: 1808
[XVII.]H. Severability In the event that a court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, such provision will be severed from this Agreement and all other provisions will remain valid and enforceable, provided however that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, the Parties will attempt, through reasonable, good faith negotiations, to agree upon such other amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the Parties as closely as possible to the relative rights and obligations initially intended by them hereunder.
[XVII.]I. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall remain in effect for five years from the Effective Date. The KDOC, however, will continue to provide all accommodations required under the law, including under the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, regardless of any term limit applicable to this Agreement. Signed: /s/
11/2016 Court Report, App-226

CaCsaes:e3::31:41-4c-vc-v0-00000010-1G-GFVFTV-TE-BEABADoDcoc#:#8:184-F2iledF:ile0d6:/2142//1055/1P6agPea: g1eo:f2328- Poaf g3e26ID-#P:a1g4e66 ID#: 1809
11/2016 Court Report, App-227

CaCsaes:e3::31:41-4c-vc-v0-00000010-1G-GFVFTV-TE-BEABADoDcoc#:#8:184-F2iledF:ile0d6:/2142//1055/1P6agPea: g2eo:f2329- Poaf g3e26ID-#P:a1g4e67 ID#: 1810
11/2016 Court Report, App-228

CaCsaes:e3::31:41-4c-vc-v0-00000010-1G-GFVFTV-TE-BEABADoDcoc#:#8:184-F2iledF:ile0d6:/2142//1055/1P6agPea: g3eo:f2330- Poaf g3e26ID-#P:a1g4e68 ID#: 1811
11/2016 Court Report, App-229

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 231 of 326 - Page ID#: 1812

/PW$PVSU3FQPSU
"QQFOEJY7
KYDOC Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Training: Settlement Monitor’s Recommended Revision
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.) Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor September 7, 2016
11/2016 Court Report, App-230

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 232 of 326 - Page ID#: 1813

Notes
• Slide 16 (“What It Sounds Like”) needs to be copied from the existing training.
• Slide 20 (“Deaf culture”): There’s nothing wrong with this, but I think it’s unnecessary.
• Slide 27 (“Deaf in Prison”) needs the video copied from the existing training.
• Slide 37 (“Identification”: Add an animation effect to highlight the words “Inmate Precaution” and then the comments about hearing loss.
• Slide 38: (“Identification”): Add an animation effect to highlight the word “HOH” in the picture.
• Slide 61 (“Communication Access Real Time (CART)”): Since there is no KYDOC facility providing CART at this point, this seems a little unnecessary.
• Slide 68 (“Assistive Technology in Prison): you could skip this page, and just use the very next slide, with pictures.
11/2016 Court Report, App-231

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 233 of 326 - Page ID#: 1814

Kentucky Department of Corrections
Communications Issues Involving Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Offenders
11/2016 Court Report, App-232

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 234 of 326 - Page ID#: 1815

Course Objectives, 1
Upon course completion, employees will understand:
• Needs and problems of deaf individuals, particularly in prison.
• KYDOC's anti-discrimination policy and the requirements of the deaf prisoners federal court settlement agreement.
• Identification used in KYDOC institutions to designate an offender as deaf or hard-of-hearing.
• Communication needs of persons who are deaf or hard-ofhearing.
• Best practices for communicating with deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates.
• Equipment, services, and accommodations available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.
• How to use TTYs, videophones, and other auxiliary aids and services that facilitate communication with deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates.
11/2016 Court Report, App-233

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 235 of 326 - Page ID#: 1816

Course Objectives, 2
Upon course completion, employees will understand:
• Institutional practices and policies relating to deaf inmates and:
– Adjustment proceedings – Grievance proceedings – Other situations in which qualified interpretation
is needed – Hand restraints – Monitoring telecommunication of deaf offenders.
• The role of your institution’s ADA coordinator, and how to contact them.
11/2016 Court Report, App-234

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 236 of 326 - Page ID#: 1817

CHAPTER 4
KYDOC’S NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY
11/2016 Court Report, App-235

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 237 of 326 - Page ID#: 1818

KYDOC’s Non-discrimination Policy
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a settlement agreement entered in federal court, KYDOC provides deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates: • Non-Discrimination • Effective Communication • Auxiliary Aids and Services
Equal access is the law and it's the right thing to do!
11/2016 Court Report, App-236

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 238 of 326 - Page ID#: 1819

KYDOC’s Non-discrimination Policy
Non-discrimination: KYDOC will provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates.
11/2016 Court Report, App-237

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 239 of 326 - Page ID#: 1820

KYDOC’s Non-discrimination Policy
Effective Communication: KYDOC will communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—ensuring that inmates can receive information from and provide information to staff.
11/2016 Court Report, App-238

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 240 of 326 - Page ID#: 1821

KYDOC’s Non-discrimination Policy

Auxiliary Aids and Services:

When needed for effective communication, KYDOC will provide “auxiliary aids and services.” This means devices or services that assist in communication, such as:

• Qualified interpreters, via remote video interpretation or in-person

• Hearing aids and amplifiers

• Video captioning

• Visual or other non-auditory alert or alarm systems

• Videophone/video relay service

• TTY/TDD, including telephone relay services

• Written materials

• Computer-aided transcription services

• Assistive listening systems

11/2016 Court Report, App-239

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 241 of 326 - Page ID#: 1822

Chapter 1
OVERVIEW OF DEAF AND HARD-OFHEARING OFFENDERS
11/2016 Court Report, App-240

This chapter presents information about working with offenders who have varying degrees of hearing loss.
This subject is a concern for correctional employees for many reasons, including some you may not have considered.

11/2016 Court Report, App-241

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 242 of 326 - Page ID#: 1823

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 243 of 326 - Page ID#: 1824

Demographics
• Nearly 50 million Americans have a hearing loss, roughly 17% of the U.S. population
• Nearly 700,000 deaf or hard-of-hearing Kentuckians
(third largest per capita).
• Hearing loss is currently the third largest health issue following heart disease and arthritis. It also the fastest growing, mostly due to noise.
• Hearing loss is currently the #1 war wound.
11/2016 Court Report, App-242

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 244 of 326 - Page ID#: 1825

Hearing loss can lead to:
• DEPRESSION • WITHDRAWAL • ISOLATION • BLUFFING • DEMENTIA • MISLABELING (aggressive, uncooperative,
dementia, anti-social, or low IQ)
11/2016 Court Report, App-243

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 245 of 326 - Page ID#: 1826

What It Looks Like 11/2016 Court Report, App-244

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 246 of 326 - Page ID#: 1827

11/2016 Court Report, App-245

[COPY FROM EXISTING TRAINING}

What It Sounds Like

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 247 of 326 - Page ID#: 1828

What’s in a Name?
Mute ... deef ... death .... DUMB?! Anyone experiencing deafness of hearing loss is not any of these.

Inappropriate: _Deaf and dumb _Hearing Impaired _Mute _Death

Appropriate: 9Deaf 9Hard-of-hearing 9Non-verbal

11/2016 Court Report, App-246

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 248 of 326 - Page ID#: 1829

Population Diversity

There is tremendous diversity within the deaf

and hard-of-hearing community. Some factors

that affect this are:
Type of hearing loss Degree of loss

Identification • Deaf • Hard-of-hearing

Age of onset Etc.

Communication Mode • Sign • Oral • Both

11/2016 Court Report, App-247

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 249 of 326 - Page ID#: 1830

To Speak, or Not to Speak...
• Individuals who lose their hearing after acquiring speech usually retain their speech to some degree.
• Deaf speech:
– Can be loud, fluctuate, or monotone. – May be very animated; speakers may seem mad but
they are not. They may stare, to facilitate lip-reading. – Body language doesn't mean disrespect.
• Being able to to speak does not mean they are able to hear.
11/2016 Court Report, App-248

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 250 of 326 - Page ID#: 1831

Deaf Culture
Did You Know? Some deaf and hearing-impaired people embrace what they call their "Deaf Culture.” This is a view of life manifested by the mores, beliefs, artistic expression, understandings and language (American Sign Language) particular to Deaf people. A capital "D" is often used in the word Deaf when it refers to community or cultural aspects of Deafness.
11/2016 Court Report, App-249

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 251 of 326 - Page ID#: 1832

Causes
• Genetic • Disease/illness • Medications • Physical trauma • Noise • Presbycusis: defined as the loss of hearing that
gradually occurs to most people as they age. According to the National Institutes of Health, about 30-35% of adults between 65-75 years, and 40-50% of adults 75 and older have a hearing loss. As our offender population ages, their incidence of hearing loss will increase.
11/2016 Court Report, App-250

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 252 of 326 - Page ID#: 1833

Amplification Options

These are not like glasses. They do not give 20/20 hearing, they only amplify sounds . . . the good and the bad. They do not make sounds more intelligible. Don't assume because an offender has one of these devices that he/she understands everything you say.

11/2016 Court Report, App-251

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 253 of 326 - Page ID#: 1834

CHAPTER 2
WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE TO BE DEAF IN PRISON?
11/2016 Court Report, App-252

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 254 of 326 - Page ID#: 1835

Challenges Facing Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates:
• Difficulty hearing announcements and alerts:
- Count - Chow - Pill-call - Pages - Other announcements
• Difficulty hearing orders issued orally • Need to avoid seeming vulnerable
11/2016 Court Report, App-253

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 255 of 326 - Page ID#: 1836

Special Barriers to Communication

• Prisons are very loud, with lots of ambient

noise and terrible acoustics.

• Prisons have many congregate situations,

which are particularly difficult to understand.

• Announcements made over intercom system

can be distorted and hard to understand.

• Prisoners—particularly deaf and hard-of-

hearing prisoners—often have low literacy, so

writing cannot always be used to substitute

for speech.

11/2016 Court Report, App-254

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 256 of 326 - Page ID#: 1837

Silent World
Try to imagine what it would be like to enter prison without the ability to hear:
“Deaf people in prison are isolated, frustrated, ignored, and vulnerable”
- Deaf Prison Project, DBA/BID
11/2016 Court Report, App-255

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 257 of 326 - Page ID#: 1838

“Deaf in Prison”
[video from existing training] 11/2016 Court Report, App-256

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 258 of 326 - Page ID#: 1839

Silent World
Individuals with a hearing loss are at a disadvantage. Howard E. Stone of Self-Help for Hard of Hearing People, Inc., commented:
“As people lose their hearing, things seem to change for them, and for those around them. Misperceptions of each other, fueled by interactions often caused by ignorance, evolve. Communication breaks down. Isolation – a feeling of being alone, even in the middle of a crowd – develops the trend toward withdrawal. Perceived rejection sets in, accompanied by poor self-esteem. The process of socialization gradually shuts down.” 11/2016 Court Report, App-257

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 259 of 326 - Page ID#: 1840

How does this affect you?
As an employee, you most likely take some things for granted. For instance, you probably expect offenders to respond when you order them to report to the visiting room, perform an emergency evacuation, move away from a perimeter fence, and respond to other spoken commands.
Deaf and hard-of-hearing offenders may have difficulty doing these things if you don't communicate effectively.
11/2016 Court Report, App-258

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 260 of 326 - Page ID#: 1841

The Need for Agency Identification
So you should be alert to who the deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates are in the areas where you work.
Why would you want to know this?
Simply put, it's a matter of improving your communication with the offender. In some cases, improved communication can mean the difference between life and death.
In the next chapter, you’ll learn how KYDOC institutions identify inmates who are deaf and hardof hearing.
11/2016 Court Report, App-259

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 261 of 326 - Page ID#: 1842

CHAPTER 3
IDENTIFYING DEAF AND HARD-OFHEARING OFFENDERS
11/2016 Court Report, App-260

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 262 of 326 - Page ID#: 1843

The Process and Result of Agency Identification
Offenders with hearing loss have documentation in their KOMS file and electronic medical record to show their degree of impairment. There are also several types of identification and other notices, pictured in the slides that follow.
If you think an offender may have a hearing loss, you can contact his/her case worker, unit administrator, or health services personnel to verify the degree of loss.
11/2016 Court Report, App-261

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 263 of 326 - Page ID#: 1844

Agency Identification
Our agency policy includes sections on identifying and assisting offenders with hearing loss.
When offenders enter our system, they undergo an initial health assessment for diagnosis of health conditions, preventive health maintenance, and treatment. This initial assessment includes screening for hearing loss.
11/2016 Court Report, App-262

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 264 of 326 - Page ID#: 1845

Signs of Hearing Loss
For inmates who entered KYDOC custody before screening became routine, who were missed, or who developed hearing loss after the screening, you may observe signs of hearing loss. If you do, you should refer the inmate to medical for screening. Signs include: • Seeking frequent repetition. • Having difficulty following conversations involving more
than two people. • Thinking that other people sound muffled or like they’re
mumbling. • Having difficulty hearing in noisy situations. • Answering or responding inappropriately in conversations. • Watching people’s faces intently when they speak. • Avoiding conversation and social interaction.
11/2016 Court Report, App-263

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 265 of 326 - Page ID#: 1846

Identification
Once an offender is identified as deaf or hardof-hearing that will be noted on a pink (or in some facilities red) Medical Alert Card.
11/2016 Court Report, App-264

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 266 of 326 - Page ID#: 1847

Identification
Offenders will also be offered a cell/bunk card. 11/2016 Court Report, App-265

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 267 of 326 - Page ID#: 1848

Identification
An alert will also be placed in KOMS 11/2016 Court Report, App-266

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 268 of 326 - Page ID#: 1849

Identification
And another alert is in the header of the inmate’s Electronic Medical Record.
11/2016 Court Report, App-267

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 269 of 326 - Page ID#: 1850

Stay Aware of Identifications
It’s your job to stay aware of these identifications, for both emergencies and routine interactions. For example:
• If you’re a housing officer, you should know who the deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates in your unit are, so you can make sure to use best practices for communication.
• If you don’t know an inmate you are about to page, check his or her KOMS file, to look for the Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing alert; the page may need to be made personally, instead of using the intercom.
11/2016 Court Report, App-268

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 270 of 326 - Page ID#: 1851

Emergency Procedures
Staff shall be aware of the deaf or hard-of-hearing offenders assigned to the living units where they work. • In the event of emergency, all cells of deaf or
hard-of-hearing offenders shall be promptly and individually checked by staff. • Remember, the symbol below is utilized to identify the cells that house deaf or hard of hearing offenders.
11/2016 Court Report, App-269

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 271 of 326 - Page ID#: 1852

Information given to inmates

Once identified, inmates identified as deaf or hardof-hearing are given an informational brochure, explaining the auxiliary aids and services available to them, and how they can make requests.

Inmates may waive any aid or service— but also can change their mind about that at any time.
If an offender completes and signs a waiver form, the form shall be placed in the offender's KOMS file to ensure consistent documentation of services offered and waived

11/2016 Court Report, App-270

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 272 of 326 - Page ID#: 1853

CHAPTER 5
COMMUNICATING WITH DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING OFFENDERS
11/2016 Court Report, App-271

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 273 of 326 - Page ID#: 1854

Communication Needs Assessment
Different deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates have different communications needs, which need to be individually assessed. For example: • Inmates who use sign language to communicate may
frequently need a qualified interpreter.
• Inmates who hear adequately with a hearing aid may need only the hearing aid during the day, but may need non-auditory alerts at night or first thing in the morning, before they put the hearing aid on.
• For inmates who can read, video captioning can assist with effective communication, but for inmates who do not read well (usually lower than 8th grade level) captioning is not usually helpful.
11/2016 Court Report, App-272

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 274 of 326 - Page ID#: 1855

Communication Needs Assessment
For each deaf and hard-of-hearing inmate, the ADA Coordinator performs a communication needs assessment, and puts the results in the inmate’s KOMS record.
11/2016 Court Report, App-273

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 275 of 326 - Page ID#: 1856

Communication Philosophies
Methods of teaching individuals with hearing loss to communicate have changed through the years, but basically fall into two philosophies: • Oralism: Deaf students are taught primarily to
listen, speak and read lips (also called speech reading). • Manualism: Deaf students are taught primarily to "sign" There have also been technological advances that have opened new ways of communication for the deaf and hard-of-hearing.
11/2016 Court Report, App-274

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 276 of 326 - Page ID#: 1857

A little about lip-reading
• Studies have shown that lip reading is 30%35% accurate AT BEST.
11/2016 Court Report, App-275

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 277 of 326 - Page ID#: 1858

American Sign Language (ASL)
• ASL is one of the most widely used languages in the United States. Taught in many public schools and universities across the U.S.
• Used primarily by deaf and hard-of-hearing Americans and Canadians.
• ASL is a distinct visual language with its own grammar and syntax. It’s actually closer to French than English. There is no written form of ASL.
• Some deaf people who use ASL are not fluent in English, written or spoken.
11/2016 Court Report, App-276

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 278 of 326 - Page ID#: 1859

American Sign Language (ASL)
ASL takes concentrated study to gain proficiency. However, you can learn a few basic words with online ASL dictionaries. For example, see
• http://www.lifeprint.com/ • http://www.aslpro.com/
11/2016 Court Report, App-277

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 279 of 326 - Page ID#: 1860

Other Modes of Communication

• Signed English • Cued Speech • Oral • Home Signing • Paper and pencil • Gestures

11/2016 Court Report, App-278

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 280 of 326 - Page ID#: 1861

Interpreters

• Knowing some sign language is not the same as being

an interpreter.

• Interpreting requires specialized expertise.

Interpreters are highly skilled professionals.

• Kentucky’s law requires the use of LICENSED

interpreters. Using non-licensed interpreters for legal,

professional, or educational matters is risky to the

inmate and the facility.

• Qualified interpreters can be accessed remotely via a

laptop computer (Video Remote Interpretation, or

VRI), or in person.

• Asking one inmate to interpret for another is against

KYDOC policy, and can threaten institutional security.

It is appropriate ONLY in an emergency, and only

when VRI is unavailable.

11/2016 Court Report, App-279

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 281 of 326 - Page ID#: 1862

When is an interpreter required?

For deaf inmates who use sign language to communicate,

KYDOC is obligated to provide interpreters whenever needed

for effective communication, including:

• Initial intake/classification

• Rehabilitative and educational

• Auxiliary aid/service assessment programming, including clubs

and other accommodation • Transitional programs

assistance

• Conversations with post-release

• On-site medical, mental health supervisors

and dental evaluations/ care • PREA reporting and/or follow-

• Classification and transfer

up with any PREA concerns

hearings and related meetings • Inmate work and education

• Grievance hearings

programs

• Adjustment committee, court • Other significant

call, and all meetings related to communications, on request

discipline

• Religious programming if

• Parole hearings

provided by a KYDOC employee.

11/2016 Court Report, App-280
Inmates can waive interpretation services, if they chose.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 282 of 326 - Page ID#: 1863

No request necessary

Inmates can request interpretation for any of the situations on the preceding slide. But no request is necessary for:

• Intake and orientation

• Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings

• Grievance meetings and hearings

• Disciplinary hearings and all related processes

• Parole meetings and hearings

• Emergency health care on-site

For these situations, interpretation must be offered to

the inmate by staff (the inmate can waive the right to

interpretation if he or she chooses).

11/2016 Court Report, App-281

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 283 of 326 - Page ID#: 1864

VRI or In-Person Interpretation?
KYDOC offers both video remote interpretation (VRI), via a laptop, and, when necessary, in-person interpretation. An inmate’s request for in-person interpretation should be passed on to the ADA Coordinator, who will grant it if it is necessary for effective communication, for example: • During group classes in which student
participation is key. • When remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or
has not been, effective.
11/2016 Court Report, App-282

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 284 of 326 - Page ID#: 1865

Communicating orally without an
interpreter
Some deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are able to understand oral communication without an interpreter—perhaps their hearing impairment is only partial, or a hearing aid helps them sufficiently.
This will be noted in their KOMS file. When you are speaking to such a person, you should be aware of their hearing needs, and follow best communications practices to try to communicate effectively.
11/2016 Court Report, App-283

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 285 of 326 - Page ID#: 1866

Communication Tips
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, has published some practical suggestions for communicating effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing people. The slides that follow present those tips.
11/2016 Court Report, App-284

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 286 of 326 - Page ID#: 1867

Communication Tips
Starting the conversation: 9 Always get the person’s attention before you start speaking . 9 Just because someone is wearing a hearing aid does not mean they
can hear you. 9 Ask if the person can understand you, or needs some adjustment;
you may want to write a note to ask him or her what communication aid or service is needed. 9 Provide accommodations if and when requested. 9 Minimize background noise and other distractions whenever possible. 9 Allow extra time for communication.
Lighting and facilitating lip-reading 9 Face the person and maintain normal eye contact. Do not turn away
while speaking. 9 Try to converse in a well-lit area, but avoid glare or back-lighting
that puts your mouth in shadow. 9 Do not cover your mouth or chew gum while you are speaking. 11/2016 Court Report, App-285

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 287 of 326 - Page ID#: 1868

Communication Tips
Simple language, normal speech 9 Speak at a normal pace, enunciating clearly. 9 Speak with simple, direct words. 9 Do not shout or exaggerate mouth movements .
Visual cues 9 Use gestures and facial expressions to reinforce
what you are saying. 9 Use visual aids when possible, such as pointing to
printed information on a document.
11/2016 Court Report, App-286

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 288 of 326 - Page ID#: 1869

Communication Tips

Check on understanding

9 Remember that only about 1/3 of spoken words can be

understood by speech (lip) reading.

9 Be conscious of bluffing.

9 Check on understanding: ask the hard-of-hearing

person to repeat back to you, so you can be sure he or

she understood.

9 For anything but the most simple communication,

written notes can be a problem. Keep in mind that

many people—especially those who use sign

language—may lack good English reading and writing

skills.

11/2016 Court Report, App-287

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 289 of 326 - Page ID#: 1870

Prison-Specific Communications Issues
• Prisons are noisy: To minimize noise from other inmates, fans, televisions, etc., you may want to step into an office or another quieter area.
• Prisons require situational awareness. To effectively communicate with deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, an officer must face them directly and not move his or her head too much. This may make it difficult to monitor the surroundings. So you may want to have the conversation in a place that is out of the way, like a corner or an office, where situational awareness is less important.
• Restricted Housing Units are especially challenging locations for effective communication. (See next slide).
11/2016 Court Report, App-288

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 290 of 326 - Page ID#: 1871

Restrictive Housing

Restrictive housing can be especially noisy, and when you talk to an inmate “through the crack” in the door important visual cues are absent. When needed, your communication strategies should include:
• Talk through the meal slot.
• If the inmate can read, pass written notes through the door.
• For inmates who communicate using sign language, use the VRI laptop.
• Pull the inmate out of cell.

11/2016 Court Report, App-289

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 291 of 326 - Page ID#: 1872

Communication Access Real Time (CART)
• Instant translation of the spoken word into English text using a stenotype machine, notebook computer and realtime software; often called REALTIME CAPTIONING.
• On-site or Remote • Condensed RealTime (Cprint/Typewell) also
available onsite or remotely.
11/2016 Court Report, App-290

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 292 of 326 - Page ID#: 1873

Chapter 7
NON-INTERPRETATION AUXILIARY AIDS AND ACCOMMODATIONS
11/2016 Court Report, App-291

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 293 of 326 - Page ID#: 1874

Auxiliary Aids
In addition to qualified interpreters (via video remote interpretation or in-person), KYDOC provides other auxiliary aids and services, to ensure effective communication. These can include: • Hearing aids and amplifiers • Video captioning • Visual or other non-auditory alert or alarm systems • Videophone/Video Relay Service • TTY/TDD, including telephone relay services • Assistive listening systems • Written materials • Computer-aided transcription services
11/2016 Court Report, App-292

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 294 of 326 - Page ID#: 1875

Other Accommodations
Sometimes what is needed for effective communication is not equipment or technology but a different kind of accommodation: • A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may function better
in a quieter environment; you can consider this when you make a cell assignment. • A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may not be able to understand group instruction, so might need an individual tutor for a class or program, or one-on-one orientation. • A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may not hear an announcement or page, so might need individual notifications.
11/2016 Court Report, App-293

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 295 of 326 - Page ID#: 1876

Avoiding Discrimination
When deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates have not heard an announcement or order because of their disability, it would be discriminatory to penalize them. Use your discretion to avoid illegal discrimination.
11/2016 Court Report, App-294

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 296 of 326 - Page ID#: 1877

When are auxiliary aids/
accommodations required?
• Educational programs (literacy, adult basic education, GED, and technical education and certification classes).
• Vocational/work programs • Rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse,
and evidence-based programs • Work assignments • Religious services (except KYDOC does not provide
interpretation for volunteer-led religious programming) • Transfer and classification matters • Transitional programming – post-release supervision • On-site medical care and healthcare appointments • Grievance and disciplinary hearings and meetings • All important conversations between staff and inmates.
11/2016 Court Report, App-295

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 297 of 326 - Page ID#: 1878

11/2016 Court Report, App-296

Chapter 8
TECHNOLOGY

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 298 of 326 - Page ID#: 1879

Assistive Technology in Prison
• Hearing aids/amplifiers • Video Remote Interpretation (VRI laptop) • Videophone • Phone volume controls • TTY • Captel or captioned telephone • Assistive listening systems • Closed captions
11/2016 Court Report, App-297

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 299 of 326 - Page ID#: 1880

Auxiliary Aids TV Closed Captioning

Bed Shaker

VRI Laptop

Hearing aids

TTY

Phone Volume Adjustment

Amplifier

11/2016 Court Report, App-298

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 300 of 326 - Page ID#: 1881

Hearing aids

There are many kinds of hearing aids. Medical provides these when medically necessary.

Remember: Hearing aids help the inmate hear, but they don’t mean he can hear well.

When you pack up an inmate’s property, he should

keep his hearing aids with him. Be sure not to lose

them!

11/2016 Court Report, App-299

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 301 of 326 - Page ID#: 1882

Amplifiers
Medical may also issue some inmates personal amplifiers (“pocket talkers”).
11/2016 Court Report, App-300

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 302 of 326 - Page ID#: 1883

Video Remote Interpretation

(VRI laptop)

VRI allows a hearing person and a deaf person who signs, who are next to each other, to communicate with each other. The hearing person speaks into a laptop microphone and an interpreter on the other end translates the speech into sign language, which the deaf person can see on the laptop screen. The deaf person signs into the laptop camera, and the interpreter on the other end translates the sign language into English, which the hearing person can hear.

VRI using a laptop computer.
11/2016 Court Report, App-301

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 303 of 326 - Page ID#: 1884

Video Remote Interpretation (VRI laptop)

How to use:
1. Plug blue Ethernet cable into laptop.
2. Click on Purple icon on laptop.
3. Sit near the microphone.
4. Talk at your normal rate or slightly slower.
5. Only one person should speak at a time.
6. Use short sentences and simple words.

More detailed Instructions about how to use the VRI – including special microphones and seating arrangements – are printed out and in the laptop bag.
11/2016 Court Report, App-302

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 304 of 326 - Page ID#: 1885

Videophones

KYDOC uses ADA prison videophones provided by the company “Purple.” They are locked-down videophone kiosks, where inmates who use sign language can make videophone calls during the same periods as regular phones are available. If needed, the videophones can access a relay interpreter, who interprets the inmate’s sign language for an ordinary phone user on the other end.

For an inmate authorized to use the videophone, no special request should be required to make a call.
Inmates are allowed twice as many minutes for a videophone call as for a regular phone call.

11/2016 Court Report, App-303

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 305 of 326 - Page ID#: 1886

Phone volume controls
Some of KYDOC’s Securus phones have volume controls, which can be essential for hard-ofhearing inmates. There should be at least one volume-controlled phone in any area where needed by such an inmate.
11/2016 Court Report, App-304

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 306 of 326 - Page ID#: 1887

TTY/TTD/Telephone Relay

A TTY (Teletypewriter) (sometimes called a TTD)

is a device that allows users to send typed

messages across a phone line. Some people who

are deaf or hard-of-hearing use TTYs to call

other individuals. The TTY has a keyboard and a

display. KYDOC has at least one TTY in every

institution.

How to use: Place a regular telephone’s handset in the rubber acoustic coupler and turn on the power. Dial out. More detailed instructions are printed out and available with the TTY at your institution.

Inmates receive three times as many minutes per TTY call as for regular phone calls.

11/2016 Court Report, App-305

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 307 of 326 - Page ID#: 1888

Using the TTY with a Relay Service

A TTY can only communicate with another TTY. If TTY users want to call a regular phone—as they usually do—they must use a Relay Service. The relay service operator receives the messages on a TTY, reads the messages over a standard phone to a person who does not have a TTY, and types that person’s responses back for the TTY user.

Just as you can dial 411 for information, you can

dial 711 to access the telephone relay service. It is

free.

11/2016 Court Report, App-306

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 308 of 326 - Page ID#: 1889

Captioned Telephones
Outside of prison, captioned telephones have been growing in popularity. These are phones that simultaneously allow the user to listen to the speech and read it via real-time captioning.
These may become available in your institution for inmates who need them. The ADA Coordinator will keep you informed, and make sure you know how to use them if applicable.
11/2016 Court Report, App-307

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 309 of 326 - Page ID#: 1890

Assistive listening systems
Assistive listening systems allow a speaker or speakers to use a wireless microphone that sends a signal to an earbud that a deaf or hardof-hearing inmate wears. If you run a program or a class, KYDOC institutions are making such systems available when needed. The ADA Coordinator will keep you informed.
11/2016 Court Report, App-308

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 310 of 326 - Page ID#: 1891

Closed captions
All KYDOC televisions and most videos are closed-caption-enabled. Institutional movies should have captions turned on. Turn on TV and video captioning on inmate request.
11/2016 Court Report, App-309

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 311 of 326 - Page ID#: 1892

Non-Auditory Alerts

Because deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates cannot hear alarms and announcements, they may be given “non-auditory” alert devices. These include:

• Strobe-light cells. In these cells, fire alarms trigger a very bright flashing light.

• Bed shakers/flashing light alerts. A receiver for this device sits next to a bed, and then the buzzer sits under the bed and vibrates/buzzes when the housing unit’s fire alarm or other announcements go off. It can be set to alert when housing officers flip a switch; officers can use that to inform the inmate about count, chow, or some other alert.

Receiver Buzzer 11/2016 Court Report, App-310

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 312 of 326 - Page ID#: 1893

Chapter 9
DEAF OFFENDERS AND DISCIPLINARY AND GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
11/2016 Court Report, App-311

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 313 of 326 - Page ID#: 1894

Disciplinary Proceedings:
Effective Communication
• KYDOC must provide deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates with effective communication in any disciplinary proceeding in which the inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction.
• This includes all meetings and communications related to the disciplinary charge—with an investigator, legal aide, adjustment committee, etc.
• If the inmate charged or inmate witnesses are deaf or hardof-hearing, the investigator must take steps to ensure effective communication.
• The investigator should contact the ADA Coordinator to coordinate the use of interpreters or other forms of effective communication deemed appropriate, throughout the process
11/2016 Court Report, App-312

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 314 of 326 - Page ID#: 1895

Disciplinary Proceedings: Effective Communication

Q: What parts of the Adjustment process are covered?

A: All of them.

Effective communication—including use of auxiliary aids and services, such as interpretation or others—is required for:

• Miranda warnings

• When notifying the inmate of the date, time and place of the hearing

• Meetings with the investigator

• Meetings with a legal aide

• The Adjustment Committee hearing

• Etc.

11/2016 Court Report, App-313

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 315 of 326 - Page ID#: 1896

Disciplinary Proceedings: Interpretation Issues
• For inmates who sign to communicate, effective communication relating to discipline usually requires interpretation.
• The VRI Laptop may ordinarily be used in these situations. It should be offered to inmates even without their request for it. (Inmates may waive use of VRI, if they choose.)
• An inmate who signs to communicate may not have his hands cuffed when he is using the VRI laptop. Discuss alternative security arrangements with the ADA Coordinator if the need arises. 11/2016 Court Report, App-314

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 316 of 326 - Page ID#: 1897

Other Proceedings That Require Effective Communication
Effective communication—including interpretation when appropriate—is also required for: • Classification • Grievance committee hearings and all related
meetings • Parole hearings—including communication to
inform the inmate about the hearing • Classes, programs, etc. • Other significant communications
11/2016 Court Report, App-315

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 317 of 326 - Page ID#: 1898

Chapter 10
SECURITY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEALING WITH DEAF AND HARD-OFHEARING OFFENDERS
11/2016 Court Report, App-316

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 318 of 326 - Page ID#: 1899

Monitoring Communication
Monitoring communication of offenders with the outside world is a security need. Deaf and hard-ofhearing offender communication must also be monitored with the same discretion applied to nondeaf inmates; however, KYDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications to the same extent as non-deaf inmates.
The “Purple” videophones have built-in security measures: No in-bound calls, no 3-way calls, 911 button disabled, announcement to called party.
11/2016 Court Report, App-317

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 319 of 326 - Page ID#: 1900

Direct Threat
Remember the anti-discrimination principle: The ADA requires KYDOC to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates.
HOWEVER, if something a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate seeks—a particular job, for example—would be dangerous, KYDOC can bar the inmate’s access to that job because it poses a direct threat of injury or death to the inmate or others. You must discuss any such situation with the ADA Coordinator, who will ensure that the court settlement monitor receives required notice. 11/2016 Court Report, App-318

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 320 of 326 - Page ID#: 1901

Deaf Offenders and Hand Restraints
Hand restraints interfere with the effective communication of inmates who use sign language. Therefore: • KYDOC uses hand restraints on such inmates only when
transporting to or from an adult institution, transferring into or out of special management unit, and as needed in response to security threats. • Hand restraints must be removed from a deaf inmate once the inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the inmate to effectively communicate. • Your institution will implement measures to allow inmates who sign to communicate to have their hands unrestrained in situations like court call, etc. Discuss this
11/2016 Court Report, App-319
with the ADA Coordinator.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 321 of 326 - Page ID#: 1902

2-Point Restraint System
• Prior to transporting an offender to an outside appointment, review the precautions in KOMS to determine if the offender requires the use of his hands to communicate.
• If the KOMS notes state that the offender communicates by sign language, hospital restraints shall be taken on the transportation trip, and used once the offender is in a secure situation, so that he can communicate while outside the institution.
• The transport Officer must call the Captain’s office for approval to place the offender in the 2-point hospital restrains prior to the restraints being used.
11/2016 Court Report, App-320

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 322 of 326 - Page ID#: 1903

11/2016 Court Report, App-321

Chapter 11
CONCLUSION

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 323 of 326 - Page ID#: 1904

Conclusion
During the course of your career with our department, you may come into contact with deaf or hard-of-hearing offenders. Communication methods may range from sign language or finger spelling, using an interpreter (remotely or in person), using an assistive device, speaking loudly and clearly, or writing a note.
Regardless of the method, remember to communicate with these offenders in a courteous and dignified manner. To avoid misunderstandings and potentially dangerous incidents, make every effort to be sure that you are understood. Remember that deaf and hard-of-hearing offenders must understand what you are trying to communicate and have the right to effective communication.
11/2016 Court Report, App-322

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 324 of 326 - Page ID#: 1905

For More Information
This module was to inform you of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, KYDOC Policy, and the federal court Settlement Agreement between the KYDOC and deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. An overview of the settlement can be found in the resources tab at the top; it is labeled “Settlement Breakdown by Areas.”
11/2016 Court Report, App-323

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 325 of 326 - Page ID#: 1906

Questions?
Contact your institution’s ADA Coordinator with any questions. The ADA Coordinator has received training on federal and state law as well as the specifics of the settlement agreement. Each institution’s ADA Coordinator is listed at
http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx
11/2016 Court Report, App-324

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 84-2 Filed: 12/05/16 Page: 326 of 326 - Page ID#: 1907

Assistance and guidance provided by the

7FSTBJMMFT3PBE 'SBOLGPSE
,:  WUUZ
  WUUZ
  GBY
 XXXLDEIILZHPW

11/2016 Court Report, App-325

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 8 - Page ID#: 1909

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS )

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al. )

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________ )

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor
May 31, 2017
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 8 - Page ID#: 1910
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is my third semi-annual report to the Court and the parties concerning the status of compliance with this case’s Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department”) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
As in my prior reports, I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the various affected institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement, and their professionalism and accommodation of my requests for information. The Department has continued to make progress towards compliance. In particular, since my last report, it has continued to make progress on the very challenging issue of hearing aids, and the computer-based training for staff has now been finalized. Much remains to be done; as usual for implementation of any complex new initiative, the challenges are many; I discuss the challenges and next steps below in this report, and in Appendix IV, my most recent site visit report.
This report has six Appendices.
I. Settlement Agreement (with numbered paragraphs, for ease of reference) II. ADA staff computer-based-training (Apr. 20, 2017) III. ADA Coordinator training (Feb. 25, 2017)
Part 1: Settlement Agreement Training Part 2: CReATE Compliance IV. Site visit report for Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 visits, with exhibits (May 4, 2017) Covered facilities: Blackburn Correctional Complex (Dec. 12, 2016) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Little Sandy Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Northpoint Training Center (Dec. 14, 2016) Kentucky State Reformatory (Feb. 27, 2017) Exhibits: A—Staff Interviewed
B—Consolidated Recommendations C—How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-of-Hearing Inmates D—Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC
institutions V. Recommended forms:
Inmate Pamphlet Memo for Staff Hard-of-Hearing Communications Tips VI. April 2017 quarterly reporting request
-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 8 - Page ID#: 1911
II. DEPARTMENT-LEVEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
Most of the Settlement Agreement is being implemented at the level of individual institutions. I discuss the relevant issues below, in Part III. But a few of the Agreement’s requirements are being implemented at the Department level:
A. Designation of and public notice (via departmental website) of ADA Coordinators.
The Settlement Agreement requires that the “the name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC’s website.” (II.B.2)
Status: Compliant. The Department’s webpage, http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx, is now up-to-date. I have included in my quarterly reporting request a reminder to each ADA Coordinator to check the website and update it if necessary. This method appears to be working.
B. Training of KDOC employees.
The Agreement includes very substantial provisions governing training, which was supposed to be provided by the end of September 2015 on numerous specified topics to “KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population.” (XIII.A.1) In addition, the Agreement requires that ADA Coordinators be “trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.” (II.B.1) There are procedural requirements, as well: the Agreement instructs the Department to receive input from the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (KCDHH) and from me. (XIII.A.1)
The Department is now providing computer-based training to its employees. After two rounds of comments, that training appears accurate and complete. It is attached as Appendix II.
As for the required ADA Coordinator training, the ADA Coordinators are being offered the ADA Title II training provided online by the ADA National Network, at http://www.adatitle2.org.. This is excellent training as far as it goes—it covers federal law. In addition, I have myself provided two powerpoints for ADA Coordinator Training to the Department, and conducted those trainings in February 2017. One is about the Settlement Agreement; the other is about the role of the ADA Coordinator. It is my understanding that the powerpoints are posted where each ADA Coordinator can refer to them, and that they are also included in the Department’s computer based training library, so that new ADA Coordinators can complete them on-line. These two powerpoints are attached as Appendix III.
Status: Largely compliant, some additional steps necessary. Now that the computer-basedtraining is available, KDOC needs to ensure that it is completed by all appropriate staff. Some version should be taken by medical contractors, as well, to facilitate their compliance with the agreement. In addition, the ADA Coordinators need to continue to develop and conduct rolespecific in-person training.
-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 8 - Page ID#: 1912
C. Coordination
The Department has made progress on useful coordination and information sharing related to the Agreement. The Director of Operations, Chris Kleymeyer, has designated the Department’s Safety Director, Webb Strang, to coordinate as useful. Mr. Strang has created a shared computer folder with a collection of useful documents, and has also worked on some information technology issues—modifying KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System) to include a Department-wide flag for inmates with disabilities particularly relevant to safety and security. In addition, the Department has instituted a practice of including the ADA Coordinators as recipients of routine transfer memos that inform facilities of the inmates being transferred in. The ADA Coordinators then have an opportunity to check to see if incoming inmates have any pertinent disability.
It would be useful to continue to strengthen coordination among the ADA Coordinators, so that information and insight can be shared.
III. INSTITUTION-LEVEL COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT
I have at this point visited all but one of the Department’s twelve adult institutions. (I have not yet been to the Bell County Forestry Camp, which currently houses five hard-of-hearing inmates.) My site visit report for visits in December 2016 and February 2017 is attached as Appendix IV. As previously, the site visit report assesses Settlement compliance as of the date of my visits; it also makes a few recommendations for how to improve compliance.
The site visit report is detailed, and I will not repeat it here. A few general comments on compliance trends may, however, be useful.
Inmate Identification and Tracking. I am now getting more larger and more complete lists of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. In the most recent quarter, I received notice of 227 inmates—a substantial increase from prior quarters. This increase marks improvements in identifying and tracking deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The institutions continue to work on identifying inmates who are hard-of-hearing. Even once inmates are identified, however, some tracking problems remain, however: each quarter a few names are omitted from the lists I receive—and from the ADA Coordinators’ own records. It appears that there remain hand-off errors, when a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate moves from one institution to another. This is not just a matter of recordkeeping, but of services and accommodations. Inmates who are not appropriately tracked are unlikely to receive accommodations or audiology services they depend on. In the most recent quarterly report, I was able to identify 17 additional inmates from prior lists who should have been on institutional lists. As I describe in Part II.C, above, on my recent recommendation, the ADA Coordinators are now supposed to receive the routine transfer memos that list incoming inmates for each institution, and that should help solve the problem. In addition, I have been informed that the Department is implementing a system-wide KOMS improvement that will allow cross-institution tracking of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates (and of inmates with other disabilities). I am hopeful that over the next several months, this issue will be fully resolved.
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 8 - Page ID#: 1913

Table 1: Distribution of Kentucky Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Site Visits

Institution
Bell County Forestry Camp
Blackburn Correctional Complex Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex Green River Correctional Complex Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women Kentucky State Penitentiary
Kentucky State Reformatory Little Sandy Correctional Complex Luther Luckett Correctional Complex Northpoint Training Center
Roederer Correctional Complex Western Kentucky Correctional Complex
Ross-Cash Center TOTAL

Visit 1 Date NA Dec. 2016 Dec. 2016
July 2016
June 2016 July 2016 Feb. 2016 Dec. 2016
June 2016 Dec. 2016 June 2016
July 2016

Visit 2 Date Fall 2017, TBD Aug. 2017 Fall 2017, TBD
July 2017
Aug. 2017 July 2017 Feb. 2017 Fall 2017, TBD
Aug. 2017 Aug. 2017 Aug. 2017
July 2017

# of Deaf/HOH

Inmates

~Nov. Apr. 2016 2017

0

5

5

4

9

11

26

35

13

13

6

11

64

75

18

8

6

26

15

28

10

16

5

10

1

2

178

244

Qualified Interpreter Services. It continues to be the case that Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) is not being used as routinely as the Settlement calls for. In addition, most institutions have not put in place the systems necessary to provide in-person qualified interpreter services, when necessary.

Hearing Aid Access. One of the key compliance challenges for the Department is to identify inmates in need of a hearing aid and to timely provide that hearing aid. Process failures continue, so that provision of needed hearing aids sometimes stalls completely, and sometimes is extremely slow. I have devoted considerable attention to this issue over the past months, and in my most recent site visits and quarterly report request, sought an audiology progress report for each deaf/hard-of-hearing inmate at each institution. For all the inmates who may need a hearing aid but don’t yet have one, I have requested frequent updates, to track them through the process. I am hopeful that by the end of this summer, each facility will have smoothed out its process for ensuring timely provision of appropriate audiology services.

Once existing inmates receive the hearing aids they need, the most crucial facility for diagnosis and hearing aid provision will be Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC), the Department’s men’s reception facility. I am informed that since my 2016 site visit to RCC, the Department has been able to bring in on-site audiology services, to make the process more

-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 8 - Page ID#: 1914
efficient and effective. This is an excellent development; I look forward to learning more about it on my 2017 site visit.
Assessments and Materials for Deaf Inmates. The Agreement requires that all deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates be provided with “materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services.” The language of these materials is required to be “designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate.” (III.F.1) The materials provided inmates have not, however, been either comprehensive or accessible. I have recommended improvements; the recommended versions are Appendix V. In addition, the Agreement requires assessments of each inmate’s need for various types of auxiliary aids and services (III.C); these assessments are not yet reliably occurring at every institution.
Other Auxiliary Aids for Hard-of-Hearing Inmates. A variety of auxiliary aids can assist with effective communication for hard-of-hearing inmates. Different institutions have made different good moves in this direction. For example, some facilities broadcast television audio on a radio channel, so that inmates can listen via a personal radio and earbuds; this reduces ambient noise in shared space and also enables inmates who need amplification to hear the tv. One institution is providing wireless personal amplification in congregate religious services. Much more work remains, but the steps already taken are starting the Department on the path it needs to follow. I will direct additional attention to this issue in the coming year; for right now, a good deal of information on the auxiliary aid progress made thus far is included in Appendix IV’s Exhibit D.
Direct Threat Determinations. With respect to services, programs, and work, the Settlement Agreement requires that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates receive access “substantially equivalent” to similarly situated non-deaf Inmates, but, consistent with the ADA, explains that the Department “retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates” and on that basis, bar deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates from the activity. (See I.4, II.A, V.A.4, VI.F.) Consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Settlement Agreement defines “Direct Threat” to mean “a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.” (I.4). Whenever a Direct Threat is found, the Agreement requires prompt notification to me, as Settlement Monitor, that “explain[s] the reasoning in support of such determination.” (II.A, V.A.4, VI.F). My visits revealed that the staff who make decisions about job assignments, in particular, had not all been trained on the Settlement Agreement’s relevant provisions—either the substantive or the reporting obligations. Moreover, when I inquired, it became clear that the decisionmaking process was not appropriately individuated. Some jobs have been ruled off limits for all hard-of-hearing inmates, even though there is often no reason for such a bar. What the Settlement Agreement and the ADA require is individuated decisionmaking that considers the particular job and the particular inmate, with prompt reporting to me so I can offer technical assistance. I am working on this with the Department.
-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 8 - Page ID#: 1915
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS, FUTURE SITE VISISTS, AND DEPARTMENTAL REPORTING
As a result of my site visits and the light they have shed on implementation challenges, I have made 82 recommendations for the Department, to assist in compliance with the Agreement. These are compiled in Appendix IV’s Exhibit B.
Now that I have finished a full year of site visits, including two visits to KSR, the facility with the most deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates, I am finding many fewer items that need additional recommendations. Accordingly, I am shifting my approach to site visits. Beginning with the visits, scheduled for July and August of this year, I will develop and use a compliance checklist. I hope that sharing this checklist once it is developed will allow each institution to self-audit.
In addition, now that both I and the ADA Coordinators better understand the steps towards compliance, I am shifting more of the compliance monitoring to a more comprehensive records and information request, which I will issue twice each year. I have done the first of these requests (Appendix VI), and obtained most of the requested information from the 12 institutions; I am continuing to work through various followups with the individual institutions.
V. CONCLUSION
The Kentucky Department of Corrections continues to progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement, but implementation challenges remain. All the recommendations I have made so far are compiled in Appendix IV, Exhibit B. Going forward, my plan is to assess compliance institution-by-institution using itemized checklists, which I will include in future Court reports.
Dated: May 31, 2017
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 8 - Page ID#: 1916
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendices
I. Settlement Agreement (with numbered paragraphs, for ease of reference) II. ADA staff computer-based-training (Apr. 20, 2017) III. ADA Coordinator training (Feb. 25, 2017)
Part 1: Settlement Agreement Training Part 2: CReATE Compliance IV. Site visit report for Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 visits, with exhibits (May 4, 2017) Covered facilities: Blackburn Correctional Complex (Dec. 12, 2016) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Little Sandy Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Northpoint Training Center (Dec. 14, 2016) Kentucky State Reformatory (Feb. 27, 2017) Exhibits: A—Staff Interviewed
B—Consolidated Recommendations C—How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-of-Hearing Inmates D—Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC
institutions V. Recommended forms:
Inmate Pamphlet Memo for Staff Hard-of-Hearing Communications Tips VI. April 2017 quarterly reporting request

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 25 - Page ID#: 1917
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendix I
Settlement Agreement (with numbered paragraphs, for ease of reference)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 25 - Page ID#: 1918

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN DEFENDANTS THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY ET AL. AND PLAINTIFFS OSCAR ADAMS AND MICHAEL KNIGHTS [NUMBERED FOR USE IN COMPLIANCE MONITORING]

I. DEFINITIONS

[I.]1. “ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-325).

[I.]2.

“Auxiliary Aids and Services” include, but are not limited to, “Qualified Interpreters or other effective methods of making aurally delivered materials available to individuals with hearing impairments,” 42 U.S.C. § 12103, such as hearing aids, computer-aided transcription services, assistive listening systems, closed caption decoders, open and closed captioning, “TDDs” or “TTYs” as defined below, videotext displays, written materials (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.104); as well as Videophones, access to telephone relay services, visual alert or alarm systems, and bed shakers.

[I.]3.

“Deaf Inmates” means Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). .

[I.]4.

“Direct Threat” means a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.

[I.]5.

“Effective Communication” and “Effectively Communicate” means communication with Deaf Inmates that is substantially as effective as communication with the general Inmate population (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a)) and will, when necessary, include the provision of appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, such as Qualified Interpreters. Effective Communication affords Deaf Inmates an opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, the KDOC’s services, programs, or activities in a way that is substantially equal to the opportunity provided to a similarly situated non-Deaf Inmate. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).

[I.]6. “Effective Date” means thirty (30) days after this Agreement is filed with the Court.

[I.]7. “Inmate” means any person in the custody of the KDOC.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 25 - Page ID#: 1919
[I.]8. “KCDHH” means the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
[I.]9. “KDOC” means Kentucky Department of Corrections.
[I.]10. “KDOC program” means any program or activity, or aid, benefit, or service as defined by the ADA and Section 504 (see 28 C.F.R. § 35.130, § 41.51) available to Inmates of KDOC for which the KDOC does more than only provide physical space at its facilities, including but not limited to, programs, activities, aids, benefits, or services mandated by law, qualifying for educational or early release credits, and/or ordered as part of an Inmate’s sentence.
[I.]11. “KDOC employees,” “KDOC staff,” and “KDOC personnel” each and collectively include all employees, contractors, agents, and other staff of the KDOC whose job responsibilities place them on a regular basis in contact with Deaf Inmates, and the supervisors of those employees, contractors, agents, or other staff.
[I.]12. “KDOC Adult Institution” means any facility owned or operated by the KDOC for the care and custody Inmates, including but not limited to Bell Country Forestry Camp, Blackburn Correctional Complex, Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex, Green River Correctional Complex, Kentucky Correctional Institute for Women, Kentucky State Penitentiary, Kentucky State Reformatory, Little Sandy Correctional Complex, Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, Roederer Correctional Complex, and Western Kentucky Correctional Complex.
[I.]13. “Off-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a location not owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]14. “On-site Medical Care” means medical care that is provided at a KDOC facility, including medical care provided by third parties in facilities owned or operated by the KDOC.
[I.]15. “Parole hearing” means any hearing or meeting during which an Inmate is being offered the opportunity to be released from KDOC custody on parole.
[I.]16. “Plaintiffs” means, for purposes of this Agreement, Oscar Adams (inmate #243676) and Michael Knights (inmate #233021).
[I.]17. “Plaintiffs’ Counsel” means attorneys-of-record for Plaintiffs in Oscar Adams and Michael Knights, et al., v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv00001 (E.D. Ky.) at the time this Agreement is signed.
[I.]18. “Qualified Interpreter” means a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary. See 28 C.F.R. §35.104. 2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 25 - Page ID#: 1920
A Qualified Interpreter could include an ASL interpreter, a sign language interpreter using more English-based signs, an oral interpreter, a cued speech transliterator or a tactile interpreter for a Deaf Inmate who is also blind. For sign language interpreters, a Qualified Interpreter is one who holds current, valid certifications and licensure by the Kentucky Board of Interpreters for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing.
A Qualified Interpreter may be provided by the KDOC either in person, or via Video Remote Interpreting, videoconferencing or other similar means that provide Effective Communication.
[I.]19. “Section 504” means Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (2014).
[I.]20. “Settlement Monitor” means Margo Schlanger, whose curriculum vitae is attached as Exhibit 1.
[I.]21. “TTYs” or “TDDs” means teletypewriters or telecommunications devices for the Deaf, which are devices used with a telephone to communicate with persons who are Deaf by typing and reading communications.
[I.]22. “Video Remote Interpreting” or “VRI” means a video-telecommunication interpreting service, which uses Qualified Interpreters and is delivered over a high-speed Internet connection. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(d).
[I.]23. “Videophone” means a telephone with a camera and screen for visual, real-time communications. The term Videophone as used in this Agreement is limited to Videophones intended for the use by Deaf Inmates within the custody of the KDOC, and does not include Videophones within KDOC Adult Institutions intended for the use of the general Inmate population.
II. GENERAL POLICIES
[II.]A. Non-discrimination Based on Disability
The KDOC will ensure that Deaf Inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC shall provide Deaf Inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 25 - Page ID#: 1921

[II.]B. ADA Coordinator

[II.B.1.] Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will assign a staff member at each KDOC Adult Institution the title, duties, and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The KDOC will maintain the ADA Coordinator position at each KDOC Adult Institution as required by law. The ADA Coordinator responsibilities will be a part of the official duties assigned to the person in this role. The ADA Coordinator shall be trained on the requirements of federal and state law regarding the contents of this Agreement and the KDOC’s obligations to provide full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations to Deaf Inmates.

[II.B.2.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will notify the Settlement Monitor of the identity of each KDOC employee assigned the title, duties and responsibilities of ADA Coordinator. The name and contact information for each ADA Coordinator will be displayed and regularly updated on the KDOC’s website. The name and contact information of each KDOC Adult Institution’s ADA Coordinator will be communicated to all Deaf Inmates incarcerated in each respective KDOC Adult Institution, and will also be prominently posted in a secure area in any housing unit in which Deaf Inmates are held.

[II.B.3.] ADA Coordinators will assist with providing, coordinating, and overseeing Auxiliary Aids and Services for Deaf Inmates and for implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be provided with and responsible for knowing the contents of this Agreement, and will assist with implementing this Agreement. The ADA Coordinators will be available to assist with various aspects of accommodating Deaf Inmates. In such situations, ADA Coordinators will ensure Effective Communication for the Deaf Inmates.

III. INITIAL CLASSIFICATION, ASSESSMENT, AND ASSIGNMENT

[III.]A. General Policy

[III.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification with Effective Communication. The purpose is to facilitate communication between the Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (or other persons) during medical, psychological, and educational testing and evaluation, as well as to provide an explanation of prison policies and procedures, including Inmate discipline, grievances, and how to utilize the TTY, Videophone and other Auxiliary Aids and Services.

[III.A.2.] As of the date of this Agreement, initial intake, assessment, and classification for male Inmates occurs at Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) and for female Inmates at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW).

[III.]B.

Hearing Assessment

As part of the initial intake, assessment, and classification, medical staff will assess and, if necessary, test all persons who may be a Deaf Inmate for Deafness. If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate’s institutional file, and
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 25 - Page ID#: 1922
will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator. Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.
[III.]C. Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment
[III.C.1.] After medical staff determine that an Inmate is Deaf, the KDOC will presume that Auxiliary Aids and Services in the form of Qualified Interpreters, visual notifications, telecommunication devices, and other aids and services set forth in this Agreement are necessary to ensure Effective Communication and substantially equal services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.
[III.C.2.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not require any or all of the Auxiliary Aids and Services set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Auxiliary Aids and Services and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file.
[III.C.3.] If an Inmate is not found to have a hearing impairment at his or her initial intake, assessment, and classification, initially refuses, or does not request Auxiliary Aids and Services, but later believes that Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary to ensure Effective Communication, he or she will fill out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form. KDOC will provide the Inmate who was initially not found to have a hearing impairment with a hearing assessment if so ordered by medical staff. If that individual is found to be Deaf, KDOC will follow the procedures set forth in this section.
[III.]D. Ensuring Staff Awareness Through Identification Cards
[III.D.1.] The KDOC will take appropriate steps to ensure that all KDOC personnel having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate are made aware of such Inmate’s need for Auxiliary Aids and Services so that Effective Communication with, and the safety of, the Deaf Inmate will be ensured. Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Inmate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Inmate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services. If any KDOC staff takes any Deaf Inmate’s ID card, the Deaf Inmate will be given another official indicator of his or her Deaf status.
[III.D.2.] All KDOC staff having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate will be trained on the meaning of the distinct ID cards.
[III.D.3.] The KDOC will post at the entrance to all KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates a notice clearly stating that the KDOC Adult Institution houses Deaf Inmates and that the Deaf Inmates carry an ID card or other official indicator with them. The notice will include a picture of the ID card and other official indicator carried by Deaf Inmates. The Notice will also be posted outside each housing unit where Deaf Inmates are held.
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 25 - Page ID#: 1923

[III.D.4.] If any Deaf Inmate indicates that he or she does not wish to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will sign a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card and that document will be kept in the Inmate’s institutional file. If any Deaf Inmate signs a Waiver of Deaf Inmate ID Card but later requests to wear an ID card identifying him or her as Deaf as set forth in this Agreement, he or she will promptly be provided an opportunity to fill out a Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card form. The KDOC will then promptly provide the Inmate with a Deaf Inmate ID card and update the Deaf Inmate’s institutional file.

[III.]E.

Interpretation of Materials

The KDOC will provide the Deaf Inmate materials it provides to all Inmates. In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

[III.]F. Creation and Interpretation of Rights Materials

[III.F.1.] Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services. The KDOC will create these materials using language designed to be accessible to each Deaf Inmate. The KDOC will provide these materials to Deaf Inmates with the orientation materials provided to all other Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification.

[III.F.2.] In providing these materials, the KDOC agrees to Effectively Communicate with the Deaf Inmate. See, e.g., 28 CFR 35.160(b)(2). At the request of the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC will provide that Deaf Inmate with a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and a Qualified Interpreter to ask any questions regarding the written or interpreted materials.

IV. HOUSING

[IV.]A. General Policy

[IV.A.1.] The KDOC has the discretion to house Deaf Inmates at whatever KDOC Adult Institution it deems appropriate. See, e.g., KY Corrections Policy and Procedure 18.7.

[IV.A.2.] Wherever a Deaf Inmate is housed, that Deaf Inmate retains all rights as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, and this Agreement.

6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 25 - Page ID#: 1924
[IV.]B. Schedule of Accommodations
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, KDOC personnel at those KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed shall provide each Deaf Inmate with a schedule showing when Qualified Interpreters and/or other Auxiliary Aids and Services are available. When the schedule of accommodations changes, including when a Qualified Interpreter will be available, an updated schedule of accommodations will be given to all Deaf Inmates.
V. PROVISION OF AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
[V.]A. General Policy
[V.A.1.] In order to ensure substantial equality for Deaf Inmates, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. This substantial equality will extend to include KDOC programs for or to Deaf Inmates provided by third party vendors, contractors, or state-funded entities, such as community colleges.
[V.A.2.] Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation; medical evaluations; On-site Medical Care and healthcare appointments; classification and transfer hearings; grievance, disciplinary, and Parole hearings; and rehabilitative, educational, work, or transitional KDOC programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.
[V.A.3.] In those instances where the KDOC permits volunteers to provide activities (religious or otherwise)—including programs, services, or meetings—to Inmates in KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are housed, the KDOC will allow the volunteer organization or individual to bring a Qualified Interpreter, subject to the KDOC Adult Institution’s security requirements, and will work with the volunteer organization or individual in an effort to have a Qualified Interpreter at the volunteer-provided activities. Such an accommodation must be initiated by request from the Deaf Inmate to the volunteer organization or individual. The responsibility for finding the interpreter will not rest with the KDOC, and proper notice allowing the KDOC to conduct appropriate security clearances must be provided. To the extent the KDOC provides, now or in the future, any religious activities at facilities housing Deaf Inmates, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter at such activities upon the request of any Deaf Inmate.
[V.A.4.] The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and may therefore choose not to provide such Deaf Inmates substantially equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 25 - Page ID#: 1925
such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
[V.A.5.] The KDOC will provide instructions for the use of all Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Deaf Inmates’ full use and enjoyment of the Auxiliary Aids and Services.
[V.]B. Medical Devices
All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to a co-payment for that medical device, just as non-Deaf Inmates are charged a co-payment for other medical appliances or devices. This copay shall not apply, however, to hearing aid batteries or for any Deaf Inmate who is deemed indigent pursuant to Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure 15.7.
[V.]C. Maintenance of Auxiliary Aids and Services
The KDOC shall maintain all Auxiliary Aids and Services in its custody in good working condition at all times.
VI. QUALIFIED SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS
[VI.]A. General Policy
[VI.A.1.] The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters as required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws. The KDOC agrees that Deaf Inmates in need of interpreter services will receive a Qualified Interpreter able to facilitate Effective Communication with that particular Deaf Inmate. The KDOC shall provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated in the following circumstances:
● communications concerning medical care and attention, including dental, vision, audiological, and mental health care;
● disciplinary hearings in which the Deaf Inmate may be a suspect of or charged with a rule infraction;
● transfer and classification processes that impact on the Deaf Inmate’s status; ● transitional programming; ● rehabilitative programming, including, but not limited to, Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA); and ● educational programming.
[VI.A.2.] The KDOC shall also provide an in-person Qualified Interpreter at KDOC Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated as circumstances warrant. The KDOC will be responsible for scheduling and overseeing the provision of Qualified Interpreters.
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 25 - Page ID#: 1926
[VI.A.3.] When a Deaf Inmate is scheduled to appear at a Parole hearing, the appropriate ADA Coordinator will notify the Kentucky Parole Board of the Deaf Inmate’s need for, and the Kentucky Parole Board’s duty to provide, Auxiliary Aids and Services for Effective Communication. This notice shall be given no later than seven (7) days before the Deaf Inmate’s scheduled Parole hearing. In the event that the Deaf Inmate will be physically present at a KDOC Adult Institution for the Parole hearing, the KDOC will work with the Kentucky Parole Board to ensure that any appointed Qualified Interpreter obtains security clearances in a timely manner.
[VI.]B. Other Means of Communication
KDOC employees will communicate with Deaf Inmates for such purposes, and to the same extent, as they would communicate with non-Deaf Inmates using all available means of communication. This provision in no way lessens the KDOC’s obligation to provide Qualified Interpreters in certain situations and in a timely manner.
[VI.]C. On-site Medical Care
[VI.C.]1. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication for all scheduled appointments between Deaf Inmates and medical personnel at KDOC facilities, including, but not limited to, review of medical history, medical appointments, follow up meetings or appointments, and treatment meetings. The parties agree that for many Deaf Inmates, a Qualified Interpreter may be a necessary means of providing Effective Communication in these circumstances.
[VI.C.]2. Informing Appropriate Medical Staff
The KDOC will ensure that all medical staff are made aware of an Inmate’s Deafness. For each Deaf Inmate, the medical staff will note, in bold marking, the Deaf Inmate’s disability on the medical file cover and in the Deaf Inmate’s medical file.
[VI.C.]3. Scheduling Medical Appointments with Qualified Interpreters
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with the ability to request Auxiliary Aids and Services to ensure Effective Communication at medical appointments. The KDOC will provide space on any forms used to request medical appointments for Deaf Inmates to request Auxiliary Aids and Services. Appointments for Deaf Inmates requiring Auxiliary Aids and Services will be scheduled within the same time period from the initial request as those for similarly situated nonDeaf Inmates.
[VI.C.]4. Emergency Events
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter via VRI service for use in unscheduled medical emergencies. If VRI
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 25 - Page ID#: 1927
services are not appropriate in the situation, KDOC personnel will work in conjunction with medical staff to attempt to secure an in-person Qualified Interpreter as soon as possible. Lifesaving medical care should never be delayed because no interpretation services are available.
[VI.]D. Off-site Medical Care
[VI.D.1.] As early as practicable, the KDOC will inform all off-site medical providers that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time.
[VI.D.2.] In the case of an emergency, the KDOC will, as soon as possible, inform an off-site medical provider that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service is being transported to the off-site medical provider. Notification will include the Deaf Inmate’s estimated time of arrival.
[VI.]E. Educational, Vocational, and Rehabilitative Programming
The KDOC shall provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services for all KDOC programs, which are offered at KDOC Adult Institutions and which Deaf Inmates are qualified for, admitted into, or in which Deaf Inmates are actively participating. The following appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services will be provided:
[VI.E.]1. Educational Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned education materials where available. In addition, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for educational KDOC program classes. The educational program classes include, without limitation, literacy, adult basic education, GED preparatory, and technical education and certification classes. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services are necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]2. Vocational/Work Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned vocational/work materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for vocational/work KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).
[VI.E.]3. KDOC Rehabilitative, Counseling, Therapeutic, Substance Abuse, and Evidence-Based Programs
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with written materials and open- or closed-captioned materials where available. In addition, and as necessary, the KDOC will provide Effective Communication for rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse, and evidence-based
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 25 - Page ID#: 1928
KDOC programs. In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, the KDOC shall give primary consideration to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)). The KDOC will provide Qualified Interpreters for Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) programs. (
[VI.]F. Work Assignments
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates opportunities for institutional work assignments that are consistent with the opportunities for the same assignments given to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates. The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
[VI.]G. Religious Services
[VI.G.1.] The KDOC shall encourage outside volunteers providing religious services to provide Effective Communication for Deaf Inmates as long as the volunteer meets the same security requirements that are imposed on all other outside volunteers.
[VI.G.2.] No Deaf Inmate will be required to attend a religious service where a Qualified Interpreter is not provided in order to receive any religious meal, diet, or otherwise offered religious accommodation.
[VI.G.3.] To the extent that the KDOC provides any religious services, now or in the future, the KDOC shall provide a Qualified Interpreter.
[VI.]H. Transfer and Classification Matters
The KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter for any hearings or meetings relating to a Deaf Inmate’s transfer to another facility, change in security classification, or any other classification hearing involving the exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and the KDOC personnel that could affect the Deaf Inmate’s status.
[VI.]I. Transitional Programming – Post-Release Supervision (Including Parole)
Upon request, the KDOC will provide appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for Deaf Inmates under post-release supervision to Effectively Communicate with the individual supervising their post-release supervision.
[VI.]J. Additional Communications
The KDOC will provide Effective Communication, which may include Qualified Interpreters, for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement. A significant communication includes any
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 25 - Page ID#: 1929
communication for which the Deaf Inmate requests an interpreter, subject to approval by the ADA Coordinator, the Warden, and/or the Warden’s designee.
VII. DISCIPLINARY MATTERS
[VII.]A. Qualified Interpreters For Disciplinary Proceedings
[VII.A.1.] The KDOC must provide Deaf Inmates with a Qualified Interpreter in any disciplinary proceeding in which a Deaf Inmate is suspected of, charged with, or a witness to, a disciplinary infraction, including those proceedings carried out under Chapter 15 of the Kentucky Corrections Policy and Procedure and any other disciplinary policies and procedures now in force or subsequently adopted by the KDOC. A Qualified Interpreter must be available to a Deaf Inmate at the following stages of the above-described disciplinary proceedings:
● staff investigations involving the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel, prior to filing a disciplinary report or equivalent;
● investigative interviews that involve the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel (such as when an adverse party is interviewed);
● during any part of the preparation of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● during any part of the shift supervisor’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● during any part of the investigator’s review of the disciplinary report that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel;
● giving Miranda warnings to a Deaf Inmate; ● advising a Deaf Inmate of his or her right to consult with an assigned legal
aide; ● advising a Deaf Inmate of the anticipated date, time, and place of hearing; and ● during any part of the hearing, or re-hearing, before the Adjustment
Committee, Adjustment Officer or Unit Hearing Officer that involves the exchange of information between a Deaf Inmate and KDOC personnel. [VII.A.2.] Inmate or staff advisors will be provided and accessible to Deaf Inmates who are suspected of, charged with, or witnesses to a disciplinary infraction, on the same terms as they are provided to non-Deaf Inmates. To the extent that a Deaf Inmate has access to his or her advisor, a Qualified Interpreter shall be made available to the Deaf Inmate for any exchange of information between the Deaf Inmate and his or her advisor.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 25 - Page ID#: 1930
[VII.]B. Miscellaneous
[VII.B.1.] If any Deaf Inmate is a witness at a disciplinary hearing, the KDOC will provide a Qualified Interpreter at the hearing.
[VII.B.2.] The KDOC must hold disciplinary hearings for Deaf Inmates within the same time frame as it holds disciplinary hearings for non-Deaf Inmates.
[VII.B.3.] Nothing in this Agreement precludes any Deaf Inmate who is suspected of or charged with a disciplinary infraction from voluntarily waiving his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter and to proceed through any stage of a disciplinary proceeding without the benefits of a Qualified Interpreter. If, as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, a Deaf Inmate is being punished or is scheduled to be punished for a disciplinary infraction as the result of a hearing in which he or she did not waive his or her right to a Qualified Interpreter, then the disciplinary hearing must be re-heard at a time that a Qualified Interpreter can be present.
VIII. NON-AUDITORY ALERT NOTIFICATIONS
[VIII.]A. General Policy
Deaf Inmates incarcerated at KDOC facilities should not miss announcements, alarms, or any other information audibly conveyed from KDOC staff to the general Inmate population solely because of their disability.
[VIII.]B. Relaying Information
[VIII.B.1.] The KDOC shall provide an effective non-auditory alert system that will notify Deaf Inmates of both prison-wide events (including but not limited to announcements, visitations, and roll-calls) and events specific to Deaf Inmates. The non-auditory alert system must be capable of effectively alerting Deaf Inmates of such events in real time.
[VIII.B.2.] In addition, the KDOC will continue to publish the institution schedule in the handbook that every Inmate receives and to post promptly any schedule changes, which are done by memorandum from the Warden, in all dormitories, the library, and the gym at each KDOC Adult Institution in which a Deaf Inmate is housed. Further, the KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids and assisting devices, including but not limited to, bed shakers.
[VIII.B.3.] The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 25 - Page ID#: 1931
[VIII.]C. Non-Auditory Alarms and Emergency Evacuation
[VIII.C.1.] The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with an effective non-auditory alert system that will advise them of an emergency evacuation or other emergency. Such non-auditory alert systems must be sufficient to effectively notify Deaf Inmates of emergencies in real-time and can include flashing strobe lights and bed shakers. The KDOC has the discretion as to which type of non-auditory alerts it shall employ and to change that system as it deems necessary. Nonetheless, the KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of the non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such systems are acceptable for the stated purpose.
[VIII.C.2.] KDOC personnel shall be responsible for the evacuation or safe relocation of Deaf Inmates during an emergency. Therefore, during emergencies, KDOC employees will personally and Effectively Communicate adequate information about the emergency to Deaf Inmates.
IX. TELECOMMUNICATIONS
[IX.]A. General Policy
The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with access to telecommunication devices that enable them to have communication with people outside of the KDOC and that are substantially equivalent—in terms of the amount and quality of the information conveyed—to the communications that non-Deaf Inmates have with people outside of the KDOC using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones.
[IX.]B. Monitoring Communications
The KDOC may only provide for the monitoring of communications between Deaf Inmates and individuals outside of the KDOC to the same extent and with the same discretion applied to the monitoring of communications between non-Deaf Inmates and those outside of the KDOC.
[IX.]C. Additional Time for Communication
The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 25 - Page ID#: 1932
[IX.]D. Technology KDOC Will Provide
The KDOC will make the following communications technologies available at KDCO Adult Institutions where Deaf Inmates are incarcerated to facilitate communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC facilities. This list of technological equipment is not exhaustive. The KDOC will keep abreast of evolving technology and will consider adding additional equipment to reflect technological advances, as it deems appropriate or as required by applicable federal and state law. KDOC will provide a list of available communications equipment to Deaf Inmates upon their arrival at the KDOC Adult Institutions in which they are housed.
[IX.D.]1. TTY or TDD
The parties acknowledge that there may be reasonable concerns over the theft and destruction of the TTY/TDD device(s), and that the TTY/TDD device(s) therefore must be maintained in a secured location when not in use. The parties also acknowledge that access to the TTY/TDD device(s) will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate. Nonetheless, for every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, in no event will TTY/TDD access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones, except to the extent that Deaf Inmates must request access to the otherwise secured TTY/TDD device(s). A reasonable request by a Deaf Inmate to access the TTY/TDD device(s) will be granted. TTY/TDDs will be located in areas substantially as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. TTY/TDDs will be available for Deaf Inmate use during the same days and hours as conventional telephones. At each KDOC Adult Institution where any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will ensure that an alternate TTY or TDD unit is available for use when the regular TTY or TDD is broken or otherwise unavailable.
[IX.D.]2. Relay Services
For every KDOC Adult Institution at which any Deaf Inmate is incarcerated, the KDOC will enable all TTYs and TDDs to access publicly available relay service phone numbers such as 711 and 1-800 numbers. Deaf Inmates will not be charged any more than similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates for the use of relay services.
[IX.D.]3. Videophones
[IX.D.3.a.] Within sixty (60) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, Videophones shall be installed and accessible to Deaf Inmates in any KDOC Adult Institution that houses Deaf Inmates. Access to the Videophone will be made available at times that the KDOC will designate, but in no event will Videophone access for Deaf Inmates be less than equal to the access non-Deaf Inmates have to conventional telephones. Videophones will be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. Videophone will be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and will not require permission for use to the same extent that conventional telephones do not require permission for use. Deaf Inmates will not be charged for the use of Videophones.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 25 - Page ID#: 1933
[IX.D.3.b.] Videophones will allow voice carry-over features.
[IX.]E. Responsibility for Maintaining Equipment and Training Staff
[IX.E.1.] The KDOC will ensure that the technology used to permit communication between Deaf Inmates and people outside of KDOC Adult Institutions is in good working order. Further, the KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC’s control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order. KDOC staff shall attempt to resolve complaints about any malfunctioning equipment within a reasonable time of receiving that complaint. To the extent services, equipment, and resources that are outside KDOC’s control are involved (for example services or equipment provided by cable, telephone, utilities, or various other companies), KDOC will agree to notify those providers/companies of any problems and, to the extent necessary or possible under the circumstances, work with them expeditiously to resolve the problem.
[IX.E.2.] The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.
X. MEDIA
[X.1.] The KDOC will ensure that all audio-visual media purchased for Inmate use in KDOC Adult Institutions housing Deaf Inmates includes open- or closed-captioning. Televisions purchased by the KDOC for Inmate use shall support open- or closed-captioning. Captioning will be turned on and remain on at any Deaf Inmate’s request.
[X.2.] The KDOC will permit Deaf Inmates to purchase TVs, which reliably support open- or closed-captioning, with their own funds. In the event that the closed-captioning feature contained on TVs purchased through approved commercial channels malfunctions, KDOC personnel will work with the Deaf Inmate to the same extent that the KDOC works with other Inmates regarding malfunctioning personal property to address and resolve the problem within a reasonable time.
XI. HAND RESTRAINTS
[XI.]A. General Policy
[XI.A.1.] According to the KDOC’s hand restraint policies, the KDOC will use hand restraints on Deaf Inmates only in the following circumstances:
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 25 - Page ID#: 1934
● when transporting a Deaf Inmate to or from a KDOC Adult Institution; ● when transferring a Deaf Inmate into or out of the special management unit;
and ● as needed in response to security threats. [XI.A.2.] The applicable portions of the KDOC hand restraint policy, summarized above, have been reviewed to confirm when hand restraints are used on Inmates confined to KDOC Adult Institutions. While the policy does not specify the manner in which mechanical restraints are used during Off-site Medical Care, an Affidavit is included as Appendix A to this Agreement describing the two-point bed restraint system used during Off-site Medical Care. The two-point system would allow a Deaf Inmate to use his or her hands for communicating via sign language to some degree. KDOC training will include both the two-point system as well as the agreement that hand restraints will be removed from a Deaf Inmate when the Deaf Inmate is in a secure environment, when security is no longer a threat, or there are other security devices in place to allow the Deaf Inmate to Effectively Communicate.
[XI.]B. Off-site Medical Care
[XI.B.1.] During Off-site Medical Care, the KDOC shall use a two-point hand restraint system to allow for the Deaf Inmate’s need for Effective Communication while considering the safety and security of the Deaf Inmate and those located at Off-site Medical Care facilities. The KDOC will include training on use of the two-point hand restraint system in its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees.
[XI.B.2.] In the event a medical decision made by medical professionals or medical staff that requires or calls for removal or adjustment of hand restraints, the KDOC will follow its secured policy regarding the removal of mechanical restraints where necessary for treatment or emergencies.
[XI.]C. On-Site Medical Care
The KDOC’s hand restraint policy, summarized above in Section XI.A., will be followed for Onsite Medical Care.
XII. MISCELLANEOUS DEVICES AND AIDS
Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination. Deaf Inmates will be allowed to purchase alerting devices, vibrating clocks, telephone amplifications, headset amplifiers, and televisions that meet the particular needs of
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 25 - Page ID#: 1935
their disability from an approved vendor so long as the items do not pose a security risk. The KDOC retains the discretion to limit purchases to devices that are available through the Commissary. Deaf Inmates may submit a request in writing to the ADA Coordinator responsible for the KDOC Adult Institution in which they are housed for devices not available from the Commissary. The KDOC will not deny any Deaf Inmate the right to purchase these devices except where they present an articulable security risk, which shall be documented. The ADA Coordinator will maintain written records of all Deaf Inmate requests for these devices and the disposition of the request.
XIII. TRAINING
[XIII.]A. General Policy
[XIII.A.1.] The KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will provide training as defined in Section XIII.B below to KDOC employees who interact with the Inmate population. The KDOC will incorporate this training into its regularly scheduled training for new and existing employees. This training will be included in current KDOC training within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement. The KDOC will update the training materials as required by law, including but not limited to, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws.
[XIII.A.2.] The KDOC will provide any materials that may be used for training, as specified under Section XIV of this Agreement, to the Settlement Monitor for review prior to the first training session. In addition, the KDOC, with input from the KCDHH, will update and allow the KCDHH and the Settlement Monitor to review the training as defined in Section XIII.B. at least every two years.
[XIII.]B. KDOC Employee Training
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC will begin training KDOC employees on the following topics:
● best practices for communicating with Deaf individuals; ● the unique needs and problems encountered by Deaf and late-Deafened
individuals; ● identification of communication needs of persons who are Deaf; ● the psychological implications of Deafness and its relationship to interaction
with hearing corrections personnel; ● the proper use and role of Qualified Interpreters; ● directions about using TTYs, TDDs, Videophones and any other
telecommunication equipment, and other Auxiliary Aids and Services, currently available at the facility that facilitate communication with Deaf people;
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 25 - Page ID#: 1936
● disciplinary matters, described in Section VII, and grievance proceedings, described in Section XIV;
● the KDOC’s anti-discrimination policy; ● all equipment, services, and accommodations available to Deaf Inmates; ● hand restraint policies in the context of Deaf Inmates; and ● the requirements of this Agreement.
XIV. GRIEVANCES
[XIV.1.] All KDOC grievance coordinators will inform Deaf Inmates who file a grievance of the option to share that grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator of the KDOC Adult Institution in which the Deaf Inmate is housed. If the Deaf Inmate agrees to share the grievance (or any responses or outcomes) with the ADA Coordinator, the grievance coordinator will forward a copy of that grievance (or grievance response or outcome) to the ADA Coordinator for review.
[XIV.2.] A written record of all Deaf Inmates’ grievances (and any responses and outcomes) will be maintained by the KDOC. For five years following the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor may request the records of any Deaf Inmate’s grievances, as long as the Deaf Inmate signs a waiver of confidentiality pursuant to KRS 197.023, and a copy of that Deaf Inmate’s records will be provided, free of charge, to the Settlement Monitor.
[XIV.3.] Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every three months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a written summary of grievances filed by Deaf Inmates concerning access to Effective Communication, Auxiliary Aids and Services, or any other issues raised in this Agreement. This written summary will describe, for each grievance, the issue raised by the Deaf Inmate, the KDOC Adult Institution where the grievance was filed, a summary of KDOC’s response, and whether and how the grievance was resolved.
XV. MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE
[XV.]A. Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Right of Access
To the extent Plaintiffs’ Counsel maintains a current or prospective attorney-client relationship with any Deaf Inmate, they shall be provided the same access to that Deaf Inmate and to the records relating to that Deaf Inmate, as any other attorney with a similar relationship to another non-Deaf Inmate.
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 25 - Page ID#: 1937
[XV.]B. The Settlement Monitor’s Investigation
[XV.B.1.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date, the following will apply to the extent necessary to permit the Settlement Monitor to thoroughly and objectively assess the KDOC’s compliance with and implementation of this Agreement:
● [XV.B.1.a] The Settlement Monitor will have unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC to provide any requested records, files, or papers, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
● [XV.B.1.b] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all other materials relating to the case Adams, et al. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, et al., Case no. 14-cv-00001, except for those materials protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. Any requested materials protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine will be logged with information including the author, date, nature of the material, reason for the claim of privilege, and persons to whom the material was disseminated, and this log will be provided to the Settlement Monitor.
● [XV.B.1.c] The Settlement Monitor will have access to all pertinent staff members and employees of the KDOC. The Settlement Monitor may engage in both formal and informal conferences with staff members and employees, including confidential or group interviews, and such persons will cooperate will the Settlement Monitor fully and will respond to all reasonable inquiries and requests relating to compliance efforts. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
● [XV.B.1.d] The Settlement Monitor may conduct confidential interviews with any Deaf Inmate or with groups of Deaf Inmates incarcerated at Adult KDOC Institutions. Within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and every six months thereafter, the KDOC will provide the Settlement Monitor with a current and up-to-date list of Deaf Inmates in the KDOC’s custody, which identifies the name, DOC numbers and the KDOC Adult Institution for each Deaf Inmate. The Settlement Monitor will contact the Warden or the Warden’s designee to schedule these conferences and/or interviews, which will be treated as attorney visits under CPP 14.4.
● [XV.B.1.e] The Settlement Monitor may request KDOC staff members and employees to prepare, where appropriate, written responses to any questions by the Settlement Monitor related to the implementation of the Agreement or issues in this litigation, so long as the request does not interfere with security
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 25 - Page ID#: 1938
obligations of KDOC staff members and employees. The KDOC will not refuse or fail to respond to reasonable requests. Responses to these requests shall be provided in a timely manner that is reasonable and shall not interfere in the security obligations of any KDOC staff members or employees. The KDOC will provide a written explanation for any refusal by the KDOC staff members or employees to provide any requested responses, and the KDOC and the Settlement Monitor will attempt to reach an agreement before either the KDOC or the Settlement Monitor seek assistance from the Court.
● [XV.B.1.f] The Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution so long as the KDOC is provided notice a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to the visit. All visits will be supervised by a KDOC employee. Visits will be limited to only those areas of a KDOC Adult Institution that are affected by this Agreement. Absent Court order or a separate agreement, the Settlement Monitor may visit each KDOC Adult Institution only once in a calendar year. The KDOC will pay the cost of and associated with providing Qualified Interpreters for the Settlement Monitor’s visits to KDOC Adult Institutions.
[XV.B.2.] The parties will not refuse reasonable requests for records, files, papers, or other materials or for access to people or other information. The Settlement Monitor will conduct the bulleted monitoring, above, in a reasonable manner to minimize interference with the daily operations of the KDOC. Absent a Court order requiring otherwise, the KDOC retains discretion to prohibit the Settlement Monitor from conducting the aforementioned monitoring on the buildings and premises under the control of the KDOC, but the KDOC will not unreasonably refuse requests for visits.
[XV.B.3.] The Settlement Monitor may hire other persons as the Settlement Monitor determines to be necessary to carry out the Settlement Monitor’s duties.
[XV.B.4.] For a period of five years after the Effective Date of this Agreement, the Settlement Monitor will issue semi-annual reports to the Court and the parties detailing the parties’ compliance with and implementation of this Agreement.
[XV.B.5.] The KDOC will not pay for the fees and expenses due to the Settlement Monitor for the Settlement Monitor’s services under this section.
XVI. RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS
[XVI.]A. Release
In consideration of the representations, promises and agreements set forth herein, including the payments as set forth in this Agreement, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Plaintiffs, on their behalf and on behalf of their assignees, heirs, executors, family members, beneficiaries, administrators, successors, and anyone acting, or claiming to act, on their behalf, hereby releases and forever discharges the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet, KDOC, J. Michael Brown, Ladonna Thompson, Kimberly Potter-Blair,
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 23 of 25 - Page ID#: 1939
Paula Holden, Jim Erwin, Randy White, Gregory Howard, Clark Taylor, Aaron Smith, Kathy Litteral, Steve Haney, Gary Beckstrom, Alan Brown, Janet Conover, Joseph Meko, Don Bottoms, Ravonne Sims, Steve Woodward, and Bobbie Underwood from any and all claims and causes of action, known and unknown, asserted and unasserted, direct and indirect, and of any kind, nature or description whatsoever, which they had on or before the date of the execution of this Agreement arising out of the facts set forth in the discrimination charge they filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division.
[XVI.]B. Dismissal
[XVI.B.1.] The Plaintiffs agree to dismiss with prejudice all claims of the Amended Complaint filed with the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, Frankfort Division (the “Court”), Case Number 3:14-cv-00001.
[XVI.B.2.] The parties agree that the Court will retain jurisdiction over this Agreement as set out in Section XVI.E of this Agreement, below.
[XVI.]C. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, Disbursements and Expenses
In settlement of all claims for attorneys’ fees and costs, any disbursements and expenses, including expert fees, incurred on behalf of Plaintiffs in this litigation up to and including the Effective Date, the parties agree that within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall pay $250,000.00 as directed by Plaintiffs’ counsel.
[XVI.]D. Damages
Within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, the KDOC shall directly pay (1) Plaintiff Oscar Adams $1,500.00 in damages and (2) Plaintiff Michael Knights $1,500.00 in damages. The KDOC also agrees to pay within ninety (90) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement Plaintiff Michael Knights $77.62 to compensate for lien charges assessed against him for communications with Plaintiffs’ Counsel regarding this case and settlement.
[XVI.]E. Enforcement Powers
[XVI.E.1.] During the term of the Agreement, as set out in Section XVII.H, Plaintiffs may move the court for reinstatement of the lawsuit, or may elect to seek specific performance or institute an action for breach. An action to enforce this Agreement does not include any action for damages, except for enforcement of Section XVI.D. A Plaintiff seeking to enforce this Agreement can only seek to have a court order the KDOC to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
[XVI.E.2.] The lawsuit may not be reinstated, nor a claim for breach or specific performance of this Agreement brought, before a Plaintiff first notifies the KDOC of the nature of the alleged material non-compliance and gives the KDOC sixty (60) days to cure the alleged breach. The parties agree to non-binding mediation prior to any Plaintiff moving to reinstate the lawsuit or filing an enforcement action.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 24 of 25 - Page ID#: 1940
XVII. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
[XVII.]A. Non-Admission
It is understood and agreed that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims, facts, or allegations. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes an admission of any liability, wrongdoing, or violation of any law, or the admission of the validity of any defense.
[XVII.]B. Private Settlement Agreement
This Agreement is a private settlement agreement within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3626.
[XVII.]C. Confidentiality
No part of this Agreement is or will be considered confidential by the parties. This Agreement will be made available by request under the Freedom of Information Act.
[XVII.]D. Entire Agreement
[XVII.D.1.] This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties. There were no inducements or representations leading to the execution of this document, except as stated within the document itself. The terms of this Agreement are contractual in nature.
[XVII.D.2.] All parties agree that the relief provided in this Agreement is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of Plaintiffs’ federally protected rights.
[XVII.]E. Execution
This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, all of which, when so executed and taken together, shall be deemed an original and all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Each counterpart may be delivered by email (as a .pdf attachment) or facsimile, and an email or facsimile signature shall have the same force and effect as an original signature.
[XVII.]F. Binding
This Agreement is final and binding on the Parties. Each Party has a duty to so inform any such successor in interest.
[XVII.]G. Non-Waiver
Failure by the Plaintiffs to seek enforcement of this Agreement pursuant to its terms with respect to any instance or provision will not be construed as a waiver to such enforcement with regard to other instances and provisions.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-1 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 25 of 25 - Page ID#: 1941
[XVII.]H. Severability In the event that a court determines that any provision of this Agreement is unenforceable, such provision will be severed from this Agreement and all other provisions will remain valid and enforceable, provided however that if the severance of any such provision materially alters the rights and obligations of the Parties hereunder, the Parties will attempt, through reasonable, good faith negotiations, to agree upon such other amendments to this Agreement as may be necessary to restore the Parties as closely as possible to the relative rights and obligations initially intended by them hereunder.
[XVII.]I. Term of Agreement This Agreement shall remain in effect for five years from the Effective Date. The KDOC, however, will continue to provide all accommodations required under the law, including under the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, regardless of any term limit applicable to this Agreement. Signed: /s/
24

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 67 - Page ID#: 1942
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendix II
ADA staff computer-based-training (Apr. 20, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 67 - Page ID#: 1943
Kentucky Department of Corrections
COMMUNICATING WITH DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING OFFENDERS
2017 INS

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 67 - Page ID#: 1944
KYDOC’s Non-discrimination Policy
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and a settlement agreement entered in federal court, KYDOC provides deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates:  Non-Discrimination  Effective Communication  Auxiliary Aids and Services
Equal access is the law and it's the right thing to do!

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 67 - Page ID#: 1945
Non-Discrimination Policy
The KYDOC will ensure that deaf and hard of hearing inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated non-deaf inmates. The KYDOC shall provide deaf and hard of hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 67 - Page ID#: 1946
Non-discrimination Policy
Effective Communication:
KYDOC will communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—ensuring that inmates can receive information from and provide information to staff.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 67 - Page ID#: 1947
Non-discrimination Policy
Auxiliary Aids and Services: When needed for effective communication, KYDOC will provide “auxiliary aids and services.” This means devices or services that assist in communication, such as:  Qualified interpreters, via remote video interpretation or in-
person  Hearing aids and amplifiers  Video captioning  Visual or other non-auditory alert or alarm systems  Videophone/video relay service  TTY/TDD, including telephone relay services  Written materials  Assistive listening systems

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 67 - Page ID#: 1948
Non-discrimination policy
Remember the anti-discrimination principle: The ADA requires KYDOC to provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates. HOWEVER, if something a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate seeks—a particular job, for example—would be dangerous, KYDOC can bar the inmate’s access to that job because it poses a direct threat of injury or death to the inmate or others. You must discuss any such situation with the ADA Coordinator, who will ensure that the court settlement monitor receives required notice.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 67 - Page ID#: 1949
Overview Of Deaf And Hard Of Hearing Offenders
EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND INTERACTION

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 67 - Page ID#: 1950
Demographics
• Nearly 50 million Americans have a hearing loss, roughly 17% of
the U.S. population
• Nearly 700,000 deaf or hard of hearing Kentuckians
(third largest per capita)
• Hearing loss is currently the 3rd largest health issue following
heart disease and arthritis.
• Hearing loss is currently the #1 war wound.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 67 - Page ID#: 1951
Appropriate Terminology

Inappropriate:

Appropriate:

Deaf and dumb Hearing Impaired Mute Death

Deaf Hard of Hearing Non-Verbal

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 67 - Page ID#: 1952
Population Diversity

There is tremendous diversity within the deaf and hard of hearing community. Some factors that affect this are:

Type of Hearing Loss Degree of Loss Age of onset Etc.

• Deaf • Hard of Hearing • Late Deafened
•Sign •Oral •Both

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 67 - Page ID#: 1953
Understanding Differences
 Louder Speech  Culturally Different  Very Animated With Use Of Hand Gesture  Not Affected By Verbal Commands And Loud Noises

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 67 - Page ID#: 1954
Potential Side Effects Of Hearing Loss
•DEPRESSION •WITHDRAWAL •ISOLATION •BLUFFING •DEMENTIA •MISLABELING

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 67 - Page ID#: 1955
“DEAF IN PRISON”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AstF5kMaH_w

Challenges Facing Deaf Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 67 - Page ID#: 1956
and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
• Difficulty hearing announcements and alerts:
‐ Count ‐ Chow ‐ Pill-call ‐ Pages ‐ Other announcements
• Difficulty hearing orders issued orally • Need to avoid seeming vulnerable

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 67 - Page ID#:
Special Barriers to1957 Communication
• Prisons are very loud, with lots of ambient noise and terrible acoustics.
• Prisons have many congregate situations, which are particularly difficult to understand.
• Announcements made over intercom system can be distorted and hard to understand.
• Prisoners—particularly deaf and hard-ofhearing prisoners—often have low literacy, so writing cannot always be used to substitute for speech.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 67 - Page ID#: 1958
Special Considerations
Try to imagine what it would be like to enter prison without the ability to hear:
"Deaf people in prison are isolated, frustrated, ignored and vulnerable." - Deaf Prison Project,
BDA/BID

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 67 - Page ID#: 1959
How does this affect you?
As an employee, you most likely take some things for granted. For instance, you probably expect offenders to respond when you order them to report to the visiting room, perform an emergency evacuation, move away from a perimeter fence, and respond to other spoken commands.
Deaf and hard-of-hearing offenders may have difficulty doing these things if you don't communicate effectively.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 67 - Page ID#: 1960
Identification Of Deaf And Hard Of Hearing Offenders
OFFENDERS ARE IDENTIFIED IN AN INITIAL ASSESSMENT FOR HEARING LOSS

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 67 - Page ID#: 1961
Identification & Assessment
 Medical staff shall assess for the presence of a hearing impairment
 If the assessment concludes the offender is deaf or hard of hearing,
 Medical staff shall notify the ADA Coordinator  The ADA coordinator will consult with the individual
and medical staff to determine what auxiliary aides or services are necessary  Previously waived aides or services can be requested at any time by the offender

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 67 - Page ID#: 1962
Signs of Hearing Loss
For inmates who entered KYDOC custody before screening became routine, who were missed, or who developed hearing loss after the screening, you may observe signs of hearing loss, such as:  Seeking frequent repetition.  Having difficulty following conversations involving more than
two people.  Thinking that other people sound muffled or like they’re
mumbling.  Having difficulty hearing in noisy situations.  Answering or responding inappropriately in conversations.  Watching people’s faces intently when they speak.  Avoiding conversation and social interaction.
If you see these, contact the inmate’s case worker, unit administrator, or health services personnel for additional screening.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 67 - Page ID#: 1963
Identification
Once an offender is identified as deaf or hard-ofhearing that will be noted on a pink (or in some facilities red) Medical Alert Card.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 23 of 67 - Page ID#: 1964
Identification
When an offender is identified as deaf this is the symbol that will be on their ID card and displayed on the cell door or bunk.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 24 of 67 - Page ID#: 1965
KOMS Notification
23
 All Deaf or Hard of Hearing offenders have a precaution entered into KOMS
 This is listed under the red exclamation point in the KOMS header; the precaution is entered as a serious medical issue
 The precaution states, Deaf or Hard of Hearing

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 25 of 67 - Page ID#: 1966
EMR Notification
24
 Medical staff enter a deaf or hard of hearing alert in the electronic medical record
 The alert is entered in the header of the electronic medical file

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 26 of 67 - Page ID#: 1967
Stay Aware of Identifications
Why would you want to know that an inmate is deaf or hardof-hearing? You need to know for both emergencies and routine interactions. It's a matter of improving your communication with the offender. In some cases, improved communication can mean the difference between life and death.
For example:
 If you’re a housing officer, you should know who the deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates in your unit are, so you can make sure to use best practices for communication.
 If you don’t know an inmate you are about to page, check his or her KOMS file, to look for the Deaf or Hard-ofHearing alert; the page may need to be made personally, instead of using the intercom.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 27 of 67 - Page ID#: 1968
Emergency Procedures
 Staff shall be aware of the deaf or hard of hearing offenders assigned to the living unit
 In the event of emergency, all cells of deaf or hard of hearing offenders shall be checked by staff
 The symbol below is utilized to identify the cells which house all deaf or hard of hearing offenders
HEARING IMPAIRED INMATE

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 28 of 67 - Page ID#: 1969
Effective Communication Strategies
ENSURE OPTIMAL SAFETY FOR OFFICERS AND INMATES

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 29 of 67 - Page ID#: 1970
Provide Effective Communication
 Remember: Part of KYDOC’s anti-discrimination policy is to communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—ensuring that inmates can receive information from and provide information to staff.
 Depending on the inmate’s needs, this can mean:  Using a sign-language interpreter (either on a laptop computer or in-person)  Using other auxiliary aids and services  Using strategies for talking with hard-of-hearing inmates

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 30 of 67 - Page ID#:
When is effective com19m71 unication required? (Sign language interpretation OR auxiliary aids)
 Educational programs (literacy, adult basic education, GED, and technical education and certification classes).
 Vocational/work programs  Rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse,
and evidence-based programs  Work assignments  Religious services (except KYDOC does not provide
interpretation for volunteer-led religious programming)  Intake, transfer and classification matters  Transitional programming – post-release supervision  On-site medical care and healthcare appointments  Grievance and disciplinary hearings and meetings  All important conversations between staff and inmates.

Disciplinary Proceedings: Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 31 of 67 - Page ID#: 1972
Effective Communication
Q: What parts of the Adjustment process are covered? A: All of them. Effective communication—including use of auxiliary aids and interpretation when needed—is required for:  Miranda warnings  When notifying the inmate of the date, time and place of
the hearing  Meetings with the investigator  Meetings with a legal aide  The Adjustment Committee hearing  Etc.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 32 of 67 - Page ID#: 1973
Interpreters
• Knowing some sign language is NOT the same as being an interpreter
• Interpreting requires specialized expertise • Interpreters are highly skilled professionals • Kentucky has a licensure law that requires the use of
LICENSED interpreters • Using non licensed interpreters for legal, professional or
educational matters is extremely risky to the inmate as well as the facility • Can be in person or accessed remotely via technology • Using other inmates as interpreters creates problems with adequate understanding, confidentiality, and safety.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 33 of 67 - Page ID#: 1974
No request necessary
Inmates can request interpretation for any significant communication. But no request is necessary for:  Intake and orientation  Classification and transfer hearings and related
meetings  Grievance meetings and hearings  Disciplinary hearings and all related processes  Parole meetings and hearings  Emergency health care on-site For these situations, interpretation must be offered to the inmate by staff (the inmate can waive the right to interpretation if he or she chooses).

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 34 of 67 - Page ID#: 1975
VRI or In-Person Interpretation?
KYDOC offers both video remote interpretation (VRI), via a laptop, and, when necessary, in-person interpretation. An inmate’s request for in-person interpretation should be passed on to the ADA Coordinator, who will grant it if it is necessary for effective communication, for example:  During group classes in which student participation
is key.  When remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has
not been, effective.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 35 ofB67e-dPaSgehIDa#k: er
1976
TV Closed
Auxiliary Aids Captioning

VRI Laptop

Hearing aids

TTY

Phone Volume

Adjustment

Amplifier

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 36 of 67 - Page ID#: 1977
Lip-reading
Studies have shown that lip reading is 30%-35% accurate AT BEST.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 37 of 67 - Page ID#: 1978
Communication Tips
The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section, has published some practical suggestions for communicating effectively with hardof-hearing people. The slides that follow present those tips.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 38 of 67 - Page ID#: 1979
Communication Tips
Starting the conversation:  Always get the person’s attention before you start speaking .  Just because someone is wearing a hearing aid does not mean
they can hear you.  Ask if the person can understand you, or needs some adjustment;
you may want to write a note to ask him or her what communication aid or service is needed.  Provide accommodations if and when requested.  Minimize background noise and other distractions whenever possible.  Allow extra time for communication. Lighting and facilitating lip-reading  Face the person and maintain normal eye contact. Do not turn away while speaking.  Try to converse in a well-lit area, but avoid glare or back-lighting that puts your mouth in shadow.  Do not cover your mouth or chew gum while you are speaking.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 39 of 67 - Page ID#: 1980
Communication Tips
Simple language, normal speech  Speak at a normal pace, enunciating clearly.  Speak with simple, direct words.  Do not shout or exaggerate mouth movements .
Visual cues  Use gestures and facial expressions to reinforce what
you are saying.  Use visual aids when possible, such as pointing to
printed information on a document.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 40 of 67 - Page ID#: 1981
Communication Tips
Check on understanding  Remember that only about 1/3 of spoken words can be
understood by speech (lip) reading.  Be conscious of bluffing.  Check on understanding: ask the hard-of-hearing person
to repeat back to you, so you can be sure he or she understood.  For anything but the most simple communication, written notes can be a problem. Keep in mind that many people—especially those who use sign language—may lack good English reading and writing skills.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 41 of 67 - Page ID#: 1982
Other Accommodations
Sometimes what is needed for effective communication is not equipment or technology but a different kind of accommodation:  A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may function better
in a quieter environment; you can consider this when you make a cell assignment.  A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may not be able to understand group instruction, so might need an individual tutor for a class or program, or one-on-one orientation.  A deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may not hear an announcement or page, so might need individual notifications.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 42 of 67 - Page ID#: 1983
Procedures
CORRECTIONS POLICY AND PROCEDURE CPP 15.6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 43 of 67 - Page ID#: 1984
Follow Institutional Policy
 When interviewing an offender or engaging in any complex conversation with an individual whose primary language is sign language, interpretation is usually needed to ensure effective communication
 Check out the VRI Laptop to conduct the conversation. If the inmate does not want interpretation, have him fill out a waiver form.
 If indicated, write a note to inquire if communication aids or services are needed

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 44 of 67 - Page ID#: 1985
Right To Waive Services
• The offender has the right to waive any service • If an offender completes and signs a waiver form, the
form shall be placed in the offender's KOMS file to ensure consistent documentation of services offered and waived

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 45 of 67 - Page ID#: 1986
Transportation
 Prior to transporting an offender to an outside appointment, the precautions in KOMS shall be reviewed to determine if the offender requires the use of his or her hands to communicate
 If the KOMS precaution reflects the offender communicates by sign language, hospital restraints shall be taken on the transportation trip
 The Transport Officer is required to call the Captain’s Office for approval to place the offender in the 2-point hospital restraints PRIOR to the restraints being used

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 46 of 67 - Page ID#: 1987
Use of Hand Restraints
• Transporting to or from an adult institution • Transferring into or out of Restrictive Housing Units • Response to security threats • Hand restraints will be removed
• Once the inmate is in a secure environment • Security is no longer a threat • When possible use other security devices as to allow the
inmate to effectively communicate using his or her hands

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 47 of 67 - Page ID#: 1988
Monitoring Communication
 Monitoring communication of offenders with the outside world is a part of our security requirement
 Deaf and hard of hearing offender communication must also be monitored with the same discretion applied to non-deaf inmates; however, deaf inmates get twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 48 of 67 - Page ID#: 1989
Avoiding Discrimination
When deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates have not heard an announcement or order because of their disability, it would be discriminatory to penalize them. Use your discretion to avoid illegal discrimination.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 49 of 67 - Page ID#: 1990
Auxiliary Aids and Services
USE OF APPROPRIATE COMMUNICATION AIDS

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 50 of 67 - Page ID#:
When is effective com19m91 unication required? (Sign language interpretation OR auxiliary aids)
 Educational programs (literacy, adult basic education, GED, and technical education and certification classes).
 Vocational/work programs  Rehabilitative, counseling, therapeutic, substance abuse,
and evidence-based programs  Work assignments  Religious services (except KYDOC does not provide
interpretation for volunteer-led religious programming)  Intake, transfer and classification matters  Transitional programming – post-release supervision  On-site medical care and healthcare appointments  Grievance and disciplinary hearings and meetings  All important conversations between staff and inmates.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 51 ofB67e-dPaSgehIDa#k: er
1992
TV Closed
Auxiliary Aids Captioning

VRI Laptop

Hearing aids

TTY

Phone Volume

Adjustment

Amplifier

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 52 of 67 - Page ID#:
Auxilia199r3y Aids

Definition
• Modifications used to assist with communicating with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing
• Allow for equal access to expressive and receptive forms of communication

Examples
• Qualified Interpreters • Hearing Aids • Transcription Services • Assistive Listening Systems • Closed Caption Decoders • Open And Closed Captioning • Tdd/Tty • Videotext Displays • Videophones • Telephone Relay Services • Visual Alert Systems • Bed Shakers

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 53 of 67 - Page ID#: 1994
Videophones
 Allows point to point contact or a deaf user to call anyone with a telephone using purple sign language interpreters
 Same rules apply to videophone as conventional phones, except for doubled time limit to allow time for signing
 How to use: select a 10-digit number and dial  The videophones utilize standard correctional standards  No in-bound calls, no 3-way calls, no call history, and
HIPAA  Time limit per call: twice as long as
regular phone calls.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 54 of 67 - Page ID#: 1995
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
 The FCC is required by Title 4 of the ADA to provide 24/7/365 Video Relay Services (VRS) to all deaf Americans
 VRS allows deaf individuals to communicate via sign language interpreters to anyone in the United States
 FCC provides financial reimbursement for each VRS call, which makes the service available at no cost to the individual
 State Department of Corrections are required by ADA (Title II) to make all programs and services accessible, including the offender telephone system.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 55 of 67 - Page ID#:
TTY/TD199D6 Phone
 Teletypewriter, or TTY, is a device that permits deaf or hard of hearing individuals to communicate using regular phones
 Location: Varies. Often at the officer's station of the offender's unit Time limit per call: 45 minutes (extended phone time to allow time for typing).
 How to use: Place the handset in the acoustic coupler attached to a regular telephone and turn on the power, or attach a phone cord to the input.
 Can be used to call another TTY or a regular phone, via relay. (see next slide)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 56 of 67 - Page ID#: 1997
TTY Relay
 A communications assistant (CA) relays the TTY input to the telephone user and types that person's response back to the TTY user.
 Telecommunications relay services can be reached by dialing 711 on the TTY.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 57 of 67 - Page ID#: 1998
Phone volume controls
Some of KYDOC’s Securus phones have volume controls, which can be essential for hard-of-hearing inmates. There should be at least one volumecontrolled phone in any area where needed by such an inmate.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 58 of 67 - Page ID#: 1999
VRI Laptop
 Allows same-room sign language interpreting  How to use:
1. Plug in blue Ethernet cable into laptop. 2. Click on Purple icon on desktop  Talk at your normal rate or slightly slower  Only one person should speak at a time  Use short sentences and simple words

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 59 of 67 - Page ID#: 2000
Who sits where for VRI ?
Use either of these setups for you and the inmate:

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 60 of 67 - Page ID#: 2001
Closed captions
All KYDOC televisions and most videos are closedcaption-enabled. Institutional movies should have captions turned on. Turn on TV and video captioning on inmate request.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 61 of 67 - Page ID#: 2002
Fire Alarm System And Alarm Clock Shaker
• The bed shaker is connected to the Simplex fire system.
• The fire alarm is activated • The bed shaker will shake the bed of the user. • The bed shaker push button is located in the Control Center. • When pushed, it will shake the bed of the user.
• Use when any announcement is made

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 62 of 67 - Page ID#: 2003
Hearing Aids
• Hearing aids shall be provided to any inmate who has a hearing loss of a severe nature
• An inmate may request hearing aids be provided for hearing loss that is less than severe (less than 80dB), but the inmate shall pay for the full cost of the hearing aids.
• Hearing aids only amplify sound; they aren’t perfect.
• If a person is wearing a hearing aid, do not assume the person can hear you. Hearing aids help, but they don’t mean the inmate can hear well.
• Minimize background noise and other distractions whenever possible.
• When you pack up an inmate’s property, he should keep his hearing aids with him. Be sure not to lose them!

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 63 of 67 - Page ID#: 2004
Assistive listening systems
Assistive listening systems allow a speaker or speakers to use a wireless microphone that sends a signal to an earbud that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate wears.
If you run a program or a class, KYDOC institutions are making such systems available when needed. The ADA Coordinator will keep you informed.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 64 of 67 - Page ID#: 2005
Review

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 65 of 67 - Page ID#: 2006
Summary
• The Department of Corrections houses many deaf and hard of hearing inmates.
• Remember to communicate with these offenders in a courteous and dignified manner
• To avoid misunderstandings and potentially dangerous incidents, make every effort to make sure that the communication is understood
• All inmates have the right to effective communication
• Lack of knowledge and training can cultivate the development of other issues

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 66 of 67 - Page ID#: 2007
Conclusion
Each institution has an assigned ADA Coordinator who has received training on federal and state law The ADA Coordinator is the institutional expert for questions regarding deaf and hard of hearing inmates When in doubt error on the side of understanding and ask the ADA Coordinator for help and clarification

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-2 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 67 of 67 - Page ID#: 2008
Thank You
STAY SAFE

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 82 - Page ID#: 2009
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendix III
ADA Coordinator training (Feb. 25, 2017) Part 1: Settlement Agreement Training Part 2: CReATE Compliance

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 82 - Page ID#: 2010
Kentucky Department of Corrections
ADA Coordinator Training on the Federal Court
Deaf/Hard of Hearing Settlement Agreement
1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 82 - Page ID#: 2011
Training Overview (1)
In 2015, to settle a case in federal district court, the Commonwealth entered a Settlement Agreement governing treatment of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates.
The case is formally titled Knights & Adams v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (Eastern District of Kentucky). It is before Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove.
This training will introduce and review some main points of the Settlement Agreement. It does not cover every aspect of the Agreement.
For more information, read the Agreement itself, the summary of it, and the Settlement Monitor’s Compliance Reports and Recommendations – all are in the KDOC G-drive folder called “ADA.”
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 82 - Page ID#: 2012
Training Overview (2)
The settlement covers many topics, including:
1. Hearing assessment 2. Audiology services 3. Auxiliary aids assessment 4. Informing inmates 5. Educating staff 6. Auxiliary aids/services, in general 7. Interpretation 8. Other accommodations
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 82 - Page ID#: 2013
Training Overview (3)
• For each category, this training describes:
a) Requirements b) Role of the ADA Coordinator c) Effective communications issues d) Outcomes
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 82 - Page ID#: 2014
Training Overview (4)
Effective communication for: • Inmates who use sign language:
– providing live or remote interpretation when useful
• Inmates who do not use sign language:
– Amplification – Oral communications strategies – Non-auditory strategies
• Remember: Many inmates have low literacy!
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 82 - Page ID#:
1. Hearing A2015ssessment:
a) Requirements
Medical staff should assess all persons who may be deaf or hard-of-hearing during initial intake, and also in routine (bi)annual physicals.
• All inmates receive hearing screening, administered by medical staff.
• If the screen indicates a hearing problem, a medical examination by a provider occurs in the next few days, followed up as necessary by specialist evaluation/services.
• The process is designed to both identify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and to provide them necessary audiology and other care/services.
6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 82 - Page ID#:
1. Hearing A2016ssessment:
b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
1. Ensure medical staff are properly trained about the settlement’s requirements.
• Medical staff conduct hearing assessments, but YOU are responsible for making sure everything that needs to happen does happen.
2. Oversee and track screening and followup processes
• Track whether the hearing assessments are occurring as they should be, and whether the outcomes are being recorded/followed up appropriately.
• Oversee the process and identify problems. Ex., if a deaf inmate is not identified in the screening, why wasn’t he?
3. Track deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates, and report names etc. to the settlement monitor
4. Assess how the process can be improved, and fix it.
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 82 - Page ID#:
1. Hearing A2017ssessment:

c) Effective Communication

Medical staff must:
• Ask questions about hearing early in the process. Provide accommodations, if needed, for the rest of the medical screening.

• Ask inmates with hearing difficulties whether they use sign language to communicate.

• Offer, without request, interpretation services to inmates who use sign language to communicate.

– Be able to readily access VRI laptops and know how to use them.

• Have pocket amplifiers on hand and available to

use if needed.

8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 82 - Page ID#:
1. Hearing A2018ssessment: d) Outcomes
For all inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing • Alerts placed in KOMS and EMR that are
immediately obvious when the inmate’s file is opened. • Notice provided to ADA Coordinator so nonmedical followups can be done. • Medical followups are started and tracked. • Identification card provided to inmate.
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 82 - Page ID#:
2. Audiolog201y9 Services: a) Requirements
• Inmates who need hearing aids should be provided them promptly.
– 60 days from first request to provision of hearing aids is reasonable. If it takes longer, without good cause for the delay, that is a problem.
• Batteries should be readily available, without copay.
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 82 - Page ID#:
2. Audiolo2g02y0 services: b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
Medical staff must evaluate/coordinate care for inmates in need of audiology services. But it’s the ADA Coordinator’s job to
• Monitor/track progress • Problem solve • Report to the Settlement Monitor
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 82 - Page ID#:
2. Audiolog202y1 Services: c) Effective Communication
Ensure that inmates are told, effectively, that if they want a hearing aid, they need to request one.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 82 - Page ID#:
2. Audiolog202y2 Services: d) Outcomes
For all inmates who have requested hearing aids • Progress is tracked weekly. • Obstacles to service provision are eliminated. • Hearing aids are provided timely (within 60
days of the request) • Tracker with full and accurate information is
provided to the Settlement Monitor
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 82 - Page ID#:
3. Auxiliary Aids2023 Assessment: a) Requirements
• Each institution must conduct an “auxiliary aids and services assessment” for each deaf/hard-of-hearing inmate.
• “Primary consideration” is to be given to an inmate’s requests as to what sorts of accommodations they prefer.
• Covers the whole range of potential needs and accommodations.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 82 - Page ID#:
3. Auxiliary Aids2024 Assessment: b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Plan and arrange the assessment meetings • Conduct the assessments • Ensure that the needs revealed in the
assessment are addressed with appropriate aids and accommodations. • Evaluate the effectiveness of accommodations
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 82 - Page ID#:
3. Auxiliary Aids2025 Assessment:
c) Effective Communication
• This is an interactive meeting between the ADA Coordinator and the inmate.
• There must be effective communication during the meeting
– Sign language interpreters, amplifiers, or provision of written information may be necessary.
– Because this is the meeting that allows you to determine what exactly the inmates’ communication needs are, don’t make assumptions before the meeting; be aware of communications difficulties and be prepared to adjust as the meeting progresses.
– The point is not the paperwork but the substance.
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 82 - Page ID#:
3. Auxiliary Aids2026 Assessment: d) Outcomes
• The assessment covers, and produces readily available documentation of:
– The inmate’s needs related to hearing. – The inmate’s preferences on auxiliary
aids/accommodations – A plan to put in place whatever
services/accommodations are necessary
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 82 - Page ID#:
4. Informing20t27he Inmates: a) Requirements
The prison must inform inmates about their rights under the ADA and the Settlement Agreement, and about available accommodations and aids.
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 82 - Page ID#:
4. Informing20t28he Inmates: b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Share written information, and ensure that it is understood: Brochure, policy, etc.
• Arrange the processes for informing inmates; gather feedback from inmates to evaluate information effectiveness.
• When other staff are providing inmates information on available services/ accommodations, to inmates, the ADA Coordinator trains/monitors staff effectiveness.
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 82 - Page ID#:
4. Informing20t29he Inmates: c) Effective Communication
• Interpreters as needed.
– Use VRI – or, if necessary, live interpreter. – Check that other staff are using VRI; logs can
confirm that it is being used as required.
• For non-signing inmates:
– Remember low literacy. Written material does not communicate effectively for someone who can’t read.
– In-person demonstrations of equipment can be helpful.
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 82 - Page ID#:
4. Informing20t30he Inmates:
d) Outcomes

• Including, but not limited to:

– Each deaf/h-of-h inmate receives a written description and schedule for what aids and services are available, and (for those who sign) when interpreters are available, and how to request.

– Each deaf/h-of-h inmate receives forms to be used request services.

– Each deaf/h-of-h inmate receives explanation of

the above, and also of ways in which programs

can be made more accessible (e.g., assistive

listening, tutors, etc.)

21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 23 of 82 - Page ID#:
5. Educatin20g31 the Staff: a) Requirements
• All prison staff who interact with inmates must receive training on:
– Their obligations under the Agreement. – How to communicate effectively with deaf/ hard-
of-hearing inmates.
• Some training is available via a computerbased-training module.
• Other training should be live and in-person. (E.g., how to use the VRI laptop).
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 24 of 82 - Page ID#:
5. Educatin20g32 the Staff: a) Requirements (2)
Training should focus on concrete staff roles and responsibilities
E.g.: In the event a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is paged, staff should know to check KOMS for a hearing alert and to individually alert the inmate if he or she does not respond to the page.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 25 of 82 - Page ID#:
5. Educatin20g33 the Staff: b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Either conduct the training or make sure it is being provided regularly.
– Ensure that all staff have received computerbased-training.
– Offer live training as appropriate.
• Ensure the training is effective and up-to-date
– Update training as appropriate, if new issues arise – If staff do not understand the training, adjust as
necessary.
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 26 of 82 - Page ID#:
5. Educatin20g34 the Staff: d) Outcomes
• All staff receive training • Monitoring demonstrates when the training
“takes” – when staff are and are not acting on the training provided. • Retraining is offered as appropriate.
25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 27 of 82 - Page ID#:
6-8. Accommodati20o35ns/Auxiliary Aids/ Interpretation (Overview)
When might accommodations/auxiliary aids/ interpretation be needed? • Certainly at formal meetings: Disciplinary
hearings, classification, grievance hearings, parole board hearings • At regular meetings as well: Classes and programs • Any time there is staff/inmate communication, including informal conversations.
26

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 28 of 82 - Page ID#:
6. Auxiliary Aids2036 and Services:
a) Requirements
• Auxiliary aids and services necessary and appropriate must be provided to deaf/hard-ofhearing inmates. Auxiliary aids include:
– Live or remote interpreters – Hearing aids – Assistive listening systems, amplifiers – Captioning – “TDDs” or “TTYs” – Videophone and access to telephone relays – Non-auditory alerts – Etc.
27

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 29 of 82 - Page ID#:
6. Auxiliary Aids2037 and Services: b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Track use; make sure equipment is available for use, in good working order, and actually being used.
• Videophone/TTY should be readily available without special request for inmates who need them for telecommunications.
• Evaluate effectiveness; regularly follow up to ensure that aids are effective. If not, adjust.
28

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 30 of 82 - Page ID#:
6. Auxiliary Aids2038 and Services: c) Effective Communication
• Make sure that communication with deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates about their preferences and needs for aids and services is effective. E.g.:
– Use VRI interpreter to help when you are explaining services to an inmate who signs.
– Do not rely on a written brochure to inform an inmate of aids and services if he has low literacy.
29

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 31 of 82 - Page ID#:
6. Auxiliary Aids2039 and Services: d) Outcomes
• Auxiliary aids and services are available and in working order.
• Auxiliary aids and services are used when appropriate.
30

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 32 of 82 - Page ID#:
7. Inter20p40reters: a) Requirements
• Interpreters (either in-person or through VRI) should be readily available when necessary for effective communication with inmates who use sign language.
31

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 33 of 82 - Page ID#:
7. Inter20p41reters:
b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Consider: which situations require in-person interpreters, and for which can VRI be effective?
• REady: ensure all staff who may need to use VRI or inperson interpretation know how to set that up.
• Arrange contract with interpretation service and VRI laptops, and ensure that laptops are updated, in good working condition, and have all necessary accessories available (e.g. splitters, chargers, instructions).
• Track and Evaluate: Ascertain that interpreters are being used in relevant situations. Follow up with deaf inmates and staff who use interpreters, make sure process is smooth, and adjust process to prevent any problems they report from recurring.
32

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 34 of 82 - Page ID#:
7. Inter20p42reters: c) Effective Communication
• Some situations are more appropriate for inperson rather than VRI interpretation.
– Especially when there are several people talking together (e.g., a class or group)
• VRI should be fully functional and easily accessible without in-advance arrangement, to be effective.
• VRI should not be reserved for special occasions. Any communication with an inmate who signs is appropriate for interpretation.
33

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 35 of 82 - Page ID#:
7. Inter20p43reters:
d) Outcomes

Interpretation services are provided (not just by

policy, but in practice) for

• Medical and mental health care

• Disciplinary hearings—including all meetings

• Transfer and classification processes

• Rehabilitative programming (including AA and

NA)

• Educational programming

• Other times

34

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 36 of 82 - Page ID#:
8. Other Acco204m4 modations a) Requirements
Non-auxiliary aid accommodations are also required when necessary/appropriate: • Housing assignment • Assistance in education • Etc.
35

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 37 of 82 - Page ID#:
8. Accomm2045 odations
b) Role of the ADA Coordinator
• Consider the needs of the inmates and how they might interact with various assignments/ programs. E.g.:
– Deaf inmates may need to be in a housing area with easy access to the videophone.
– A hard-of-hearing inmate may do better in a quieter unit, or closer to the loudspeaker, or to staff (so they can alert him in-person when necessary)
– Track housing assignments; if an inmate is moved, ensure accommodations are re-evaluated. This is particularly necessary for segregated housing.
– An inmate taking a class may need to sit up front, or to have an inmate tutor to repeat instructions as useful.
36

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 38 of 82 - Page ID#:
8. Accommodat2i0o46 ns for Housing: c) Effective Communication
• Inmates do not know what is available. This needs to be explained to them, and the explanation must be effectively communicated.
37

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 39 of 82 - Page ID#:
8. Accommodat2i0o47 ns for Housing: d) Outcomes
• ADA Coordinator knows where all deaf / hardof-hearing inmates are housed, and appropriate accommodations are tracked and provided, including in segregated housing.
• Same for education, jobs, etc.
38

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 40 of 82 - Page ID#: 2048
Questions?
• If you are wondering what is required, go back and read the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Monitoring reports.
• Reach out to Margo Schlanger, the Settlement Monitor. Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com.
39

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 41 of 82 - Page ID#: 2049
Kentucky Department of Corrections
ADA Coordinator Training: CREATE Compliance
1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 42 of 82 - Page ID#:
There are five steps to205e0 very task or problem you encounter as ADA Coordinator: C RE A T E
Consider Ready Arrange Track Evaluate
Compliance
You may not need to use every step for every problem you come across, but it’s important to consider each, every time!
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 43 of 82 - Page ID#: 2051
Step One:
Consider REady Arrange Track Evaluate C RE A T E Compliance
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 44 of 82 - Page ID#: 2052
Step One: Consider
First, consider three questions:
• What are the desired outcomes or goals? • What communications needs are relevant • What are the obstacles to success?
– For example, if an area is noisy, hearing aids will be ineffective.
Example: An inmate is in a class. • Goal: Equal access to educational services • Communications needs: Ongoing complex oral
communication, with many different speakers. • Obstacles: E.g., Background noise in the classroom or other
students talking at the same time make hearing aids and assistive listening devices less effective.
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 45 of 82 - Page ID#: 2053
Step One: Consider
Remember, communications needs may vary by the inmate: • Examples:
– Low literacy or illiteracy makes written communication ineffective.
– Non-traditional signing makes VRI ineffective.
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 46 of 82 - Page ID#: 2054
Step Two:
Consider REady Arrange Track Evaluate C RE A T E Compliance
6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 47 of 82 - Page ID#: 2055
Step Two: Ready
Next, ready other staff. • You must make sure other staff are know how to:
– Fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreement – Access and use technology (such as VRI laptops) – Effectively communicate with deaf and hard-of-hearing
inmates
• Without this step, it will be difficult or impossible to do your job successfully—almost every problem you will encounter will require the participation of other staff members.
– But, it is ultimately your responsibility to make sure that other staff members are fulfilling their duties under the Agreement.
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 48 of 82 - Page ID#: 2056
Step Three:
Consider REady Arrange Track Evaluate C RE A T E Compliance
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 49 of 82 - Page ID#: 2057
Step Three: Arrange
Next, arrange: prepare in advance so that equipment and processes are in place. • This step will look different depending on the situation
– Sometimes, arranging will be the bulk of your obligations – Other times, you won’t need to do anything for this step
(as long as you readied other staff effectively in Step Two).
• Example: an inmate who is deaf but cannot sign needs access to a TTY in order to communicate telephonically with family. You will need to arrange:
– Where the TTY goes and how the inmate can get ready access.
– That the inmate understands how to use the TTY
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 50 of 82 - Page ID#: 2058
Step Four:
Consider REady Arrange Track Evaluate C RE A T E Compliance
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 51 of 82 - Page ID#: 2059
Step Four: Track
Then, check in with all the people involved to track the progress of everything you arranged. • After checking in to track progress, you might
have to return to one of the earlier steps:
– Step One (Consider) to re-assess needs and barriers
– Step Two (Ready) to re-train other staff about how to perform their tasks
– Step Three (Arrange) to coordinate more action.
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 52 of 82 - Page ID#: 2060
Step Four: Track
• When you are tracking, you may discover that something about the situation has changed
– For example, a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate has been moved to segregated housing
• Or perhaps an obstacle has appeared or something has stalled:
– For example, there may be a delay in payment of an audiologist, preventing pickup of a hearing aid.
• In addition, sometimes the Settlement Agreement requires that your formally track and report certain situations. That is also part of this step.
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 53 of 82 - Page ID#: 2061
Step Five:
Consider REady Arrange Track Evaluate C RE A T E Compliance
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 54 of 82 - Page ID#: 2062
Step Five: Evaluate
Finally, you need to gather accurate feedback and evaluate the effectiveness of whatever you just did. • Feedback might come from routine records
(logs, etc.), prison staff, outside providers (interpreters, etc.), or inmates.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 55 of 82 - Page ID#: 2063
Step Five: Evaluate
• You might gather feedback by asking for it at regular intervals.
– Example: asking an inmate if non-auditory alerts are effective.
• Or, gather feedback by creating a system to get feedback every time a certain event happens.
– Example: have a form that an inmate fills out evaluating effectiveness of communication after every disciplinary hearing.
• Make sure to gather feedback from every person involved
– Staff, inmate, outside providers (e.g., interpreters, audiologists)
• Once you obtain feedback, you need to evaluate the results—this may then lead you back to one of the first two steps to re-train staff (Step Two: Ready) or re-assess needs and barriers (Step One: Consider).
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 56 of 82 - Page ID#: 2064
Example 1: Initial Screening
• Now, we will use the example of the initial screening for hearing difficulties to demonstrate how you can CREATE compliance.
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 57 of 82 - Page ID#: 2065
Step One: Consider
• Consider, for initial hearing screening of inmates
– What is your desired outcome? – What are the communications needs of the
inmates? – What special obstacles does the situation
present?
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 58 of 82 - Page ID#: 2066
Step One: Consider

• Goals:

– Medical staff will identify all deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, offer them immediately necessary auxiliary aids and services (amplifiers, identification cards, alert in computer system), and communicate their presence to the ADA Coordinator.

• Communications Needs:

– The needs of inmates will vary and there won’t be any way to know, for any particular inmate, what they might be. So, you need to be prepared to accommodate every sort of communication need.

• Obstacles:

– Because inmates won’t know about the accommodations

available or that he can ask for them, it’s crucial at this

stage that he is offered all accommodations without

having to ask.

18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 59 of 82 - Page ID#: 2067
Step Two: Ready
• Readying staff is crucial to succeed at the task of initially screening all inmates for hearing problems.
• For this step, think of what staff are involved in the initial screening, what they need to know, and what physical tools they need to be successful.
–What did you come up with?
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 60 of 82 - Page ID#: 2068
Step Two: Ready
Medical staff conduct initial screenings—make sure they know: • To screen all incoming inmates. • How to obtain and use a VRI laptop. • Next steps for inmates who are deaf or hard-of-
hearing:
– offer deaf/h-of-h identification cards – offer a pocket amplifier (if useful) – schedule for additional screening/evaluation/audiology
services if appropriate – note deaf/hard-of-hearing alert in the EMR – report that inmate is deaf/hard-of-hearing to the ADA
coordinator
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 61 of 82 - Page ID#: 2069
Step Three: Arrange
Next, arrange: prepare in advance so that equipment and processes are in place. What needs arranging for initial screening?
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 62 of 82 - Page ID#: 2070
Step Three: Arrange
• Is the VRI laptop available when medical needs it?
• Is there a splitter, to facilitate use of the laptop at the same time as another computer?
• Is internet bandwidth sufficient? • Etc.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 63 of 82 - Page ID#: 2071
Step Four: Track
What would be useful to track the progress of everything you arranged?
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 64 of 82 - Page ID#: 2072
Step Four: Track
• Check in with the medical staff regularly—make sure that the screenings are happening as they are supposed to, that new medical staff are properly trained, and that they can access the technology that they need to access (e.g., amplifiers and VRI laptops).
• This step makes sure that everything is happening the way you anticipated in Step One (Consider), as you readied for and arranged in Steps Two and Three
• Initial screenings have a recordkeeping and reporting component. (This is specified in the Settlement Agreement.) Add all reported deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates to your tracking list and include them in your reports to the settlement monitor.
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 65 of 82 - Page ID#: 2073
Step Five: Evaluate
How can you best evaluate the effectiveness of the initial screening? • What are good sources of feedback?
– Records – Staff – Other
25

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 66 of 82 - Page ID#: 2074
Step Five: Evaluate
• Ask medical staff what they think is working well; what could be improved.
• Run a check of the EMR and find all deaf/hardof-hearing inmates. Are there any you didn’t hear about, or didn’t hear about promptly? Why not?
• Gather information to figure out why any mistakes happened and evaluate how you can fix the process.
26

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 67 of 82 - Page ID#:
CREATE Co207m5 pliance:

Example 1 Summary

• Consider: Goals, Needs, Obstacles

– Medical staff will identify all deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, offer them immediately necessary auxiliary aids and services (amplifiers, identification cards, alert in computer system), and communicate their presence to the ADA Coordinator.

– The needs of inmates will vary and there won’t be any way to know, for any particular inmate, what they might be. So, you need to be prepared to accommodate every sort of communication need. Make a plan.

– Because inmates won’t know about the

accommodations available or that he can ask for

them, it’s crucial at this stage that they be offered all

accommodations without having to ask.

27

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 68 of 82 - Page ID#:
CREATE Co207m6 pliance:

Example 1 Summary

• Ready medical staff to screen all incoming

inmates, to use a VRI laptop, and to take next

steps.

• Arrange: E.g., is the VRI laptop readily available,

appropriately equipped?

• Track:

– Are screenings happening as they should; do new medical staff know the requirements? Are amplifiers and VRI laptops being used as appropriate?

– Make sure inmate list stays up to date, and provide to settlement monitor.

• Evaluate: Check in with medical staff; cross

reference with EMR

28

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 69 of 82 - Page ID#: 2077
Example 2: Getting Hearing Aids
• A second example of how you can CREATE compliance with the Settlement Agreement: Prompt provision of necessary hearing aids.
29

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 70 of 82 - Page ID#: 2078
Step One: Consider
• Consider, for provision of hearing aids to an inmate who needs them
– Goals: What is your desired outcome? – Needs: What are the communications needs of
the inmates? – Obstacles: Are there obstacles to success?
30

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 71 of 82 - Page ID#: 2079
Step One: Consider
• Goals:
– Prompt (within 60 days) provision of necessary hearing aids
• Communications Needs:
– Need for effective communication at an audiologist
• Obstacles:
– Difficulties with scheduling, payment, transport.
31

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 72 of 82 - Page ID#: 2080
Step Two: Ready
• Readying staff is, as always, crucial.
• Who is involved in hearing aid provision? What do they need to know?
32

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 73 of 82 - Page ID#: 2081
Step Two: Ready Ready staff: Most importantly, train
staff on the requirement that getting hearing aids should take no more than two months.
33

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 74 of 82 - Page ID#: 2082
Step Three: Arrange
Next, arrange: prepare in advance so that equipment and processes are in place.
What needs arranging for hearing aid provision?
34

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 75 of 82 - Page ID#: 2083
Step Three: Arrange
• Someone needs to come up with an efficient system to schedule prompt audiologist appointments and payment, and arrange all transportation.
• If the inmate is transferred to a new institution at any point during the process, communicate with the new prison so that the process continues without interruption.
35

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 76 of 82 - Page ID#: 2084
Steps Four & Five: Track & Evaluate
What would be useful to track and evaluate the progress of everything you arranged?
36

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 77 of 82 - Page ID#: 2085
Steps Four & Five: Track & Evaluate
• The key to hearing aid progress is case management: tracking progress, and evaluating and solving problems.
• You should maintain a document tracking each inmate’s progress through the process of getting a hearing aid. This will be reported to the Settlement Monitor every quarter.
• Check in with medical every week or two to update the document and resolve any procedural hurdles.
37

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 78 of 82 - Page ID#: 2086
Steps Four & Five: Track & Evaluate
Suppose after checking in with medical and/or the inmate, you find out that the inmate has missed his second audiologist appointment because transportation was unavailable that day. What should you do now?
38

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 79 of 82 - Page ID#: 2087
Step Five: Evaluate
• Re-Consider: Was this a problem you anticipated?
– If yes, why were you unable to prevent it? – If no, what caused it and how can it be prevented in
the future?
• Re-Ready:
– Re-train staff to resolve the problem.
• Re-Arrange:
– Make sure the appointment is promptly rescheduled and expedited.
39

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 80 of 82 - Page ID#:
CREATE Co208m8 pliance:
Example 2 Summary
• Consider:
Goals, Communications Needs, Obstacles
– Prompt (60 days) provision of hearing aids
– Probably, audiologists can manage the communications needs of inmates.
– Scheduling, payment, transport are all complicated and slow.
40

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 81 of 82 - Page ID#:
CREATE Co208m9 pliance:
Example 2 Summary
• Ready medical staff to know about the 60 day goal, and the tracking obligations.
• Arrange: A system for audiologist scheduling, payment, etc.
• Track:
– Make sure tracking sheet stays up to date, and provide to settlement monitor.
• Evaluate: Use the tracking sheet to evaluate if the system is working, solve problems as they arise.
41

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-3 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 82 of 82 - Page ID#: 2090
Questions?
• If you are wondering what is required, go back and read the Settlement Agreement and the Settlement Monitoring reports.
• Reach out to Margo Schlanger, the Settlement Monitor. Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com.
42

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 47 - Page ID#: 2091
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017)
Appendix IV
Site visit report for Dec. 2016 and Feb. 2017 visits, with exhibits (May 4, 2017) Covered facilities: Blackburn Correctional Complex (Dec. 12, 2016) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Little Sandy Correctional Complex (Dec. 13, 2016) Northpoint Training Center (Dec. 14, 2016) Kentucky State Reformatory (Feb. 27, 2017) Exhibits: A—Staff Interviewed
B—Consolidated Recommendations C—How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-of-Hearing Inmates D—Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC
institutions

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 47 - Page ID#: 2092
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits
Blackburn Correctional Complex (December 12, 2016) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (December 13, 2016)
Little Sandy Correctional Complex (December 13, 2016) Northpoint Training Center (December 14, 2016) Kentucky State Reformatory (February 27, 2017)
May 4, 2017 (Draft circulated to parties for comment: April 19, 2017 )
INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement in this case addressing conditions for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in Kentucky became effective June 28, 2015, and allows me to visit each of the twelve Kentucky Department of Corrections (KYDOC) facilities each calendar year. I completed my first round of site visits in December 2016, with visits to Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC), Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC), Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC), and Northpoint Training Center (NTC). At this point, the only Kentucky prison I have not visited is Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC), which has had only a very small (and shifting) number of deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates. I then began my second round of site visits at the Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) in February 2017; I previously inspected KSR in February 2016.
For efficiency, this report covers all five recent visits. In this report, I will refer together to the relevant prison as “the five institutions.” As with my previous site visit report, this report is intended to be helpful not just to a particular prison, but to all of KYDOC’s facilities, as they continue to move towards compliance with the Agreement in this case.
The visits were each facilitated by the institutions’ ADA Coordinators, who, like the other staff I spoke to, conducted themselves with professionalism throughout the tours. Prior to the visits, a law student working as my assistant conducted 41 phone interviews of KYDOC inmates, and I reviewed their interview notes and numerous other documents provided by each institution. During the visits, I was able to see every thing and every place I requested and to review all requested records, which were voluminous. I spoke freely and confidentially with inmates and custody and non-custody staff. Exhibit A lists the name and title of each staff member I spoke with, by institution. Between the pre-tour phone inmate interviews (many of which I followed up with in-person interviews), and in-person inmate interviews conducted during my visit, this report incorporates information learned from conversations with 53 inmates, out of the 112 inmates identified to me from those facilities as deaf or hard-of-hearing (several of whom had been transferred or been released). See Table A.
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 1 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 47 - Page ID#: 2093

Table A: Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

All

Blackburn

5

EKCC

14

Little Sandy

6

Northpoint

20

KSR

67

TOTAL 111

Interviewed

All

In

Pre-Visit

person Phone

5

4

5

9

4

6

5

3

3

11

6

7

23

5

20

53

24

41

At each institution, I talked via in-person sign language interpretation to each inmate who uses sign language to communicate, except for one inmate whom my assistant interviewed prior to the visit, who chose not to speak with me again. I also made sure to talk to other hard-of-hearing inmates in a variety of housing and programming situations. To ensure representativeness at NTC, where my assistant and I spoke to 11 of 20 inmates, and at KSR, where we spoke to 23 of 67 inmates, I used a formal random sample method, stratified across housing type, to pick whom to interview. To maximize confidentiality, I do not list the inmates we spoke to or use their names in this report.

On April 19, I provided this report in draft to the Warden and ADA Coordinator at each referenced institution; KYDOC Director of Operations Chris Kleymeyer and Safety Director Webb Strang; KYDOC counsel Angela Dunham; and plaintiffs’ counsel, giving each two weeks for comments or corrections. No substantive comments were offered.

Each Warden welcomed the visits and my earlier oral feedback, which I shared at exit interviews at each institution. I found each of the visits extremely productive. KYDOC has made very significant progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Not all processes are yet working smoothly, but the situation for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates continues to improve. Unlike in prior site visit reports, I have few additional recommendations based on these site visits. I have previously made 79 recommendations; I have just three to add:

Recommendation 80: At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may need accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided.

Recommendation 81: Medical staff should ensure that inmates with a need for audiology services are not charged inappropriately, and should avoid repeated charges for ongoing efforts to obtain hearing aids or other services.

Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 2 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 47 - Page ID#: 2094
Recommendation 82: Each VRI should be the subject of a log sheet that tracks its usage, including staff member, date and purpose. In any institution that houses one or more inmates who use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator should check the VRI log sheet at least once each week, and should ensure that the VRI is being used on appropriate occasions, not just for classification and disciplinary meetings, but for other important conversations between the inmate and staff.
Rather than new situations that call out for new approaches, what I saw during my visits was a need for more thorough implementation of the Settlement Agreement and of my prior recommendations. Accordingly, this report identifies and describes the areas in which there seem to be ongoing problems, and explains what is needed, citing the Settlement Agreement provisions and relevant prior recommendations that cover that topic. For ease of reference, Exhibit B includes the prior recommendations and the three new ones.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
As I have emphasized in prior reports, the Settlement Agreement covers both deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The Agreement defines the phrase “Deaf Inmates” broadly, to mean:
Inmates who are unable to hear well enough to rely on their hearing as a means of processing information, who rely on Auxiliary Aids and Services to Effectively Communicate and who qualify as individuals with disabilities under the ADA, including deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired persons. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4). (Settlement Agreement I.3)
Because often the appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aids and services vary depending on an inmate’s degree of hearing impairment, I will use the terms more specifically in this report. As in prior reports, I will refer to someone as hard-of-hearing if he or she is able—with or without amplification—to hear substantial spoken language. I will refer to someone as deaf if he or she has very little or no functional hearing.
Identification of deaf inmates is mostly easy; their disability is usually obvious, particularly if they are non-verbal. But identification of hard-of-hearing inmates can be more difficult. Some of the components of an identification system continue to be a challenge at the five facilities (and, I believe, for at least some others):
a) Computer Alerts. As soon as an inmate is identified as deaf or hard-of-hearing, an alert should be placed in both KOMS (Kentucky Offender Management System) and the Electronic Medical Record (EMR). The alert should be immediately apparent at the top of the record when the inmate’s record is opened, without a special search. This is happening only at some facilities and only some of the time.1 At the time of my last site visit to it, Roederer Correction Complex (RCC) had appropriate practices in place on this issue. Figures A and B illustrate:
1 Settlement Agreement III.B requires: “If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate’s institutional file, and will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator.” And
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 3 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 47 - Page ID#: 2095
Figure A: RCC KOMS Alert
Figure B: RCC EMR Precautions
b) Transfers. When an inmate identified as deaf or hard-of-hearing at one institution is transferred to another, a robust system should ensure notification to the new institution’s ADA Coordinator. It seems that the easiest way to arrange this is for the ADA Coordinator to receive the routine transfer memo that accompanies any group of transferees. Then the ADA Coordinator can check the KOMS system and see if any incoming inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing and make appropriate arrangements. There is no such system currently in place, and some hard-of-hearing
III.D.1 requires: “The KDOC will take appropriate steps to ensure that all KDOC personnel having regular contact with any Deaf Inmate are made aware of such Inmate’s need for Auxiliary Aids and Services so that Effective Communication with, and the safety of, the Deaf Inmate will be ensured.” See Recommendation 54(d) (“If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation . . . [t]wo different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 4 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 47 - Page ID#: 2096
inmates are not being appropriately accommodated or tracked after transfers. I recommend that a transfer tracking system be put in place:
Recommendation 80: At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may require accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided.
c) Prompt provision of id cards. At each institution, inmates identified as deaf or hard-ofhearing receive a special id card.2 (There is, however, some inconsistency in implementation of this practice.) When an inmate is transferred, that card should go with the inmate to the new institution, and then should be replaced promptly by the analogous card at the new institution. I heard some reports that instead, the card was thrown away at the new institution, and that new cards could take weeks or even months to be issued. This is not appropriate.3
d) Intake screening. In addition, some transferees not previously identified as hard-ofhearing may in fact be so. Some come from facilities in which hearing screenings are not performed—jail or halfway houses, for example. Others who transfer from another KYDOC prison never received a hearing screening because they entered that other prison prior to implementation of the Settlement Agreement. And the passage of time means that some may have hearing impairments that are new or worse than at the time of prior screening. The five institutions seem to be doing hearing screenings as previously recommended, and I have been working with KYDOC centrally to improve the screening instrument.4
2 Settlement III.D.1 (“Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Inmate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Inmate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services.”).
3 Settlement III.D.1 (“If any KDOC staff takes any Deaf Inmate’s ID card, the Deaf Inmate will be given another official indicator of his or her Deaf status.”); Recommendation 56 (“Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided.”).
4 Settlement Agreement III.B (“As part of the initial intake, assessment, and classification, medical staff will assess and, if necessary, test all persons who may be a Deaf Inmate for Deafness. If medical staff determines that an Inmate is Deaf, medical staff will note the disability in the Inmate’s institutional file, and will promptly notify the appropriate ADA Coordinator. Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification.”); Recommendation 54 (“Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process. . . . All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. . . . This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 5 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 47 - Page ID#: 2097
e) Subsequent screening. Finally, as I have previously recommended, routine physicals should include renewed hearing screenings.5 Again, I have been working with KYDOC centrally to ensure implementation of this recommendation; it is not clear to me that implementation has yet begun.
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
The issue on which I spent the most time at each of the five institutions is prompt provision of audiology services. Medical care at all KYDOC institutions is provided by Correct Care Solutions (CCS). At each of the five institutions, medical staff have worked to facilitate inmate access to audiology services. Each institution sends inmates who fail the whisper test to an off-site audiologist (or, if indicated, an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor), for hearing testing, hearing aid evaluation, and hearing aid fitting. But at each institution, staff had at the time of the visit not yet succeeded in creating and managing a smooth and timely process. It was taking many months for some inmates to receive hearing aids, with delays coming from a variety of sources—transport issues, scheduling, billing, payment, loss of documents, and others. I have worked with both ADA Coordinators and medical staff to develop a tracking system for them to use to ensure that every deaf and hard-of-hearing inmate is appropriately and promptly assessed and provided with necessary audiology services,6 and I have asked for frequent followups. That has helped: several facilities have now switched to a more responsive audiology provider and others solved various problems that were obstructing prompt care. Even so, more than a few inmates remain in process even now, months after the site visits.
More progress is needed. It is crucial for each institution to partner with an audiologist capable of timely service provision, to smooth its own scheduling and payment systems, to ensure that inmates are not mistakenly removed from the hearing-aid process, and to systematically track each inmate’s progress towards receiving all necessary audiology services, checking not just every quarter or six months, but every week or two. As I have previously recommended, in the absence of special treatment needs or other circumstances, an appropriate amount of time for provision of a hearing aid is 60 days from when the inmate presents a hearing problem.7 I requested tracking information in April’s quarterly reporting form, and will continue to request updates every quarter. CCS is the medical provider, but the ADA Coordinator also has a key role in this area, to monitor and problem-solve.
5 Recommendation 55 (“In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2).”).
6 Settlement Agreement V.B requires that “All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to” appropriate co-payments. Auxiliary Aids and Services include hearing aids. Settlement Agreement I.2. See Recommendation 6 (“Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait.”).
7 Id.
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 6 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 47 - Page ID#: 2098
A related topic is medical copays for audiology services. I have heard from numerous inmates that when they have made repeated requests for audiology services, they have been charged not just one copay, but several. As I understand KYDOC policy, inmates with chronic conditions are not supposed to be charged repeated copays.8 Repeat charges discourage access to care. And so I have a new recommendation:
Recommendation 81: Medical staff should ensure that inmates with a need for audiology services are not charged inappropriately, and should avoid repeated charges for ongoing efforts to obtain hearing aids or other services.
III. INMATE ORIENTATION
There continue to be gaps in effective communication to inmates as they arrive at a new institution. For many facilities, orientation videos (both about the institution itself and about the Prison Rape Elimination Act) are not captioned. They should be. More broadly, facilities are not universally taking appropriate steps to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are receiving effective communication of orientating information. Inmates who use sign language to communicate are not receiving their orientation with sign language interpretation; hard-ofhearing inmates are not always receiving appropriate accommodations (e.g., one-on-one or small group conversation, perhaps with assistive listening devices (see Part IV.B, below); presentations in quiet spaces). 9 Recommendation 80, above, should assist with this set of problems.
In addition, inmate orientation about the KYDOC’s nondiscrimination obligations and the accommodations and services available for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates is not yet sufficiently robust. Each institution’s inmate handbook should include information about this,10
8 The Settlement Agreement provides that auxiliary aids, including hearing aids, may be subject to a copay, but requires that the copayment policy be the same as for non-hearing related issues. (Hearing aid batteries may not have a copay requirement and indigent inmates may not be charged.) See Settlement Agreement V.B.
9 Settlement III.A.1 (“The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates at initial intake, assessment, and classification with Effective Communication.”); Settlement V.A.2 (“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody. These services, privileges, and programs will include, but not be limited to: orientation . . . .”); Recommendation 23 (“Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available.”); Recommendation 71 (“In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-of-hearing inmate one-on-one, instead.”).
10 Recommendation 76 states: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 7 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 47 - Page ID#: 2099
and the various forms and brochures previously recommended11 should be provided to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and available in the inmate law library.
Finally, the ADA Coordinators have not yet developed a sufficient routine “auxiliary aids and services assessment” process.12 As I have previously explained, the best way to assess the need for aids/services necessary for effective communication and to avoid discrimination is an individual meeting with each Deaf inmate. (This approach is similar to the “interactive process” required by the ADA under Title I, which deals with employment.) The idea of the meeting is for staff to understand the communications needs of the inmate. At the meeting, the ADA Coordinator or deputy ADA Coordinator can inform the inmate about available aids and the inmate can discuss his communication needs. The inmate’s request is entitled, both under the Agreement and the operative regulation, to “primary consideration.”13
These meetings for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates appear to be happening in some institutions only when prompted by my impending site visit, rather than routinely on entry into the institution or at the annual classification review.14 In addition, there continue to be gaps in needed services, which appropriate annual assessments would uncover. For example, I heard from several inmates about difficulty they faced in effective communication during educational or programming sessions. Some of the difficulties are easily solved, but had not previously come to light: for example, one inmate told me that he couldn’t hear during one class because it was held too near laundry machines. The ADA Coordinator could easily arrange for that class to be held in a quieter space, if he or she knew of the need. The assessments should facilitate that knowledge and solution. In some facilities, these assessments are being done not by the ADA Coordinator but by a unit administrator. Unit administrators are less likely to know about
information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
11 Settlement Agreement III.F.1 (“[T]he KDOC will provide each Deaf Inmate with materials providing information about the Auxiliary Aids and Services available to Deaf Inmates and instructions for how to obtain, request, or use those Auxiliary Aids and Services.”); Settlement Agreement III.C.3, III.D, VI.C.3 (describing requirements relating to “Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form,” “Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card form,” medical request form); Recommendations 13, 46-47.
12 Settlement Agreement III.C (“Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment”). See Recommendation 45 (“For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. . . . The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.”).
13 Settlement Agreement I.5 (“In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).” 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language..
14 Settlement Agreement III.B (“Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 8 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 47 - Page ID#: 2100
available auxiliary aids and services and potential accommodations. Unless they are appropriately trained and informed about these matters, they cannot conduct an adequate auxiliary aid assessment.
IV. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH HARD-OF-HEARING INMATES
A. Staff training on communication with hard-of-hearing inmates
I have previously made a large number of recommendations relating to staff training,15 and am continuing to work with KYDOC headquarters staff on implementation of computer based training modules. In addition, I have recommended some on-site live training. These five site visits underscored the need for widespread training relating to two topics in particular: VRI use (see Part V.A, below) and talking to inmates who are hard of hearing. Exhibit C includes a tip sheet on the latter topic pulled from the previously recommended slides. It should be shared with all employees and contractors who talk with inmates, to assist them; it is designed to be saved and posted.
B. Assistive listening systems and amplifiers
As I have explained in prior reports, an assistive listening system captures sound close to its source via a microphone and transmits that sound directly to the earphones or hearing aids of people with assistive listening devices. Such systems can be extremely helpful to people who are hard-of-hearing, because they allow the listener to amplify the sound without distortion and without amplifying the ambient noise.
Several KYDOC facilities already use what is in effect an assistive listening system for their common-space televisions; they broadcast the institutionally available channels on a radio frequency, and then require inmates listening to the common televisions to use radio receivers, with earbuds, rather than playing the sound out loud. The purpose of this has been to keep the sound level down in common spaces—but there is a major benefit for hard-of-hearing inmates, who report that they can hear TVs that use that set up. Not every institution uses this approach, and even in facilities that do, some dorms are not set up with the necessary equipment. At the least, this is a good system to use in any dorm where hard-of-hearing inmates are housed.
But more broadly, there is a significant need for assistive listening in other communications venues. Several potential methods exist and are beginning to be tested at the various institutions. At Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC), the chaplain speaks into a microphone linked by way of a short-distance transmitter to FM radio; inmates can use their own radios to receive the signal. At LLCC, the chaplain uses an assistive listening system that was sold with several receivers and earbuds. Also at LLCC, education staff will soon test a portable induction loop system, which will link to the telecoil that is built in to most modern hearing aids; such a system can also be linked to earphones for hard-of-hearing inmates who
15 Settlement XIII (setting out many requirements for staff training); IX.E.2 (“The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology” for communication between deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and people outside of prison); Recommendations 51, 52, 77.
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 9 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 47 - Page ID#: 2101
don’t have hearing aids. In addition, on my recommendation, KSR is testing a personal FM system, which allows a speaker who wears a microphone to be better heard by a listener who wears earphones. At a gathering of all KYDOC’s ADA Coordinators, and in my most recent quarterly reporting form, I requested that each institution that tests one of these types of devices let me know the details; I can then share their experience with the other KYDOC institutions. The first such information-sharing document is attached to this Report as Exhibit D; it includes fuller descriptions of each of the above systems.
The point is that some such assistive listening systems are necessary for inmates who are hard-of-hearing, to enable their equal access to programming. More work is needed to develop solutions across KYDOC; each religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming area needs access to such systems.16 Once systems are developed and available, hard-of-hearing inmates should be informed about them, too, so that they can request them when helpful.
Phones pose a particular problem for hard-of-hearing inmates. They are, of course, very hard-used in prisons, which can degrade sound quality. And sometimes they are located close to noisy areas like showers or dayrooms. Securus, KYDOC’s current phone contractor, offers volume controls on phones, which are helpful—people with hearing impairments can turn the volume up. But many institutions don’t have volume-adjusted phones in all the areas where they are needed by hard-of-hearing inmates.17 In addition, the degree of amplification may be insufficient for some inmates. On my recommendation, Luther Luckett is currently testing a portable phone amplifier, described in Exhibit D. If that test works out, these devices would be useful for other institutions as well.
V. COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR SIGN-LANGUAGE USERS
Two facilities covered by this report—EKCC and LSCC—were not at the time of my visit housing any inmates who use sign language to communicate, and therefore did not need interpretive services. Between them, the other three—BCC, NTC, and KSR—housed six inmates who communicate using sign language. The availability of sign language interpretation at those facilities has improved but is not yet sufficiently robust or routine.
A. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
In each of the five institutions covered here, a VRI laptop was available during my visit and staff seemed to know that it existed. I tested each laptop and they all worked. This is a good
16 See Settlement Agreement V.A.2 (“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.”); I.2 (defining “Auxiliary Aids and Services” to include “assistive listening systems”); Recommendation 67 (“Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates.”).
17 Recommendation 74 “Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by . . . (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 10 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 47 - Page ID#: 2102
base on which to build. Some problems remain, however. Most important, it remains the case that VRI services are not being used in some situations when they should. The VRI laptops are being used in certain formal communication settings—classification and disciplinary hearings, for example. (Even in these situations, usage is inconsistent—at KSR, for at least one disciplinary hearing, staff communicated with an inmate by the inadequate method of pen and paper.) But even if VRIs were used for all such formal meetings, there are many other situations where effective communication is necessary but obstacles to VRI usage remain. These include medical appointments, investigation meetings to prepare for disciplinary hearings, meetings with grievance or other legal aides (inmates who assist other inmates with grievances or disciplinary hearings), and other conversations between staff and inmates who sign to communicate. Each institution needs to set up an easy process by which staff obtain and use the VRI laptop for interpretation of conversations with deaf inmates, without needing to cancel and reschedule meetings or the like. In order to make this work, staff must be trained that use of the VRI laptop is not a big deal or special, but is simply the most effective way for them to communicate with inmates who sign.18
It is particularly important that the VRI laptops be used routinely in segregated (or “restrictive”) housing, because various features of segregation obstruct many of the coping mechanisms deaf inmates might use to understand what someone is telling them—the ambient noise is extreme, visual cues are scarce, etc. That means that staff need to plan in advance for such usage, figuring out for each restrictive housing area where an internet signal will be tapped and how to appropriately restrain an inmate who needs to use his hands to sign.
One obstacle to more prevalent use of the VRI laptop is that not all staff know how to operate it. In addition, the technical preparation to facilitate usage has not been done universally. Some school areas do not have internet access, for example. And the VRI laptops do not all have in their bags long computer cords, signal splitters (See Figure C), and instructions.19
18 The Settlement Agreement requires effective communication, including interpretation, in many different kinds of situations: VI.A, III.C (auxiliary aids and services assessment); VI.C.4 (emergency on-site medical); VI.H (transfer and classification); V.A.2 (grievance hearings); VII.A (disciplinary hearings and related meetings); VI.J (“for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement.”). See especially Recommendation 10 (“For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.”).
19 Settlement Agreement IX.E.1 (“The KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC’s control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order.”); IX.E.2 (“The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.”); Recommendation 64 (“Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 11 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 47 - Page ID#: 2103
Figure C: Splitter
At this point, it seems clear that additional monitoring/implementation methods are necessary to ensure effective VRI use. The recommendation that follows meets this need:
Recommendation 82: Each VRI should be the subject of a log sheet that tracks its usage, including staff member, date and purpose. In any institution that houses one or more inmates who use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator should check the VRI log sheet at least once each week, and should ensure that the VRI is being used on appropriate occasions, not just for classification and disciplinary meetings, but for other important conversations between the inmate and staff. B. In-person interpretation At KSR, the ADA Coordinator has arranged for in-person interpretation for several repeat programming needs, for two different inmates. At BCC and NTC, however, it seems that staff have not ever arranged for an in-person interpreter. For a situation like orientation, where the need is known in advance, if VRI is not adequate, a professional in-person interpreter should be used. C. Interpretation for education and programming As I have discussed in prior reports, it may be that an in-person interpreter is necessary to provide effective communication and equal access to educational/programming services. Institutions can, however, try out VRI as an alternative. In order to do that, they will need to plan in advance for internet access in each applicable space, and, depending on the need, perhaps get a more suitable microphone, capable of picking up speech from the teacher and/or other inmates. What’s clear is that somehow, interpretive services must be available. Institutions need to plan systematically how to meet this need for academic education, groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, and evidence-based programs like Moral Reconation Therapy. D. Telephone Access in Restrictive Housing When an inmate who uses sign language to communicate is housed in a restrictive housing unit (RHU), he or she is entitled to the same degree of telecommunications access as
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 12 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 47 - Page ID#: 2104
non-deaf inmates.20 Even an inmate whose status or history requires that he or she be restrained is entitled to the same degree of telecommunications access as a non-deaf inmate with a similar status or history. Accordingly, each institution must plan in advance how it will meet the telecommunications needs of deaf inmates, including those who sign to communicate, who are placed in restrictive housing. For inmates who sign, the VRI laptops are capable of being used as videophones, with or without video relay service (VRS). That the phone setting works on each VRI laptop should be ascertained in advance, and any problems solved. RHU staff should be trained to offer access in the same circumstances they offer non-deaf inmates telephone access. If restraints are going to be needed, the necessary adapted restraint equipment should be readily available, so that the inmate’s hands can be free for signing. It’s likely rare, but some inmates may prefer to use a TTY rather than a videophone or VRS. This is, for example, true for a deaf inmate at NTC. Accordingly, staff should also figure out (again, in advance) how to enable TTY access for an RHU inmate.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
A. Direct Threat determinations
The Settlement Agreement requires that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates receive “access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates,” but, consistent with the ADA, explains that the KYDOC “retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations.” (Settlement Agreement II.A. V.A.4 says the same thing). Similarly, the Agreement requires that deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates be provided “opportunities for institutional work assignments that are consistent with the opportunities for the same assignments given to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates,” but, again, gives KYDOC “the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments.” (Settlement Agreement VI.F). Consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Settlement Agreement defines “Direct Threat” to mean “a significant risk to the health or safety of one or more Deaf Inmates or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation. A finding of Direct Threat must be based on and supported by objective evidence.” (Settlement Agreement I.4). Whenever a
20 Settlement Agreement II.A (“The KDOC will ensure that Deaf Inmates have full and equal access to and enjoyment of all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations available to similarly situated nonDeaf Inmates. The KDOC shall provide Deaf Inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-Deaf Inmates.”); IX.A (“The KDOC will provide Deaf Inmates with access to telecommunication devices that enable them to have communication with people outside of the KDOC and that are substantially equivalent—in terms of the amount and quality of the information conveyed—to the communications that non-Deaf Inmates have with people outside of the KDOC using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones.”). See Recommendation 40 (“Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed.”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 13 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 47 - Page ID#: 2105
Direct Threat is found, the Agreement requires prompt notification to me, as Settlement Monitor, that “explain[s] the reasoning in support of such determination.” (Settlement Agreement II.A, V.A.4, VI.F).
My visits revealed that the staff who make decisions about job assignments had not all been trained on the Settlement Agreement’s relevant provisions—either the substantive or the reporting obligations. At BTC, hard-of-hearing inmates explained to me that they had been barred from certain jobs, and produced prison documentation of those decisions. I had not received the required report, and when I inquired, it became clear that the decisionmaking process was not appropriately individuated. Some of the inmates had quite mild impairments and there was no need for any restriction for them, and some of the jobs didn’t pose any risk even to inmates with a more significant degree of hearing impairment. In addition, the required report to me had not occurred. What the Settlement Agreement and the ADA require is individuated decisionmaking that considers the particular job and the particular inmate, with prompt reporting to me so I can offer technical assistance.21
B. Empowering the ADA Coordinator
At most of the five institutions, the ADA Coordinator (backed by the Warden and Deputy Wardens) has been able to obtain cooperation from staff whose conduct is governed by the Settlement Agreement. At LSCC, however, this has been less true. Instead, I have been told several times that LSCC’s ADA Coordinator cannot compel compliance by staff who do not report to her. The particular problems have now been solved, but the exchanges reveal a broader issue—it is crucial that ADA Coordinators have a high enough rank or receive sufficient support from their Warden and Deputy Warden to accomplish their compliance role.
VII. CONCLUSION
Implementation of the Settlement Agreement continues to progress. I am attaching my prior recommendations, adding the three new recommendations from this report, as Exhibit B to this report. This list should assist KYDOC staff with their ongoing compliance efforts. In addition, I plan for my subsequent visits and reports to proceed using a compliance checklist, which I will soon share with KYDOC. Much progress has been made, and I have every expectation that full compliance will be achieved soon.
21 See Recommendation 53 (“Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place. (Settlement Agreement II.A; VI.F; VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C; IX.C; XII).”).
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 14 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 47 - Page ID#: 2106
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits
Blackburn Correctional Complex (December 12, 2016) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (December 13, 2016)
Little Sandy Correctional Complex (December 13, 2016) Northpoint Training Center (December 14, 2016) Kentucky State Reformatory (February 27, 2017)
May 4, 2017
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Staff interviewed during site visits Exhibit B: Consolidated Recommendations Exhibit C: How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-of-Hearing Inmates Exhibit D: Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC institutions

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 47 - Page ID#: 2107
Exhibit A: Staff interviewed during site visits

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 47 - Page ID#: 2108
Staff interviews and meetings
Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC), December 12, 2016 Thomas Bull, receiving and discharge officer Deanna Byrd, classification and treatment officer (orientation) Kim Cook-McDonald, Health Services Administrator Howard Ellison, volunteer chaplain Kristy Hicks, school administrator Jason Lotter, adjustment officer Joanna King, Director of Nursing Abigail McIntire, Deputy Warden, Programs Christy Peach, ADA Coordinator Tiffany Ratliff, Warden Belinda Sanchez, unit administrator Tiffany Taylor, HR administrator
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC), December 13, 2016 Robert Blanton, Health Services Administrator (HSA) Jami Elam, unit administrator Abe Felton, Correctional Lieutenant, restrictive housing Jackie Kirby, classification treatment officer Dr. Lester Lewis Kathy Litteral, Warden Jill Miller, Director of Nursing Michael Prater, Correctional Lieutenant, Fire & Safety Officer, ADA Coordinator John Vaught, Correctional Lieutenant, intake Steven Ratliff, Education Director Timothy Doubblestein, Chaplain
Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC), December 13, 2016 Heather Bossio, classification and treatment officer Lorie Conley, ADA Coordinator David Cary, Chaplain Kim Duvall, Health Services Administrator David Garris, Sgt., restrictive housing unit Paul Holbrook, Deputy Warden, Programs Tyara Hughes, Nurse Practitioner Danny McGraw, Deputy Warden Joe Meko, Warden Shawn Ramey, Sgt. Shadow Skaggs, Director of Nursing Christy Smith, educational instructor Roy Whitt, Corrections recreation leader
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 15 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 47 - Page ID#: 2109
Northpoint Training Center (NTC), December 14, 2016 Don Bottom, Warden Stephanie Boyd, Recreation Director Kelly Buckley, Administrative Assistant (medical department) Heather Caldwell, Director of Nursing Pam Coffman, ADA Coordinator Stephany Hughes, Unit Administrator Brandon Lynch, Back-up ADA Coordinator, Procedures Officer Aaron Mobley, Chaplain Daniel Napier, Restrictive Housing Unit, Unit Administrator Jonathan Rooney, Orientation CTO Stephanie Thompson, Health Services Administrator Kristy Hicks, Corrections Regional Education Administrator Shelli Conyers-Votaw, Nurse Practitioner Christopher Young, Correctional Sergeant, Receiving and Discharge Supervisor Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR), February 27, 2017 David Dillard, Chaplain Anthony Hillebrandt, ADA Coordinator Michael Jordan, Health Services Administrator Warren McLemore, Social Service Clinician, Sex Offenders Treatment Program Marla McMillan, GED teacher Karl Seitz, Intake caseworker Paul Sloan, Backup ADA Coordinator Aaron Smith, Warden Jim VanNort, Psychology program administrator Courtney Welsh, Licensed psychology associate
Monitor’s Report, December 2016 & February 2017 Site Visits, p. 16 of 18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 47 - Page ID#: 2110
Exhibit B: Consolidated Recommendations

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 47 - Page ID#: 2111
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
AS OF APRIL 19, 2017
I present, the recommendations I have made in three groups: First, those from April 2016; second, those from December 2016; third, those from April 2017. The numbering is continuous from one group to the next.
Group 1 (April 21, 2016)
Note: These are edited from their original wording; they are phrased more generally, in order eliminate the references to KSR.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
Recommendation 1: Each facility should identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B; XV.B.1.d)
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
• Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? • Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? • Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t you use
it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
• If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
• Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
(Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 1 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 47 - Page ID#: 2112
whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronicallytracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing. (Settlement Agreement III.B; III.D [identification cards]; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; XV.B [reporting])
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them. (Settlement Agreement III.B)
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for any backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to each applicable facility for two or three days. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2. (III.F)
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings. (Settlement Agreement III; VI)
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; VI.C.4 [emergency on-site medical]; VI.H [transfer and classification]; V.A.2 [grievance hearings]; VII.A [disciplinary hearings]; VI.A.3 [parole hearings])
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 2 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 23 of 47 - Page ID#: 2113
Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. Inperson interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; VI.E. VI.A.3)
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. The facility should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KYDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; I.5)
Recommendation 14: Each facility should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D. (Settlement Agreement VI.A)
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed. (Settlement Agreement XI.A)
Recommendation 16 [Applies to KSR only]: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 3 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 24 of 47 - Page ID#: 2114
hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services. (Settlement Agreement VII)
Recommendation 17 [Applies to KSR only]: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, staff at each facility should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur. (Settlement Agreement VI.D)
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming. (Settlement Agreement VI.A.3; VI.G.1)
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.) (Settlement Agreement VI [qualified interpreters]; IX.E [training and technology]; XI [hand restraints])
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. Each facility should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
C. Videos
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used to determine whether it has captioning
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 4 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 25 of 47 - Page ID#: 2115
and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged. (Settlement Agreement X.1)
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.E; VI.J)
D. Speech-to-text
Recommendation 25 [KSR only, for right now]: KSR should continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
E. Assistive listening systems
Recommendation 26 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
Recommendation 27: Each facility should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement III.F; V.A. 2; VI.E)
F. Written communication
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5). (Settlement Agreement I.5)
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 29: Each facility should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 5 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 26 of 47 - Page ID#: 2116
Recommendation 30 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Recommendation 31: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event. (Settlement Agreement VIII; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
Recommendation 32: Each facility’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk. (Settlement Agreement XII)
I. Other communications aids
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C; XII)
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
Recommendation 35: Each facility should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
K. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 36: Each facility should try to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should require permission for use only if the facility requires inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. If an escort is required to use the videophone at night, on weekends, or in other circumstances, such an escort should be routinely provided. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 6 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 27 of 47 - Page ID#: 2117
Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count. (Settlement Agreement IX.A; XIII.B)
Recommendation 40 (Edited): Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. This could be done by escorting the prisoner to the videophone or by enabling videophone capabilities on the VRI laptop. If there are individualized reasons that an inmate cannot have his hands unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request each facility to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY. (Settlement Agreement IX.B)
Recommendation 42 [New recommendation 74 substitutes for this recommendation]: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months. (Settlement Agreement IX; I.5)
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. Intake/Orientation
Recommendation 43: Each facility should develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary. (Settlement Agreement III.A; III.C)
B. Literacy assessment
Recommendation 44: Staff at each facility should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 7 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 28 of 47 - Page ID#: 2118
Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
C. Individual assessment meetings
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
D. Form and options
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
• To list available aids and services more comprehensively • To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances
they are available, and how to request them. • To explain how to use the various devices. • To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 8 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 29 of 47 - Page ID#: 2119
Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.F; VI.E; VI.H; VII.A)
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program. (Settlement Agreement V.A; VI)
V. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
Recommendation 51: KYDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 52 [Training slides have now been provided and comments offered]: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter. (Settlement Agreement XIII)
VI. REPORTING
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place. (Settlement Agreement II.A; VI.F; VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C; IX.C; XII)
Group 2 (December 2016)
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
Recommendation 54: Identification processes (Settlement Agreement III.A.1 [initial classification]; III.B [hearing assessment]; III.D.1 [identification cards])
a) Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process.
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 9 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 30 of 47 - Page ID#: 2120
b) All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. Exhibit B-2 is the recommended form. (See also prior recommendation 2.) This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup.
c) If an inmate answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he should be seen in the next several days by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—for further evaluation, including a “whisper test” or other examination to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem.
d) If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation, the following should occur: • The inmate should receive an identification card to carry on his person, which states that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. • The inmate’s name should be shared with the facility’s ADA coordinator. • Two different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened. (See Figures A and B, above).
e) All inmates so identified should be included in the facility’s semi-annual reports to me; if a particular inmate turns out not to be deaf or hard-of-hearing, because, for example, a medical problem that was obstructing his or her hearing is solved, that can be explained. (Note: the decision to send an inmate to an audiologist for evaluation or treatment is not the same as the decision to flag the inmate as deaf or hard-ofhearing.)
Recommendation 55: In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2). (Settlement Agreement III.B)
Recommendation 56: Each facility should ensure that the ID cards used to identify inmates as deaf or hard-of-hearing are clear, and should avoid abbreviations or other language that may not be clear. Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
II. ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION DURING INTAKE
Recommendation 57: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known by prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial medical screening or other intake medical encounters. Inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. Medical staff should ask inmates who have difficulty hearing if they use sign language to communicate, rather than waiting for the ADA Coordinator’s assessment. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 10 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 31 of 47 - Page ID#: 2121
Recommendation 58: Each facility’s medical office should keep pocket amplifiers on hand for all intake staff—medical, mental health, and custody—to use when the need arises. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
III. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 59: The ADA Coordinator for each KYDOC facility should maintain a document that tracks each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate’s progress through the process of obtaining any needed hearing aid, including the dates and outcomes of:
• the initial request/questionnaire • each relevant medical visit • any audiology visit • hearing aid provision. In order to ensure that inmates do not wait longer than two months for a necessary hearing aid, the ADA coordinator should check for progress for each affected inmate every week or two, updating the tracking document and working with medical staff to solve any procedural hurdles that arise. A recommended sample tracking document is provided as Exhibit F. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
IV. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Recommendation 60: I commend KYDOC for developing a user-friendly pamphlet to cover the information needed by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates; I recommend facilities use the edited version in Exhibit D-2; each facility should fill in the items marked with curly brackets ({ and }). (Settlement Agreement III.F)
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 61: Inmates with hearing aids should be able to obtain replacement batteries seven days a week, without difficulty or charge, regardless of their housing or programming assignment. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
Recommendation 62: Each facility should inform staff responsible for property moves that it is important for inmates to keep their hearing aids with them, even when they are moved into segregation or transferred. When an inmate is accidentally separated from his or her hearing aids, policy should allow the inmate to promptly obtain the hearing aids from storage or medical, or to get replacements. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
Recommendation 63: Absent an emergency in which time is of the essence and VRI services are unavailable, no facility should rely on an inmate to interpret a communication that would ordinarily be private for another inmate. (Settlement Agreement VI; I.18)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 11 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 32 of 47 - Page ID#: 2122
Recommendation 64: Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
Recommendation 65: Each facility should ensure that the VRI laptop routinely receives necessary software updates. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
2. Religious and Volunteer-provided programming
Recommendation 66: For any religious programming—worship services, counseling, bible study, etc.—that is provided directly by the chaplain, each facility should provide qualified interpretation when requested by an inmate who needs it.
Prior Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
C. Video captioning
D. Speech-to-text
E. Assistive listening systems
(Settlement Agreement VI.G.3)
Recommendation 67: Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 68: KSR should inform deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of the various ways in which religious, educational, rehabilitative, and recreational programming can be made more accessible to them; all programming providers (educational, rehabilitative, and recreational) should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement V.A; III.F)
F. Written communication
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 69: In any unit where there are deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, each facility should implement (and ensure use of) written announcement boards. That is, all general announcements should also be promptly displayed on a written announcement board (e.g.: “X class is cancelled this evening,” or “all inmates in X category are allowed an X privilege this afternoon”). Staff use of this announcement board must be monitored and audited. (Settlement Agreement VIII.B.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 12 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 33 of 47 - Page ID#: 2123
Recommendation 70: In order to provide effective and equal communications to deaf and hardof-hearing inmates who are being individually paged, staff should check KOMS to see if that inmate has a deaf/hard-of-hearing alert; if a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate does not answer the auditory page in a minute or two, he or she should be individually alerted to the page by a staff member. This could be done by in-person notification or by provision of a personal paging system. (Settlement Agreement VIII.A)
Recommendation 71: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may be unable to hear an order or instruction issued verbally; training should cover strategies to avoid bad results. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
I. Speech
Recommendation 71: In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-ofhearing inmate one-on-one, instead. For example, for someone who is having difficulty hearing a teacher in a group setting, even with assistive listening devices (see IV.E, above), a tutor might be a better option than a congregate GED class. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
J. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 72: Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should be among those allowed to enroll in any classes in sign language. Each facility should obtain resources relating to sign language—books or computer-based instruction—and make those available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
K. Telecommunications equipment and rules
1. Videophone and VRS
2. TTY
Recommendation 73: Each facility should maintain its TTY and develop a facility protocol for how to make it available to inmates, covering who the inmate should request it from, where it should be connected, etc. In addition, each facility should annually test its TTY and the protocol by calling me at an agreed upon time using direct TTY and the relay service. TTY instructions should be left with the TTY at all times. (Settlement Agreement IX.D.1)
3. Hard-of-hearing inmates
Recommendation 74 (substitutes for prior recommendation 42): Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by:
(a) Allowing them access to TTYs. (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 13 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 34 of 47 - Page ID#: 2124
available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate. (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.
I will request a report on implementation each aspect of this recommendation.
(Settlement Agreement IX.A)
V. THE INTERACTION OF COMMUNICATION NEEDS AND HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A. Segregated housing
B. Other housing needs
Recommendation 75: Each facility should develop a method for considering how communications difficulties with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates can be minimized by particular housing assignments, and shall make such assignments when appropriate. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
VI. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
VII. FORM AND OPTIONS
Recommendation 76: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
(Settlement Agreement II.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 14 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 35 of 47 - Page ID#: 2125
VIII. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 77: In addition to the computer-based KYDOC training, live, in-service training should cover, at least:
a) For all staff: • The identity and role of the ADA Coordinator • Existence of KOMS and EMR alerts for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and the obligation to check for the alerts. • The occasions and process for obtaining access to the VRI laptop, and how to use the laptop, including where different people should sit to maximize communication effectiveness. (For medical, educational, and housing staff, this training should be done on-site, so each affected staff member can see where and how the laptop can be set up.) • The occasions and process for obtaining an in-person qualified interpreter.
b) For housing area staff: • The use of cell/bed notices that an inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing • The use of the bed shaker switch. • Telecommunications issues, including how to obtain and use a TTY, and the policies and procedures governing TTY and videophone usage. • The obligation to notify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of alerts, including emergency alerts and non-emergency pages.
c) For all corrections staff: • The requirements to accommodate inmates who use sign language to communicate by using restraints that allow them to sign, and how to implement those requirements. • Strategies for dealing with inmates who may not hear directions or orders, especially when given from behind or above them.
d) For medical staff: • The responsibility of running a process to provide medically necessary hearing aids within two months, and what that actually entails, in terms of adjusting ordinary processes and timing. • The obligation to notify off-site medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care, and how this obligation is being assigned.
(Settlement Agreement XIII; IX.E.2; III.D.2)
IX. REPORTING
Recommendation 78: The ADA Coordinator should obtain monthly reports based on both KOMS and medical records of each inmate in the facility who is deaf or hard-of-hearing, and
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 15 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 36 of 47 - Page ID#: 2126
should check those reports too add to the Coordinator’s tracking list. (Settlement Agreement XV.B.1) Recommendation 79: Each facility’s quarterly written summary of grievances by deaf and hardof-hearing inmates should include all such grievances, not only the ones that are deemed related to effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, or other issues raised in the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement Agreement XIV.3)
Group 3 (April 2017) Recommendation 80: At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may need accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2) Recommendation 81: Medical staff should ensure that inmates with a need for audiology services are not charged inappropriately, and should avoid repeated charges for ongoing efforts to obtain hearing aids or other services. (Settlement Agreement V.B) Recommendation 82: Each VRI should be the subject of a log sheet that tracks its usage, including staff member, date and purpose. In any institution that houses one or more inmates who use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator should check the VRI log sheet at least once each week, and should ensure that the VRI is being used on appropriate occasions, not just for classification and disciplinary meetings, but for other important conversations between the inmate and staff. (Settlement Agreement VI.A, III.C; VI.C.4; VI.H; V.A.2; VII.A; VI.J)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 16 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 37 of 47 - Page ID#: 2127
Exhibit C: How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 38 of 47 - Page ID#: 2128
How to Communicate Effectively with Hard-ofHearing Inmates
Adapted from material published by the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section (last revised 4/19/2017)
Starting the conversation
 Always get the inmate’s attention before you start speaking .  Just because an inmate is wearing a hearing aid does not mean they can hear you.  Ask if the inmate can understand you, or needs some adjustment; you may want to write
a note to ask him or her what communication aid or service is needed.  Provide accommodations if and when requested.  Minimize background noise and other distractions whenever possible.  Allow extra time for communication.
Lighting and facilitating lip-reading
 Face the inmate and maintain normal eye contact. Do not turn away while speaking.  Try to converse in a well-lit area, but avoid glare or back-lighting that puts your mouth in
shadow.  Do not cover your mouth or chew gum while you are speaking.
Simple language, normal speech
 Speak at a normal pace, enunciating clearly.  Speak with simple, direct words.  Do not shout or exaggerate mouth movements .
Visual cues
 Use gestures and facial expressions to reinforce what you are saying.  Use visual aids when possible, such as pointing to printed information on a document.
Check on understanding
 Remember that only about 1/3 of spoken words can be understood by speech (lip) reading.
 Be conscious of bluffing.  Check on understanding: ask the hard-of-hearing inmate to repeat back to you, so you can
be sure he or she understood.  For anything but the most simple communication, written notes can be a problem. Keep
in mind that many people—especially those who use sign language—may lack good English reading and writing skills.
Prison-Specific Communications Issues
• Prisons are noisy: To minimize noise from other inmates, fans, televisions, etc., you may want to step into an office or another quieter area.
• Prisons require situational awareness. To effectively communicate with deaf or hard-ofhearing inmates, an officer must face them directly and not move his or her head too much. This may make it difficult to monitor the surroundings. So you may want to have the conversation in a place that is out of the way, like a corner or an office, where situational awareness is less challenging.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 39 of 47 - Page ID#: 2129
Exhibit D: Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC institutions

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 40 of 47 - Page ID#: 2130

Memo to: From: Re: Date:

KYDOC Director of Operations Chris Kleymeyer, Wardens, ADA Coordinators, Margo Schlanger Auxiliary Aids/devices currently in place or under test at KYDOC institutions April 19, 2017

This is a list of devices related to the communications needs of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates that are currently in place at some KYDOC institutions. For each one, information is provided on the device (manufacturer, model, etc.) and on some of the considerations relevant to its use. If only one or two institutions are currently using the device, they are listed. At the end (part 11), I describe a few additional devices that may prove useful in the future.

1. VRI/VRS laptop ...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Non-auditory alert systems (“bed shakers”)............................................................................ 2 3. Personal amplifiers (“pocket talkers”) .................................................................................... 3 4. Videophone ............................................................................................................................. 3 5. TTY ......................................................................................................................................... 3 6. Phone volume control.............................................................................................................. 4 7. Phone amplifier ....................................................................................................................... 4 8. Captioned telephone ................................................................................................................ 5 9. Pager........................................................................................................................................ 5 10. Assistive listening systems...................................................................................................... 6
• FM transmitter for televisions or other sound sources ........................................................ 6 • Induction loop system .......................................................................................................... 6 • FM transmitters.................................................................................................................... 7 • Personal FM system............................................................................................................. 7 11. Other devices not yet in use .................................................................................................... 7 • Earphones for parole board.................................................................................................. 7 • Other personal FM devices .................................................................................................. 8 • Conference microphones ..................................................................................................... 8

-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 41 of 47 - Page ID#: 2131
1. VRI/VRS laptop
Video Remote Interpretation (VRI), accessible via a dedicated laptop, allows a hearing person and a deaf person who signs, who are next to each other, to communicate with each other. The hearing person speaks into a laptop microphone and an interpreter on the other end translates the speech into sign language, which the deaf person can see on the laptop screen. The deaf person signs into the laptop camera, and the interpreter on the other end translates the sign language into English, which the hearing person can hear.
Each KYDOC Institution has at least one dedicated VRI laptop, which have preloaded software from Purple, to facilitate easy use.
In order to work smoothly, the VRI should have the following items with it: a) A long computer cord. b) A splitter, to allow both a computer and
the VRI to be used simultaneously. c) A long extension cord. d) A log sheet, to record who uses it and
when e) Depending on the use, a special
external microphone may be helpful.
2. Non-auditory alert systems (“bed shakers”)
For inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm or various announcements for count or chow or pill call, when they are in their cells, a “bed shaker” can be a useful non-auditory alert system. Placed under an inmate’s mattress, it lights up and buzzes. It should be installed to go off automatically in the event of a fire alarm, and can be installed to go off (with a different signal) when triggered by a light switch in a control room. (This latter approach requires control room staff to flip the switch when it is needed—which staff may be reluctant to do.) A bed shaker is less necessary in a dorm setting, because in a dorm, other inmates’ responses to alarms or announcements alerts the deaf inmate about what is going on. In addition, some inmates feel that using a bed shaker in a bunk bed would probably disturb their bunkmate.
Bed shakers are plugged into the wall, like an alarm clock. The triggering signal is wireless—so they may work only in certain cells, depending on the configuration chosen for installation. Most of the KYDOC prisons are currently using bed shakers for one or two inmates. I believe several models are in current use at KYDOC, including the Silent Call Legacy Series (SU5001-V). See http://silentcall.com/product/legacy-series-shake-318-mhz-receiver-vibrator-su5001-v/.
-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 42 of 47 - Page ID#: 2132
3. Personal amplifiers (“pocket talkers”) Personal amplifier devices are offered to inmates in need of temporary amplification while they wait for more significant audiology services, or perhaps if they don’t qualify, medically, for a hearing aid. I believe that all the KYDOC institutions are using these devices; CCS buys them via McKesson, its medical supplier. Several models have been used, including the Posey 8274 Sound Amplifier and others; they cost under $40.
4. Videophone KYDOC mostly uses videophones provided by the company “Purple.” They are in videophone kiosks, made available to inmates who sign to communicate during the same hours as regular phones are available to other inmates. (At KSP, they have both a Purple videophone and also one from the company Sorenson.)
These videophones allow both “video to video” calls, which allow a sign language user to call anyone with a videophone and communicate using sign language, and Video Relay Service (“VRS”) calls, which allow sign language user to call a hearing person who uses a regular telephone; a sign language interpreter, connected automatically, relays the communication. For VRS, the inmate signs and the remote interpreter interprets, speaking to the person on the regular telephone. Because signing, with or without an interpreter, takes longer than talking, the Settlement Agreement specifies that institutional rules should allow each call to last up to twice as long as allowed for regular phone calls. 5. TTY A TTY or “TeleTYpewriter” (sometimes called a TDD, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) is a device has a
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 43 of 47 - Page ID#: 2133
keyboard and display that allows the user to send and receive typed messages over telephone lines. A stand-alone TTY cannot communicate directly with a regular phone; it can communicate only with another TTY. So TTY users can directly call other TTY numbers or they can call a regular phone using a Relay Service. The Relay Service operator will receive the messages on a TTY and relay the messages, by standard phone, to a person who does not have a TTY. The number for Kentucky’s relay service is 711. TTYs are used less than they used to be: most deaf people prefer to use a videophone, so they can sign rather than type to communicate. But every KYDOC facility has a TTY, and some deaf inmates will choose to use them. To work, TTYs need access to an outside phone line. In some facilities, they are placed near the videophone in a cabinet and access is provided without any special request. It is important that access to TTYs be made easy, just as access to other phones is. The ADA Coordinator should test the device and put very clear and explicit instructions with it, so users can avoid problems. Because using a TTY is very slow, the Settlement Agreement specifies that institutional rules should allow each call to last up to three times as long as allowed for regular phone calls 6. Phone volume control Some but not all the KYDOC payphones have volume controls. The phones with volume controls have varied indicators:
There should be at least one phone with a volume control in every group of phones where a hard-of-hearing prisoner might use phones— including in restrictive housing.
7. Phone amplifier For inmates who need more amplification than the built-in volume adjustment can offer, a portable telephone amplifier may be helpful.
-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 44 of 47 - Page ID#: 2134
This Harris Portable Telephone Amplifier (cost, approximately $20) is currently being tested at LLCC Its usefulness depends on the particular user’s degree of hearing impairment and hearing aid type. So far, some inmates find it very simple and helpful. Others don’t like it.
8. Captioned telephone
A captioned telephone works like a regular telephone but also displays, as text, every word the person on the other side of the line says. Captioned telephones are useful for people whose hearing impairment interferes with ordinary phone usage, but who speak to communicate. Captioned telephone users can listen to the person they have called, and can also read the written captions. (The captioning service is provided for free pursuant to FCC rules.)
Currently, KSP has installed one captioned telephone, a CapTel 840i. For more information, see http://www.captel.com/captel. It uses a phone line and an internet line. At KSP, it is installed in a locked cabinet: it is available to appropriate inmates during normal phone times, after they request the unit officer to unlock the box.
Because the phone uses an analog microphone, it is not easily compatible with the Securus voice recognition system. So KSP had Securus remove the voice biometrics password; the inmate still uses his pin number to complete a call. Approximate cost for the phone: $75. 9. Pager
For inmates who cannot hear themselves paged when they are on the yard or otherwise away from their cells, a pager may be helpful. KSP and KCIW are using alphanumeric pagers with several pre-programmed messages. Pagers have two parts: the transmitter and the receiver. The models pictured, which are used at KCIW, are made by Long Range Systems, or LRS:
Pagers work better for outdoor areas rather than inside thick walls. The pager above, the LRS TX-7470, has a range of about a mile. Approximate cost: $600 for a transmitter, $120 for a receiver
-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 45 of 47 - Page ID#: 2135
10. Assistive listening systems
Assistive listening systems capture sound close to its source via a microphone and transmit that sound directly to people’s earphones or hearing aids. Such systems can be extremely helpful to people who are hard-of-hearing, because they allow the listener to amplify the sound without distortion and without amplifying the ambient noise.
For more information on assistive listening devices and systems, see: • Hearing Loss Association of America, Get in the Hearing Loop, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/HLAA_ALDS_Brochure_0.pdf; • David G. Myers, We’ve Looped in West Michigan. Could We Loop America?, HEARING LOSS MAGAZINE, September/October 2008, at 18, available at http://www.hearingloss.org/sites/default/files/docs/MeyerSepOct08 AudioLoopHLM.pdf.
For a technical guide to choices available for educational settings in particular (though geared to children rather than adults), see: • American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing
Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years (updated April 2011) available at http://audiologyweb.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/HAT_Guidelines_Supplement_A.pdf_53996ef775849 7. 54419000.pdf • American Academy of Audiology, Practice Guidelines: Remote Microphone Hearing Assistance Technologies for Children and Youth from Birth to 21 Years, Supplement B: Classroom Audio Distribution Systems—Selection and Verification, July 2011, available at http://audiology-web.s3.amazonaws.com/migrated/ 20110926_HAT_GuidelinesSupp_B.pdf_53996ef98259f2.45364934.pdf.
Several systems are in use at KYDOC facilities:
• FM transmitter for televisions or other sound sources
Several KYDOC institutions currently use FM transmitters to transmit sound from dorm or dayroom TVs to FM radios inmates can purchase. At WKCC, they are also using the same kind of device as an assistive listening system for the chaple; it is attached to a sound system and then transmits to the radio (on a different frequency). Approximate cost: $50. See http://www.ccrane.com/transmitter.
• Induction loop system
Induction loop systems work with hearing aids or with specially purchased earphones. For permanent systems, an induction loop wire is installed (for example, around the walls or in the ceiling). For portable systems, the loop is portable and covers less distance—more like 4 or 5 feet in front of the system. Either way, the loop links to a microphone that is used by a speaker. The person talking into the microphone generates a current in the wire, which creates an
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 46 of 47 - Page ID#: 2136
electromagnetic field in the room. Listeners with hearing aids can switch the hearing aids to the “T” (telecoil/telephone) setting; then the hearing aid telecoil picks up the electromagnetic signal. Listeners can then adjust the volume of the signal through the hearing aid. Most new and newish hearing aids have T-coils, including all those fitted by “Hears to You.” Receiving headphones can, however, be used by anyone, and cost very little. (E.g., http://www.harriscomm.com/ovalwindow-induction-loop-receiver-headphone.html.)
LLCC, is testing a portable induction loop system. See http://www.harriscomm.com/ovalwindow-portable-infoloop-induction-loop-system-with-external-clip-mic.html.
• FM transmitters
The FCC has reserved several FM frequencies for use for assistive listening (72-75 MHz and 216 MHz). For more details see https://www.listentech.com/shouldi-use-72-mhz-or-216-mhz/.
This kind of FM system is used by many churches to transmit to the earphones/receivers that are given to attendees. At LLCC, they are trying out a low wattage wireless system, the Peavey Assisted Listening system (72.9 Mhz).
• Personal FM system
Other FM systems, including a “personal FM system,” may use other frequencies. To use a personal FM transmitted system with a receiver, one person wears a microphone; the other puts some earbuds or a headset into the receiver. One such system is currently on order to test at KSR. See http://www.lssproducts.com/product/Nady-Personal-FMSystem/personal-fm-systems.
11. Other devices not yet in use
Finally, some other devices and technical resources I have mentioned, that may prove useful in the future, but will need testing.
• Earphones for parole board
Parole board hearings are done using remote video. For inmates who use sign language to communicate, an in-person interpreter is necessary for effective communication in these circumstances. For an inmate who is hard-of-hearing, the television speaker may be very difficult to hear. Such inmates should be offered earphones, ideally with a long cord and volume control.
-7-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 47 of 47 - Page ID#: 2137
• Other personal FM devices
There are a variety of personal FM transmitters and receivers available. This one may or may not work with a pocket talker – but it’s inexpensive enough that it seems worth trying. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01N6NH2Z2/.

•

Conference microphones

When the VRI laptop is being used, sometimes the microphone quality is insufficient. An external microphone may be helpful. The type of microphone that seems most appropriate is a “conference microphone.” In fact, with a better microphone, if people are careful not to speak at the same time, it’s possible the VRI will even prove adequate for interpretation of a situation in which several people are speaking—for example, a class that includes some, though not a great deal, of class discussion. It would be worthwhile to try this out. One possibility, which I have not tested but offer because it has good consumer ratings, is this:

MXL AC404 USB Conference Microphone, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001TGTDFM/. Cost: ~ $85.

-8-

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 22 - Page ID#: 2138
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendix V
Recommended forms: Inmate Pamphlet Memo for Staff Hard-of-Hearing Communications Tips

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 22 - Page ID#: 2139
Kentucky Department of Corrections
{NAME OF FACILITY} Information for Deaf or Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
last revised Sept. 7, 2016

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 22 - Page ID#: 2140
I. {FACILITY}’S OBLIGATIONS
{FACILITY} will provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates: • Non-discrimination • Effective Communication • Auxiliary Aids and Services
Non-discrimination: {FACILITY} will provide deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with access to services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations substantially equivalent to those offered to similarly situated non-deaf inmates.
Effective Communication: {FACILITY} will communicate effectively with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates—ensuring that inmates can receive information from and provide information to {FACILITY} staff.
Auxiliary Aids and Services: When needed for effective communication, {FACILITY} will provide “auxiliary aids and services.” This means devices or services that assist in communication. These may include, but are not limited to:
• Hearing aids • Amplifiers • Video captioning • Visual or other non-auditory alert or alarm systems • Videophone/Video Relay Service • TTY/TDD, including telephone relay services • Written materials • Qualified interpreters, via remote video interpretation or in-person • Computer-aided transcription services • Assistive listening systems
Page 1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 22 - Page ID#: 2141
II. PROCEDURES
For inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, {FACILITY} has numerous devices and processes to help make sure prison staff communication with you is effective and that you receive equal access to prison programs, services, and activities. This brochure is for you to save: it is a guide to all those devices and processes.
For each of the listed devices or processes, if you do not want them, you can tell the ADA Coordinator. If you have any questions now or later, you should contact the ADA Coordinator. The ADA Coordinator is responsible for facilitating effective communication, including arranging for needed Qualified Interpreters.
• {FACILITY} provides notice of the availability of and procedure for requesting auxiliary aids and services through this brochure and through posted notices.
• Medical staff will assess whether an inmate is deaf or hard of hearing at initial intake and during annual assessments or when an inmate identifies himself as deaf, hard-of-hearing, or having difficulty hearing.
• If medical staff determines that an offender is deaf or hard-of-hearing, medical will note that in the inmate’s Electronic Medical Record, and will notify the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator will note the same thing in the Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS) record.
• The inmate will be given this brochure and copies of the Request for Communication Assistance, and (if applicable) the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services forms
• The ADA Coordinator will consult with the individual and medical to determine what aids or services are necessary to provide effective communication in particular situations.
• The ADA Coordinator will note the inmate’s status as deaf or hard-ofhearing in the inmate’s electronic file.
• The offender may ask for services at this time or later, by requesting the services from the ADA Coordinator or other staff and/or completing the Request for Communication Assistance or the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form.
• The offender may waive services. • At any time, the offender may request a service that he previously waived.
Page 2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 22 - Page ID#: 2142
III. AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
To request any auxiliary aid, submit a Request for Communications Assistance to the ADA Coordinator. If you are requesting a hearing aid or amplifier—or a repair or batteries for an existing hearing aid or amplifier—you must also submit a Healthcare Request Form.
When you request a particular auxiliary aid or service, {FACILITY} must give primary consideration to your request, but may meet the need for effective communication by providing some alternative aid or service.
COST: All necessary auxiliary aids and services shall be provided without cost to the offender, except for medical devices that are subject to standard co-payment. {WHICH ARE THESE? I THINK YOU’RE NOT CHARGING FOR ANY. SO CROSS THAT OUT.} Sick-call has the standard $3 co-pay.
The Auxiliary Aids and Services provided when necessary for effective communication (and described in this brochure) include:
A. Hard-of-hearing/Deaf ID Card B. Hard-of-hearing/Deaf Notice cards C. Hearing Aids and Amplifiers D. Qualified Interpreters (remote and in-person) E. Telecommunications Devices:
o Videophone (with or without interpreter relay) o TDD/TTY (with or without interpreter relay) o Volume-assisted telephone F. Video captioning G. Written materials H. Non-auditory alerts I. Assistive listening systems
Page 3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 22 - Page ID#: 2143
A. Hard-of-hearing ID Card
This card will be given to you by Medical, when they determine that you are deaf or hard-of-hearing. Carry it with your inmate ID.
Hard-of-Hearing ID card. If you lose or damage this card request a replacement from Medical. If this is not promptly provided, bring the issue to the attention of the ADA Coordinator.
B. Notice Cards
Unless you sign a waiver, {FACILITY} will alert others to your hearing impairment with a notice by your cell or bed.
Hard-of-Hearing [or Deaf] Inmate
Page 4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 22 - Page ID#: 2144
C. Hearing Aids and Amplifiers
If medical determines that you need a hearing aid, one will be provided. You can request evaluation for a hearing aid by using the standard healthcare request form; you should also alert the ADA coordinator to your request by filling out a {} form.
• If you have a hearing aid already—at prison or at home—you may be allowed to use that.
• If your hearing aid—whether provided by KYDOC or otherwise—needs a repair, you should bring that to the attention of medical staff and they will try to get the repair.
• Hearing aids are complex devices, and several medical visits may be necessary to test your hearing, evaluate the appropriateness of a hearing aid, and fit the hearing aid.
• Assuming there are no complications, it should take under two months for you to get a hearing aid, if one is necessary. If the process is taking longer than that, bring that issue to the attention of the ADA Coordinator.
• There is no co-pay for the hearing aid, but the standard $3 fee applies for your sick-call visit. You will be charged only one $3 fee for the related visits.
• Hearing aid batteries typically last two to three weeks. They are free to you, and available {HOW (varies by facility)}
While you are waiting for a hearing aid, if medical has determined that you are hard-of-hearing, they will give you a personal amplifier. This device is sometimes called a “pocket talker.”

Amplifier

Page 5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 22 - Page ID#: 2145
D. Qualified Interpreters
If you use sign language to communicate, you can request sign language interpretation by filling out a Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form, available from the ADA Coordinator {or how else?}. A qualified interpreter is “a person who is able to interpret effectively, accurately, and impartially, both receptively and expressively, with an individual Deaf Inmate using any necessary specialized vocabulary.”
If you use sign language to communicate, {FACILITY} will provide an interpreter (unless you sign a waiver) for disciplinary meetings and hearings, classification meetings and hearings, grievance meetings and hearings, and emergency health care. You need to request an interpreter each other time you want one, using the Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form. If possible, make requests 48 hours in advance. The form will then need to be submitted to the ADA Coordinator. The ADA Coordinator will schedule the qualified interpreter.
Qualified interpreters are available at {FACILITY} using a Video Remote Interpreting laptop, or—if necessary—in-person, for:
• Initial intake/classification • Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance • On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments • Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings • Grievance hearings • Adjustment committee and court call • All meetings related to discipline • Parole hearings • Rehabilitative and educational programming, including clubs • Transitional programs • Conversations with post-release supervisors • PREA reporting and/or follow-up with any PREA concerns • Inmate work and education programs • Other significant communications, on request • Interpreter services may be available if needed and requested for religious
programming.
Page 6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 22 - Page ID#: 2146
Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) allows a hearing person and a Deaf person who signs, who are next to each other, to communicate with each other. The hearing person speaks into a laptop microphone and an interpreter on the other end translates the speech into sign language, which the Deaf person can see on the laptop screen. The Deaf person signs into the laptop camera, and the interpreter on the other end translates the sign language into English, which the hearing person can hear. {FACILITY} has {one? two?} VRI laptops; {WHERE?}.
VRI using a laptop To request a Video Remote Interpreter, fill out the Request for a Qualified Interpreter Form, available from the ADA Coordinator. Video interpretation may not accomplish the goal of effective communication in some situations—for example, when there are many people communicating (as in a class or a parole hearing), or there is a need to move around (for example, during some physical medical exams). In those situations, an in-person interpreter may be necessary. When necessary for effective communication, {FACILITY} will provide an inperson qualified interpreter. If you want an in-person qualified interpreter, your request should explain why VRI will probably not be effective and if possible you should make the request several days before you need the interpreter.
Page 7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 22 - Page ID#: 2147
At some point, {FACILITY} may arrange with an in-person qualified interpreter to be here on a regular basis (for example, for a weekly class). If this happens, and you use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator will notify you about the schedule, so that you can request needed other interpretation services more conveniently.
E. Telephone Communications
{FACILITY} has several types of devices available for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates to have equal access to telephone communications.
• Videophone (with or without interpreter relay) • TDD/TTY (with or without interpreter relay) • Volume-assisted telephone
Videophone
Videophone “kiosk” • What is a Videophone? KYDOC uses ADA prison videophones provided by
the company “Purple.” They are locked-down videophone kiosks, where you can make videophone calls during the same periods as regular phones are available.
Page 8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 22 - Page ID#: 2148
• What types of calls can you make? {FACILITY’S}’s videophone allows two kinds of calls:  “Point to point” or “video to video” calls allow a deaf sign language user to call anyone with a videophone, and communicate using sign language.  Video Relay Service (“VRS”) calls allow a deaf inmate who uses sign language to call a hearing person who uses a regular telephone; sign language interpreters are connected automatically. The inmate signs and the remote interpreter then interprets, and speaks to the person on the regular telephone.  For either point-to-point or video relay calls simply key in a 10-digit number and “dial.”
• Who qualifies for this service? Any KYDOC deaf inmate who uses sign language to communicate qualifies for this free, ADA-public-use video and video relay service, so the inmate can call anyone using a Purple ADA prison videophone. Purple Video Interpreters will terminate calls if inmates who do not use sign language try to use the ADA videophone.
• Prison restrictions. Videophones implement standard prison restrictions:  No in-bound calls  No 3-way calls  No call history or contact list  Ability to include call timer  911 button disabled  Announcement to called party  HIPAA privacy  No video mail
• Rules for inmate use  Purple VRS and point to point calls are recorded and monitored by KYDOC staff.  Except if you have a specific phone restriction, deaf inmates are allowed to use the videophone during the same periods of time that non-deaf inmates can use the regular phone.
Page 9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 22 - Page ID#: 2149
 Videophones are provided as a part of Federal government program to provide sign language interpreters to relay communication between deaf person and a hearing person at no cost.
 Each call can last up to twice as long as {FACILITY} allows for regular phone calls.
 Because group calls are not allowed, you may not talk (or sign) to another inmate while you are using the videophone.
• How to use the videophone.  Just turn on the videophone, and start making calls. There is no need to turn it off. If it is off, power it back on.  Dial the telephone number you want to call to, by touching the telephone number on dial pad. Then, click on green “call” button.  Choose your language preferences—click on English or Spanish before you dial your telephone number. Interpreters in either language are available to relay communication in English or Spanish.  Callers who want other end user to hear the caller in voice can use Voice Carry Over (VCO) by simply clicking on VCO button.  Announce Relay will tell the interpreter to let the other end-user know that this is a Video Relay Service (VRS) call. Click on Announce Relay button if this is a VRS call.  After you are finished with your call, click on red button to “hang up”.
TTY/TTD
The second type of telecommunications device available at {FACILITY} for deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates is a TTY or TTD.
Page 10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 22 - Page ID#: 2150
• What is a TTY? A TTY (Teletypewriter) (sometimes called a TTD) is a device that allows users to send typed messages across a phone line. Many people who are deaf or hard of hearing use TTYs to call other individuals. The TTY has a keyboard and display that lets the user send and receive typed messages over telephone lines.
• What types of calls can you make? A stand-alone TTY cannot communicate directly with a regular phone; it can communicate only with another TTY. So TTY users can directly call other TTY numbers or they can call a regular phone using a Relay Service. The Relay Service operator will receive the messages on a TTY and relay the messages, by standard phone, to a person who does not have a TTY.
• Who qualifies for this service? Any KYDOC deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate who can use the TTY. And a non-deaf inmate can, too, if he needs to call someone who uses a TTY.
• Prison restrictions. TTYs conform to standard prison restrictions:  No in-bound calls  No 3-way calls  No call history or contact list
• Rules  Except if you have a specific phone restriction, deaf inmates are allowed to use the videophone during the same periods of time that non-deaf inmates can use the regular phone.  Each call can last up to three times as long as {FACILITY} allows for regular phone calls.
• How to use the TTY 1. Request use of the TTY {How? From who? How long in advance?} 2. The TTY must be connected to a phone line with access to outside the prison. At {FACILITY}, {WHAT PHONE LINE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO USE?, IN WHAT OFFICE} 3. Once you’re in the right place, plug the TTY in and push the “ON” switch.
Page 11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 22 - Page ID#: 2151
4. Place the telephone receiver on the TTY's rubber receptacles. Make sure that the receiver is firmly in place and that the telephone's receiver cord is on the LEFT side of the TTY.
5. Check the telephone indicator light; if it is lit, you have the line. 6. If you are making a direct TTY call:
• Dial the number of the receiving TTY, and watch the telephone light; if it is flashing slowly, this indicates that the device on the other end is ringing.
• When the person you are calling answers, you will see a phrase appear on the screen such as: "Hello, this is Richard GA." The "GA" stands for Go Ahead -- Don't forget to use "GA" whenever you have finished what you are saying, so that the other person will know it is his/her turn. Note: The person who receives the call is always the one who starts typing first.
• When you wish the call to end and you wish to advise the other person, type GA or SK ("Stop keying"). The person will respond by "SK" if he/she agrees. Be courteous - wait until the other person indicates "SK" before hanging up.
7. If you are making a relay call (that is, using the TTY to call a regular phone used by a hearing person), you will use the Kentucky Relay program: • Dial 711. • A Communication Assistant (CA) will answer by identifying Kentucky Relay and providing his/her CA number and gender. The CA will then type “NUMBER TO CALL PLS Q GA.” • Type the area code and telephone number you want to call and any additional instructions. • Once the call is connected, the CA will ask the person you are calling if he/she is familiar with Relay. If the person is not, the CA will explain how Relay works before the conversation begins. • The CA will type everything said by the other party, word for word, along with any background noises. • When you see GA, it is your turn to respond. • Type your response, and then “GA” when you are ready for a response.
Page 12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 22 - Page ID#: 2152
• The conversation will proceed in this manner until the call is complete. When you have completed the conversation, type “GA to SK” and the CA will close your call.
• Always switch the TTY "OFF" as soon as you have finished the call.
Phone volume control
Some but not all the payphones at {FACILITY} have volume controls. If you need to turn up the volume in order to use a phone, and none of the phones in your housing area have a volume control, you can submit a Request for Communications Assistance form to request that a volume control be added to at least one phone. The phones with volume controls have varied indicators:
Page 13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 22 - Page ID#: 2153
Payphone Volume Controls
F. Video captioning
Most videos shown at {FACILITY}, and all television programs, can have captioning turned on. This includes educational and entertainment movies, orientation videos, religious programming DVDs, etc. You can request that a video or movie display captions, if they are available, by asking {FILL THIS IN}. If you are taking a class, ask the teacher if you want any class videos to display captioning. In addition, the commissary sells personal TVs that can show captioning. If you need assistance getting captioning turned on, ask the ADA Coordinator.
G. Written materials
If you are unable to understand something that a staff member tells you verbally, you can ask the staff to write it down. If you are given written materials that you have questions about, and you communicate using sign language, you can ask for a meeting with the appropriate staff member to be interpreted using the VRI or, if needed, an in-person sign language interpreter.
Page 14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 22 - Page ID#: 2154

H. Non-auditory alerts
{FACILITY} has several devices available for inmates unable to hear announcements. These include:

Bed Shaker

• Strobe-light cells. In these
cells, fire alarms trigger a
very bright flashing light.

• Bed shakers/flashing light
alerts. This device sits under a bed and vibrates/buzzes when the housing unit’s fire alarm or other announcements go off. It can be set to alert for count and chow.

• At your own expense, you can buy a vibrating alarm clock or other
adaptive equipment you may find useful, via the commissary or by making a request to the ADA coordinator. In addition, staff are trained to post written versions of announcements made over the loudspeaker.

I. Assistive Listening Systems

If you are hard of hearing and have trouble hearing in some other situation, it may be possible to provide you an assistive listening system. For example, in church, programming, or a class, the teacher or other students could use a wireless microphone that sends the signal to an earbud that you wear. If you think a system like this would help you hear in a particular situation, submit a Request for Communications Assistance form to the ADA Coordinator.

Page 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 22 - Page ID#: 2155
IV. FOR MORE INFORMATION
{Facility’s} obligations for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are controlled by the Americans with Disabilities Act and by a settlement entered in the federal district court in a lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement and a summary of it are available in the law library. If you have a problem related to your hearing, discuss it with the ADA Coordinator. If necessary, you can file a grievance. The court monitor appointed by the federal court to track KYDOC’s compliance with the Agreement will receive a summary of the grievance and, if you give your permission, the grievance itself and the KYDOC response to it.
Page 16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 22 - Page ID#: 2156
Communications assistance for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates (RECOMMENDED MEMO FOR STAFF)
{ADD ORDINARY MEMO HEADING HERE}
This memo tells you about the various devices available to provide communications assistance to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. You may find it useful to also review the Informational Pamphlet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates, which is attached; it includes pictures of many of the devices described here. Inmates can use the Request for Communications Assistance form and the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form to seek access to the items described here.
1) ID and notice cards. Unless the inmate has signed a waiver, {FACILITY} lists hearing impairments on inmate ID card and on a notice outside their cells. These notices inform you that the inmate has a hearing impairment, so that you can take steps to make your communication with the inmate effective.
2) Hearing aids and amplifiers. Hearing aids and amplifiers are available if medical staff finds that they are appropriate. If an inmate tells you that he needs a hearing aid or amplifier, notify the ADA Coordinator and tell the inmate to submit a Healthcare Request form and a Request for Communications Assistance form. For batteries {DESCRIBE HERE HOW INMATES ARE SUPPOSED TO GET BATTERIES}
3) Video captioning. Turn on TV/movie captioning at an inmate’s request.
4) Communications strategies. When you are speaking with an inmate with a hearing impairment, use the best practices from the attached “tip card.” Write simple things down. If these strategies are not working for an inmate who signs to communicate, and the communication is important, you should use Video Remote Interpreting (VRI); see item 7.
5) Non-auditory alerts This facility has several devices for inmates unable to hear announcements. a. Strobe-light cells. In these cells, fire alarms automatically trigger a very bright flashing light. You don’t need to do anything for this. b. Bed shakers/flashing light alerts. This device sits under a bed pillow and vibrates/buzzes automatically when the housing unit’s fire alarm goes off. There is also what looks like a light switch installed in the control center of the dorm; when count or chow is announced, the on-duty officer is assigned to flip that switch, to notify the inmate of count/chow. This should be logged {HOW?}
6) Telecommunications devices. a. For inmates who communicate via sign language, {Facility} has a videophone, which also has access to Video Relay Service (VRS); it can be used to talk to someone who is also using a videophone, or to someone who is using a regular telephone. • The videophone is {WHERE}.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 22 - Page ID#: 2157
• It is available during the same hours non-Deaf inmates have access to the regular phone: {WHAT ARE THOSE HOURS?} {E.g.: during the day, nights until 11:30 pm, weekends, and holidays.}
• If inmates wish to use the videophone, with or without VRS, they can simply request access when they need it. No scheduling in advance should be required. They are allowed 30 minutes per call.
b. {FACILITY} owns {one? two} TTY (TeleTYpewriter) machine(s). • {WHERE ARE THEY? WHAT PHONE ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE HOOKED UP TO?} TTYs must be logged out and logged back in after use. • Inmates are allowed 45 minutes per TTY call. • Training for inmates is available if they don’t know how to use the TTY: they should ask the ADA Coordinator.
7) Qualified Interpreter Services. For deaf inmates who communicate using sign language, qualified interpreter services are provided for significant communications, either using Video Remote Interpretation (VRI) or an in-person qualified interpreter.
For inmates who need it, interpretation is provided for: • Auxiliary aid/service assessment and other accommodation assistance • On-site medical, mental health and dental evaluations/care/appointments • Classification and transfer hearings and related meetings • Grievance hearings • Adjustment committee and court call • All meetings related to discipline • Parole hearings • Rehabilitative and educational classes and clubs • Transitional programs • Conversations with post-release supervisors • Other significant communications, on request
Inmates who use sign language to communicate are not required to specially request interpretation for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. In those situations, VRI should be used for these inmates without their special request, unless the inmate has requested and the ADA Coordinator has approved in-person interpretation. If you are arranging one of those events for an inmate who uses sign language, you need to obtain the VRI.
Inmates must have their hands unrestrained in order to communicate via sign language. If an inmate’s status requires that his hands be cuffed or otherwise restrained, alternative methods are available during the interpreted communication. Consult with the ADA Coordinator.
a. {FACILTY} has {one? two? } VRI laptops; {List here where they are}.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 22 - Page ID#: 2158
• Use of the laptops should be scheduled 48 hours in advance if possible, but VRI laptops can be used if available even if not scheduled in advance.{HOW?}
• Log out the laptop each time you use it, and log it back in after use. • After a VRI laptop has been used, have the inmate fill out the bottom of the
Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form; return that form to the ADA Coordinator. b. Inmates can request an in-person qualified interpreter by filling out the top of the Request for Qualified Interpreter Services form; that form should be sent to the ADA Coordinator at least 48 hours prior to the scheduled event if possible. c. The inmate has the right to waive interpreter services. If an inmate waives his right to an interpreter, a waiver form shall be completed, signed, and placed into KOMS for documentation. You must ensure that the inmate understands what he is waiving.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-5 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 22 - Page ID#: 2159
Tips for Communicating with Inmates Who are Hard-of-Hearing
Simple language, normal speech • Speak at a normal pace, enunciating clearly; speak clearly and loudly, but do not shout or exaggerate mouth movements. • Use simple, direct words.
Visual cues • Use gestures and facial expressions to reinforce what you are saying. • Use visual aids when possible, such as pointing to printed information on a document.
Environmental adjustment • Find a quiet, well-lit place to talk; avoid backlighting. • Avoid fans, washing machines, other ambient noise. • Face the inmate directly; don’t move your head too much. • Don’t chew gum.
Check on understanding • Only about 1/3 of spoken words can be understood by speech (lip) reading. • Check on understanding: ask the hard-of-hearing person to repeat back to you, so you can be sure he or she understood. Be conscious of “bluffing”—when the person you are speaking to tries not to let on that he or she doesn’t understand. • For anything but the most simple communication, written notes can be a problem. Keep in mind that many people—especially those who use sign language—may lack good English reading and writing skills.
Special considerations because this is a prison • Prisons are noisy: To minimize noise from other inmates, fans, televisions, etc., you may want to step into an office or another quieter area. • Prisons require situational awareness. To effectively communicate with deaf or hard-ofhearing inmates, an officer must face them directly and not move his or her head too much. This may make it difficult to monitor the surroundings. So you may want to have the conversation in a place that is out of the way, like a corner or an office, where situational awareness is easier. • Restrictive Housing Units are especially challenging locations for effective communication, particularly if the cells have solid doors, because when you talk to an inmate “through the crack” in the door important visual cues are absent. Communications strategies include: o Pull the inmate out of cell. o Talk through the meal slot. o If the inmate can read, pass written notes through the door (but remember low literacy).

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 1 of 20 - Page ID#: 2160
Third Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (May 31, 2017) Appendix VI
April 2017 quarterly reporting request

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 2 of 20 - Page ID#: 2161
Adams v. KDOC, Semi-Annual Compliance Reporting (2017-04)
April 2017. I am beginning, this quarter, to ask for substantially more information, including information about all inmates in the process of getting audiology services (e.g., hearing aids). Here's what I am doing: 1) In April and October, I will do full information requests, like this one--although future requests will only cover the most recent six months. 2) In January and July, I will do an abbreviated information request. This quarter, I am circulating this request on April 12, and asking for information by COB Friday April 28, 2017. Thank you.
Your Identifying Information
Your Name *
Your Institution *
Your Email *
Your Phone Number *
Are you the current ADA Coordinator? If not, please list the name, phone number, and email of the current ADA Coordinator. *
Is the ADA Coordinator information on this page correct? http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx
-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 3 of 20 - Page ID#: 2162
If not, please certify to me that you are arranging for its correction by the beginning of next month.
Is the webpage correct? * Yes No, but I am arranging for its correction by the beginning of next month.
Information about Deaf Inmates
Please note: previous reports have sometimes failed to include hard-of-hearing inmates. Under the agreement, "Deaf" means unable to hear well enough to rely on hearing as a means of processing information. It includes deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired. If your institution does not currently have any Deaf inmates - USING THIS DEFINITION and has not had any Deaf inmates this past quarter (that is, since Jan. 1, 2017), you will find that most of the rest of this form is inapplicable. But please still go through it, because a few questions do apply.
"No" means "My institution does not have any current Deaf (including hard-ofhearing) inmates, and has not had any since Jan. 1, 2017.
Any deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates over the last quarter? * Yes No
If you have had any Deaf inmates since January 1, 2017, (using that same definition, so including hard-of-hearing), please upload an excel chart listing each inmate and including the following information. 1. Name 2. DOC # 3. Housing assignment 4. Date of arrival at this institution. 5. Immediate prior institution 6. Degree of hearing impairment 7. All auxiliary aids/services (hearing aids, various devices, interpreters, TDDs,
videophone, non-auditory alert system in cell, etc.) or accommodations s/he has requested. 8. All auxiliary aids/services or accommodations s/he has used. 9. The reasons and dates for any denials of auxiliary aids/services. 10. Preferred method of communication (e.g., sign, lip reading, writing, can hear with hearing aid, amplifier)
-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 4 of 20 - Page ID#: 2163
11. Limited English proficiency, if applicable, and preferred language 12. Literacy level and how you know 13. Date of last hearing assessment 14. Date of last auxiliary aids/services assessment 15. Date of last classification review 16. Whether last classification review was delayed in order to provide effective
communication 17. Date of last parole hearing. 18. Date of next parole hearing. 19. Whether s/he has been charged with any disciplinary infractions or had any
disciplinary hearings since Jan. 2016 (note the long time frame). 20. Whether s/he has spent any time in restrictive housing since Jan. 2016 21. Whether s/he has been a witness in a disciplinary hearing since Jan. 2016 22. Any communications assistance offered or provided at any of the items just listed
(hearing assessment, auxiliary aids/services assessment, classification review, parole hearing, disciplinary process) 23. Whether s/he has signed a waiver described in III.C.2 or III.D.4 of the Agreement 24. Whether s/he has participated or sought to participate in any programming— educational, rehabilitative, substance abuse, religious, transitional, etc.—since Jan. 2016; which programs; and with what result/accommodations. 25. Whether s/he has participated or sought to participate in any work assignment since Jan. 2016, which work assignments; and with what result/accommodations 26. Whether s/he has received any on-site medical care since Jan. 2016, and with what accommodations. 27. Whether s/he has received any off-site medical care since Jan. 2016, and with what accommodations. 28. For any inmate who uses sign language to communicate, whether s/he has been subject to hand-restraints since Jan. 2016, and the date and reason. 29. Whether s/he has filed any grievances since Jan. 2016.
Upload list of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with the above information here. Choose File
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 5 of 20 - Page ID#: 2164
Grievances and Discipline
In the most recent quarter, did any Deaf Inmate file any grievance? (reminder: "Deaf" includes hard-of-hearing inmates.) Please note: I am asking about ALL grievances by Deaf inmates, regardless of the topic. *
Yes No If yes, number of grievances:
If yes, please upload a summary that describes, for each grievance: • the name of the inmate • the datethe issue raised • how your institution ensured effective communication during the grievance process
Upload summary of grievances here. Choose File No file chosen
For any grievances that addressed hearing or hearing accommodation issues, please provide full documentation.
Upload File(s)
Since January 1, 2016 (**note the longer time frame of this question**), were there any disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate who signs to communicate? (This includes any such inmate who was at your institution but is no longer.) *
Yes No If yes, please upload full documentation.
Upload File(s)
Since January 1, 2016 (**note the longer time frame of this question**), were there any disciplinary proceedings involving a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate's failure to obey an order (or to stand for count) or other potential communications difficulty? *
Yes No If yes, please upload full documentation.
Upload File(s)
-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 6 of 20 - Page ID#: 2165
Medical Processes
Are all inmates who arrive at your institution receiving a hearing screening? Please describe the screening, including when it is done, who does it, and whether the inmate is given a form to fill out or asked questions. *
Please upload the hearing questionnaire. * Choose File No file chosen
Please upload the health systems screening form, including any question about hearing.* Choose File No file chosen
Are inmates who receive a routine physical (annually or every two or three years) receiving a hearing screening? If yes, please describe it, including who performs it and whether the inmate is given a form to fill out or asked questions. *
Audiology Progress Chart
For each Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate in your institution during the most recent quarter, please provide the following medical/audiology information. Ideally, this would be in an excel chart, but if you find another format easier, that's fine too. 1. Date of initial hearing screening. 2. Date of most recent hearing screening. 3. Results of most recent hearing screening. 4. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC. 5. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC. 6. Hearing aid status: List which one applies:
(a) Has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) In process of obtaining hearing aid(s) (c) In process of determining whether hearing aid(s) are needed (d) No hearing aid is needed 7. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing aid issue was finally addressed (by
-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 7 of 20 - Page ID#: 2166
providing a hearing aid or determining that no hearing aid is needed): (a) Date (b) Description of encounter (c) Outcome of encounter
8. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid is needed), please provide medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid. 9. For each inmate who has a hearing aid, does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.) Upload file here. Choose File No file chosen When nothing unusual happens, how many off-site trips does it take for an inmate to receive a hearing aid? Please describe. *
Telecommunications
Telephones
Please list phone locations available for inmates to use ordinary (Securus) telephones. *
For each such location, is there at least one phone with a volume adjustment? * Yes No
If not, which locations are lacking any phone with a volume adjustment?
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 8 of 20 - Page ID#: 2167
Videophones
How many (kiosk or other non-laptop) videophones at your institution? * Where are they located?
Are videophones available during the same hours as phones? * Yes No
How many days has each one been inoperative during the last quarter? * Has any inmate requested access to the videophones since Jan. 1, 2016 (**note longer time frame**) and been denied? *
Yes No If so, please explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the reason for the denial.
TTYs
How many TTY machines does your institution have? * Where are they kept? *
-7-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 9 of 20 - Page ID#: 2168
How does an inmate get access?
Are TTYs available during the same hours as phones? * Yes No
Please describe the available hours for both phones and TTYs.
Are there printed instructions kept with the TTYs? * Yes No
Please upload instructions for the use of the TTY. Choose File No file chosen
Has any inmate requested TTY access since Jan. 1, 2016 (**note longer time frame**) and been denied? *
Yes No If so, please explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the reason for the denial.
Additional Time for Telephonic Communication:
The Settlement Agreement states (IX.C), “The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results
-8-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 10 of 20 - Page ID#: 2169
in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.” How much time are non-Deaf inmates allowed to use for phone calls? *
Time per call, and per day or week
How much time are Deaf inmates allowed to use for Videophone calls? * Should be 2x the time allow
Time per call, and per day or week
How much time are Deaf inmates allowed to use for TTY calls? * Should be 3x the time allow
Time per call, and per day or week
Since January 1, 2017, have you made any determination that the usage arrangements are inequitable? *
Yes No If you have made such a determination, please provide documentation of the reasoning. Choose File No file chosen
Devices to assist with effective communication
VRI Laptops
How many VRI laptops do you have? *
Where are they kept? *
-9-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 11 of 20 - Page ID#: 2170
Please provide VRI log showing use for each one since January 1, 2016. (**note the longer time frame for this question**)
Choose File No file chosen Has any inmate requested VRI services and been denied since January 1, 2016? (**note the longer time frame for this question**) *
Yes No If so, please explain the circumstances, including identifying the inmate, the date, and the reason for the denial.
Can a VRI be used in restrictive housing? * Yes No
How?
Can a VRI be used in the education area? * Yes No
If no, why not?
Does the VRI laptop bag include instructions? * Yes No
-10-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 12 of 20 - Page ID#: 2171
Does the VRI laptop bag include a cord splitter? * Yes No
Does the VRI laptop bag include a long computer cord? * Yes No
Does the VRI laptop bag include anything else? *
Have you had occasion to use your VRI laptop as a videophone (or for video relay services/VRS)? *
Yes No If so, describe the circumstances. If not, please explain if this option is available to you, and how you have tested it. *
Has training on VRI use been provided to staff? * Yes No
Please explain to whom, when, and how the training has been provided.
-11-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 13 of 20 - Page ID#: 2172
Televisions
Are all your institution's shared-space TVs capable of turning captioning on? * Does your institution use radio or another method to send shared-space TV sound to inmates' earphones? *
Yes No If yes, please describe the method.
How do you deal with captioning for recreational movies? *
Please list all orientation videos. (e.g., institutional orientation, PREA, etc.) *
Which ones are captioned? *
Are the captions displaying when the videos are played for inmates during orientation? * Yes No
How did you check on whether the captions are displaying? *
-12-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 14 of 20 - Page ID#: 2173
Do you have earphones for the video system used for parole hearings? * Yes No
If you have such earphones, what kind of earphones are they? If you do not, is there a way to plug in earphones to the parole video system? *
Non-auditory Alerts
The Settlement Agreement states (VIII.B.3; VIII.C), "The KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose." Please describe all current non-auditory alert systems or devices. This includes, e.g., bed shakers, strobelights, and pagers. For each, please include:
manufacturer model link to website if available how many you have where they are in use who has used them Also explain if you have any that are not in use.
Use the text box below or upload a document.
Upload File(s)
Upload information about non-auditory alert systems or devices here if not described in the text box above.
A. Over the last quarter, have you considered any new non-auditory alert systems? (If no, skip questions B, C, and D.) *
Yes No
-13-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 15 of 20 - Page ID#: 2174
For Questions B-D, use the text boxes below or upload a document. B. What systems have been under consideration?
C. Did you consult with the Settlement Monitor and KCDHH to determine whether the devices were acceptable? How and when?
D. Please provide full information on any devices under consideration, including who and what they are for.
Choose File No file chosen
Upload information about new non-auditory alert systems under consideration here if not described in the text boxes above.
Other Devices
Please list all other devices or systems currently in use to assist with effective communication with Deaf (including hard-of- hearing) inmates. E.g.: phone amplifier, captioned telephone, induction loop system, radio transmission, speech-to-text system, etc. For each such device, please include:
manufacturer model approximate cost link to website if available how many you have where they are in use who has used them. Also explain if you have any that are not in use. If there was any difficulty related to use that needed to be solved, please explain that, too.
-14-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 16 of 20 - Page ID#: 2175
Use the text box below or upload a document.
Upload File(s)
Upload information about other devices or systems in use here if not described in the text box above.
The Settlement Agreement states (XII), "Where devices such as vibrating clocks and inline amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination."
A. Since January 1, 2017, have you made any determinations allowing or disallowing devices? *
Yes No B. If you have considered a device - whether you granted or refused permission - please upload documentation of: (1) the device(s); (2) the reasoning; (3) the names of affected inmates; and (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Upload File(s)
In-person Interpretation
Do you have an arrangement for in-person qualified interpretation services? * Yes No
If yes, with who?
-15-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 17 of 20 - Page ID#: 2176
Please describe each time an in-person interpreter has been used since January 1, 2016 (**note long time frame**), including the name of the inmate, the date, and the occasion.
Has any inmate requested an in-person interpreter and been denied? * Yes No
If yes, please describe each denial, including the inmate who made the request, what the request was for, and why the request was denied.
Training and Information
Is there a KOMS alert noted for Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates at your institution? * Yes No
Is the KOMS alert present for each Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmate? (Please check before you answer). If it's not available, note why.
If yes, please upload a screenshot. Choose File No file chosen
What training is being provided to your institution's employees and/or contractors relating to Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates? *
Who (if anyone) is tracking training completion? *
-16-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 18 of 20 - Page ID#: 2177
What categories of staff are receiving the training? (New, existing, custody, program, medical/mental health, etc.) *
If any such training is not the KDOC computer-based training, please provide any written materials/slides and outlines of any orally-presented training.
Upload File(s) Does your institution's inmate handbook refer to the ADA, the settlement, the ADA coordinator, etc.? *
Yes No Please upload any page of the institution's inmate handbook that includes reference to the ADA, the settlement, the ADA coordinator, etc.
Upload File(s)
Please upload any form or document given inmates relating to hearing issues/accommodations:
Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form (III.C.3) Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card Form (III.D.4) Medical request form (with space to request Auxiliary Aids and Services) (VI.C.3) Request for interpretive services Brochure relating to available accommodations Other
Upload File(s)
Please upload any institutional policies and procedures (or memos explaining current practices) relating to deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, including about:
Telephone, TTY, or videophone use Hearing aids Interpretive services Other
Upload File(s)
-17-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 19 of 20 - Page ID#: 2178
Have any changes been made since January 2016 (**note the longer time frame of this question**) in any of the above documents or policies? *
Yes No If yes, what changes have been made?
Are the settlement summary, settlement, and brochure all in the inmate law library? * Yes No
When did you last check to make sure they are really there? *
Direct threat reporting under the Agreement
The Settlement Agreement states (II.A), "The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination."
(reminder: "Deaf" includes hard-of-hearing inmates.)
Over the past quarter, have you at any point determined that any activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf inmates and were therefore unable to provide those inmates full and equal enjoyment of any facility services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations? *
Yes No If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the service, privilege, facility, advantage or accommodation; (2) the risk presented; (3) a list of the inmate(s) affected; and (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Upload File(s)
-18-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-6 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 20 - Page ID#: 2179
The Settlement Agreement states (VI.F), "The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination." (reminder: "Deaf" includes hard-of- hearing inmates.) Since January 1, 2017, have you at any point determined that a work assignment presented a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf inmate or others and therefore chosen not to provide the Deaf inmate a substantially equal opportunity to that work assignment? *
Yes No If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the work assignment(s); (2) the risk(s) presented; (3) the names of inmate(s) affected; and, (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Upload File(s) Is there anything else you'd like to let me know?
Thanks very much for your continued work on complying with the Settlement Agreement.
-19-

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 20 of 47 - Page ID#: 2110
&YIJCJU#$POTPMJEBUFE3FDPNNFOEBUJPOT

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 21 of 47 - Page ID#: 2111
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
AS OF APRIL 19, 2017
I present, the recommendations I have made in three groups: First, those from April 2016; second, those from December 2016; third, those from April 2017. The numbering is continuous from one group to the next.
Group 1 (April 21, 2016)
Note: These are edited from their original wording; they are phrased more generally, in order eliminate the references to KSR.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
Recommendation 1: Each facility should identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B; XV.B.1.d)
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
• Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? • Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? • Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t you use
it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
• If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
• Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
(Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 1 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 22 of 47 - Page ID#: 2112
whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronicallytracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing. (Settlement Agreement III.B; III.D [identification cards]; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; XV.B [reporting])
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them. (Settlement Agreement III.B)
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for any backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to each applicable facility for two or three days. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2. (III.F)
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings. (Settlement Agreement III; VI)
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; VI.C.4 [emergency on-site medical]; VI.H [transfer and classification]; V.A.2 [grievance hearings]; VII.A [disciplinary hearings]; VI.A.3 [parole hearings])
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 2 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 23 of 47 - Page ID#: 2113
Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. Inperson interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; VI.E. VI.A.3)
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. The facility should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KYDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; I.5)
Recommendation 14: Each facility should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D. (Settlement Agreement VI.A)
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed. (Settlement Agreement XI.A)
Recommendation 16 [Applies to KSR only]: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 3 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 24 of 47 - Page ID#: 2114
hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services. (Settlement Agreement VII)
Recommendation 17 [Applies to KSR only]: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, staff at each facility should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur. (Settlement Agreement VI.D)
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming. (Settlement Agreement VI.A.3; VI.G.1)
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.) (Settlement Agreement VI [qualified interpreters]; IX.E [training and technology]; XI [hand restraints])
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. Each facility should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
C. Videos
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used to determine whether it has captioning
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 4 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 25 of 47 - Page ID#: 2115
and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged. (Settlement Agreement X.1)
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.E; VI.J)
D. Speech-to-text
Recommendation 25 [KSR only, for right now]: KSR should continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
E. Assistive listening systems
Recommendation 26 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
Recommendation 27: Each facility should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement III.F; V.A. 2; VI.E)
F. Written communication
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5). (Settlement Agreement I.5)
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 29: Each facility should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 5 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 26 of 47 - Page ID#: 2116
Recommendation 30 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Recommendation 31: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event. (Settlement Agreement VIII; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
Recommendation 32: Each facility’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk. (Settlement Agreement XII)
I. Other communications aids
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C; XII)
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
Recommendation 35: Each facility should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
K. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 36: Each facility should try to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should require permission for use only if the facility requires inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. If an escort is required to use the videophone at night, on weekends, or in other circumstances, such an escort should be routinely provided. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 6 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 27 of 47 - Page ID#: 2117
Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count. (Settlement Agreement IX.A; XIII.B)
Recommendation 40 (Edited): Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. This could be done by escorting the prisoner to the videophone or by enabling videophone capabilities on the VRI laptop. If there are individualized reasons that an inmate cannot have his hands unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request each facility to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY. (Settlement Agreement IX.B)
Recommendation 42 [New recommendation 74 substitutes for this recommendation]: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months. (Settlement Agreement IX; I.5)
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. Intake/Orientation
Recommendation 43: Each facility should develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary. (Settlement Agreement III.A; III.C)
B. Literacy assessment
Recommendation 44: Staff at each facility should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 7 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 28 of 47 - Page ID#: 2118
Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
C. Individual assessment meetings
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
D. Form and options
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
• To list available aids and services more comprehensively • To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances
they are available, and how to request them. • To explain how to use the various devices. • To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 8 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 29 of 47 - Page ID#: 2119
Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.F; VI.E; VI.H; VII.A)
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program. (Settlement Agreement V.A; VI)
V. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
Recommendation 51: KYDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 52 [Training slides have now been provided and comments offered]: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter. (Settlement Agreement XIII)
VI. REPORTING
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place. (Settlement Agreement II.A; VI.F; VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C; IX.C; XII)
Group 2 (December 2016)
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
Recommendation 54: Identification processes (Settlement Agreement III.A.1 [initial classification]; III.B [hearing assessment]; III.D.1 [identification cards])
a) Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process.
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 9 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 30 of 47 - Page ID#: 2120
b) All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. Exhibit B-2 is the recommended form. (See also prior recommendation 2.) This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup.
c) If an inmate answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he should be seen in the next several days by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—for further evaluation, including a “whisper test” or other examination to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem.
d) If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation, the following should occur: • The inmate should receive an identification card to carry on his person, which states that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. • The inmate’s name should be shared with the facility’s ADA coordinator. • Two different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened. (See Figures A and B, above).
e) All inmates so identified should be included in the facility’s semi-annual reports to me; if a particular inmate turns out not to be deaf or hard-of-hearing, because, for example, a medical problem that was obstructing his or her hearing is solved, that can be explained. (Note: the decision to send an inmate to an audiologist for evaluation or treatment is not the same as the decision to flag the inmate as deaf or hard-ofhearing.)
Recommendation 55: In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2). (Settlement Agreement III.B)
Recommendation 56: Each facility should ensure that the ID cards used to identify inmates as deaf or hard-of-hearing are clear, and should avoid abbreviations or other language that may not be clear. Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
II. ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION DURING INTAKE
Recommendation 57: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known by prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial medical screening or other intake medical encounters. Inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. Medical staff should ask inmates who have difficulty hearing if they use sign language to communicate, rather than waiting for the ADA Coordinator’s assessment. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 10 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 31 of 47 - Page ID#: 2121
Recommendation 58: Each facility’s medical office should keep pocket amplifiers on hand for all intake staff—medical, mental health, and custody—to use when the need arises. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
III. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 59: The ADA Coordinator for each KYDOC facility should maintain a document that tracks each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate’s progress through the process of obtaining any needed hearing aid, including the dates and outcomes of:
• the initial request/questionnaire • each relevant medical visit • any audiology visit • hearing aid provision. In order to ensure that inmates do not wait longer than two months for a necessary hearing aid, the ADA coordinator should check for progress for each affected inmate every week or two, updating the tracking document and working with medical staff to solve any procedural hurdles that arise. A recommended sample tracking document is provided as Exhibit F. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
IV. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Recommendation 60: I commend KYDOC for developing a user-friendly pamphlet to cover the information needed by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates; I recommend facilities use the edited version in Exhibit D-2; each facility should fill in the items marked with curly brackets ({ and }). (Settlement Agreement III.F)
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 61: Inmates with hearing aids should be able to obtain replacement batteries seven days a week, without difficulty or charge, regardless of their housing or programming assignment. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
Recommendation 62: Each facility should inform staff responsible for property moves that it is important for inmates to keep their hearing aids with them, even when they are moved into segregation or transferred. When an inmate is accidentally separated from his or her hearing aids, policy should allow the inmate to promptly obtain the hearing aids from storage or medical, or to get replacements. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
Recommendation 63: Absent an emergency in which time is of the essence and VRI services are unavailable, no facility should rely on an inmate to interpret a communication that would ordinarily be private for another inmate. (Settlement Agreement VI; I.18)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 11 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 32 of 47 - Page ID#: 2122
Recommendation 64: Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
Recommendation 65: Each facility should ensure that the VRI laptop routinely receives necessary software updates. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
2. Religious and Volunteer-provided programming
Recommendation 66: For any religious programming—worship services, counseling, bible study, etc.—that is provided directly by the chaplain, each facility should provide qualified interpretation when requested by an inmate who needs it.
Prior Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
C. Video captioning
D. Speech-to-text
E. Assistive listening systems
(Settlement Agreement VI.G.3)
Recommendation 67: Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 68: KSR should inform deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of the various ways in which religious, educational, rehabilitative, and recreational programming can be made more accessible to them; all programming providers (educational, rehabilitative, and recreational) should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement V.A; III.F)
F. Written communication
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 69: In any unit where there are deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, each facility should implement (and ensure use of) written announcement boards. That is, all general announcements should also be promptly displayed on a written announcement board (e.g.: “X class is cancelled this evening,” or “all inmates in X category are allowed an X privilege this afternoon”). Staff use of this announcement board must be monitored and audited. (Settlement Agreement VIII.B.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 12 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 33 of 47 - Page ID#: 2123
Recommendation 70: In order to provide effective and equal communications to deaf and hardof-hearing inmates who are being individually paged, staff should check KOMS to see if that inmate has a deaf/hard-of-hearing alert; if a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate does not answer the auditory page in a minute or two, he or she should be individually alerted to the page by a staff member. This could be done by in-person notification or by provision of a personal paging system. (Settlement Agreement VIII.A)
Recommendation 71: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may be unable to hear an order or instruction issued verbally; training should cover strategies to avoid bad results. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
I. Speech
Recommendation 71: In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-ofhearing inmate one-on-one, instead. For example, for someone who is having difficulty hearing a teacher in a group setting, even with assistive listening devices (see IV.E, above), a tutor might be a better option than a congregate GED class. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
J. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 72: Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should be among those allowed to enroll in any classes in sign language. Each facility should obtain resources relating to sign language—books or computer-based instruction—and make those available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
K. Telecommunications equipment and rules
1. Videophone and VRS
2. TTY
Recommendation 73: Each facility should maintain its TTY and develop a facility protocol for how to make it available to inmates, covering who the inmate should request it from, where it should be connected, etc. In addition, each facility should annually test its TTY and the protocol by calling me at an agreed upon time using direct TTY and the relay service. TTY instructions should be left with the TTY at all times. (Settlement Agreement IX.D.1)
3. Hard-of-hearing inmates
Recommendation 74 (substitutes for prior recommendation 42): Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by:
(a) Allowing them access to TTYs. (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 13 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 34 of 47 - Page ID#: 2124
available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate. (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.
I will request a report on implementation each aspect of this recommendation.
(Settlement Agreement IX.A)
V. THE INTERACTION OF COMMUNICATION NEEDS AND HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A. Segregated housing
B. Other housing needs
Recommendation 75: Each facility should develop a method for considering how communications difficulties with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates can be minimized by particular housing assignments, and shall make such assignments when appropriate. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
VI. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
VII. FORM AND OPTIONS
Recommendation 76: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
(Settlement Agreement II.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 14 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 35 of 47 - Page ID#: 2125
VIII. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 77: In addition to the computer-based KYDOC training, live, in-service training should cover, at least:
a) For all staff: • The identity and role of the ADA Coordinator • Existence of KOMS and EMR alerts for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and the obligation to check for the alerts. • The occasions and process for obtaining access to the VRI laptop, and how to use the laptop, including where different people should sit to maximize communication effectiveness. (For medical, educational, and housing staff, this training should be done on-site, so each affected staff member can see where and how the laptop can be set up.) • The occasions and process for obtaining an in-person qualified interpreter.
b) For housing area staff: • The use of cell/bed notices that an inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing • The use of the bed shaker switch. • Telecommunications issues, including how to obtain and use a TTY, and the policies and procedures governing TTY and videophone usage. • The obligation to notify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of alerts, including emergency alerts and non-emergency pages.
c) For all corrections staff: • The requirements to accommodate inmates who use sign language to communicate by using restraints that allow them to sign, and how to implement those requirements. • Strategies for dealing with inmates who may not hear directions or orders, especially when given from behind or above them.
d) For medical staff: • The responsibility of running a process to provide medically necessary hearing aids within two months, and what that actually entails, in terms of adjusting ordinary processes and timing. • The obligation to notify off-site medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care, and how this obligation is being assigned.
(Settlement Agreement XIII; IX.E.2; III.D.2)
IX. REPORTING
Recommendation 78: The ADA Coordinator should obtain monthly reports based on both KOMS and medical records of each inmate in the facility who is deaf or hard-of-hearing, and
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 15 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 86-4 Filed: 05/31/17 Page: 36 of 47 - Page ID#: 2126
should check those reports too add to the Coordinator’s tracking list. (Settlement Agreement XV.B.1) Recommendation 79: Each facility’s quarterly written summary of grievances by deaf and hardof-hearing inmates should include all such grievances, not only the ones that are deemed related to effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, or other issues raised in the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement Agreement XIV.3)
Group 3 (April 2017) Recommendation 80: At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may need accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2) Recommendation 81: Medical staff should ensure that inmates with a need for audiology services are not charged inappropriately, and should avoid repeated charges for ongoing efforts to obtain hearing aids or other services. (Settlement Agreement V.B) Recommendation 82: Each VRI should be the subject of a log sheet that tracks its usage, including staff member, date and purpose. In any institution that houses one or more inmates who use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator should check the VRI log sheet at least once each week, and should ensure that the VRI is being used on appropriate occasions, not just for classification and disciplinary meetings, but for other important conversations between the inmate and staff. (Settlement Agreement VI.A, III.C; VI.C.4; VI.H; V.A.2; VII.A; VI.J)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 16 of 16 (April 19, 2017)

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 1 of 27 - Page ID#: 2211

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS

Plaintiffs

v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.

Defendants.

Fourth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor CORRECTED VERSION

November 27, 2017
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 2 of 27 - Page ID#: 2212
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is my fourth semi-annual report to the Court and the parties concerning the status of compliance with this case’s Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department” or KyDOC) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing.
As in my prior reports, I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the dozen correctional institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement, and their professionalism and accommodation of my requests for information. KyDOC has continued to make progress towards compliance.
In my last report, I explained that I intended to move my monitoring work into a new phase, sharing a compliance checklist and then conducting site visits to evaluate the items listed. After further thought, I modified this plan. Instead, I focused this past reporting period on the very challenging issue of hearing aids (discussed below in Part IV), and did not do any site visits. I will move now to the prior-announced plan, piloting and refining the checklist during the next several site visits.
This report has one Appendix: October 2017 quarterly self-reporting request
Note: On November 13, 2017, I submitted a version of this report, but then discovered some omissions from it. In the time since, I have also been able to incorporate information from recent self-reports, which I had not processed before the last submission. Therefore, this version is substantially corrected/updated.
II. IDENTIFICATION AND TRACKING OF DEAF/HARD-OF-HEARING PRISONERS
I am more confident than I have been in the past that facilities are both identifying and reporting to me all or nearly all their deaf and hard-of-hearing prisoners. The current tally is set out in Table 1; as can be seen, the number is higher than in previous reports. However, there do remain some issues with identification, particularly when inmates are transferred. Looking at the institutions’ most recent quarterly self-report, I was able to identify over a dozen additional inmates from prior lists who should have been on institutional lists. Most are falling off when they are transferred. As I have commented previously, these kinds of tracking problems are concerning not only because they interfere with monitoring but because it is only inmates on the institutions’ lists who can receive required services and accommodations.
The ADA Coordinators are supposed to receive the routine transfer memos that list incoming inmates for each institution; I’m not sure if this is happening or why this problem remains, albeit affecting more limited numbers of inmates. I previously noted that the Department is implementing a system-wide KOMS improvement that will allow cross-institution tracking of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates (and of inmates with other disabilities). This is now entering the testing phase. I will work on this issue further with Department personnel. I
-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 3 of 27 - Page ID#: 2213

remain hopeful that over the next several months the issue will be fully resolved. It really is crucial.

Table 1: Distribution of Kentucky Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Institution
Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC) Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC) Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC) Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) Northpoint Training Center (NTC) Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) Ross-Cash Center (Ross-Cash)
TOTAL

# of Deaf/HOH Inmates

~Nov. Apr.

Nov.

2016

2017

2017

0

5

8

5

4

15

9

11

30

26

35

36

13

13

10

6

11

13

64

75

98

18

8

12

6

26

39

15

28

38

10

16

16

5

10

31

1

2

4

178

244

350

Currently KyDOC has 11 inmates who sign to communicate; they are housed at BCC (1), EKCC (1), GRCC (2), KCIW (2), KSP (1), KSR (3), NTC (1).

III. SELF-REPORTS
In April 2017, I initiated a new and more comprehensive semi-annual self-reporting tool; it was included as Appendix VI in my May 2107 Semi-Annual Report. Many of the individual institutions have struggled with keeping and sharing the records needed to comply with the agreement and to check on that compliance. It is my hope that the more comprehensive reporting requests will improve not only my monitoring but also institutional capacity, by helping ADA Coordinators and administrators better understand what information can help them improve their own compliance. I used a substantially similar reporting request for October 2017, attached as Appendix B. This time, a number of institutions seemed to have a somewhat easier time responding; my assistant and I are spending less time going back and forth with institutions, getting additional information that had been requested. There remain some issues but I am hopeful that by the next round of self-reporting, in April 2018, the ADA coordinators will all understand what information the reporting form seeks and will provide it with less difficulty.
I will follow up during my site visits on what the self-reporting revealed. While it is clear that institutions are in compliance with many settlement agreement requirements, there are remaining areas to work on. I am still working with the KyDOC institutions to complete the

-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 4 of 27 - Page ID#: 2214
reporting requested in November, and therefore have not fully analyzed that round of selfreports, but based on the April self-report, areas of particular concern include:
• Identification/tracking of deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates: o As already mentioned, inmates are falling off the tracking lists when they are transferred from one prison to another. o In April, KCIW and NTC reported that routine annual physicals did not include a hearing screening. (KCIW undertook to begin such screenings after being asked about this gap.) These screenings are important to reach prisoners who were not screened because they entered the prison prior to current protocols. In November, NTC again reported that routine physicals do not include hearing screening; GRCC said the same, and LSCC’s ADA coordinator reported that she was “unsure.” o In April, KSR reported that KOMS (Kentucky Offender Management System) did not have an alert noted for each deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoner. As already noted, this is an area in which KyDOC as a whole is working on improved systems. The issue is particularly important at KSR because it has such a large portion of the Department’s deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. By November, the problem had been solved at KSR. However, I am not confident that every facility has implemented a KOMS alert for every deaf or hard-of-hearing prisoner. It seems that newly identified prisoners are not being flagged in KOMS.
• Amplification for hard-of-hearing prisoners: o In April, not all institutions had phones capable of being used by hard-of-hearing prisoners. Volume adjustment and amplification is necessary, but not always provided. (BCC, EKCC, KSR). By October, it seems KSR and BCC had upgraded and EKCC was in the process of upgrading. o Only a few of the institutions report earphones available for prisoners using the parole hearing video system. This is an area where progress can be made easily. o I have not been told of any further progress on amplification more generally, although I highlighted amplification as a key need in prior reports. Inmates who need amplification to hear teachers, program leaders, and the like are not getting the required equal access to programs, services, and activities without that amplification. More work on auxiliary aids is vital; amplification should be available for rehabilitative programming, school, and church.
• Possible underuse of in-person interpretation: o At facilities that house inmates who use sign language to facilitate, it seems possible that remote interpretation (via a laptop) is being used in situations where in-person interpretation is necessary for effective communication. I will be paying particular attention to this issue this year. o Three facilities—BCC, BCFC, and LSCC—reported in April that that they did not have any standing arrangements for in-person interpretation. If a prisoner who uses sign language to communicate is transferred to any of these facilities, they will have a difficult time accommodating him. It is better practice to make
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 5 of 27 - Page ID#: 2215

these sorts of contingent arrangements in advance. In October, BCC reported having made such arrangements.

IV. HEARING AID PROVISION

I decided to focus this past reporting period on hearing aid provision, pressing institutions to do the tracking necessary for effective case management and to report the results to me. It is clear that this remains a major challenge.

Including all the information on hearing aid provision since the settlement was entered, KyDOC institutions have completed providing audiology services to 310 inmates. As Table 2 shows, nearly 60% of these inmates have received hearing aids; the rest are split between declining services and medical providers determining that no hearing aid is necessary. Timeliness has been a major problem; as can be seen in the table, the average time to resolution of a need for audiology services is nearly 7 months.

Progress is being made, however. The second set of columns in the table shows just a subset of the cases—those where the institution was alerted to the need for audiology services in January 2017 or later. For these 168 cases, resolution has taken an average of under two months. My recommendation, made in December 2016, was for a two-month or less turn-around. So on average, the 2017 cases have achieved that goal (though of course since this is an average, many have taken longer).

Table 2: Audiology Services Overall

Outcome type (a) Received hearing aid(s) (b) Nothing or only amplifier needed (c) Refused (d) Already had hearing aid (e) Discharged (f) Unknown
TOTAL resolved (a) and (b) only * Sums to 101% due to rounding

All resolved since 7/1/2015

Avg. days to
N %* resolution

179 58% 225

80 26% 171

30 10% 147

15 5%

0

3 1%

84

3 1% 192

310

192

259

209

Prison alerted to need
in 2017

Avg. days to
N %* resolution

87 52%

60

41 24%

28

21 13%

28

15 9%

0

3 2%

36

1 0% Unk.

168

46

129

49

Table 2, however, somewhat overstates the progress, because there are 72 as-yet-unresolved requests for hearing aids (several additional requests not included in this tally are paused while other health issues resolve—for example, pending surgery or resolution of an ear infection, or the

-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 6 of 27 - Page ID#: 2216

like). While 20 have been in process for two months or less, the oldest has been in process for over a year. The distribution is set out in Table 3.
Table 3: Ongoing Audiology Needs

Month prison alerted to the need (N = 72)

Oct. 2016 (1) Dec. 2016 (1) Jan. 2016 (4)

Apr. 2017 (3)

May 2017 (3) Jun. 2017 (3)

Jul. 2017 (8)

Aug. 2017 (8)

Sept. 2017 (9) Oct. 2017 (11)

If each of these were resolved by the end of November 2017 (which they will not be), they would have taken an average of 135 days—nearly four-and-a-half months—for resolution.
Even so, the progress is significant. Looking just at the two principal outcomes (rows a and b in Table 2), and the ongoing matters, Table 4 compares the audiology needs brought to institutions’ attention in the first 11 months of 2017 to the analogous needs from the first 11 months of 2016. Table 4 demonstrates that audiology needs are being resolved notably faster in 2017 than in the prior year. The cases resolved by November of each year took close to 78 days on average in 2016, but about a month less on average in 2017. And where over half the cases brought to institutional attention in 2016 were still unresolved as of November 2016, the corresponding proportion in 2017 is about a third. While problems remain, KyDOC is to be commended for the progress made in 2017 towards timely provision of audiology services.

Table 4: Comparison of 2016 and 2017 Audiology Progress

Outcome type (a) Received hearing aid (b) No hearing aid needed Ongoing as of Nov.
Pending > 60 days TOTAL

Prison alerted to need in 2016 (before 11/1)

Avg. days to N % resolution

26 29%

95

13 14%

43

49 54%

NA

32

90

78

Prison alerted to need in 2017 (before 11/1)

Avg. days to

N

% resolution

87

44%

60

41

21%

28

70

35%

NA

53

198

49

These summary statistics mask considerable variation among facilities. For example, looking at the four institutions with the most activity in 2017, KSR has resolved 38 and has 13 outstanding; LLCC has resolved 39 and has 4 outstanding; WKCC resolved 13 and has 20 outstanding; and RCC has resolved 26 and has none outstanding. Not only does RCC have no outstanding cases, but it managed its cases in an average 35 days each, complying with my recommendation. KSR’s average is 51 days on the resolved matters, but many of the quarter that are unresolved are quite old. GRCC’s matters are over half unresolved, and even the resolved matters have taken over 4 months on average.

-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 7 of 27 - Page ID#: 2217
Table 5 examines the issue in detail, facility by facility. The Table highlights two different measures of timeliness/delay: days to resolution for resolved cases, and percentage of total cases not yet resolved. Each institution should be aiming for an average resolution time well under 60 days, and for an unresolved percentage of under 25% at any given time. Standing out for timely processing is RCC. Raising particular concern for untimely processing are EKCC, GRCC, and WKCC.
As far as the reasons for delay, I don’t yet have systematic explanations. Sometimes, delays are medically unavoidable—inmates have other or related medical issues that need to be addressed prior to an audiology visit. But I have actually left the small number of cases that fit this description out of the tally. It’s evident in others that appointments are occasionally simply not promptly booked, and sometimes they are booked but cancelled, with rescheduling taking many weeks. I will be making more detailed inquiries on this year’s site visits and other contacts with the particular institutions.
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 8 of 27 - Page ID#: 2218

Table 5: Audiology Services by KyDOC Institution

Total Resolved N Average Days

BCC BCFC EKCC GRCC KCIW KSP KSR LLCC LSCC NTC RCC Ross WKCC Total

13

5

20

11

3 6 51 39

6 15 26 3

13 238

7

5

9

5

3 3 38 35

6 15 26 3

49

62

26 143

38 76 51

31 66 42 35 99

13 168 51 46

Ongoing N Average Days

5

11

6

3 13

4

8

146

169

99

191 112 90

248

20 70 72 128

Resolved, in detail

N:

(a) Received hearing aid(s)

2

5

1 2 31

7

4 8 23

(b) Nothing/amplifier only needed

2

4

1 1 23

3

1

(c) Refused

5

1

4

2

2

1 2 1 2

(d) Already had hearing aid

1

2

4

2

1 2 2

(e) Discharged

2

(f) Unknown

1

4 87

6 41

1 21

1 15

1

3

1

N:

(a) Received hearing aid(s)

72

143 114 111 58 65 41 57 38

(b) Nothing/amplifier only needed

84

27

41

20

37

76

84 60 26 28

(c) Refused

39

11

31

47 48 206 13 47 111 176 57

(d) Already had hearing aid

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

0

0

(e) Discharged

69

2 36

(f) Unknown

Unk.

Unk.

-7-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 9 of 27 - Page ID#: 2219
V. CONCLUSION The Kentucky Department of Corrections continues to progress towards compliance with
the Settlement Agreement, but implementation challenges remain. I will turn this next reporting period to assessing compliance institution-by-institution using itemized checklists, which I will include in future Court reports. Dated: November 27, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
-8-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 10 of 27 - Page ID#: 2220
Fourth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor (Nov. 27, 2017) Appendix
October 2017 quarterly reporting request

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 11 of 27 - Page ID#: 2221
Adams v. KDOC, Semi-Annual Compliance Reporting (2017-10)
October 2017. Here is your semi-annual information request: I am circulating this request on September 29, 2017, and asking for information by COB Friday Oct. 13, 2017. Thank you.
Your Identifying Information
Your Name *
Your Institution *
Your Email *
Your Phone Number *
Are you the current ADA Coordinator? If not, please list the name, phone number, and email of the current ADA Coordinator. *
Is the ADA Coordinator information on this page correct? http://corrections.ky.gov/depts/AI/Pages/ADA.aspx If not, please certify to me that you are arranging for its correction by the beginning of next month. Is the webpage correct? *
Yes No, but I am arranging for its correction by the beginning of next month.
App. - 1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 12 of 27 - Page ID#: 2222
Information about Deaf Inmates
Please note: previous reports have sometimes failed to include hard-of-hearing inmates. Under the agreement, "Deaf" means unable to hear well enough to rely on hearing as a means of processing information. It includes deaf, hard of hearing, or hearing impaired. If your institution does not currently have any Deaf inmates - USING THIS DEFINITION - and has not had any Deaf inmates the past two quarters (that is, since April 1, 2017), you will find that most of the rest of this form is inapplicable. But please still go through it, because a few questions do apply. Please include any inmates who were initially identified as deaf or hard of hearing, even if they were taken off the list -- and just explain why they were taken off.
"No" means "My institution does not have any current Deaf (including hard-of-hearing) inmates, and has not had any since April 1, 2017."
Any deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates over the last two quarters? *
Yes No If you have had any Deaf inmates since April 1, 2017, (using that same definition, so including hard-of-hearing), please upload an excel chart listing each inmate and including the following information.
1. First Name 2. Last Name 3. DOC # 4. Housing assignment 5. Date of arrival at this institution. 6. Immediate prior institution 7. Degree of hearing impairment 8. All auxiliary aids/services (hearing aids, various devices, interpreters, TDDs, videophone,
non-auditory alert system in cell, etc.) or accommodations s/he has requested. 9. All auxiliary aids/services or accommodations s/he has used. 10. The reasons and dates for any denials of auxiliary aids/services. 11. Preferred method of communication (e.g., sign, lip reading, writing, can hear with hearing
aid, amplifier) 12. Limited English proficiency, if applicable, and preferred language 13. Literacy level and how you know 14. Date of last hearing assessment 15. Date of last auxiliary aids/services assessment 16. Date of last classification review 17. Whether last classification review was delayed in order to provide effective
communication 18. Date of last parole hearing. 19. Date of next parole hearing. 20. Whether s/he has been charged with any disciplinary infractions or had any disciplinary
hearings since April 1, 2017. 21. Whether s/he has spent any time in restrictive housing since April 1, 2017. 22. Whether s/he has been a witness in a disciplinary hearing since April 1, 2017. 23. Any communications assistance offered or provided at any of the items just listed
(hearing assessment, auxiliary aids/services assessment, classification review, parole hearing, disciplinary process) 24. Whether s/he has signed a waiver described in III.C.2 or III.D.4 of the Agreement 25. Whether s/he has participated or sought to participate in any programming—educational, rehabilitative, substance abuse, religious, transitional, etc.—since April 1, 2017 AND:
App. - 2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 13 of 27 - Page ID#: 2223
25a. which programs 25b. with what accommodations 25c. with what result 26. Whether s/he has participated or sought to participate in any work assignment since April 1, 2017 AND: 26a. which work assignments 26b. with what accommodations 26c. with what result 27. Whether s/he has received any on-site medical care since April 1, 2017 AND: 27a. with what accommodations 28. Whether s/he has received any off-site medical care since April 1, 2017, AND: 28a. with what accommodations. 29. For any inmate who uses sign language to communicate, whether s/he has been subject to hand-restraints since April 1, 2017, AND: 29a. the date 29c. the reason 30. Whether s/he has filed any grievances since April 1, 2017.
Click here to access a template excel spreadsheet for this information. The name of the file is "2017-10 Information on Deaf Inmates - Template." You should be able to download the file, input the data, and then upload the document with the required information below. You're not required to use the template, but it may make things easier for you. Upload list of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates with the above information here.
Grievances and Discipline
In the last two quarters, did any Deaf Inmate file any grievance? (reminder: "Deaf" includes hardof-hearing inmates.) Please note: I am asking about ALL grievances by Deaf inmates, regardless of the topic. Please include all grievances, formal or informal, whether or not eventually withdrawn. *
Yes No
If yes, number of grievances:
If yes, please upload a summary that describes, for each grievance: o the name of the inmate o the date o the issue raised o how your institution ensured effective communication during the grievance process
Upload summary of grievances here. For any grievances that addressed hearing or hearing accommodation issues, please provide full documentation.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Since April 1, 2017, were there any disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate who signs to communicate? (This includes any such inmate who was at your institution but is no longer.) *
Yes No
App. - 3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 14 of 27 - Page ID#: 2224
If yes, please upload full documentation.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Since April 1, 2017, were there any disciplinary proceedings involving a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate's failure to obey an order (or to stand for count) or other potential communications difficulty? *
Yes No If yes, please upload full documentation.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Medical Processes
Are all inmates who arrive at your institution receiving a hearing screening? Please describe the screening, including when it is done, who does it, and whether the inmate is given a form to fill out or asked questions. *
Please upload the hearing questionnaire. * Please upload the health systems screening form, including any question about hearing. * Are inmates who receive a routine physical (annually or every two or three years) receiving a hearing screening? If yes, please describe it, including who performs it and whether the inmate is given a form to fill out or asked questions. *
Audiology Progress Chart
For each Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate in your institution during the most recent two quarters, please provide the following medical/audiology information. Ideally, this would be in an excel chart, but if you find another format easier, that's fine too.
1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC. 2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC. 3. Date of initial hearing screening. 4. Date of most recent hearing screening. 5. Results of most recent hearing screening. 6. Hearing aid status: List which one applies:
a. Has hearing aid(s) in working order b. In process of determining whether hearing aid(s) are needed
App. - 4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 15 of 27 - Page ID#: 2225
c. In process of obtaining or repairing hearing aid(s) d. No hearing aid is needed 7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid is needed), please provide medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid. 8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid, does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.) 9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing aid issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that no hearing aid is needed): a. Date b. Description of encounter c. Outcome of encounter Click here to access a template excel spreadsheet for this information. The name of the file is "2017-10 Audiology Progress Chart - Template." You should be able to download the file, input the data, and then upload the document with the required information below. You're not required to use the template, but it may make things easier for you. Upload file here.
When nothing unusual happens, how many off-site trips does it take for an inmate to receive a hearing aid? Please describe. *
Telecommunications
Telephones
Please list phone locations available for inmates to use ordinary (Securus) telephones. *
For each such location, is there at least one phone with a volume adjustment? * Yes No
App. - 5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 16 of 27 - Page ID#: 2226
If not, which locations are lacking any phone with a volume adjustment?
Videophones
How many (kiosk or other non-laptop) videophones at your institution? * Where are they located?
Are videophones available during the same hours as phones? * Yes No
How many days has each one been inoperative during the last two quarters? * Has any inmate requested access to the videophones since April 1, 2017, and been denied? *
Yes No If so, please explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the reason for the denial.
App. - 6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 17 of 27 - Page ID#: 2227
TTYs
How many TTY machines does your institution have? * Where are they kept? *
How does an inmate get access?
Are TTYs available during the same hours as phones? * Yes No
Please describe the available hours for both phones and TTYs.
Are there printed instructions kept with the TTYs? * Yes No
Please upload instructions for the use of the TTY. Has any inmate requested TTY access since April 1, 2017, and been denied? *
Yes No If so, please explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the reason for the denial.
App. - 7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 18 of 27 - Page ID#: 2228
Note: We will be conducting mandatory testing of the TTY this month. Please be on the lookout for an email to schedule testing within the next couple weeks.
Additional Time for Telephonic Communication:
The Settlement Agreement states (IX.C), “The KDOC will implement a policy that allows Deaf Inmates at least twice as many minutes to complete a Videophone call, and at least three times as many minutes to complete a TTY call, as the number of minutes afforded to other non-Deaf Inmates to make calls using traditional telecommunication devices such as telephones. In the event the KDOC determines this usage arrangement results in less than equitable access to telephones and Videophones for non-Deaf Inmates and Deaf Inmates, after considering the needs and abilities of Deaf and non-Deaf Inmates, the KDOC may adjust the ratio of time provided for Videophone calls and TTY calls. The KDOC will document this determination, including the evidence and reasons in support thereof. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made, and will explain the reasoning in support of such determination.”
How much time are non-Deaf inmates allowed to use for phone calls? * Time per call, and per day or week
How much time are Deaf inmates allowed to use for Videophone calls? * Time per call, and per day or week
How much time are Deaf inmates allowed to use for TTY calls? * Time per call, and per day or week
Since April 1, 2017, have you made any determination that the usage arrangements are inequitable? *
Yes No
If you have made such a determination, please provide documentation of the reasoning.
Devices to assist with effective communication
VRI Laptops
How many VRI laptops do you have? *
Where are they kept? *

Please provide VRI log showing use for each one since April 1, 2017.

App. - 8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 19 of 27 - Page ID#: 2229
Has any inmate requested VRI services and been denied since April 1, 2017? * Yes No
If so, please explain the circumstances, including identifying the inmate, the date, and the reason for the denial.
Can a VRI be used in restrictive housing? * Yes No
How?
Can a VRI be used in the education area? * Yes No
If no, why not?
Does the VRI laptop bag include instructions? * Yes No
Does the VRI laptop bag include a cord splitter? * Yes No
Does the VRI laptop bag include a long computer cord? * Yes No
App. - 9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 20 of 27 - Page ID#: 2230
Does the VRI laptop bag include anything else? *
Have you had occasion to use your VRI laptop as a videophone (or for video relay services/VRS)? *
Yes No If so, describe the circumstances. If not, please explain if this option is available to you, and how you have tested it. *
Has training on VRI use been provided to staff? * Yes No
Please explain to whom, when, and how the training has been provided.
Televisions
Are all your institution's shared-space TVs capable of turning captioning on? * Yes No
Does your institution use radio or another method to send shared-space TV sound to inmates' earphones? *
Yes No If yes, please describe the method.
App. - 10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 21 of 27 - Page ID#: 2231
How do you deal with captioning for recreational movies? *
Please list all orientation videos. (e.g., institutional orientation, PREA, etc.) *
Which ones are captioned? *
Are the captions displaying when the videos are played for inmates during orientation? * Yes No
How did you check on whether the captions are displaying? *
Do you have earphones for the video system used for parole hearings? * Yes No
If you have such earphones, what kind of earphones are they? If you do not, is there a way to plug in earphones to the parole video system? *
App. - 11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 22 of 27 - Page ID#: 2232
Non-auditory Alerts
The Settlement Agreement states (VIII.B.3; VIII.C), "The KDOC will promptly advise the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH of all non-auditory alert systems that the KDOC is considering, and will consult with the Settlement Monitor and the KCDHH in determining whether such devices are acceptable for the stated purpose." Please describe all current non-auditory alert systems or devices. This includes, e.g., bed shakers, strobelights, and pagers. For each, please include:
 manufacturer  model  link to website if available  how many you have  where they are in use  who has used them Also explain if you have any that are not in use. Use the text box below or upload a document.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Upload information about non-auditory alert systems or devices here if not described in the text box above.
A. Over the last two quarters, have you considered any new non-auditory alert systems? (If no, skip questions B, C, and D.) *
Yes No For Questions B-D, use the text boxes below or upload a document. B. What systems have been under consideration?
C. Did you consult with the Settlement Monitor and KCDHH to determine whether the devices were acceptable? How and when?
App. - 12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 23 of 27 - Page ID#: 2233
D. Please provide full information on any devices under consideration, including who and what they are for.
Upload information about new non-auditory alert systems under consideration here if not described in the text boxes above.
Other Devices
Please list all other devices or systems currently in use to assist with effective communication with Deaf (including hard-of- hearing) inmates. E.g.: phone amplifier, captioned telephone, induction loop system, radio transmission, speech-to-text system, etc. For each such device, please include:
 manufacturer  model  approximate cost  link to website if available  how many you have  where they are in use  who has used them. Also explain if you have any that are not in use. If there was any difficulty related to use that needed to be solved, please explain that, too. Use the text box below or upload a document.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Upload information about other devices or systems in use here if not described in the text box above.
The Settlement Agreement states (XII), "Where devices such as vibrating clocks and in-line amplifiers are not deemed medically necessary, the KDOC agrees to consider on a case by case basis whether it will allow a particular Deaf Inmate the opportunity to purchase these devices at his or her own expense. The KDOC’s decision in this regard will consider, among other issues, whether these devices pose a security risk. The KDOC will have the discretion to make the determination whether any of these devices, and the type of device, is permissible. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination."
App. - 13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 24 of 27 - Page ID#: 2234
A. Since April 1, 2017, have you made any determinations allowing or disallowing devices? * Yes No
B. If you have considered a device - whether you granted or refused permission - please upload documentation of: (1) the device(s); (2) the reasoning; (3) the names of affected inmates; and (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
In-person Interpretation
Do you have an arrangement for in-person qualified interpretation services? * Yes No
If yes, with who?
Please describe each time an in-person interpreter has been used since April 1, 2017, including the name of the inmate, the date, and the occasion.
Has any inmate requested an in-person interpreter and been denied? * Yes No
If yes, please describe each denial, including the inmate who made the request, what the request was for, and why the request was denied.
Training and Information
Is there a KOMS alert noted for Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates at your institution? * Yes No
Is the KOMS alert present for each Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmate? (Please check before you answer). If it's not available, note why.
App. - 14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 25 of 27 - Page ID#: 2235
If yes, please upload a screenshot. Which of these trainings have you completed as ADA Coordinator (check all that apply)
ADA Coordinator Training ("CREATE" Compliance) Settlement Agreement Training Online Training from DOJ Other option What training is being provided to your institution's employees and/or contractors relating to Deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates? *
Who (if anyone) is tracking training completion? *
What categories of staff are receiving the training? (New, existing, custody, program, medical/mental health, etc.) *
If any such training is not the KDOC computer-based training, please provide any written materials/slides and outlines of any orally-presented training.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Does your institution's inmate handbook refer to the ADA, the settlement, the ADA coordinator, etc.? *
Yes No Please upload any page of the institution's inmate handbook that includes reference to the ADA, the settlement, the ADA coordinator, etc.
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Please upload any form or document given inmates relating to hearing issues/accommodations:
 Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services Form (III.C.3)  Request for Deaf Inmate ID Card Form (III.D.4)  Medical request form (with space to request Auxiliary Aids and Services) (VI.C.3)  Request for interpretive services  Brochure relating to available accommodations  Other
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
App. - 15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 26 of 27 - Page ID#: 2236
Please upload any institutional policies and procedures (or memos explaining current practices) relating to deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, including about:
 Telephone, TTY, or videophone use  Hearing aids  Interpretive services  Other
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Have any changes been made since April 1, 2017, in any of the above documents or policies? * Yes No
If yes, what changes have been made?
Are the settlement summary, settlement, and brochure all in the inmate law library? * Yes No
When did you last check to make sure they are really there? *
Direct threat reporting under the Agreement
The Settlement Agreement states (II.A), "The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf Inmates and therefore may not be able to provide such Deaf Inmates full and equal enjoyment of some of its services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination." (reminder: "Deaf" includes hard-of-hearing inmates.) Over the past two quarters, have you at any point determined that any activities present a Direct Threat of injury or death to Deaf inmates and were therefore unable to provide those inmates full and equal enjoyment of any facility services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations? *
Yes No If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the service, privilege, facility, advantage or accommodation; (2) the risk presented; (3) a list of the inmate(s) affected; and (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
App. - 16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 90 Filed: 11/28/17 Page: 27 of 27 - Page ID#: 2237
The Settlement Agreement states (VI.F), "The KDOC retains the discretion to determine that certain work assignments present a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf Inmate or others and may therefore choose not to provide the Deaf Inmate a substantially equal opportunity to those work assignments. The KDOC will promptly notify the Settlement Monitor whenever any such determination is made and explain the reasoning in support of such determination." (reminder: "Deaf" includes hard-of- hearing inmates.) Since April 1, 2017, have you at any point determined that a work assignment presented a Direct Threat of injury or death to a Deaf inmate or others and therefore chosen not to provide the Deaf inmate a substantially equal opportunity to that work assignment? *
Yes No If so, please upload documentation of: (1) the work assignment(s); (2) the risk(s) presented; (3) the names of inmate(s) affected; and, (4) when you notified the Settlement Monitor of your determination(s).
Drop files here to uploadUpload File(s)
Is there anything else you'd like to let me know?
Thanks very much for your continued work on complying with the Settlement Agreement. CLICK Submit
App. - 17

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS

Plaintiffs

v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.

Defendants.

Fifth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor

December 4, 2018
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

-1-

I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is my fifth report to the Court and
the parties concerning the status of compliance with this case’s Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department” or KyDOC) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. This report covers a full year—the last report was dated November 2017. The Settlement Agreement requires semi-annual court reports; I am instead filing this single report for 2018, covering two sets of site-visits, a self-audit pilot, and substantial work on audiology. Following a semi-annual self-reporting cycle, the various KyDOC institutions did a self-report in late October 2018, and I had hoped to be able to report in full on that in this document. However, because some institutions provided incomplete information, and for others I have substantial follow-up informational requests, I am unable to make that full report: my plan is to do another court report in two to three months.
As in my prior reports, I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the various affected institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement, and their professionalism and accommodation of my requests for information. KyDOC has continued to make progress towards compliance.
Since the last report, dated November 2017, I have focused on three things: • Hearing aid provision • Compliance checklist and site visits • Initiation of self-audits This report has four Appendices; the first two themselves have important exhibits. Appendix A: Self-Audit Report, including as an exhibit new Self-Audit Worksheets Appendix B: Site Visit Reports, including exhibit collating all extant recommendations Appendix C: October 2018 Self-Reporting Questionnaire Appendix D: New KyDOC Policy on Audiology
-2-

II. DEAF/HARD-OF-HEARING INMATES
As in previous reports, improved screening and tracking has led to an increase in the number of reported inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. These are tallied in Table 1:

Table 1: Distribution of Kentucky Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Institution
Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC) Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC) Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC) Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP) Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR) Lee Adjustment Center (LAC) Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC) Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) Northpoint Training Center (NTC) Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) Ross-Cash Center (Ross-Cash)
TOTAL

# of Deaf/HOH Inmates

~Nov. Apr. Nov. Apr.

2016 2017 2017 2018

0

5

8

6

5

4 15 21

9

11 30 44

26 35 36 55

13 13 10 11

6

11 13 19

64 75 98 176

-

-

- 16

18

8 12 36

6

26 39 96

15 28 38 54

10 16 16 24

5

10 31 47

1

2

4

7

178 244 350 612

Nov. 2018
6 26 51 57 11 28 189 20 74 94 68 20 45 6 695

Currently KyDOC has 9 inmates who sign to communicate; they are housed at GRCC (1), KCIW (2), KSP (2), KSR (2), LLCC (1), and LSCC (1). The reported individuals have highly varying degrees of hearing impairment; the November 2018 column includes inmates who range from being nearly or entirely deaf in both ears to having a mild impairment in one ear. Several dozen inmates included are not yet fully assessed; some of these may not prove to have have any hearing impairment.

III. SITE VISITS AND SELF AUDITS
The Settlement Agreement became effective June 28, 2015 and runs for five years. It allows me to visit each Kentucky Department of Corrections (KYDOC) adult institution each calendar year. Over the three-and-a-half years so far, I have visited each facility except the new Lee Adjustment Center, on the schedule set out in Table 2, below. In lieu of a second visit to Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW), Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC), Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC), and Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), I asked them to pilot a self-audit process, which they did in August 2018. My thinking was based on the fact that there were fewer than two years left in the agreement’s term. Once the agreement is complete, obviously my role will be over. Yet the Department will continue to have

-3-

deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and they will continue to need effective communication, auxiliary aides, and appropriate accommodations. In addition to monitoring compliance, my role has been to assist the Department in building its own capacity to meet these legal requirements. As part of my monitoring, I have constructed an inspection checklist, that canvasses all the issues subject to the settlement agreement. I refined that checklist during the site visits I conducted in November 2017, and used it in the site visits I conducted in June 2018. When I asked KYDOC officials if they would be willing to pilot use of the checklist as a self-audit instrument, they agreed. I have written a report on the results, both substantively and presenting a substantially improved Self-Audit Workbook. See Appendix A. Appendix B presents the reports from the 2017 and 2018 site visits, including as one of its exhibits a document that collates all the recommendations I have made in the course of this case.

Table 2: Site Visits and Self-Audits

Institution

Site Visit Date

Visit 1

Visit 2 Self-Audit

Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)

6/19/2018

Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC)

12/12/2016

8/2018

Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC)

12/13/2016

6/21/2018

Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC)

6/28/2016

11/16/2017

Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW)

6/23/2016

8/2018

Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR)

2/24/2016, 2/25/2016 2/27/2017

Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)

6/26/2016, 6/27/2016 11/15/2017

Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)

12/13/2016

6/20/2018

Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC)

6/24/2016

8/2018

Northpoint Training Center (NTC)

12/14/2016

6/18/2018

Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC)

6/22/2016

8/2018

Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) Including Ross-Cash Center (Ross)

6/26/2016

11/14/2017

Lee Adjustment Center (New, private facility)

IV. SELF-REPORTS
I have also continued to use a semi-annual self-reporting tool; the most recent version, from October 2018, is attached as Appendix C. Some institutions continue to struggle with keeping and sharing the records needed to comply with the agreement and to check on that compliance. As a result, I continue to have substantial followup requests. I am working through these, and will report in the next two months or so on the results. In particular, I had hoped to be able to report on audiology results, and whether inmates in need of audiology services are obtaining those services timely. But I have not yet received full enough information to make that assessment. In addition, my next report will identify the other strengths and challenges revealed by both the April and October 2018 self-reports.

-4-

V. KNOWN PROBLEM TOPICS
Using the information from the site visits (and related preparatory inmate interviews), selfaudits, preliminary review of the October 2018 self-report, and the many communications I have had with inmates and staff in the past year, I can identify five areas with ongoing compliance problems:
A. Identification and Tracking of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Prisoners
There remain some issues with identification and tracking of deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates, particularly when inmates are transferred. It continues to be the case that the institutions’ selfreports are omitting inmates from prior lists, particularly after transfers. As I have commented previously, these kinds of tracking problems are concerning not only because they interfere with monitoring but because it is only inmates on the institutions’ lists who can receive required services and accommodations. I had hoped this problem would have been solved by KyDOC’s implementation of a uniform “KOMS” (Kentucky Offender Management System) alert—an entry in each affected inmate’s online file that is supposed to allow the system-wide tracking of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The ADA Coordinators are supposed to receive routine automated transfer memos listing incoming inmates for each institution with an annotation if they are deaf/hard-of-hearing. I am continuing to investigate why the problem persists.
B. Telecommunications Services
Videophones. One of the areas in which KyDOC made the speediest progress in Settlement Agreement compliance was provision of videophones (and the ancillary interpretive services) to inmates who sign to communicate. With the exception of the Lee Adjustment Center, KyDOC’s new (private) institution, each institution has, long-since, installed a videophone kiosk. Lee recently got a videophone as well. During this past year, however, there were significant technical difficulties with the videophones, which are obtained from Purple Communications. There were weeks of system-wide outages, and some institutions have had ongoing difficulties. Only KSR, which has a Sorenson as well as the Purple kiosk, has escaped these problems. It will be important for KyDOC to monitor the issue going forward; if significant outages recur, it may be that an alternative or backup is necessary. In addition, once I heard about the outages, I worked with each institution that has inmates who use the videophone to ensure that a temporary alternative was made available to them, using the VRI laptop. This alternative should not await my intervention; it should be routinely used as the stop-gap when the videophones are out-ofservice.
Amplified telephones. Phones pose a particular problem for hard-of-hearing inmates. They are, of course, very hard-used in prisons, which can degrade sound quality. And sometimes they are located close to noisy areas like showers or dayrooms. Securus, KYDOC’s phone contractor, offers volume controls on some phones, which are helpful—people with hearing impairments can turn the volume up. I have previously recommended that each institution should ensure that it has volume-adjusted phones in all the areas where they are needed by hard-of-hearing
-5-

inmates.1 This recommendation seems to have been largely (though not completely) implemented. It turns out, however, that for some inmates, the volume adjustment offers insufficient amplification. I have therefore also recommended that each KyDOC institution have several portable phone amplifiers available for check-out by hard-of-hearing inmates.2 Until this is implemented, telephonic services will remain unequal.
Captioned Telephones. For inmates whose hearing does not allow even amplified access to telephones, but who do not sign to communicate, captioned telephones are often an appropriate technology: these combine an audible signal with computer-aided transcription of the incoming side of the conversation. Several KyDOC institutions are piloting their use.3
TTY. TTY technology is old and cumbersome, and very few inmates wish to use it. But for those who do, I continue to work with the KyDOC institutions to ensure that TTYs are available and their instructions plain and usable.
C. Interpretive Services
Remote interpretation. Another area in which KyDOC institutions made early progress in settlement compliance was making Video Relay Interpretation (VRI) available to inmates who sign to communicate. Each institution has a working VRI laptop. But getting staff to use those laptops remains a problem. There are still institutions where the VRI laptop is used only in the most formal situations: classification, disciplinary hearings. It should be used for any significant conversation with an inmate who signs to communicate. This requires staff training and persistent followup by the ADA coordinator, who should notice when the laptop is not checked out and investigate why it is going underused.
In-person interpretation. In addition, some situations—particularly those involving multiple speakers—are not appropriate for VRI.4 But at some institutions, in-person interpretation has not been made available.
D. Audiology services
This past year has seen important developments in hearing aid provision. As previously reported, two problems had been apparent: inconsistency and delay.
1 “Recommendation 74: Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by . . . (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate.”).
2 “Recommendation 85: Portable phone amplifiers should be made available at every institution.” 3 “Recommendation 74: Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by: . . . (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.” 4 See Settlement Agreement VI; Recommendation 12 (“In-person interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.”).
-6-

Development of a constistent standard. On the inconsistency problem, I worked with KyDOC to develop an objective standard for provision of a hearing aid. The Settlement Agreement provides: “[T]he KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids.” Settlement Agreement VIII.B.2. After review of Medicaid coverage and other comparison policies, the Department has adopted the following standard (see Appendix D), using benchmark hearing testing frequencies of 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 2,000 Hz, and 4,000 Hz.:
1) Inmates who have a threshold of 25 dB or higher in one ear at two or more of the benchmark frequencies shall be assessed to determine the need for an assistive device.
2) The PCP shall interpret the quantitative hearing test and assess the degree of hearing impairment at the benchmark frequencies separately in each ear. • If the degree of impairment in the better is <35 dB at two or more of the benchmark frequencies the patient may be provided with an over-the-counter amplification device (“pocket talker”) if the PCP deems it appropriate. • If the degree of impairment in the better ear is 35 dB or higher at two or more of the benchmark frequencies, the PCP shall refer the case to the CCS regional medical director for a hearing aid.
3) The ear with the lower threshold (i.e., the better ear) shall determine the intervention offered. Two hearing aids shall be provided to a patient who meets the criterion for a hearing aid in both ears and meets at least one of the following requirements: • Legally blind • A compelling occupational, educational, or safety need for binaural hearing
This standard was finalized, with my sign-off, on May 31, 2018. Unfortunately, until October 2018, a misunderstanding of the standard led to erroneous implementation and denial of hearing aids that are appropriate under the standard. Quite a few retests were necessary. They seem now to have been done.
Delay. In its effort to solve the audiology delays reported in my last filing, KyDOC has begun to use a vendor, Audicus, that offers on-line hearing tests and then ships hearing aids to the institutions. See https://www.audicus.com/. Eliminating the multiple off-site visits previously needed is a major advantage of this approach, if the resulting services are sufficiently high-quality. There were certainly some transition issues—the misunderstanding with respect to the standard referenced above, and some delay as the system was being set up. I do not know yet if those transitional delays are solved. I will include this in my next report, in a couple of months.
E. Effective Communication/Equal Access to Services for Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
The complaint I hear the most frequently in my monitoring is that hard-of-hearing inmates cannot hear announcements, programming, and staff orders, leading to allegations of misconduct, discipline, and denial of equal access to services. It is clear to me that this is a major problem. Each institution needs to develop a way that hard-of-hearing inmates can get access to the relatively simple announcements of pill-call, chow, count, and other institutional events. And
-7-

each needs a way to amplify more complex communications like those in educational and rehabilitative programming and the like.
More work is needed to develop solutions across KYDOC; each religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming area needs access to such systems.5 Once systems are developed and available, hard-of-hearing inmates should be informed about them, so that they can request them when helpful. I have been working with several of the institutions to work on solutions: nonauditory alerts, communications aids, and amplification. A number of institutions are piloting different amplification equipment. I will report on the results in a subsequent report.
VI. CONCLUSION The Kentucky Department of Corrections continues to progress towards compliance with
the Settlement Agreement, but implementation challenges remain. Dated: December 4, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
5 See Settlement Agreement V.A.2 (“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.”); I.2 (defining “Auxiliary Aids and Services” to include “assistive listening systems”); Recommendation 67 (“Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates.”).
-8-

Fifth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor December 4, 2018 Appendices
A: Self-Audit Report, including exhibit of new Self-Audit Worksheets B: Site Visit Reports, including exhibit that collates all extant recommendations C: October 2018 Self-Reporting Questionnaire D: New KyDOC Policy on Audiology
-9-

APPENDIX A

Self-Audit Pilot Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)

Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor

August 2018 Self-Audits

Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC)
Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC)

Draft (without Exhibit A) circulated to parties for comment: October 15, 2018 Final: November 30, 2018

INTRODUCTION

The Settlement Agreement in this case addressing conditions for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in Kentucky became effective June 28, 2015 and runs for five years. It allows me to visit each Kentucky Department of Corrections (KYDOC) adult institution each calendar year. Over the three-plus years so far, I have visited each institution except the new Lee Adjustment Center, on the schedule set out in Table A, below.

Table A: Site Visits and Self-Audits

Institution

Site Visit Date

Visit 1

Visit 2 Self-Audit

Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)

6/19/2018

Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC)

12/12/2016

8/2018

Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC)

12/13/2016

6/21/2018

Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC)

6/28/2016

11/16/2017

Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW)

6/23/2016

8/2018

Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR)

2/24/2016, 2/25/2016 2/27/2017

Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)

6/26/2016, 6/27/2016 11/15/2017

Lee Adjustment Center (New, private facility)

Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)

12/13/2016

6/20/2018

Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC)

6/24/2016

8/2018

Northpoint Training Center (NTC)

12/14/2016

6/18/2018

Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC)

6/22/2016

8/2018

Western Kentucky Correctional Complex (WKCC) Including Ross-Cash Center (Ross)

6/26/2016

11/14/2017

In lieu of a second visit to Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW), Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC), Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC), and Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC), I asked them to pilot a self-audit process, which they did

Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 1 of 6

in August 2018. My thinking was: there is less than two years left in the agreement’s term. Once the agreement is complete, obviously my role will be over. Yet the Department will continue to have deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates and they will continue to need effective communication, auxiliary aides, and appropriate accommodations. In addition to monitoring compliance, my role has been to assist the Department in building its own capacity to meet these needs. As part of my monitoring, I have constructed an inspection checklist, that canvasses all the issues subject to the settlement agreement. I refined that checklist during the site visits I conducted in November 2017, and used it in the site vists I conducted in June 2018. When I asked KYDOC officials if they would be willing to pilot use of the checklist as a self-audit instrument, they agreed.
I received the checklist back from the ADA coordinators of the four listed facilities in mid-August, and conducted several conversations with the ADA coordinators and headquarters officials about them, during September 2018. Followup after those conversations took another week or two. This report summarizes the results, and attaches the checklist itself, refined in light of the pilot, as Exhibit A. In particular, the pilot revealed a number of unclear questions; I have worked to clarify each in Exhibit A. In addition, the checklist did not cover audiology results sufficiently to allow evaluation of compliance or non-compliance with the settlement; my thinking had been that I check on audiology results twice a year through a different self-report. Since once I am no longer monitoring that semi-annual report will be gone, on consideration, it seems advisable to include it here, as well. Likewise, I decided to cover more thoroughly in the self-audit checklist some additional questions I have been asking in the semi-annual self-report, so that it can entirely substitute for that report. Finally, the checklist is also slightly augmented to reflect the three recommendations I made in my most recent site-visit report.
I. PROCESS, AS REFINED
Having been through a partial process with the pilot facilities, the process going forward for self-audits is this:
A. The ADA coordinator takes 1-2 weeks to do the audit. This requires checking each deaf/HOH inmate’s audiology records and accommodations; interviewing a sample of the inmates; and a site inspection of many areas of the prison.
B. As the ADA coordinator talks to staff and inmates, each such contact should be recorded and made a part of the audit record. (There is now a tab in the audit worksheet for recording these contacts.)
C. Along the way, if the audit reveals compliance issues, the ADA coordinator solves them. For example, if certain inmates do not have a deaf/HOH ID, they should receive one. Although I did not create a space to note these kind of fixes for this pilot round, there is such a space going forward.
D. Whatever compliance issues remain are noted. E. In addition to filling out the checklist, the ADA coordinator should prepare a list
itemizing all issues that needed solving during the audit, with a plan for each such item about how to keep it on track and all issues that remain, with a plan for solution of each. Again, the audit worksheet includes a space for this list.
Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 2 of 6

F. While I am still monitoring, the full audit worksheet, with all its tabs are shared with me. Once my monitoring role is ended, these should be shared with a supervisor—a deputy warden or the warden—and with whoever is managing ADA matters at KYDOC headquarters.
G. At regular intervals (every 30 days seems sensible) the ADA coordinator should check the list and assess whether appropriate progress is being made, until they are solved.

I did not follow precisely this process for this pilot. A, D, and E (in part) were done, but I did not ask the ADA coordinators to do B or C. I did, however, work through F on the phone with each ADA coordinator, rather than in writing, and got reports back. On further consideration, it seems clear that a written record as described above will greatly facilitate compliance and self-monitoring. This is now included in Exhibit A.

II. FACILITY BY FACILITY

A. Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW). Conducted by Deputy Warden/ADA Coordinator Vanessa Kennedy

Observed Compliance Issues

Issue

Next steps

Not sure if they are tied into the automatic Check with HQ to make sure that ADA

notification re. deaf/HOH inmates when they Coordinator is on the automatic email list.

are transferred.

Not getting word from jails when deaf/HOH No obvious solution.

inmates arrive

Orientation video is not able to be amplified Investigate amplification possibilities—blue

tooth?

Provider visit for audiology screening takes

up to 14 days.

Inmate handbook does not mention the

Revise handbook for next printing.

obligation of non-discrimination and

availability of ADA accommodations/services

Various state-wide forms do not include

Hand off to monitor for discussion with HQ

requests for accommodations:

• Job application form

• Classification form

• Discipline form

• SAP and other programming form

• NA/AA form

Notice not posted outside housing units

Discuss with monitor

Pager not available

Pager range was insufficient. Will need to

use personal notification instead, unless

another pager has better success.

No separate phone amplifier is used.

Purchase and make available.

Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 3 of 6

Issue Videophone is not reliable Bed shaker/non-auditory alerts not available for HOH inmates (only deaf) Bed shaker not set up for anything other than fire alarm.
TTY stored in Captain’s office and available only by request

Next steps Hand off to monitor for discussion with HQ. Review whether any HOH inmates have a need. Review configuration, and either make available or set up alternative approaches as appropriate. If an inmate arrives who uses the TTY, need to make available more readily.

Notable strengths: • Availability of in-person interpreter when appropriate.

B. Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC) Conducted by ADA Coordinator Amy Robey

Observed Compliance Issues

Issue

Next steps

Pager not available

Will need to use personal notification instead.

No CapTel available

Consider use.

No separate phone amplifier is used.

Purchase and make available. (Done)

No amplification system used in any space.

No other non-auditory alerts used

Various state-wide forms do not include

Hand off to monitor for discussion with HQ

requests for accommodations:

• Job application form

• Classification form

• Discipline form

• SAP and other programming form

• NA/AA form

Notable strengths: • Use of bed shaker for various alerts.

C. Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC) Conducted by ADA Coordinator Christy Peach

Observed Compliance Issues

Issue

Next steps

ADA Coordinator does not run periodic

Run such a list monthly

reports to ensure inmate list is complete

No non-auditory alerts used: no pagers or

Consider use. Also sent memo reminding

buzzers

staff to flash light for standing count.

(10/15/2018 memo)

Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 4 of 6

Issue Volume control not available for phones in all spaces. Separate phone amplifier not yet available, though purchase order has been submitted for approval. Amplification needed for in-process recording of inmate handbook Annual/routine physicals do not include hearing screening ADA coordinator not always notified when inmates are found to be deaf/HOH Not sure if sick call slip includes request for accommodations Various state-wide forms do not include requests for accommodations:
• Job application form • Classification form • Discipline form • SAP and other programming form • NA/AA form Email alerts for transferred inmates who are deaf/HOH are not always coming through Bed shaker not set up for anything other than fire alarm.
No amplification system used in any space.

Next steps Purchase and make available.
Make earphones available. Need to get participation by provider to do this for all routine physicals. Discuss with medical and run KOMS list. Check and fix if need be. Hand off to monitor for discussion with HQ
Discuss with HQ how to solve. Review configuration, and either make available or set up alternative approaches as appropriate. Get amplification for education, for starters.

Notable strengths: • Easy availability of TTY

D. Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC) Conducted by ADA Coordinator Sherri Grissinger

Observed Compliance Issues

Issue

Next steps

ADA Coordinator would like more training Monitor to supply some options

No non-auditory alerts used: no pagers or

Consider use. (LLCC reports that this would

buzzers

require purchase of a transmitter/repeater. For

now, they will continue to use in-person

notifications.

Email alerts for transferred inmates who are Discuss with HQ how to solve.

deaf/HOH are not always coming through

Amplification not available for orientation Have purchased earphones and a Peavey

video.

amplification system.

Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 5 of 6

Issue Accommodation needed for low-literacy deaf/HOH in orientation Audiology services are slow. In particular, several inmates seem to need hearing aids and have been waiting for months. Various state-wide forms do not include requests for accommodations:
• Job application form • Classification form • Discipline form • SAP and other programming form NA/AA form No bed shakers, currently.
Bed shaker not set up for anything other than fire alarm.
No amplification system used in any space. Communications issues reported by inmates:
• Difficulty understanding announcements (mentioned by 8+ inmates)
• Buzzer watch • Amplification in church • Pager or shaker watch

Next steps Orientation staff will meet 1 on 1 with inmates, if appropriate with an interpreter. Have switched vendors to Audicus; will monitor.
Hand off to monitor for discussion with HQ
Should have one available, for use when needed. Review configuration, and either make available or set up alternative approaches as appropriate. ADA announcers are under consideration; perhaps this will meet the need. Consider amplification for one or two spaces. In person notification system has been put into place. Will offer Timex expedition watch for sale as personal purchase (not to count against quarterly purchase limits). Conducting wrist alarm clock testing with 3 new inmates. Chaplain to meet with volunteers regarding increased utilization of service bulletins, increased usage of PowerPoint.

Areas of strength: • Telephone amplifiers in place • TV is broadcast on FM channel • Headphones provided for parole

III. CONCLUSION

This pilot was quite successful, assisting in refining the self-audit methodology, and in solving ongoing compliance issues at each institution. The new checklist should be ready for the rest of KYDOC institutions to use. My plan is to ask each institution to do that, in place of the April 2019 semi-annual self-report and also to visit each institution one more time, to allow a final report to the Court before the close of the monitoring period.

Monitor’s Report, Self-Audit Pilot (August 2018), p. 6 of 6

Exhibit A: Self-Audit Workbook

Monitoring Checklists/Worksheets, Table of Contents Main
A ADA coordinator B Reporting obligations C Intake/Orientation - Corrections D Medical care: intake, care more generally, audiology services E Information provided inmates F Notice re. deaf/HOH inmates G Auxiliary Aids & Services Assessment H Particular Auxiliary Aids & Services Provided I Interpretation in general J Hand Restraints K Non-auditory Alerts L Telecommunications M Miscellaneous Devices N Disciplinary O Grievances P Training Q Monitor Access Audiology Technology Documentation Effective Communication, by Unit Inmate Auxiliary Aid Tracker Housing Unit Tracker Audit Contacts Followup Lists

# Issue/Question
A ADA coordinator
1 Is an ADA coordinator designated? Has there been a time (since last audit) when there
2 was no ADA coordinator appointed? 3 Is correct ADA coordinator on KyDOC website?

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

4 Is ADA coordinator info shared w/ affected inmates?

Was the ADA coordinator information shared with 5 inmates in a timely and appropriate manner? How?

Are inmates aware of ADA coordinator information? 6 (THIS REQUIRES ASKING A SAMPLE)

Describe method used to ascertain:

Is the information prominently posted in any housing 7 unit where deaf/HOH inmates are held? 8 Did the ADA coordinator receive training? 9 Describe training
Is training's length/method sufficient to adequately 10 cover information?

Describe:

NA

11 Adequate w/r/t federal law? (Online ADA training) 12 Adequate w/r/t state law?
Adequate w/r/t agreement? (Settlement monitor's 13 powerpoint)
Does ADA coordinator demontrate familiarity with 14 agreement?

Does ADA coordinator retrieve at least monthly 15 reports on KOMS/medical records of deaf inmates?
Are additional inmates added to the coordinator's 16 tracking list?
Has the ADA coordinator assisted appropriately in 17 implementing the settlement?
Is (s)he available to assist in accommodating deaf 18 inmates?
Does (s)he regularly communicate with or check on 19 deaf inmates?
Does (s)he ensure Effective Communication for the 20 inmates in those situations?
Does (s)he communicate in a timely and effective 21 way with the monitor?
Does (s)he facilitate inmate communication with the 22 monitor when necessary?

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

B Reporting obligations
If there was any change in ADA coordinator, was 1 monitor notified?
Does the ADA coordinator maintain a list of deaf 2 and HOH inmates? 3 Is the list complete? 4 Has it been shared in a timely manner?
Quarterly summary of all grievances by deaf or HOH 5 inmates shared with monitor?
Was there a direct threat determination made for 6 jobs, activities, etc.? (Y/N/describe) 7 Was it reported to the monitor? 8 Was the report complete? 9 Was the report timely?

Description/Notes Describe:

10 Did the institution consider any non-auditory alert? 11 If yes, was the monitor notified?
Did the institution consult with the monitor about the 12 non-auditory alert?

13 Adjustment in timing for phones: Communicated?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA

# Issue/Question
C Intake/Orientation - Corrections
1 Hard of hearing inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone HOH is
2 arriving? Describe (The ADA Coordinator should receive
3 automatic notifications.) Effective communications planned/provided?
4 (Describe) Deaf inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone deaf is
5 arriving? 6 Describe 7 Effective communications planning? 8 Effective communication provided? 9 Describe 10 Use of VRI interpreter when needed? 11 Use of in-person interpreter when needed?
Orientation videos 12 Captioned? 13 Shown in a quiet space? 14 Amplification if needed?
Accommodation for deaf/HOH inmates who are not 15 literate? (Describe)

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe: Describe:
Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA NA NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

D Medical care: intake, care more generally, audiology services

Description/Notes

Effective Communication during general medical intake, and during medical care more generally: 1 Is there effective communications planning? Does medical staff ask inmates who have difficulty 2 hearing if interpretation is needed?

3 Are pocket amplifiers on hand at medical office? Are staff aware of, and use, effective
4 communications techniques? Notice to medical staff:

5 Do medical staff know deaf or HOH status? How? Medical file identifies individuals as deaf/HOH on
6 cover and within the file? Off-site medical: Provision of appropriate
7 accommodations. Knowledegable about obligation to alert off-site
8 providers of need for interpretation? 9 Procedure in place to ensure notification? 10 Has there ever been a notification to provider? 11 Adequate notice?
Outside providers offering effective communication 12 to inmates who sign? 13 How?
Hearing screening/medical intake: 14 Performed for all new inmates? 15 Within first 3 days at institution? 16 Approved screening form? (need to review) 17 Asks about functionality of current hearing aid?

Describe: Describe:

18 Hearing questions come at start of medical intake? How? Do inmates fill out the form or is it
19 administered by staff?

Describe:

20 Which staff is responsible? (best practice is medical)

Describe:

21 Conducted with awareness of possible low literacy? 22 Accommodations for low literacy? Describe. 23 Medical history includes hearing questions?

Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA
NA NA NA NA

NA NA

# Issue/Question
Other methods of access: Do annual/routine physicals include hearing 24 screening?

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

25 Staff/ADA Cooardinator can refer for screening? 26 Inmate can obtain screening on request?
If screening indicated problem (3+ "yes" answers), is 27 there further assessment?
Adequate determination of need for designation/ 28 audiology services? How?

29 Is further assessment timely (within several days)?

Separate determination of whether inmate is deaf or 30 HOH, apart from audiology services decision?
After assessment, does medical: 31 Note deaf or HOH status in ECW as alert?

32 Is the notice immediately obvious in electronic file? 33 Notify ADA coordinator? 34 Is notification prompt?
Audiology services/processes (See also Audiology Checklist) 35 Audiology services offered when needed? 36 Timely? (60 days if no obstacles) 37 Amplifier offered while waiting for hearing aid? 38 Adequate addressing of obstacles to services

39 Hearing aid provided when medically appropriate? Adequate progress tracking? Should include:
40 initial request/questionnaire? 41 each relevant medical visit? 42 any audiology visit? 43 hearing aid provision?

44 Audiology progress chart updated every 1-2 weeks? 45 Shared with ADA Coordinator? 46 Shared with monitor when requested
Summary When nothing unusual happens, how many off-site trips does it take for an inmate to receive a hearing 47 aid? Describe.
In the past year, how many individuals have had to 48 wait more than sixty days to receive a hearing aid? 49 What is the cause of the delay?

Describe:
Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA NA
NA NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

What steps is your institution taking (or has it taken) 50 to improve this process?
Co-pay and availability issues: 47 Charged only once -- not again for followups
Hearing aid batteries 48 Available for free? 49 In sufficient numbers? 50 7 days/week? 51 regardless of housing?

Description/Notes Describe:
?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA
NA

# Issue/Question
E Information provided inmates
1 Provided at intake/orientation? (Describe) Inmate handbook adequately refers to non-
2 discrimination and ADA services? Brochure? Items to include:
3 Non-discrimination obligation 4 Effective communication obligation 5 Auxiliary aids and services available

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Describe:

?

How to obtain, request, and use all aids/services

6 (including hearing aids, and batteries)

Communication equipment available, and how to

7 use

8 ADA coordinator and how to reach

Other items:

?

9 Institution schedule of interpreters

Request for Accommodations/ Communications

10 Assistance

Medical Request form includes request for

11 accommodations

Job application form includes request for

12 accommodations

13 Waiver forms

Classification form includes request for

14 accommodations

15 Discipline form includes request for accomodations SAP and other programming form includes request
16 for accommodation

17 NA/AA form includes request for accommocation
Settlement summary, settlement, and brochure 18 available in law library? (Need to check)
Do request forms: 19 list available services comprehensively?
clearly explain services and aids (what they are 20 and when they are available? 21 clearly explain how to request services/aids?
expressly ask about preferred mode of communication/needed services and why they are 22 useful? 23 explain which items are free? encompass religious and volunteer-provided 24 programming? Effective communication of these resources: Are the materials in language accessible to each 25 inmate?

Describe date checked:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA

NA NA

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered

# Issue/Question

during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Is this information provided with effective 26 communication?
Can inmates request and receive a meaningful

opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member

and interpreter to ask questions about the 27 materials?
Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment

in/application for a program with staff, is effective 28 communication provided?
are potential accommodations covered in the

29 discussion? Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment in/application in education with staff, is effective

30 communication provided? are potential accommodations covered in the

31 discussion?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA

# Issue/Question
F Notice re. deaf/HOH inmates
1 Notice posted at entrance to institution?

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

2 Include picture of ID card and other official indicator? 3 Notice posted outside housing units?

4 Include picture of ID card and other official indicator? 5 Cell/bed cards 6 Staff aware of corresponding need to alert? 7 Clear process to obtain? Describe 8 Each inmate has one if not waived? 9 Provided timely? 10 Replacements provided when needed?
KOMS alert? 11 Staff aware of use of KOMS
Working process to get new inmate alerts added? 12 (Describe)

Describe: Describe:

13 Present for each deaf/HOH inmate? (Need to check) 14 Appropriately obvious 15 Updated timely
Individual ID cards 16 Staff aware of meaning? 17 Clear? (avoids unclear laguage/abbreviations?) 18 Provided to all deaf/HOH if not waived? 19 Provided timely? 20 Can the inmate carry the ID at all times? 21 Prompt replacements provided? 22 Can ID card be taken away for some purpose? 23 If yes, what is the substitute official indicator? 24 Has any inmate signed ID Waiver? 25 If yes, is the waiver kept in inmate's file?
Has any inmate who signed a waiver later requested 26 ID? 27 If yes, was an ID provided?

Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA
NA NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

G Auxiliary Aids & Services Assessment
Identification to ADA Coordinator

Does the ADA coordinator receive timely notification 1 upon intake of each deaf/hoh inmate?
Does the ADA coordinator receive timely notification 2 of other deaf/hoh inmates?
Does the ADA coordinator conduct an Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment with every arriving or 3 newly identified deaf/hoh inmate? At this meeting, are each inmate's available methods of communication expressly ascertained and 4 documented? At this meeting, does the ADA coordinator inform each inmate about available auxiliary aids and 5 services? Are the auxiliary aids/services request forms 6 explained? Is appropriate communication used during this meeting? (oral and written; VRI; or visual 7 descriptions ) Other assessments For all deaf/hoh inmates who didn't receive an 8 assessment on intake, has one been done?

9 Are Auxiliary Aids assessments updated every year?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

H Particular Auxiliary Aids & Services Provided
1 On-person ID cards 2 Cell cards 3 Bed shaker 4 In-person alerts 5 Pager
Phone volume adjust setting (available in each 6 location where phones are available?) 7 Amplifier for phone
Consideration of specific housing assignment to 8 minimize communication difficulties? 9 Other amplification 10 Other (describe)
General issues Special housing area: Is there a special housing area for deaf/HOH 11 inmates? (Describe) If there is such an area, what is the benefit from it? 12 (Describe) If there is such an area, are inmates required to be housed there? (such a requirement is non13 compliant).

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe:

If there is such an area, and an inmate chooses not to live there, are accommodations etc. still fully 14 available to the inmate? Describe any restrictions.

Describe:

In determining auxiliary aids/services to provide, is 15 primary consideration given to inmate request?

If any inmate filled out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services form after not being found deaf or HOH, signing a waiver, or not requesting aids/services, 16 were accommodations provided? Are waivers of Auxiliary Aids and Services 17 documented in inmate institutional files? Are instructions for the use of all auxiliary 18 aids/services shared appropriately with staff? 19 All auxiliary aids/services maintained? 20 Have any been out of comission? 21 Describe -- which and for how long? Inmates moving housing or transferred: not 22 separated from hearing aid? 23 If (s)he has been, is replacement provided? 24 Promptly? 25 Has there been a direct threat determination? 26 Describe

Describe: Describe:
Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA NA
NA
NA

NA NA
NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Appropriately individuated (must consider specific 27 degree of impairment and specific dangers posed) 28 Appropriately reported? 29 Was it the appropriate decision? 30 Are classes in sign language provided? 31 deaf inmates given notice? 32 priority given to deaf inmates?

Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

I Interpretation in general
Qualified interpretation services available: Is the process for using VRI/in-person interpretation 1 communicated to inmates? covers all inmate-staff communication when requested by inmate? (not limited to only certain 2 encounters/communications/settings)

Description/Notes

Does the request form clearly encompass religious 3 and other volunteer-provided programming?
Effective process for choosing qualified 4 interpretation method?

5 primary consideration given inmates' preferences? Standing arrangement with providers?
6 In-person? 7 VRI?
Is VRI availability: 8 flexible (regarding requests and usage)?
after hours when needed (not allowing for 48 hours 9 of notice)?
on weekends when needed (not allowing for 48 hours 10 of notice)?

during emergencies (including medical emergencies) 11 when needed (not allowing for 48 hours of notice)?
Appropriate preparations made for use in RHU? 12 Describe
VRI laptop functional? 13 In general 14 Always checked for sufficient battery power? 15 Routine software updates?
VRI laptop has necessary items with it? 16 Splitter? 17 Instructions? 18 Long power cord? 19 Usable as VRS? 20 VRI effectiveness tracked? 21 How?
Information used to determine when in-person 22 interpretation should be first recourse?
Is in-person interpretation available: 23 When VRI insufficient in programming, medical 24 Parole?
Describe each time in-person interpretation has been 25 offered

Describe: Describe:
Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA
NA NA

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered

# Issue/Question

during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Describe each time in-person interpretation has been 26 denied.
Parole board notified of need for interpretation at

27 least 7 days before?

Description/Notes

Has facility relied on another inmate to interpret? 28 (Reliance in non-emergency is non-compliant) 29 Describe
in an emergency? (in which time was of the essence 30 and VRI was unavailable)
Communication with inmates uses inmate's 31 preferred method?
Written communication is limited to only simple 32 matters.
Written communication is not needed when inmate 33 has low literacy
Qualified interpretation services available:

Describe:

Does the request form clearly encompass religious 34 and other volunteer-provided programming?
for all inmate-staff communication when requested by inmate? (not limited to only certain 35 encounters/communications/settings) Is the process for using VRI communicated to 36 inmates?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA

# Issue/Question
J Hand Restraints

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

1 Hand restraints ever used on inmate who signs?

Describe:

Used for an appropriate reason? transportation to/from prison? Escort in/out of restrictive housing? 2 Individualized finding of a security threat?

Security procedure allows use of VRI by inmate who 3 might ordinarily be restrained (in RHU, e.g.) 4 Necessary equipment purchased and installed? 5 Staff aware of the issue
Off-site medical care: 6 two-point hand restraint system used?
restraints removed when necessary for medical 7 communication?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA

# Issue/Question
K Non-auditory Alerts

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

1 Does the prison have non-auditory alerts? (Describe) 2 provided to all inmates who need it? 3 can and does it give alerts in real time? 4 sufficient to signal fire alarm? 5 sufficient to signal count alert? 6 programmed to signal different alerts? 7 used to notify of prison-wide events?
used to notify deaf or HOH inmates of events specific 8 to them?
Have any requests for medically necessary non9 auditory alerts been denied?
Non-auditory alerts monitored to ensure they are 10 working? 11 frequently enough? 12 monitored/recorded formally? 13 Announcement boards 14 used to notify of schedule changes? 15 used consistently? 16 in all dormitories? 17 in gym? 18 in library? 19 audited and monitored?
In-person or personal system notification when an 20 inmate misses a page?

Describe:

Has any inmate missed announcements/alarms/ 21 info only because of disability?
Were corrective steps taken to solve the problem in 22 the future? 23 Sufficient to notify inmates in emergencies?
Plan to evacuate deaf or HOH inmates in 24 emergency?
Does the plan account for how effective 25 communication will be provided?

Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

L Telecommunications
Videophones: 1 Installed? 2 Allow voice carry-over features? 3 Number of days out of service? (Specify)
Describe any technical difficulties, and efforts to 4 solve them.
When out of service, VRS used instead? Or describe 5 other alternative offered
Describe how inmates are informed of alternatives, 6 when videophone is out of service. 7 Same times of access as non-deaf inmates? 8 Appropriate location?
Escort routinely provided (incl. after hours, 9 weekends, emergency) if necessary? 10 Time: 2x that for non-deaf inmates? 11 Available same hours as ordinary phones?
No more permission needed than that for hearing 12 inmates using ordinary phones? 13 Advance request unnecessary? 14 Free?
Disciplinary oversight no more intense than regular 15 phone calls?
Has any inmate requested access to the videophones 16 and been denied?
Denial appropriate? Explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the 17 reason for the denial. TTY: 18 Installed? Protocol for how to access TTY known to inmates and 19 staff? Easy-to-understand, institution specific instructions 20 made available WITH TTY? 21 Function -- days out of service? (Specify) 22 Access -- appropriate hours, days? location substantially as accessible as conventional 23 telephones for non-deaf inmates? 24 hard of hearing inmates allowed to access? 25 Permission needed? Has any request to use the TTY been denied? 26 (Describe) 27 Time: 3x that for non-deaf inmates? 28 Money charged appropriate? (Describe) 29 annually tested? (List when most recently) Can access publicly available relay service phone 30 numbers?

Description/Notes Describe: Describe: Describe: Describe:
Describe: Describe:
Describe:
Describe: Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA

NA

NA NA
NA
NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Has KDOC determined that time usage permissions 31 for videophones and TTY is less than equitable? 32 If yes, how was ratio adjusted?
If yes, was determination (including reasoning, 33 evidence, etc.) documented? 34 Was monitor notified? 35 Was reasoning explained to monitor?
VRS via laptop 36 Available? 37 Known to relevant staff? (In RHU) 38 Used when appropriate?
Phones 39 Amplification in every group of phones?
Portable amplifiers available to inmates who need 40 them?
CapTel 41 Appropriate for any particular inmate? 42 If so, installed and working? 43 Request by any inmate denied?
TV/Movies 44 Is captioning available? 45 Is captioning used? 46 Is the captioning checked regularly? 47 Are the checks of the captioning logged?
Recreational movies: Captioning turned on regularly 48 (Describe)
49 Are inmates allowed to purchase tvs w/ captioning? 50 Amplification method? (Describe)
If inmate-purchased tv w/ captioning malfunctioned, did staff assist to same extent as w/other inmates 51 regarding malfunctioning personal property? All technology/ equipment in good working order? 52 (Describe problems) Access to communication services for deaf inmates in segregated housing equivalent to non-deaf 53 inmates of same status? Does KDOC monitor communications of deaf or HOH inmates only to the same extent and with the same 54 discretion as non-deaf inmates?

Describe:
Describe: Describe: Describe:
Describe: Describe: Describe any problems:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA
NA
NA NA NA NA NA

NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

M Miscellaneous Devices
1 Devices available? (Describe) 2 devices in commissary list?
possibility to request other devices from ADA 3 coordinator? 4 facilitation of purchase?
Purchase of any non-medically necessary device 5 denied? (Describe) 6 determined on case-by-case basis? 7 because security threat? 8 monitor notified? 9 reasoning explained?
ADA coordinator maintains records 10 of requests? 11 of denials?
N Disciplinary
Have any discipline occurred without an interpreter and without an inmate waiver, for which an inmate 1 has been punished? 2 Was a re-hearing granted?
O Grievances
Inmates told they can share grievances with ADA 1 coordinator?
If inmates choose to do that, does grievance coordinator forward copy of grievance to ADA 2 coordinator? Records of all grievances filed by deaf/HOH 3 inmates? (not just those related to settlement) 4 Adequate summaries provided in report? Including all deaf or HOH inmate grievances, not just 5 those in settlement? 6 Includes issues raised by inmate in grievance?

Description/Notes Describe:
Describe:

7 Includes institution in which grievance was filed? 8 Includes summary of KDOC response? 9 Includes grievance resolution (or lack thereof)?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA NA

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

P Training
Types available 1 CBT? (Using approved training?) 2 Who received? (Describe) 3 All appropriate staff? 4 Live training? (Information only) 5 Who received? (Describe) 6 All appropriate staff?
Targeted training on specific needs 7 training on best communication practices? 8 training on unique needs/problems?
training on possibility that deaf/HOH inmate may 9 miss alert?
training on possibility that deaf/HOH inmate may not hear verbal commands and strategies to handle that 10 problem?

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe:

11 training on identification of communication needs? consideration given to talking one-on-one with deaf
12 or HOH inmates, instead of in a group? Training on communication
13 training on use and role of interpreters? 14 training on process for obtaining interpreters?
training on importance of not separating imate from 15 hearing aid? 16 training on communication technology? 17 training on VRI?

18 training on how to turn on and check for captioning? 19 training on non-auditory alert office switch? 20 training on videophone rules?
Training on Policies 21 training on the Settlement?

22 training on identity and role of ADA coordinator? 23 training on KDOC anti-discrimination policy? 24 training on existence of KOMS/EMR alerts? 25 training on meaning of ID cards?
training on equipment/services/ accommodation 26 available? 27 training on hand restraint policy? 28 training on two-point hand restraint system? 29 training on disciplinary and grievance practies?
Do all relevant staff know about reporting 30 obligations? How do you know?
Training specifically for housing area staff

Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA NA NA NA

NA NA

NA

# Issue/Question
training on the use of cell/bed notices that indicate 31 an inmate is deaf/HOH 32 training on bed shaker switches 33 training on telecommunications
training on obligations to notify deaf and HOH 34 inmates of alerts
Training specifically for all corrections staff training on accommodations for inmates who sign 35 (esp. restraint policies) training on strategies for inmates who may not hear 36 directions/orders Training specifically for medical staff training on process to obtain hearing aid within two 37 months training on obligation to notify off-site providers of 38 needs 39 Training provided for review by Monitor?

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

Non-
Compliant NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:
1 Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening
4. Date of most recent hearing screening
5. Results of most recent hearing screening
6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies: (a) has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are needed (c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids (d) no hearing aid is needed
7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.

2

3

1 Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.
9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)
Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description Medical Visit 1 - Outcome
Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome
Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome
...

2

3

1 Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Any part of audiology process occurred during covered time period? (a) Start date (b) End date (c) Days for resolution (End date - start date) (d) If in process, how many days so far? (Today start date) (e) If either (c) or (d) is > 60 days, why? Solution to problems revealed in (e)?

2

3

Prison:

Name of person filling out form:

Date:

4

5

6

7

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC #

1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC

2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening
4. Date of most recent hearing screening
5. Results of most recent hearing screening
6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies: (a) has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are needed (c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids (d) no hearing aid is needed
7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.

4

5

6

7

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC # 8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does

it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of

receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an

induction loop system.

9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)

Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description Medical Visit 1 - Outcome
Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome
Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome
...

4

5

6

7

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC #

Any part of audiology process occurred during

covered time period?

(a) Start date

(b) End date

(c) Days for resolution (End date - start date)

(d) If in process, how many days so far? (Today -

start date)

(e) If either (c) or (d) is > 60 days, why?

Solution to problems revealed in (e)?

Technology

How many Where

FM radio transmitters, usable as an

amplifier system?

Phone amplifiers (not volume

control: portable amplifiers)

Captioned Telephone

Other amplifiers, amplification systems, or the like?

Bed shakers Vibrating watches? Vibrating alarm clocks? Pagers? Other non-auditory alerts or assistive devices currently in use or under consideration not mentioned above. Earphones for parole hearings

Earphones for orientation videos

When obtained Specifications (URL) How do inmates obtain access? How well do they work Other comments

Documentation to review KOMS alerts for each deaf/HOH inmate Grievances:

Date reviewed Comments (problems revealed, solutions, etc.)

Provide/Review summary of ALL grievances by all deaf/HOH inmates. Covers formal, informal, withdrawn, etc. Provide/Review full documentation of all grievances that address hearing/hearing accommodation issues. Solve any problems revealed. Discipline

Review all disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate who signs. Ensure that VRI or other effective communication was provided at each stage of each such proceedings.

Review all disciplinary proceedings involving failure to obey an order, or failure to stand for count, or other communications difficulty by a deaf/HOH inmate. Ensure that no such inmate is being penalized for inability to hear. VRI Log (review to ensure it's being used in appropriate circumstances.

VRS or other videophone alternative (review to ensure that when videophone is inoperative, alternative is in fact available/used) TTY instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.) VRI instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.)

Questions regarding effective communications in particular activities or locations. For each, mark compliance (Y, partial, N, no basis) and explain. Goal:

In-person interpretation

Ever used? Intake/ Orientation -- Non-medical Intake, Medical Auxiliary Aid Assessment Units Restrictive Housing Medical/MH care Programs Education Recreation Communications with Chaplain Prison-provided religious programming Volunteer -led programming (note: Only volunteer interpretation is required) Parole hearings Classification/ Transfer Legal Aid Grievance process Work assignments Court call and ALL parts of disciplinary process
Staff investigations Investigative interviews Preparation of report Shift supervisor's review of disciplinary report Investigator's review of disciplinary report Miranda warnings

Used whenever appropriate?

Availability of VRI: Appropriate equipment available (computer line,
Staff trained? outlet, space)

Ever used? How many times?

Used whenever appropriate? (without special request)

When advising inmate of right to consult with legal aide

Questions regarding effective commeach deaf or HOH inmate has an equal opportunity to participate Amplification: (Not just hearing aid -- space-specific amplification)

Adequate? Describe efforts, issues

Intake/

Orientation -- Non-medical

Intake, Medical

Auxiliary Aid Assessment

s

Units

Restrictive Housing

Medical/MH care

Programs

Education

Recreation

Communications with Chaplain

Prison-provided religious

programming

Volunteer -led programming (note:

Only volunteer interpretation is

required)

Parole hearings

Classification/

Transfer

Legal Aid

Grievance process

Work assignments

Court call and ALL parts of

disciplinary process

Staff investigations

Investigative interviews

Preparation of report

Shift supervisor's review of

disciplinary report

Investigator's review of

disciplinary report

Miranda warnings

When advising inmate of right to consult with legal aide

Audit item issues/ concerns

Notification of date, time, and place of hearing Hearing or re-hearing

In-person interpretation

Ever used?

Used whenever appropriate?

Availability of VRI: Appropriate equipment available (computer line,
Staff trained? outlet, space)

Ever used? How many times?

Used whenever appropriate? (without special request)

If deaf/hoh inmate is witness

Special questions: Has any inmate been required to attend a religious service without effective communication to receive any religious meal, diet, or other accommodation? No Are deaf or HOH inmates (who have witnessed or been suspected of violation) provided with an inmate or staff advisor on same terms as non-deaf inmates? Yes inmates can have a staff council upon request. It is reviewed and denied or appoved based on the same process as a non deaf inmate.

Amplification: (Not just hearing aid -- space-specific amplification)

Notification of date, time, and place of hearing Hearing or re-hearing

Adequate?

Describe efforts, issues

If deaf/hoh inmate is witness

Special questions: Has any inmate been required to atte No Are deaf or HOH inmates (who have? Yes inmates can have a staff council

Audit item issues/ concerns

USE THIS SHEET FOR ENSURING THAT EACH DEAR/HOH INMATE IS GETTING APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE

Name

Listed Signs Low literacy?

If signs to

Other Alert

with

to (So that

communicat

Bed Shaker? Device

KOMS comm written

Has

Has

e, noted in Auxiliary Aid (Not

(Not

ADA

unicat communicatio Deaf/HOH ID Bed/Door KOMS

Assessment requested; requested;

Precautio e

n is not

Card? (Y or Card? (Y or precaution meeting denied; denied;

ID

n?

(Y/N) effective)

waived) waived) notes?

took place? granted) granted)

USE THIS SHEET FOR ENSURING

Name

TTY Access

(Not

requested;

denied;

ID

granted)

Personal Phone Amplifier (Not requested; denied; granted)

Shake & Wake (Not requested; denied; granted)

Any other auxiliary aid requested? Outome? Audit item issues/concerns

Fill this out for EACH location where there are any deaf/HOH inmates

Dorm

Walk

If there are

How many Volume

Bed

any inmates

How inmates adjustable

shakers set Staff use If there are any

who sign:

many who sign phone available How up for use bed

inmates who If there are Ready

Deaf/ to

to inmates

many for

shakers for sign: Location any inmates access to

HOH communic without special bed

multiple multiple available for who sign: Staff videophone

inmates? ate

request?

shakers? purposes? purposes? VRI?

trained for VRI ?

Audit item issues/concerns

Date

Name

Inmate or staff? Inmate number Staff title

Topics

LIST ALL ISSUES THAT YOU SOLVED DURING THE AUDIT, OR THAT REMAIN TO BE SOLVED.

Problem

Solution

LIST ALL ISSUES THAT YOU SOLVED DRecheck 1 Notes

Problem

[Date here]

Recheck 2 Notes [Date here]

Recheck 3 Notes [Date here]

LIST ALL ISSUES THAT YOU SOLVED DRecheck 4 Notes

Problem

[Date here]

Recheck 5 Notes [Date here]

Recheck 6 Notes [Date here]

APPENDIX B
Site Visit Report of Settlement Monitor
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
November 2017 and June 2018 Site Visits
Western Kentucky Correctional Center (WKCC)—Nov. 14, 2017 Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)—Nov. 15, 2017
Green River Correctional Center (GRCC)—Nov. 16, 2017
Northpoint Training Center (NTC)—June 18, 2018 Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)—June 19, 2018 Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)—June 20, 2018 Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC)—June 21, 2018
Draft circulated to parties for comment: October 1, 2018 Final: November 30, 2018
INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement in this case addressing conditions for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates in Kentucky became effective June 28, 2015 and runs for five years. It allows me to visit each of the twelve Kentucky Department of Corrections (KYDOC) facilities each calendar year. In November 2017 and June 2018, I returned to six facilities for the second time, and made my first visit to the Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC), which has had only a very small (and shifting) number of deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates.
This report covers all seven visits. As with my previous site visit reports, this report is intended to be helpful not just to a particular prison, but to all of KYDOC’s facilities, as they continue to move towards compliance with the Agreement in this case.
The visits were each facilitated by the institutions’ ADA coordinators, who, like the other staff I spoke to, conducted themselves with professionalism throughout the tours. Prior to the visits, a law student working as my assistant conducted numerous phone interviews of KYDOC inmates, and I reviewed their interview notes and numerous other documents provided by each institution. During the visits, I was able to see every thing and every place I requested and to review all requested records, which were voluminous. I spoke freely and confidentially with inmates and with custody and non-custody staff. Exhibit A lists the name and title of each staff member I spoke with, by institution. Between the pre-tour phone inmate interviews (many of which I followed up with in-person interviews), and in-person inmate interviews conducted during my visit, this report incorporates information learned from conversations with 80 inmates, out of the 239 inmates identified to me from those facilities as deaf or hard-of-hearing (several of whom had been transferred or been released). See Table A.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 1 of 17

Table A: Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

All

WKCC

49

KSP

18

GRCC

47

NTC

50

BCFC

6

LSCC

34

EKCC

35

TOTAL 239

Either
16 7 10 14 6 13 14 80

Interviewed

In person Pre-Visit Phone

12

9

7

2

7

3

10

11

4

4

6

10

7

9

53

48

At each institution, I talked via in-person sign language interpretation to each inmate who uses sign language to communicate. I also made sure to talk to other hard-of-hearing inmates in a variety of housing and programming situations. To maximize confidentiality, I do not list the inmates we spoke to or use their names in this report.

On October 1, 2018, I provided this report in draft to the Warden and ADA coordinator at each referenced institution; KYDOC Director of Operations Chris Kleymeyer and Branch Manager Debbie Kays; KYDOC counsel Angela Dunham; and plaintiffs’ counsel, giving each one week for comments or corrections. I received some requested information, which is incorporated throughout. I also provided the same draft to plaintiffs’ counsel, and received several helpful writing suggestions (now incorporated), but no substantive proposed edits.

Each Warden welcomed the visits and my earlier oral feedback, which I shared at exit meetings at each institution (for EKCC, I did that exit meeting a couple of days later, by conference call). I found each of the visits extremely productive. KYDOC continues to make very significant progress towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Not all processes are yet working smoothly, but the situation for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates continues to improve.

As previously discussed in my court reports, I am focusing visits not on additional recommendations, but on compliance with the agreement and implementation of prior recommendations. This report identifies and describes the areas in which there seem to be ongoing problems, and explains what is needed, citing the Settlement Agreement provisions and relevant prior recommendations that cover that topic. For ease of reference, Exhibit B includes the prior recommendations and the several new ones.

I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT

KYDOC has made significant progress in identifying and tracking deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The innovation that is moving this forward is a new Kentucky Offender Management System (“KOMS”) “precaution” labeled “ADA.” That is, in each inmate’s digital file, there is a notation, easily noticeable on the opening screen, that flags his or her disability. When an inmate

Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 2 of 17

is transferred from one institution to another, this KOMS precaution now triggers an automatic email to the ADA coordinator at the receiving institution, to allow preparation for the inmate’s arrival. This is a great step forward.
There are a few issues, however.
• Not every institution has gone through every one of their deaf/hard-of-hearing (HOH) inmates’ records and ensured that the new precaution is being used. This needs to happen, at each and every institution, or the new automated system will fail (as it has done in a number of occasions already).
• When an inmate is newly identified as deaf/HOH, that, too, needs to be promptly reflected with a KOMS alert. There has been some confusion about when this entry should occur. The answer is: once a medical provider finds a hearing impairment. The screening methodology currently being used is a questionnaire; 3 or more “yes” answers to the screening questions leads to a medical-provider (MD or APRN) hearing evaluation. The questionnaire is a screening method, not itself an evaluation. So answering “yes” to the questions should not lead to a KOMS alert. It is however, crucial that when the provider finds that someone has a hearing impairment, the KOMS alert be triggered. Audiologist evaluation should not be required; the standard is not the same as for a hearing aid. For example, an inmate who is deaf in one ear but has excellent hearing in the other will not qualify for a hearing aid, but does have a hearing impairment that needs tracking and documentation in KOMS.
• In rare circumstances, the KOMS precaution should be turned off—for example, if an inmate receives surgery that corrects his hearing. This is sometimes not happening.
• Each institution needs to ensure that the automatic emails sent on transfers are actually getting to the ADA coordinator. This is not yet consistent.
• Each ADA coordinator should be able to run a report of every inmate with the KOMS precaution at the coordinator’s institution, to use for tracking purposes. This is not the case.
I alerted Ms. Kays to these issues on July 9, 2018, and believe that each institution has now gone through its deaf/HOH caseload and ensured that each inmate has the appropriate KOMS alert. In addition, ADA coordinators should now be able to run the appropriate reports. I will check on these issues again using the next semi-annual self-report.
Although I have examined the issue less systematically, I believe Electronic Medical Record (EMR) precautions are also not used consistently; that is, while there are encounter notes in individual patients’ records, there is often no “deaf/hard-of-hearing” flag at the top of the record.1
1 See Settlement Agreement VI.C.2 (“For each Deaf Inmate, the medical staff will note, in bold marking, the Deaf Inmate’s disability on the medical file cover and in the Deaf Inmate’s medical file.”)
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 3 of 17

II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
The issue on which I have continued to spend the most time at each of the visited institutions is prompt and appropriate provision of audiology services. Medical care at all KYDOC institutions is provided by Correct Care Solutions (CCS). At each institution, medical staff have worked to facilitate inmate access to audiology services. Each institution sends inmates who fail the whisper test to an audiologist (or, if indicated, an Ear, Nose & Throat doctor), for hearing testing, hearing aid evaluation, and hearing aid fitting. Staff have made significant progress in creating and managing a smooth and timely process. Many (though not all) inmates are now receiving timely audiology services. Some but not all ADA coordinators and medical staff are using the recommended tracking system to ensure that every deaf and hardof-hearing inmate is appropriately and promptly assessed and provided with necessary audiology services.2 Still, I have had to ask for frequent follow-ups, and at each institution I visited, there were individuals who had fallen off the track. This issue is improving but needs continued focus. In May, KYDOC announced a new, more objective and clearer standard for when hearing aids should be provided. It should help considerably going forward, but the tracking issue remains crucial.
It is my understanding that in recent weeks, KYDOC has shifted to a system where hearing aids, once prescribed, are received without an additional visit to an audiologist. This has the potential to speed things up considerably, though it may also lead to follow-up issues. I will inquiry further in future visits and reports.
III. INMATE ORIENTATION
I have previously noted the need for a routine “auxiliary aids and services assessment” process.3 As I have previously explained, the best way to assess the need for aids/services necessary for effective communication and to avoid discrimination is an individual meeting between an ADA coordinator, or deputy ADA coordinator, and each deaf/HOH inmate. (This approach is similar to the “interactive process” required by the ADA under Title I, which deals with employment.) The idea of the meeting is for staff to understand the communications needs
2 Settlement Agreement V.B requires that “All Auxiliary Aids and Services required by this Agreement, the U.S. Constitution, the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Kentucky laws, along with any other applicable federal and state laws, which are deemed medically necessary, will be provided promptly upon request, free of charge, to Deaf Inmates subject to” appropriate co-payments. Auxiliary Aids and Services include hearing aids. Settlement Agreement I.2. See Recommendation 6 (“Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait.”).
3 Settlement Agreement III.C (“Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment”). See Recommendation 45 (“For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. . . . The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 4 of 17

of the inmate. At the meeting, the ADA coordinator or deputy ADA coordinator can inform the inmate about available aids and the inmate can discuss his communication needs. The inmate’s request is entitled, both under the Agreement and the operative regulation, to “primary consideration.”4
It still seems to be the case that these meetings for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates are happening in some institutions only when prompted by my impending site visit, rather than routinely on entry into the institution or at the annual classification review.5 In addition, at some institutions—notably NTC—they are done by unit staff, who are ill-equipped to actually explain the various services and devices covered. Unit administrators and case workers are less likely than the ADA coordinator to know about available auxiliary aids and services and potential accommodations. Unless they are appropriately trained and informed about these matters, they cannot conduct an adequate auxiliary aid assessment. I have previously made that point, but it is clear to me based on this most recent site visit that the ADA coordinator, deputy ADA coordinator, or someone else who is particularly involved in ADA matters should conduct the auxiliary aid assessment. That is my strong recommendation, because I am now convinced that unless the ADA coordinator conducts these assessments, in person, institutions will not be able to comply with the settlement agreement.
A particular issue is that at each institution, inmates identified as deaf or hard-of-hearing receive a special ID card.6 In addition, those who want one are supposed to receive a notice to post on their bed or cell door that alert others to their hearing impairment. (Some inmates do not want this card, because they worry it makes them more vulnerable to other inmates.) It continues to be the case at a number of institutions that these cards are not being issued to inmates on arrival. In fact, many inmates received their cards the day or two before I arrived. These cards must be provided on or close to arrival. This is an issue I have raised a number of times before, and appropriate progress has not been made. The solution is not complex: Recommendation: The ADA coordinator or his or her deputy should track each and every inmate classified as deaf and hard-of-hearing, personally conduct an accommodations assessment, and ensure that each promptly receives an HOH card and, if desired, a bed/cell card.
IV. SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS FOR DEAF/HARD-OF-HEARING INMATES
In several institutions—Green River and EKCC among them—officials have decided to concentrate deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates in one housing area. The ADA’s “integration mandate” requires that states “shall administer services, programs, and activities in the most
4 Settlement Agreement I.5 (“In determining what form of Auxiliary Aids and Services is necessary, primary consideration shall be given to the request of the Deaf Inmate for such Auxiliary Aids and Services (see 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2)).” 28 C.F.R. § 160(b)(2) includes essentially the same language..
5 Settlement Agreement III.B (“Any Deaf Inmate who was not assessed at the initial intake, assessment, and classification will be assessed at the annual classification review.”).
6 Settlement III.D.1 (“Upon identifying an Inmate as Deaf during initial intake, assessment, and classification, the Deaf Inmate will receive a distinct identification (ID) card that clearly identifies him or her as a Deaf Inmate. The ID card will signify to the KDOC personnel that the Inmate is Deaf, may not respond to verbal commands, and may require Auxiliary Aids and Services.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 5 of 17

integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.”7 The regulation that deals specially with program access in prisons and jails adds some detail to this general mandate. It provides, in pertinent part:
(b)(2) Public entities shall ensure that inmates or detainees with disabilities are housed in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individuals. Unless it is appropriate to make an exception, a public entity–
(i) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in inappropriate security classifications because no accessible cells or beds are available; (ii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in designated medical areas unless they are actually receiving medical care or treatment; [and] (iii) Shall not place inmates or detainees with disabilities in facilities that do not offer the same programs as the facilities where they would otherwise be housed.8
Thus any “clustering” of inmates because of their hearing impairments must be done with care to ensure that the integration mandate is also observed.
That said, clustering deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates might well be helpful: clustered inmates could have better access to the videophone and TTY, bedshakers, and other built-in equipment. Inmates who sign could also benefit greatly from having others to talk to. These efficiencies and benefits are not inconsistent with the integration mandate. Recommendation: In order to comply with the ADA’s integration mandate, inmates may be offered the chance to be housed in any hard-of-hearing cluster, but may not be compelled to do so in order to receive the accommodations to which they are entitled. At the facilities that have these clusters, there was some—inappropriate—degree of compulsion being exerted. At Green River, inmates were told that they could not have any accommodations if they opted not to live in the HOH area—including something so simple as a door card identifying them as hard-of-hearing. Several inmates did not want to move to Dorm 1, where the cluster was, because it would force them to give up their job or other arrangements that were working well for them. At EKCC, I spoke to one inmate near tears who didn’t want any accommodations for his hearing impairment, at all—but was nonetheless under the impression that because of that impairment, he was going to be forced to move from a housing area where he was managing safely and into a highersecurity, tougher unit where he was afraid for his safety.
V. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION WITH HARD-OF-HEARING INMATES
A. Assistive listening systems and amplifiers
As I have explained in prior reports, an assistive listening system captures sound close to its source via a microphone and transmits that sound directly to the earphones or hearing aids of people with assistive listening devices. Such systems can be extremely helpful to people who are hard-of-hearing, because they allow the listener to amplify the sound without distortion and without amplifying the ambient noise.
7 28 C.F.R. §35.130(d) 8 28 C.F.R. § 35.152.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 6 of 17

Again, I have noted previously that several KYDOC facilities already use what is in effect an assistive listening system for their common-space televisions; they broadcast the institutionally available channels on a radio frequency, and then require inmates listening to the common televisions to use radio receivers, with earbuds, rather than playing the sound out loud. The purpose of this has been to keep the sound level down in common spaces—but there is a major benefit for hard-of-hearing inmates, who report that they can hear TVs that use that set up. Not every institution uses this approach, and even in facilities that do, some dorms are not set up with the necessary equipment. At the least, this is a good system to use in any dorm where hardof-hearing inmates are housed.
But more broadly, there is a significant need for assistive listening in other communications venues. It is simply impossible for there to be effective communication or equal access to programs without amplification for hard-of-hearing inmates in education/rehabilitative programming. Several of the institutions I visited agreed to test various approaches for providing assistive listening. One of my priorities for the upcoming reporting period is for there to be 3-5 such tests and then, within the next year, for each institution to implement some kind of assistive listening system in the appropriate settings. SAP (Substance Abuse Program) is a particularly important setting for effective assistive listening systems: this program takes place in a living unit, with many groups meeting at once. I have heard from many hard-of-hearing inmates at many institutions that they simply cannot understand what goes on during SAP. This is inconsistent with the ADA and the settlement agreement.9 But each institution needs to implement appropriate amplification in several settings: school, programming, chapel, SAP, and perhaps more. (It may be that a portable system could be used, and used in several locations.)
9 See Settlement Agreement V.A.2 (“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.”); I.2 (defining “Auxiliary Aids and Services” to include “assistive listening systems”); Recommendation 67 (“Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 7 of 17

SAP programming takes place in the “core” of a living unit, with many groups meeting at once. https://corrections.ky.gov/depts/SAP/Pages/default.aspx.
After my most recent site visits, a number of institutions agreed to test amplification: • LSCC agreed to test amplifiers that linked earphones to a speaker’s microphone by either FM radio or blue-tooth, for use in SAP • WKCC has already implemented FM transmittal/amplification in its chapel.10 • GRCC agreed to test radio amplifiers in SAP and classes, as well as to try out nonauditory alarm clocks. • NTC agreed to pilot an amplification system in the SAP program and in the academic building, and four FM transmitters for use in academic classrooms and other locations as needed.11 • BCFC purchased two telephone amplifiers.
B. Phone amplifiers
Phones pose a particular problem for hard-of-hearing inmates. Prison phones are, of course, subject to very hard use, which can degrade sound quality. And sometimes they are located close to noisy areas like showers or dayrooms. Securus, KYDOC’s current phone contractor, offers volume controls on phones, which are helpful—people with hearing
10 For full information, see https://www.ccrane.com/item/acc_trans_trans2/100106/ digital_fm_transmitter_2_for_sending_near_broadcast_quality. These devices were apparently purchased in January 2017.
11 Specifically, NTC has ordered two Electro-Voice ZLX-12 12” 2-Way Passive Loudspeakers, Shure SM58 S Mic and Switches, and Rapco Horizon Standard Lo-Z Microphone XLR cables, and four C. Crane FM transmitters.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 8 of 17

impairments can turn the volume up. But apparently the Securus contract is under negotiation, which has meant that new volume adjustment phones have not been available in recent months. Each institution needs to ensure that it has at least one volume-adjusted phones in each areas used by a hard-of-hearing inmate.12 In addition, the degree of amplification may be insufficient for some inmates. On my recommendation, several facilities have tested a portable phone amplifier. This testing has demonstrated that these devices work very well for some hard-ofhearing inmates. Recommendation: Portable phone amplifiers should be made available at every institution. The need is even more acute if Securus is not installing volume adjustable phones while the contract is under negotiation.
This Telephone Amplifier (cost, approximately $20) has been tested at several institutions and is proving very useful for some inmates.
See, e.g., https://www.harriscomm.com/portabletelephone-amplifier.html.
C. Captioned Telephones
Captioned telephone technology allows individuals who are hard-of-hearing (who do not use sign language) to use telephones. The hard-of-hearing individual (call him A) speaks into the phone; the individual on the other end (call her B) also speaks, and A both hears what B says and can simultaneously read a computer-assisted transcription. Captioned telephones can be installed in prison—there is one at KSP. Inmates can be charged for the calls, as with noncaptioned calls. The devices themselves cost only $75, and the captioning service is free.
This is an excellent technology. For inmates whose hearing impairment is significant enough to make phones unusable, but who do not sign, captioned telephones make the difference between access and non-access. Every institution that has such an inmate should install a captioned telephone: the experience at KSP can be a guide. Several of the institutions whose visits are described here would benefit from a captioned telephone; LSCC, EKCC, and NTC agreed to try to install one and share what they learn.
D. TTY
For inmates who cannot hear a phone but do not sign, a TTY may be the most appropriate technology. Every KYDOC prison has the necessary equipment—but for each, that equipment
12 Recommendation 74 “Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by . . . (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 9 of 17

needs to be known and accessible to inmates. When a TTY is stored in a far-away office and available only with an in-advance request, it is likely not appropriately accessible. In facilities where any inmate wishes to use this equipment, it needs to be available with ease. This is being done at some facilities, but not others. In addition, at WKCC, staff believed that one inmate might be using the TTY inappropriately because (unlike voice phones) it was not monitored. This should be a fairly easy problem to solve: TTYs have a print function where every word is printed onto a roll of paper. If that function is set on, monitoring should be simple.
VI. COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR SIGN-LANGUAGE USERS
Four facilities covered by this report—WKCC-Ross, BCFC, EKCC, and NTC—were not at the time of my visit housing any inmates who use sign language to communicate, and therefore did not need interpretive services. Between them, the other three—GRCC, KSP, and LSCC—housed four inmates who communicate using sign language. The availability of sign language interpretation at those facilities has improved but is not yet sufficiently robust or routine.
A. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
In each of the institutions covered here, a VRI laptop was available during my visit and staff seemed to know that it existed. I tested each laptop and they all worked. This is a good base on which to build. Some problems remain, however. Most important, it remains the case that VRI services are not being used in many situations when they should. The VRI laptops are being used in certain formal communication settings—classification and disciplinary hearings, for example. (Even in these situations, usage is inconsistent—at KSP, for example, staff several times neglected to obtain the laptop, and the inmate was asked to waive its use or wait for a long time while it was set up.) But even if VRIs were used for all such formal meetings, there are many other situations where effective communication is necessary but obstacles to VRI usage remain. These include medical appointments, investigation meetings to prepare for disciplinary hearings, meetings with grievance or other legal aides (inmates who assist other inmates with grievances or disciplinary hearings), and other conversations between staff and inmates who sign to communicate. Each institution needs to set up an easy process by which staff obtain and use the VRI laptop for interpretation of conversations with deaf inmates, without needing to cancel and reschedule meetings or the like. In order to make this work, staff must be trained that the VRI is available, and that its use is not a big deal or special, but is simply the most effective way for them to communicate with inmates who sign.13
13 The Settlement Agreement requires effective communication, including interpretation, in many different kinds of situations: VI.A, III.C (auxiliary aids and services assessment); VI.C.4 (emergency on-site medical); VI.H (transfer and classification); V.A.2 (grievance hearings); VII.A (disciplinary hearings and related meetings); VI.J (“for any significant communications between Deaf Inmates and KDOC staff that is not specifically discussed in this Agreement.”). See especially Recommendation 10 (“For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 10 of 17

It is particularly important that the VRI laptops be used routinely in segregated (or “restrictive”) housing, because various features of segregation obstruct many of the coping mechanisms deaf inmates might use to understand what someone is telling them—the ambient noise is extreme, visual cues are scarce, etc. That means that staff need to plan in advance for such usage, figuring out for each restrictive housing area where an internet signal will be tapped and how to appropriately restrain an inmate who needs to use his hands to sign.
One obstacle to more prevalent use of the VRI laptop is that not all staff know how to operate it. In addition, the technical preparation to facilitate usage has not been done universally. The VRI laptops do not all have in their bags long computer cords, signal splitters (See Figure C), and instructions.14
Figure C: Splitter
B. In-person interpretation
Some facilities make in-person interpreters available when needed—for classes or programming that involves multiple speakers, for example. At others, it was apparent that the facility was very reluctant to provide in-person interpretation, and staff had not thought through when such interpretation would be necessary for effective communication. Both VRI and inperson interpretation need to be available; they are complementary.
C. Interpretation for education and programming
As I have discussed in prior reports, it may be that an in-person interpreter is necessary to provide effective communication and equal access to educational/programming services. Institutions can, however, try out VRI as an alternative. In order to do that, they will need to plan in advance for internet access in each applicable space, and, depending on the need, perhaps get a more suitable microphone, capable of picking up speech from the teacher and/or other inmates. What’s clear is that somehow, interpretive services must be available. Institutions need to plan systematically how to meet this need for academic education, groups such as Alcoholics Anonymous, and evidence-based programs like Moral Reconation Therapy.
14 Settlement Agreement IX.E.1 (“The KDOC will ensure that all equipment under the KDOC’s control that is used to accommodate Deaf Inmates is kept in good working order.”); IX.E.2 (“The KDOC will ensure that KDOC employees are adequately trained in the operation of the technology.”); Recommendation 64 (“Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer.”).
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 11 of 17

VII. FACILITY BY FACILITY
For the three institutions I visited in November 2017, I both reviewed compliance and sought to improve a site-visit checklist I have developed, so that it can be used by ADA coordinators to self-audit. For the four institutions I visited in June 2018, I was able to use the revised checklist more completely. For all seven institutions, observations follow:
A. Western Kentucky Correctional Center (WKCC) (including Ross-Cash)—Nov. 14, 2017
Observed Compliance Issues • Deaf/HOH inmates not tracked appropriately: o Not everyone has a KOMS alert o Spreadsheets shared with me were incomplete. • HOH IDs not being provided promptly. • Access to TTY limited because of security considerations; could be solved with printer function • Amplification needed in several areas: Phone amplifiers; SAP; other programming • Difficulty with loudspeaker announcements—inmates with significant impairments are not receiving effective communication of announcements. This could be solved with bed shakers, “shake and wake” watches, assistants, or personal notifications. • Audiology issues: o Routine physicals don’t include hearing screen o Pocket-talker used (inappropriately) as a screening device. o Insufficient tracking of audiology services leading to long delays o Timeliness problems in hearing aid prescription/provision. (Note: Switched outside providers, which may have solved the issue.)
Promising Practices • Institutional TV broadcast on radios, so amplification is available. • Agreed to pilot room amplification in the chapel
B. Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)—Nov. 15, 2017
Observed Compliance Issues: • Tracking is insufficient: o My tracking requests needed to be made multiple times o Medical tracking is disorganized, sometimes incorrect. o Arrivals are not known; HOH inmates arrive without notice to ADA coordinator. • Underuse of VRI • Amplification needed: School, church, programming, parole. • Inmates apparently not familiar with the ADA coordinator
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 12 of 17

• Inmates complain that staff are not well informed about how to communicate with deaf/hard-of-hearing people. Should share communications tip-sheet more broadly.
Promising practices • Use of Sorensen videophone • Use of pager • Two channels for movies implemented, so one can be captioned at all times • Installation of a captel (see picture, below) • New microphone for VRI solving an echo problem

Captel Cabinet

Captel, inside cabinet

C. Green River Correctional Center (GRCC)—Nov. 16, 2017
Observed Compliance Issues • Tracking o No notifications on arrival of deaf/HOH inmates. • Issues with auxiliary aids: o Bed shaker/vibrating watch process is unclear. It seems likely some inmates who need these auxiliary aids are not getting them. o Inmates were told that if they didn’t agree to be in an HOH housing cluster, they couldn’t get any accommodations. o HOH ID cards not provided promptly. o HOH door/bed cards not provided for all inmates who wanted them. o TTY is not accessible off-hours. • Amplification: o Amplification is needed for education, programming (especially SAP), chapel.

Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 13 of 17

o If a deaf/HOH inmate is enrolled, classes should not be held in noisy environments (like the kitchen).
o When the PA system was not working, staff have not notified HOH inmates of announcements that affected them.
o Uncertain if every dorm with HOH inmates has at least one phone with volume control.
• Interpretation: o Medical staff didn’t know how to obtain the VRI laptop. o VRI is not being used for all appropriate situations, e.g., medical, legal aide and investigation meetings, ordinary conversations with inmates. VRI should be easily available from the unit, not locked up elsewhere, and should be offered to inmates who sign. (Note: inmates tried to solve this problem by using the videophone, instead, but if the VRI is easily available, that would stop.) o Interpretation needed for classes/programming: VRI may work adequately, but if not, in-person interpretation will be needed.
• Medical: o Inmates not receiving a hearing screening at their routine physicals. o Using pocket talkers as a screening device, which is an obstacle to appropriate care. o Problem with decision-making process about who gets sent for audiology visit, who gets a hearing aid. (New policy should solve.)
Promising Practice: • Distribution of “communication tip sheet”
D. Northpoint Training Center (NTC)—June 18, 2018
Observed Compliance Issues • Tracking difficulties o Deaf/HOH inmates not being appropriately tracked: ADA coordinator’s list is incomplete. o ADA coordinator cannot run a KOMS report. o Inmate use of sign language is not noted in KOMS. o Not every deaf/HOH inmate who gets transferred triggers a transfer email to the ADA coordinator, including some who are in KOMS. o No documentation of denial of accommodations requests; need to go through each request, make a decision, tell the inmate, document the reason. • Auxiliary Aids o Inappropriate policy against bed shakers for anyone who doesn’t sign to communicate. (This has now been changed; assessment will be based on the severity of the need.) o Unit staff is completing the assessment packet, which is therefore more a paperwork exercise rather than an actual assessment. This assessment should be done by the ADA coordinator, with the inmate present.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 14 of 17

o TTY is not useable without hearing person’s intervention. o Consider captel for appropriate inmates. o Hearing aids likely to get lost when inmate goes to RHU. When property
is being gathered, need to find, give to inmate. • Amplification needed in several spaces:
o SAP, chapel, classrooms. o Volume control on phones, generally and on RHU phone. o Classroom fan noise interfered with HOH communication (solved during
visit). • Interpretation
o VRI not being used when needed. o VRI needs a splitter and a coupler.
Promising Practice: • Audioscope (objective instrument for audiology screening)
E. Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)—June 19, 2018
Observed Compliance Issues • Medical documentation is sparse.
F. Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)—June 20, 2018
Observed Compliance Issues • Tracking: o Not every deaf/HOH inmate is in KOMS. o Not every deaf/HOH inmate has a HOH card. • Amplification: o Needed in chapel. o Needed for SAP (particularly given the fans, laundry, ice machine in the “core”). o Need volume adjustments for phones. • Auxiliary aids o Several inmates have a need for a bed shaker or vibrating watch. o One inmate has requested a pager; need to assess and respond. o Hearing aids can be lost when inmates are moved to RHU. o Need a system for movie captioning, at least sometimes.
Promising practices • Have ordered a captel. • Considering piloting an amplification system for SAP
G. Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC)—June 21, 2018
Observed Compliance Issues • Tracking issues:
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 15 of 17

o Not all deaf/HOH inmates are noted in KOMS. o Some inmates are noted as deaf/HOH who are not. o Transfer notices are not arriving for deaf/HOH inmates, including some
who have appropriate KOMS precautions. • Auxiliary aids:
o Many deaf/HOH inmates do not (or did not, until a few days prior to my visit) have deaf/HOH ID cards.
o Some deaf/HOH inmates did not have deaf/HOH door tags. o Deaf/HOH inmates are not getting bed shakers. o TTY is too high for easy use, and is missing instructions. o Deaf/HOH inmates are not aware of how to obtain ADA services. • Audiology: o Tracking of audiology services is insufficient: need to note when
people are “in process” so process problems are solved. o Medical is not issuing pocket talkers (while hearing aid process is
ongoing). o Have not conducted any retrospective review of inmates denied hearing
aids, to ensure compliance with current standards. o Inmate “declinations” are being too-sharply enforced; for example, if
an inmate declines an audiology visit because he is sick that day, that should not mean he never gets audiology services. • Amplification: o Volume adjustment is not available on at least one phone accessible to each deaf/HOH inmate. o Inmates need amplification in numerous situations: programming; chapel, parole. • Interpretation: o Staff seem not to fully understand/buy-in to need for VRI use. • Apparently not all staff have received ADA/settlement training.
Promising practices • Use of “shake and wake” watches: These are non-auditory alarm watches available to hard-of-hearing inmates to help alert them to pill call, chow, etc. • TTY availability in housing unit. • Excellent knowledge of hospital cuffs—a restraint method that allows inmates who sign to continue to communicate even when cuffed. • Implementing two institutional movie channels—one with captions at all times. • Agreement to install a captioned telephone. • Dry erase boards in intake. • In-person mental health appointment with inmate who signs, because couldn’t make the VRI work.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 16 of 17

VIII. CONCLUSION Implementation of the Settlement Agreement continues to progress. I am attaching my
prior recommendations, adding the three new recommendations from this report, as Exhibit B to this report. Those three new recommendations are: Recommendation 83: The ADA coordinator or his or her deputy should track each and every inmate classified as deaf and hard-of-hearing, personally conduct an accommodations assessment, and ensure that each promptly receives an HOH card and, if desired, a bed/cell card. Recommendation 84: In order to comply with the ADA’s integration mandate, inmates may be offered the chance to be housed in any hard-of-hearing cluster, but may not be compelled to do so in order to receive the accommodations to which they are entitled. Recommendation 85: Portable phone amplifiers should be made available at every institution.
This full list should assist KYDOC staff with their ongoing compliance efforts. In addition, in light of the experiences detailed above, and an additional self-audit pilot (described in its own report) I am modifying the compliance checklist, to share it with KYDOC. Much progress has been made.
Monitor’s Report, November 2017 & June 2018 Site Visits, p. 17 of 17

Exhibit A: Staff interviews and meetings
Western Kentucky Correctional Center (WKCC)—Nov. 14, 2017 Timothy Lane, Warden Deborah Grimes, ADA coordinator Jacob Bruce, UAI Jill Croft, APRN Christina Hatton, Deputy Warden Monique Jones, HSA Rebecca Smith, Administrative Assistant Jon Tangerose, UA II Frida Wallace, ADA coordinator Earl Williams, Officer
Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)—Nov. 15, 2017 Dan Smith, Program Director / ADA coordinator Skyla Grief, Deputy Warden - Programs Dione Hardin, Recreational Department Supervisor D. Menser, Correctional Officer Nancy Raines, Health Services Administrator Brian Starnes, Front Gate Officer (intake) Bruce VonDwingelo, Deputy Warden - Operations
Green River Correctional Center (GRCC)—Nov. 16, 2017 DeEdra Hart, Warden Mark Jackson, Unit Administrator II / ADA coordinator Chuck Bastings, Lieutenant (Adjustments) Klayton Burden, Program Administrator (SAP) Ron Cary, Nurse Service Administrator Lessye Crafton, Nurse Practitioner Darime Ellis, Unit Administrator II (RHU) Grant Penrod, CTO Seg. Mike Robinson, Deputy Warden Darrell Wheeler, Unit Administrator II Steven Wright, Caseworker CTO / Caseworker for intake Dorm and Classification

Northpoint Training Center (NTC)—June 18, 2018 Don Bottom, Warden Brandon Lynch, ADA coordinator Kenneth Armstrong, Chaplain Henry Brewer, CTO - Orientation Heather Caldwell, Director of Nursing Susan Dye, MRT Timothy Gray, Teacher Stefany Hughes, UA, RHU Tim Metz, Caseworker Daniel Napier, UA Unit A Keith Schneider, Fire & Safety Forrest Sexton, GED Instructor Brandon Spires, SAP Stephanie Thompson, HSA Earl Westerfield, R&D Supervision
Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)—June 19, 2018 Keith Helton, Warden Derek Miracle, ADA coordinator Brandy Harn, Back-up ADA coordinator Josh Hart, CTO II Robbie Landrom, CO R&D Susan Partin, Medical
Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)—June 20, 2018 David Green, Warden Lorie Conley, ADA coordinator Heather Bossio, CTO David Cary, Chaplain Michael Cepeda, Sergeant - Intake Vanessa Gollihue, SAP administrator Rhonda May, CTO Patricia Shepherd, LPN Christy Smith, Teacher Malcolm Smith, Deputy Warden
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC)—June 21, 2018 Kathy Litteral, Warden Michael Prater, Major (former ADA coordinator) Chris King, ADA coordinator Todd Boyce, Chaplain Amanda Carter, Administrative Assistant, Medical Cody Duchnowski, CO RHU Travis Evans, Deputy Warden Aberhorn Felton, Lieutenant

Jamie Frisbey, Rec. Sherry Johnson, Interim HSA Whitley Jones, Classification and Treatment Officer Holli Litteral GED instructor Michael McKinney, Deputy Warden Steve Meadows, Correctional Ed., Regional Admin. Shelva Rowe, Pre-release Corordinator Kim Short, Nurse Practitioner Michael Smith, Lieutenant Carla Sparks, Unit Administrator Susan Thompson, Unit Administrator Barbara Turner, Nurse

Exhibit B
Adams & Knights v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT (E.D. Ky.)
Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
CONSOLIDATED RECOMMENDATIONS
AS OF December 1, 2018
I group the recommendations I have made by when I made them. The numbering is continuous from one group to the next.
Group 1 (April 21, 2016)
Note: These are edited from their original wording; they are phrased more generally, in order eliminate the references to KSR.
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT
Recommendation 1: Each facility should identify all inmates who meet the Agreement’s definition of “Deaf.” This is necessary both in order to report names to me and to ensure that appropriate services are provided to hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B; XV.B.1.d)
Recommendation 2: Include additional questions in the screening questionnaire, along the lines of:
• Do you currently have and use a hearing aid? • Have you ever been diagnosed with hearing loss? • Have you ever used a hearing aid that you no longer use? (If yes, Why don’t you use
it anymore?) A “yes” answer to any of the these three questions should be followed up by a provider visit, unless the inmate explains that he no longer uses the hearing aid because his hearing has improved so that it is no longer necessary.
• If you currently have a hearing aid, is it working ok? A “no” answer to this question should be followed up by a provider visit.
• Note to tester: If the inmate seems unable to understand these questions due to a hearing impairment, provider follow-up is indicated.
(Settlement Agreement I.3; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 3: Staff administering the questionnaire should be alert to (and trained on) the possibility of low literacy, and should ask questions orally when appropriate. Among illiterate inmates, a hearing impairment sufficient to undermine their ability to answer these questions ought to itself trigger referral to the appropriate provider. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.A; III.B)
Recommendation 4: Further assessment of the inmate should include not just the medical decision whether to send the inmate to an audiologist, but a separate, explicit, charted and electronically-
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 1 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

tracked decision whether he is deaf or hard-of-hearing. (Settlement Agreement III.B; III.D [identification cards]; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; XV.B [reporting])
Recommendation 5: The KDOC Electronic Medical Record system should include a single electronic code that flags inmates who are deaf, hard-of-hearing, or hearing-impaired (hereinafter Deaf, in this report), to facilitate provision of services to them. (Settlement Agreement III.B)
II. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 6: Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.) One way to accomplish less expensive and more comprehensive assessment for any backlog might be to bring in an audiologist to each applicable facility for two or three days. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
III. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 7: Full information about hearing aids and hearing evaluations, including the availability of batteries without charge, should be provided to inmates. See Exhibit D-2. (III.F)
Recommendation 8: Inmates waiting for an audiologist evaluation or for hearing aid service should be offered an amplifier while they wait. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
Recommendation 9: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, some kind of qualified interpretive services should be readily available for any communication between an inmate and staff when the inmate requests interpretation. The availability of interpretation should not be limited to only certain types of encounters, communications, or settings. (Settlement Agreement III; VI)
Recommendation 10: For inmates who use sign language to communicate, no special request should be needed to obtain VRI services for auxiliary aid/service assessment, emergency health care on-site, classification and transfer hearings and related meetings, grievance meetings and hearings, disciplinary hearings and all related processes, parole meetings and hearings. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; III.C [auxiliary aids and services assessment]; VI.C.4 [emergency on-site medical]; VI.H [transfer and classification]; V.A.2 [grievance hearings]; VII.A [disciplinary hearings]; VI.A.3 [parole hearings])
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 2 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 11: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known to prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial classification and orientation. These encounters are vital to the terms of each inmate’s living situation, and inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Recommendation 12: Both the existing VRI contract and the standing arrangement with a provider of in-person qualified interpretive services are crucial and should remain in place. Inperson interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; VI.E. VI.A.3)
Recommendation 13: More generally, more clarity and a better process for picking a qualified interpretation method—VRI or in-person—are needed. The various memos, forms, and training should be modified to support that process. The facility should give “primary consideration” to the affected inmate’s view on this question. Revised versions of all the relevant forms and memos are attached as Exhibit D. The information in Exhibit D-5—in particular, the preferred communication method—should be made available to all KYDOC staff who need it, including both medical and custody staff, including electronically. (Settlement Agreement VI.A; I.5)
Recommendation 14: Each facility should track the effectiveness of communication via VRI in other situations, in order to decide whether there are any situations in which in-person interpretation should be the first recourse. As part of this assessment process, each time a VRI is used, the inmate should be asked how effective the resulting communication was. This can be done by a scaled question:
Please check the box that best indicates your views.
The Video Remote Interpretation I just used provided fully effective communication:
 Strongly agree  Weakly agree  Weakly disagree  Strongly disagree
If there was any problem with the communication, please explain:
These responses can be collected and analyzed. This recommendation is reflected in Exhibit D. (Settlement Agreement VI.A)
Recommendation 15: Inmates who communicate via sign language should not have their hands restrained when there is a need for effective communication, absent an individualized finding of security threat even with use of substitute security procedures (if necessary). If avoiding restraint of inmates’ hands requires substitute security procedures, those should be written up and included in the documentation of the necessary processes for both VRI and in-person interpretation, and any appropriate equipment should be obtained and installed wherever it might be needed. (Settlement Agreement XI.A)
Recommendation 16 [Applies to KSR only]: For situations since June 2015 in which KSR’s procedures did not allow an inmate to communicate during a disciplinary
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 3 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

hearing—most importantly, in Inmate C’s October 2015 hearing—the inmate should be given an opportunity to redo the hearing. This opportunity must be effectively communicated to the inmate, which itself should be done using interpretive services. (Settlement Agreement VII)
Recommendation 17 [Applies to KSR only]: Inmate D’s 2016 Parole hearing should be redone, with an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 18: When a Deaf inmate is seeking/receiving off-site medical care, staff at each facility should, as early as practicable, inform the relevant medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care from those off-site medical providers at a particular date and time; in the case of an emergency, staff should provide such information as soon as possible, and should include the Deaf inmate’s estimated time of arrival. There should be policies and procedures in place, implemented by appropriate training, to ensure that these notifications occur. (Settlement Agreement VI.D)
Recommendation 19: The process/forms for inmates to request interpretive services and other auxiliary aids and services should clearly encompass religious and any other volunteer-provided programming. (Settlement Agreement VI.A.3; VI.G.1)
Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
Recommendation 21: The process for obtaining and using the VRI laptop should be communicated to each staff member who might have occasion to need it, and also to each inmate who communicates using sign language. Each such staff member should actually do a practice run using the machine—to figure out how/where internet access and power will be obtained, and how to use the program. The laptops themselves should be checked each time they are returned to their resting area, to ensure that they have sufficient battery power. Training should ensure that staff understand that the person communicating with the Deaf inmate should sit within easy reach of the laptop’s microphone, and that the inmate must not have his hands handcuffed. (It would be useful to include a diagram or instructions on a piece of paper taped to the laptop’s cover.) (Settlement Agreement VI [qualified interpreters]; IX.E [training and technology]; XI [hand restraints])
Recommendation 22: There should be some flexibility in the timing of VRI requests and usage; where a need arises that does not allow for 48 hours notice, VRI should nonetheless be made available if possible. Each facility should work out a process for VRI availability after hours and on weekends, as well as in emergencies. (Settlement Agreement VI.J)
C. Videos
Recommendation 23: Check each existing video used to determine whether it has captioning
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 4 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

and obtain replacements with captioning if available. Provide captions for all orientation videos, for newly acquired entertainment and educational videos, and other videos when captioning is available. For television captioning to be a real option, training for staff about how to turn it on and periodic testing are required. This should be done on a schedule, perhaps quarterly or twice a year, and it should be logged. (Settlement Agreement X.1)
Recommendation 24: For Deaf inmates who cannot hear crucial informative videos, and whose literacy level is insufficient to allow them to readily read captions, an alternative method of effective communication is necessary. For those who communicate using sign language, the prison should provide either a sign language inset, or an in-person Qualified Interpreter. (Settlement Agreement I.5; III.E; VI.J)
D. Speech-to-text
Recommendation 25 [KSR only, for right now]: KSR should continue to investigate the possibility of speech-to-text software for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
E. Assistive listening systems
Recommendation 26 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate assistive listening systems for use in classroom and other appropriate settings. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement V.A. 2; VI.E)
Recommendation 27: Each facility should inform Deaf inmates of the various ways in which educational programming can be made more accessible to them; the school should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement III.F; V.A. 2; VI.E)
F. Written communication
Recommendation 28: Written communication should be relied upon only for simple communication with literate inmates. For complex communications or less literate inmates, alternative methods are required. Staff should make best efforts to communicate with each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate using that inmate’s preferred communication method (which is assessed and recorded by Exhibit D-5). (Settlement Agreement I.5)
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 29: Each facility should expand the availability of non-auditory alert systems, providing them to inmates who cannot hear the fire alarm and/or the alert for count. To maximize the communication effectiveness of each non-auditory alert, it should be programmed to signal, in different ways, the several predictable alerts: fire/emergency; count, chow, “report to office.” Staff must also be trained to use the office switch. Whether this is occurring will need monitoring; perhaps by using a daily log or checking in periodically with affected inmates. The monitoring system should be made formal. I will ask for a description of it, and perhaps relevant records, in the next quarterly reporting period. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 5 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 30 [KSR only, for right now]: Investigate the costs and benefits of a TV-based visual paging system. I will ask for a report on this issue in six months. (Settlement Agreement VIII)
Recommendation 31: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a Deaf inmate may miss the alert for count, chow, or pill call—and to ensure nondiscrimination in that event. (Settlement Agreement VIII; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
Recommendation 32: Each facility’s commissary list should include various alerting devices that inmates might wish to purchase: caption-capable TVs, vibrating alarm clocks, and the like. Inmates should be informed that if they seek to purchase adaptive equipment that is not available via the commissary, they should request assistance from the ADA Coordinator; the ADA Coordinator should then facilitate the inmate’s purchase unless the requested device presents an articulable and documented security risk. (Settlement Agreement XII)
I. Other communications aids
Recommendation 33: Investigate all the available topics for medical EZ Boards—both word and picture versions—and buy those that are useful, making them available for use by Deaf inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C; XII)
J. Methods of communicating with Deaf inmates
Recommendation 34: Staff should be trained on, and should use, best practices for communicating with hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
Recommendation 35: Each facility should continue to provide Deaf inmates with ID cards that identify them as Deaf, and to post similar identification outside their cells. The notices required by the Agreement outside each housing unit and at the entrance to the institution should also be posted. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
K. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 36: Each facility should try to offer classes in sign language, and should give Deaf inmates who would like to learn to sign both affirmative notice and preference for these classes. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
L. Telecommunications equipment and rules
Recommendation 37: Videophones should be located in areas as accessible to Deaf Inmates as conventional telephones are accessible to non-Deaf Inmates. The videophone should be available during the same days and hours as conventional telephones and should require permission for use only if the facility requires inmates to seek permission to use conventional telephones. If an escort is required to use the videophone at night, on weekends, or in other circumstances, such an escort should be routinely provided. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 6 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 38: Even if an escort is required, there should be no requirement that inmates seeking to use the videophone, including with VRS, schedule such use in advance. Non-Deaf inmates are not required to schedule their phone calls, and that should be true for Deaf inmates, as well. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 39: Ensure all staff are trained on videophone rules, so that they know that videophone access is to be provided during the same hours as conventional phone access, without pre-scheduling, and that time in transit doesn’t count. (Settlement Agreement IX.A; XIII.B)
Recommendation 40 (Edited): Deaf inmates in segregated housing must be allowed access to telecommunications services equal to that of non-Deaf inmates in the same disciplinary or administrative status. The best solution would be to work out a method for such inmates— including those on “max assault status”—to use the videophone, with VRS when needed. This could be done by escorting the prisoner to the videophone or by enabling videophone capabilities on the VRI laptop. If there are individualized reasons that an inmate cannot have his hands unshackled consistent with security, he, and others in his situation, should be allowed access to the TTY. I will request each facility to report on what method for telecommunications access is developed for Deaf inmates in segregation, and why. (Settlement Agreement IX.A)
Recommendation 41: Ensure that disciplinary oversight of videophone is no more intense than oversight of conventional phone calls. The disciplinary committee should explicitly consider and rule on this issue when it is deciding a disciplinary matter involving the videophone or TTY. (Settlement Agreement IX.B)
Recommendation 42 [New recommendation 74 substitutes for this recommendation]: KSR should review auxiliary aids that would allow hard-of-hearing inmates effective access to telecommunications, and should implement improvements— perhaps involving TTY, captioned telephones, and/or handset amplification. Asking inmates what does and doesn’t work is a necessary part of this process. I will request a report on this review—both how it was conducted and the results—in six months. (Settlement Agreement IX; I.5)
IV. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
A. Intake/Orientation
Recommendation 43: Each facility should develop a process by which inmates whose hearing impairment substantially impedes communication are noted and assessed right away on arrival at the institution, immediate steps taken to ensure effective communication, including immediate interpretative services if necessary. (Settlement Agreement III.A; III.C)
B. Literacy assessment
Recommendation 44: Staff at each facility should assess each Deaf inmate’s literacy prior to conducting additional assessment of necessary auxiliary aids and services. Educational staff should be able to propose and implement one of several quick assessment tools. For example, the
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 7 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Slosson Oral Reading Test - Revised (SORT-R) might be suitable. If an inmate is not literate at at least the 8th grade level, reliance on written communication is unlikely to succeed in providing effective communication, and alternative methods should be used. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
C. Individual assessment meetings
Recommendation 45: For each Deaf inmate, the ADA Coordinator should conduct an individual services assessment meeting, at which the inmate’s available methods of communication are expressly ascertained and recorded, and the inmate is informed about the available auxiliary aids and services. For an inmate who can hear (with or without an amplifier or hearing aid) well enough to understand the coordinator, information should be conveyed orally as well as in writing. If the inmate uses sign language, VRI would be the appropriate way to communicate for a meeting of this nature. The greatest challenge is presented if the inmate is not literate, does not hear well enough to understand spoken communication, and does not sign. In that case, visual demonstrations of the various auxiliary aids and services may be required. The assessment should be updated annually, ideally at the inmate’s annual classification meeting. (Settlement Agreement III.C; I.5)
D. Form and options
Recommendation 46: The various forms related to requesting and using Auxiliary Aids and Services form should be changed in a number of ways:
• To list available aids and services more comprehensively • To more clearly explain what the various services and aids are, in what circumstances
they are available, and how to request them. • To explain how to use the various devices. • To ask inmates, expressly, about their preferred modes of communication or needed
services, and why those are useful. To explain which items are free of charge, and which are available only at the inmate’s expense. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
Recommendation 47: I recommend replacement of the existing forms with several different ones, explaining the various options available, allowing requests for various types of communications assistance, and obtaining feedback from inmates (see Recommendation 14, above). These recommended forms are attached as Exhibit D, which also includes a recommended staff memo about the various available devices and accommodations, and an assessment form. These forms should be explained/filled out during the individual assessment meetings. (Settlement Agreement III.C; III.F)
E. Additional methods for inmates to seek auxiliary aids and services
Recommendation 48: The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed. My recommended additions to this form are attached as Exhibit E-2. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.C)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 8 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 49: All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings. I have not provided recommended versions of these forms, but will in a future reporting period ask to see them all. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2; VI.F; VI.E; VI.H; VII.A)
Recommendation 50: When Deaf inmates and staff discuss enrollment or application for a particular activity or program, communication should be effective—which means an interpreter may be required for the discussion—and should cover potential accommodations, auxiliary aids/services that could provide equal access to the activity/program. (Settlement Agreement V.A; VI)
V. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
Recommendation 51: KYDOC should develop training on the Settlement Agreement and make it available to ADA Coordinators. For training on the ADA, the ADA National Network training is appropriate. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 52 [Training slides have now been provided and comments offered]: Training should be developed on all topics listed in the Settlement Agreement as requiring training. Once drafted, materials should be shared with me and with the Kentucky Commission on the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, for our input. This training is already long overdue; it should be provided to me for my input no later than July 1, finalized within 30 days after my comments are returned, and delivered to staff as soon as possible thereafter. (Settlement Agreement XIII)
VI. REPORTING
Recommendation 53: Ensure that all relevant staff know about the Agreement’s reporting obligations, so that I am appropriately notified when any of the reporting-triggering events takes place. (Settlement Agreement II.A; VI.F; VIII.B.1; VIII.B.3; VIII.C; IX.C; XII)
Group 2 (December 2016)
I. IDENTIFICATION OF INMATES COVERED BY THE AGREEMENT.
Recommendation 54: Identification processes (Settlement Agreement III.A.1 [initial classification]; III.B [hearing assessment]; III.D.1 [identification cards])
a) Each facility should ask each inmate about any hearing difficulties during his or her initial medical screening, in their first day or two in the facility. Questions about hearing should be at the start of that screening, to allow accommodations, if needed, during the rest of the process.
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 9 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

b) All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening. Exhibit B-2 is the recommended form. (See also prior recommendation 2.) This form should be administered by medical staff, to facilitate necessary medical followup.
c) If an inmate answers “yes” or “sometimes” in response to three or more of the screening questions, he should be seen in the next several days by a medical provider—a physician or nurse practitioner—for further evaluation, including a “whisper test” or other examination to assess whether there is a functional hearing problem.
d) If an inmate fails the “whisper test” or other hearing evaluation, the following should occur: • The inmate should receive an identification card to carry on his person, which states that the inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing. • The inmate’s name should be shared with the facility’s ADA coordinator. • Two different alerts should be placed in his record, one in KOMS (the Kentucky Offender Management System), to alert correctional staff to the issue whenever they retrieve his computerized file, and the other in the EMR (Electronic Medical Record), to do the same for medical staff. Both alerts should be immediately obvious when the electronic file is opened. (See Figures A and B, above).
e) All inmates so identified should be included in the facility’s semi-annual reports to me; if a particular inmate turns out not to be deaf or hard-of-hearing, because, for example, a medical problem that was obstructing his or her hearing is solved, that can be explained. (Note: the decision to send an inmate to an audiologist for evaluation or treatment is not the same as the decision to flag the inmate as deaf or hard-ofhearing.)
Recommendation 55: In order to ensure appropriate identification of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, all inmates’ annual or other routine physicals should include the hearing questionnaire (Exhibit B-2). (Settlement Agreement III.B)
Recommendation 56: Each facility should ensure that the ID cards used to identify inmates as deaf or hard-of-hearing are clear, and should avoid abbreviations or other language that may not be clear. Each facility should ensure that every deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate is able to carry such a card at all times. If an inmate misplaces the card, a replacement should be promptly provided. (Settlement Agreement III.D.1)
II. ENSURING EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION DURING INTAKE
Recommendation 57: Interpretation services should be offered without special request to any inmate (known by prison staff to use sign language to communicate) during initial medical screening or other intake medical encounters. Inmates are unlikely to know, during these early stages, that they need to request interpretation and how to do so. Medical staff should ask inmates who have difficulty hearing if they use sign language to communicate, rather than waiting for the ADA Coordinator’s assessment. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 10 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 58: Each facility’s medical office should keep pocket amplifiers on hand for all intake staff—medical, mental health, and custody—to use when the need arises. (Settlement Agreement III.A.1)
III. PROVISION OF AUDIOLOGY SERVICES
Recommendation 59: The ADA Coordinator for each KYDOC facility should maintain a document that tracks each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate’s progress through the process of obtaining any needed hearing aid, including the dates and outcomes of:
• the initial request/questionnaire • each relevant medical visit • any audiology visit • hearing aid provision. In order to ensure that inmates do not wait longer than two months for a necessary hearing aid, the ADA coordinator should check for progress for each affected inmate every week or two, updating the tracking document and working with medical staff to solve any procedural hurdles that arise. A recommended sample tracking document is provided as Exhibit F. (Settlement Agreement V.B; VIII.B.2)
IV. AUXILIARY AIDS/SERVICES
Recommendation 60: I commend KYDOC for developing a user-friendly pamphlet to cover the information needed by deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates; I recommend facilities use the edited version in Exhibit D-2; each facility should fill in the items marked with curly brackets ({ and }). (Settlement Agreement III.F)
A. Personal hearing devices: Hearing aids and amplifiers
Recommendation 61: Inmates with hearing aids should be able to obtain replacement batteries seven days a week, without difficulty or charge, regardless of their housing or programming assignment. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
Recommendation 62: Each facility should inform staff responsible for property moves that it is important for inmates to keep their hearing aids with them, even when they are moved into segregation or transferred. When an inmate is accidentally separated from his or her hearing aids, policy should allow the inmate to promptly obtain the hearing aids from storage or medical, or to get replacements. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
B. Qualified Interpretation
1. Video Relay Interpretation (VRI): Use and Procedures
Recommendation 63: Absent an emergency in which time is of the essence and VRI services are unavailable, no facility should rely on an inmate to interpret a communication that would ordinarily be private for another inmate. (Settlement Agreement VI; I.18)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 11 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 64: Each facility should obtain and test a “splitter” for each VRI laptop, so that the laptop can be used alongside a computer. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
Recommendation 65: Each facility should ensure that the VRI laptop routinely receives necessary software updates. (Settlement Agreement IX.E.1)
2. Religious and Volunteer-provided programming
Recommendation 66: For any religious programming—worship services, counseling, bible study, etc.—that is provided directly by the chaplain, each facility should provide qualified interpretation when requested by an inmate who needs it.
Prior Recommendation 20: Significant communications by the chaplains are covered by the requirement of effective communication. Therefore the chaplains, like other KSR staff, should be trained in the requirements of this Agreement, and should ensure that if they have occasion to minister to a Deaf inmate—or simply inform him that a family member has died—they do so effectively, including using interpreter services if the inmate communicates using sign language.
C. Video captioning
D. Speech-to-text
E. Assistive listening systems
(Settlement Agreement VI.G.3)
Recommendation 67: Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 68: KSR should inform deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of the various ways in which religious, educational, rehabilitative, and recreational programming can be made more accessible to them; all programming providers (educational, rehabilitative, and recreational) should put in place a process to facilitate requests for such accommodations and assess the need for them. (Settlement Agreement V.A; III.F)
F. Written communication
G. Non-auditory alerts
Recommendation 69: In any unit where there are deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates, each facility should implement (and ensure use of) written announcement boards. That is, all general announcements should also be promptly displayed on a written announcement board (e.g.: “X class is cancelled this evening,” or “all inmates in X category are allowed an X privilege this afternoon”). Staff use of this announcement board must be monitored and audited. (Settlement Agreement VIII.B.1)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 12 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

Recommendation 70: In order to provide effective and equal communications to deaf and hardof-hearing inmates who are being individually paged, staff should check KOMS to see if that inmate has a deaf/hard-of-hearing alert; if a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate does not answer the auditory page in a minute or two, he or she should be individually alerted to the page by a staff member. This could be done by in-person notification or by provision of a personal paging system. (Settlement Agreement VIII.A)
Recommendation 71: Each facility should train staff to be alert to the possibility that a deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate may be unable to hear an order or instruction issued verbally; training should cover strategies to avoid bad results. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B; II.A)
H. Miscellaneous devices
I. Speech
Recommendation 71: In each facility’s settings in which staff ordinarily talk to a group of inmates—orientation, education, etc.—consideration should be given to talking to any hard-ofhearing inmate one-on-one, instead. For example, for someone who is having difficulty hearing a teacher in a group setting, even with assistive listening devices (see IV.E, above), a tutor might be a better option than a congregate GED class. (Settlement Agreement XIII.B)
J. Teaching sign-language
Recommendation 72: Deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates who do not have their GED should be among those allowed to enroll in any classes in sign language. Each facility should obtain resources relating to sign language—books or computer-based instruction—and make those available to deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
K. Telecommunications equipment and rules
1. Videophone and VRS
2. TTY
Recommendation 73: Each facility should maintain its TTY and develop a facility protocol for how to make it available to inmates, covering who the inmate should request it from, where it should be connected, etc. In addition, each facility should annually test its TTY and the protocol by calling me at an agreed upon time using direct TTY and the relay service. TTY instructions should be left with the TTY at all times. (Settlement Agreement IX.D.1)
3. Hard-of-hearing inmates
Recommendation 74 (substitutes for prior recommendation 42): Each facility should improve access of hard-of-hearing inmates to telecommunications, by:
(a) Allowing them access to TTYs. (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a hearing aid but does not require one, is
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 13 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

available in every group of phones used by any hard-of-hearing inmate. (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.
I will request a report on implementation each aspect of this recommendation.
(Settlement Agreement IX.A)
V. THE INTERACTION OF COMMUNICATION NEEDS AND HOUSING ASSIGNMENT
A. Segregated housing
B. Other housing needs
Recommendation 75: Each facility should develop a method for considering how communications difficulties with deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates can be minimized by particular housing assignments, and shall make such assignments when appropriate. (Settlement Agreement II.A)
VI. PROCESSES FOR ASSESSING AND REQUESTING AUXILIARY AIDS AND SERVICES
VII. FORM AND OPTIONS
Recommendation 76: Each facility should include notice in its Inmate Handbook of the facility’s basic obligation to avoid discrimination and provide effective communication, and inform inmates to contact the ADA Coordinator if needed. Something like the following would be appropriate:
Americans with Disabilities Act and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
An inmate with a verified disability will have the opportunity to participate in services, privileges, and programs similar to other inmates at this institution. If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, you should contact the designated institutional ADA Coordinator; each living unit and inmate public areas has contact information posted. All {name facility here}-provided services will provide effective communication and make available qualified interpreters when needed. Qualified Interpreters and Auxiliary Aids and Services are available for an inmate with a verified disability upon request. It is the inmate’s responsibility to request an interpreter from volunteer organizations or individuals that are providing activities and services. An inmate who meets criteria to be accommodated under the ADA will be provided identification to facilitate effective communication. If at any time an inmate chooses to not wear the identification, he/she shall sign a waiver document to be placed in the institutional file.
(Settlement Agreement II.A)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 14 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

VIII. TRAINING
A. ADA Coordinator Training
B. Staff Training
Recommendation 77: In addition to the computer-based KYDOC training, live, in-service training should cover, at least:
a) For all staff: • The identity and role of the ADA Coordinator • Existence of KOMS and EMR alerts for deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates, and the obligation to check for the alerts. • The occasions and process for obtaining access to the VRI laptop, and how to use the laptop, including where different people should sit to maximize communication effectiveness. (For medical, educational, and housing staff, this training should be done on-site, so each affected staff member can see where and how the laptop can be set up.) • The occasions and process for obtaining an in-person qualified interpreter.
b) For housing area staff: • The use of cell/bed notices that an inmate is deaf or hard-of-hearing • The use of the bed shaker switch. • Telecommunications issues, including how to obtain and use a TTY, and the policies and procedures governing TTY and videophone usage. • The obligation to notify deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates of alerts, including emergency alerts and non-emergency pages.
c) For all corrections staff: • The requirements to accommodate inmates who use sign language to communicate by using restraints that allow them to sign, and how to implement those requirements. • Strategies for dealing with inmates who may not hear directions or orders, especially when given from behind or above them.
d) For medical staff: • The responsibility of running a process to provide medically necessary hearing aids within two months, and what that actually entails, in terms of adjusting ordinary processes and timing. • The obligation to notify off-site medical provider(s) that a Deaf Inmate requiring a Qualified Interpreter or other Auxiliary Aid or Service will be seeking medical care, and how this obligation is being assigned.
(Settlement Agreement XIII; IX.E.2; III.D.2)
IX. REPORTING
Recommendation 78: The ADA Coordinator should obtain monthly reports based on both KOMS and medical records of each inmate in the facility who is deaf or hard-of-hearing, and
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 15 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

should check those reports too add to the Coordinator’s tracking list. (Settlement Agreement XV.B.1)
Recommendation 79: Each facility’s quarterly written summary of grievances by deaf and hardof-hearing inmates should include all such grievances, not only the ones that are deemed related to effective communication, auxiliary aids and services, or other issues raised in the Settlement Agreement. (Settlement Agreement XIV.3)
Group 3 (April 2017)
Recommendation 80: At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may need accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided. (Settlement Agreement V.A.2)
Recommendation 81: Medical staff should ensure that inmates with a need for audiology services are not charged inappropriately, and should avoid repeated charges for ongoing efforts to obtain hearing aids or other services. (Settlement Agreement V.B)
Recommendation 82: Each VRI should be the subject of a log sheet that tracks its usage, including staff member, date and purpose. In any institution that houses one or more inmates who use sign language to communicate, the ADA Coordinator should check the VRI log sheet at least once each week, and should ensure that the VRI is being used on appropriate occasions, not just for classification and disciplinary meetings, but for other important conversations between the inmate and staff. (Settlement Agreement VI.A, III.C; VI.C.4; VI.H; V.A.2; VII.A; VI.J)
Group 4 (October 1, 2018)
Recommendation 83: The ADA coordinator or his or her deputy should track each and every inmate classified as deaf and hard-of-hearing, personally conduct an accommodations assessment, and ensure that each promptly receives an HOH card and, if desired, a bed/cell card. (Settlement Agreement II.B.3; III.C; III.D.1)
Recommendation 84: In order to comply with the ADA’s integration mandate, inmates may be offered the chance to be housed in any hard-of-hearing cluster, but may not be compelled to do so in order to receive the accommodations to which they are entitled.
Recommendation 85: Portable phone amplifiers should be made available at every institution. (Settlement Agreement I.2; V.A.2)
Consolidated Recommendations, p. 16 of 16 (December 1, 2018)

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

APPEND+IX,C-./ÿ12ÿ34567ÿ89.:;+<<=->ÿ6?.@>:-<A9ÿB9@?CD:<E FGHIJ;IHK

Pÿ1405
ÿQÿ
ÿRÿ
988ÿ%98ÿS
$ T5ÿ8A9D?ÿV9CÿI8Y
 ÿ#
ÿS
ÿÿPÿ0ÿ1405ÿ87ÿ-/U:<EÿN?Cÿ:<N?C.-D:?<ÿVOÿ65WÿX?<,-O7 Z#8[ÿR
L?=CÿM,9<D:NO:<EÿM<N?C.-D:?<
L?=Cÿ\-.9ÿ]
L?=CÿM</D:D=D:?<ÿ]
L?=Cÿ^.-:>ÿ]
L?=Cÿ_`?<9ÿ\=.V9Cÿ]
+?NCÿ9D`ÿO9?ÿA==ÿDC`C99ÿ<AD=ÿ+CC49+<ÿD6ÿ+?4?+C,ÿ6:<?-?D?C,C2:ÿ<]-D?CaÿMNÿ<?D7ÿ@>9-/9ÿ>:/DÿD`9ÿ<-.97ÿ@`?<9ÿ<=.V9C7ÿ-<,ÿ9.-:>

bcÿefgÿhihÿjkklmnopeklÿnoqklrpenkoÿkoÿefncÿsptgÿukllguev

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

02*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

#
$22

+,
 2-8
26.2/8
26678

8
0

E12:ÿ4D5?4647ÿ?849D:;ÿ5<2:ÿ4ÿ=::F>66ÿ?A2@5ÿ6456ÿBAG:ÿ6B;6ÿ@5Cÿ;>:ÿ;>>;4D?4Dÿ25>ÿ?6<ÿ=5>>:=6?54ÿE@ÿ6B:

HIÿKLMÿNMOPQRMÿSTUUMSKVÿW ÿX
 ÿYÿZÿ.ÿ89ÿ88  ÿ%ÿ
ÿÿZ,ÿ#ÿZ  ÿ%ÿ0ÿ9#

[T\]^_`aKTUbÿ^cMUKIÿdÿ^IIaIKaeMÿfMeaSMI

gj8#87
ÿ#
ÿ8
ÿ
9Zÿ88
+
ÿ
ÿ8,ÿ8
Z899ÿ
8ÿÿ!ÿ
%ÿ+,
7ÿÿ88
ÿÿ78ÿ
ÿ889
%
h
ÿÿ
,
897"ÿ,#ÿ8ÿ89
ÿ8%7ÿ
#ÿZÿ78ÿ

#
8+
ÿ7ÿZ8
$ÿ-i ^kÿfTMIÿbT_Uÿa\IKaK_KaT\ÿLQeMÿQ\bÿlmÿUQ`aTÿKUQ\InaKKMUIoÿ_IQOcMÿQIÿQ\ÿQnPcapaMUÿIbIKMnVÿW ÿX
 ÿY qQScMSQMIIMIÿÿ`KTMÿIKSLUManOMVÿbÿtTT_NUÿÿaN\IMKcacKÿ`_TKaÿTKL\MrIbÿMÿNsTPUMuUVaMÿ\^S\MbÿÿNTaKKLLMÿKULÿSMTInMÿn`MMe\aKSIMVIkÿtTNÿ`Tÿa\nQKMIÿTOKQa\

tTNÿnQ\boÿQ\`ÿNLMUMÿQUMÿKLMbÿ_IM`V

HpÿbMIoÿNLM\ÿ`a`ÿbT_Uÿa\IKaK_KaT\ÿRMKÿKLMIMÿ`MeaSMIV

PH_pUÿPbTcMT`IQ_o`SÿPÿKQrcIMÿ`ÿQITIPSMM_ÿPSnaUpTMaSe\QaK`KÿaOMTMÿ\McTIaKÿNLTMk\UÿÿKQLÿM`ÿMnIQS\Ua_PpKQaTS\K_ÿTUMpÿUKrLIMÿNÿPMUOTI`a_KMSkKÿrvITÿI_PÿSMQS\apÿaPSQUTKaeTa\`IMÿÿTaKUÿaÿ\QÿÿcKaL\auIÿÿKKTMÿsKKLÿOMTsÿTU

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

12*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

%8
ÿ%ÿ+,ÿ87ÿ8
9

ÿ
7ÿ8
ÿ89%ÿ
-
9
./
ÿ+

8
ÿ89%8%ÿ

-ÿ
%ÿ+9,ÿ87ÿ8
9

ÿ
7
01ÿ3456ÿ7489ÿ:;6<:<8<:4;ÿ=>?5ÿ>;7ÿ4<=59ÿ>@AB:C:596Dÿ>@AB:C:E><:4;ÿ676<5@6Dÿ49ÿ<=5ÿB:F5GÿH ÿI
 ÿJ K>EB5E>56656ÿÿL<45ÿ6<E=95:@M5Gÿ7ÿQ448P9ÿÿ:P;65<B:B<ÿL84<:ÿ4<=;5N67ÿ5ÿPO4A95F9G:5ÿ;RE;57ÿÿP4:<<==5ÿ<9=ÿE546@5ÿ@L55?;:<E65G61ÿQ4PÿL4ÿ:;@><56ÿ4M<>:;

Q4Pÿ@>;7Dÿ>;LÿP=595ÿ>95ÿ<=57ÿ865LG SCÿ756DÿP=5;ÿL:Lÿ7489ÿ:;6<:<8<:4;ÿT5<ÿ<=565ÿL5?:E56G SA8Cÿ9A74B54L6>8DLEÿAÿ<>NB65ÿLÿ>646AE558ÿAE@:9C45:E?;>:<L<ÿ:M545ÿ;5B46:<ÿP=451;9ÿÿ<>=ÿ5Lÿ5@6>E;9:8AC<>:4E;<8ÿ495Cÿ9<N=65ÿPÿA59M46L:8<5E1<ÿNU64ÿ68AÿE5>E;:Cÿ:AE>94<:?4:;L65ÿÿ4:<9ÿ:ÿ;>ÿÿB<:=;:F6ÿÿ<<45ÿO<<=ÿM54Oÿ49

%8
ÿ%ÿ#ÿ89%

./
ÿ+

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

*2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

%8
ÿ%ÿ#ÿ89%

+,ÿ./01ÿ2/34ÿ561757375/6ÿ89:0ÿ;0<ÿ189=041>ÿ? ÿ@
 ÿA

B9DC0D901101ÿÿ<7/0ÿ17D8405J;0>ÿ2ÿI//3H4ÿÿ5H6107C5C7ÿ<3/75ÿ/7860E12ÿ0ÿHF/G40=4>50ÿ6KD602ÿÿH/577880ÿ748ÿD0/1J0ÿJ<00:657D10>1,ÿI/Hÿ</ÿ56J9701ÿ/;7956

I/HÿJ962Lÿ96<ÿH8040ÿ940ÿ7802ÿ310<> MNÿ201LÿH806ÿ<5<ÿ2/34ÿ561757375/6ÿO07ÿ78010ÿ<0:5D01> 3MGNGÿ42/C0/<193L<DÿGÿ79EC10ÿ<ÿ91/1GD003ÿGDJ54N/05D:6957<7ÿ5;0/0ÿ60C/157ÿH8/0,64ÿÿ798ÿ0<ÿ0J19D6453GN795/D673ÿ/40Nÿ47E810ÿHÿG04;/1<5370D,7ÿEP1/ÿ13GÿD09D65Nÿ5GD94/75:/56<10ÿÿ/574ÿ5ÿ69ÿÿC75865=1ÿÿ77/0ÿF778ÿ;0/Fÿ/4

%8
ÿ%ÿQ7ÿ
#8R

ST
ÿU

%8
ÿ%ÿQ7ÿ
#8R

.,ÿ./01ÿ2/34ÿ561757375/6ÿ89:0ÿ:5;49756OÿH97D801>ÿ? ÿ@
 ÿA

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

32*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

.+2,-2.-//-/ÿÿ1:7-ÿ/:?23-4C5-Dÿÿ6B778>3ÿÿ4>9/-:,4,:ÿ187:4ÿ7:?9-;/6ÿ-ÿ><7=3-E3D4-ÿ9F29-6ÿÿ>74::??-ÿ:3?ÿ2-7/C-ÿC1--@94:2/-D/AÿB7>ÿ17ÿ49C.:-/ÿ75:.49

B7>ÿC.96Gÿ.91ÿ>?-3-ÿ.3-ÿ:?-6ÿ8/-1D HIÿ6-/Gÿ>?-9ÿ141ÿ6783ÿ49/:4:8:479ÿJ-:ÿ:?-/-ÿ1-@42-/D 8H=I=ÿ367,-71/.8G12ÿ=ÿ:.;,/-ÿ1ÿ./7/=2--8ÿ=2C43I7-42@9.4:1:ÿ45-7-ÿ9-,7/4:ÿ>?7-A93ÿÿ:.?ÿ-1ÿ-C/.29348=I:.4729:8ÿ73-Iÿ3:;?/-ÿ>ÿ=-357/148:-2A:ÿ;K/7ÿ/8=ÿ2-.294Iÿ4=2.37:4@7491/-ÿÿ74:3ÿ4ÿ9.ÿÿ,:4?94E/ÿÿ::7-ÿ<::?ÿ5-7<ÿ73
%8
ÿ%ÿL8 ÿM8#

NM
ÿO

%8
ÿ%ÿL8 ÿM8#

PAÿQ7-/ÿ6783ÿ49/:4:8:479ÿ?.@-ÿ@453.:49Jÿ.,.3Cÿ2,72E/DÿR ÿS
 ÿT +.2,-2.-//-/ÿÿ1:7-ÿ/:2?3-4C5-Dÿ6ÿB778>3ÿÿ4>9/-:,4,:ÿ187:4ÿ7:?9-;/6ÿ-ÿ><7=3-E3D4-ÿ9F29-6ÿÿ>74::??-ÿ:3?ÿ2-7/C-ÿC1--@94:2/-D/AÿB7>ÿ17ÿ49C.:-/ÿ75:.49

B7>ÿC.96Gÿ.91ÿ>?-3-ÿ.3-ÿ:?-6ÿ8/-1D

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

'2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,ÿ./01ÿ23/4ÿ565ÿ.789ÿ640:6:8:674ÿ;/:ÿ:3/0/ÿ5/<6=/0>

+?8,ÿ9?.7@/750A815=ÿ?ÿ:AB@0/ÿ5ÿA070?=//8ÿ?=D69,7/6=<4A6:5:ÿ6E/7/ÿ4/@706:ÿ237/F49ÿÿ:A3ÿ/5ÿ/D0A=4968?,:A67=4:8ÿ79/,ÿ9:B30/ÿ2ÿ?/9E70568:/=F:ÿBG07ÿ08?ÿ=/A=46,ÿ6?=A97:6<76450/ÿÿ76:9ÿ6ÿ4Aÿÿ@:6346C0ÿÿ::7/ÿH::3ÿE/7Hÿ79

%8
ÿ%ÿI8 ÿ889ÿJ

KL
ÿM

%8
ÿ%ÿI8 ÿ889ÿJ

NFÿO7/0ÿ.789ÿ640:6:8:674ÿ3A</ÿ?A;/90>ÿP ÿQ
 ÿR SA=@/=A/00/0ÿÿ5:7/ÿ0:=39/6DE/>ÿ.ÿT77829ÿÿ6240/:@6@:ÿ587:6ÿ7:34/B0.ÿ/ÿ2H7?9/C9>6/ÿ4U=4/.ÿÿ276::33/ÿ:93ÿ=/70D/ÿD5//<46:=0/>0FÿT72ÿ57ÿ64DA:/0ÿ7E:A64

T72ÿDA4.1ÿA45ÿ23/9/ÿA9/ÿ:3/.ÿ80/5>

+,ÿ./01ÿ23/4ÿ565ÿ.789ÿ640:6:8:674ÿ;/:ÿ:3/0/ÿ5/<6=/0>

?+8,9ÿ?.7@/750A815=ÿ?ÿ:AB@0/ÿ5ÿA070?=//8ÿ?=D69,7/6=<4A6:5:ÿ6E/7/ÿ4/@706:ÿ237/F49ÿÿ:A3ÿ/5ÿ/D0A=4968?,:A67=4:8ÿ79/,ÿ9:B30/ÿ2ÿ?/9E70568:/=F:ÿBG07ÿ08?ÿ=/A=46,ÿ6?=A97:6<76450/ÿÿ76:9ÿ6ÿ4Aÿÿ@:6346C0ÿÿ::7/ÿH::3ÿE/7Hÿ79

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

)2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

%8
ÿ%ÿ8

+,
ÿ-

%8
ÿ%ÿ8

-
ÿ
.8
ÿÿ7,#
#ÿ/8ÿ8ÿ601ÿ21ÿ92345ÿ78ÿ87/0
ÿÿ8-ÿ
ÿ8#ÿ8ÿ

8
ÿÿ77
$ÿ0ÿÿ
ÿ8ÿ0 998#,,##88,7ÿÿÿ9#%7ÿ8ÿ8,8
#9ÿ08/0ÿ

0ÿ8ÿ7ÿÿÿÿ##%
ÿ88ÿ98
8/
6
ÿ78ÿ%ÿ0ÿ#8ÿ80ÿ#8ÿ8ÿÿÿ

 9:;ÿ=>;ÿ=;?=ÿ@A?ÿ@;BACÿADÿEFBAGHÿGÿHAIEJ;K=L

M87ÿ-!
"
M
#0
ÿ8977
ÿÿ/ÿ%7ÿ7ÿ98/8

ÿÿ8#/ÿÿ%ÿÿ877
/0ÿ78ÿ
N88374ÿÿ8ÿ,P942ÿ2Q48Rÿb
/46ÿÿ2%,ÿSÿT#ÿ#85ÿ4#ÿ47
Rÿÿ8#46ÿ72ÿÿU92V2c4cU
ÿÿbÿWX
%`ÿY8YYZ[ÿZÿ\8]ÿX87YÿYY7#Z^ÿ_ÿ0`ÿa8#cÿcÿ
ÿ0
ÿ79ÿ,
9ÿÿ#8ÿ9#ÿ,ÿ#0ÿ8#7
ÿÿ

ÿÿ##ÿ7
7

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

(2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

>+8,ÿ;.ÿ6/G0?H1ÿÿ293:00ÿ46526?82ÿ>276ÿ8Iÿ9;ÿ:E;ÿ551>20@1ÿ6J;,ÿK3ÿ5L/0ÿ<8:ÿ=8>6?@010@ÿ5><ÿ>07ÿ>8>A5:@?281<ÿ54012ÿ6<620B6CÿDEF ÿM
 ÿN

OPQÿSTUVWXPYVÿZ[\]ÿTVUÿW^UÿWU_Wÿ`P_UVÿ`UaPbÿPQÿTcaPdeÿdÿePfTgUYWh I,ÿi352ÿ6<620B6ÿ35/0ÿj00>ÿ:>@01ÿ=8>6?@0152?8>C

E7,ÿ0k1?0@ÿÿ5<=8=:0ÿ=H825>j64:04C2ÿÿ7I8?273ÿÿ253>0@ÿlÿ70322040>BC0>2ÿm8>?281ÿ5>@ÿnokIIÿ28ÿ@0201B?>0ÿ7302301ÿ230ÿ@0/?=06

J7,3ÿp5420ÿ253600<ÿHÿ51180/ÿF?8@10,ÿF:44ÿ?>F81B52?8>ÿ8>ÿ5><ÿ@0/?=06ÿ:>@01ÿ=8>6?@0152?8>;ÿ?>=4:@?>qÿ738ÿ5>@

#
ÿr Nÿ%ÿ#

s87ÿ%98ÿ8tÿuÿ87vÿ8ÿ
v
9
ÿ7ÿ
78ÿ#ÿ%ÿÿ7
t7ÿÿ#ÿwÿtw
ÿ8t

x87ut983#8ÿ
#09
ÿ
l#9ÿ%ÿu02#vuÿ2
ÿ84#0ÿÿ8#ÿB
ÿw0%
vÿÿÿ>ÿuÿ72ÿ##ÿuyÿ
7qÿ#ÿ1
8ÿÿ0
90ÿ%#ÿ8ÿBu
97ÿ0ÿv
8ÿ>ÿ9ÿ#2ÿÿ%ÿ887ÿ6ÿ7ÿ#2
52
8
0ÿ9768vÿÿ7ÿDÿzv8ÿÿ
EuEK
#8}ÿ
%{ÿ
ÿ
|
~ÿ{8ÿ8#9ÿ#v#87ÿÿ
ÿÿ#8ÿÿ#ÿ7#ÿvÿÿ8
vÿÿ7uÿ
#uÿÿÿ
ÿÿ78#%ÿÿ87#ÿ89ÿ
v

#ÿ7ÿÿ8ÿÿÿt7ÿ
ÿÿ
889ÿ
#
987ÿÿ9

8
ÿÿÿÿ7t##}ÿÿÿ
988

ÿÿÿ88ÿÿ7
}8#77ÿ

ÿÿÿw#ÿt
v8ÿ
ÿ88ÿ
ÿ#uÿ#

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

52*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

,J-ÿ/0123ÿ45607ÿ89ÿ:;8<9ÿ=>?3ÿ@ABÿC>D3ÿ>1@ÿD3E36C01>E0A1Fÿ>77AG01HÿA6ÿD0F>77AG01HÿD3?023FI ÿK
 ÿL

MB01-5ÿCN7OAÿ>@>EAD3BFÿDTÿ=ÿA>>21?BD3CÿÿR2V3AS1ÿ1GE>F=E00D3A3116ÿÿ@3AADOQBÿÿ>Rÿÿ18DSA3ÿEE?=0O03023ÿ3DDÿ3ÿPEÿ?=G032=ÿ3/3RE3F=ES3ET7ÿ63Rÿ:C@SAÿ3EB=1ÿ3EHÿÿW66>3A1>1EF30AEDA1ÿ6A0ÿ1A6HÿO6ÿT3@ÿROAUBBSFÿ6E3ÿ=DD33ÿ5ÿE133>66CCC3001FFF>ÿA0EA0OAÿ1>1ÿOPROÿF35S27-3E>3FD3 X87ÿY!
"

N1OA6C>E0A1ÿ>ZABEÿ[3>OÿN1C>E3F

8\8#8%97ÿ88ÿ9&
89
8

ÿ`8ÿÿÿ_ÿ^_#i#8
ÿÿ$
]ÿaÿÿÿ8fg_ÿÿ88ÿ8_ÿ%`]#ÿÿÿ79`
8ÿ
ÿ

#!ÿ888ÿ#%7ÿÿ`8`

ÿÿ8ÿ_ÿ97%
ÿ8
ÿ#8ÿÿ
#8^ÿÿ
8%8#7ÿÿhÿÿ7Xÿÿÿ%
6ÿ8ÿ##ÿ
a9#Lÿ%878ÿ%b
ÿ0ÿ8_ÿÿc9^ÿ%1ÿd4ÿa
ÿ08ÿÿ#5%ÿÿ88#"
eÿ7`8ÿYÿ78#aÿÿ%L%ÿÿÿ#_aÿ_cÿÿ9a8ÿfÿ%L`87ÿÿ7
ÿÿÿ8ÿ##ÿ7#88
7ÿ
aÿÿ87%9ÿ#ÿ7ÿ`8%
ÿ%
ÿÿ8##ÿÿ8ÿ`
%8ÿÿÿÿ
`#_8#
8ÿÿ9\7ÿÿÿ8ÿ88
98
`ÿÿh
87ÿÿÿ%ÿ%ÿ
#ÿ8

%ÿÿ
%ÿX%ÿÿ7%#97ÿ98
8ÿ
ÿÿ
`

#ÿ j01kCA>jÿEC3F39>ÿ>11FDÿjÿ=W>@Fÿÿ011AFEE0ÿE=B>ED0Aÿ>11ÿD@AÿF30F1ÿ213AÿE4ÿ=5>60?7ÿ38ÿ9>ÿ:1;@8ÿ2<B-j6631Eÿ[3>OÿR0127BD01Hÿ=>6DPAOP=3>601HS
41@ÿD3>OÿA6ÿ=>6DPAOP=3>601Hÿ01C>E3FÿA?36ÿE=3ÿ7>FEÿEGAÿlB>6E36FIÿJ ÿK
 ÿL
>0lm1ZB7O07A323F6nÿCEEÿA0=A>ÿ3D1E60A-3AÿpGÿ1E=A1ÿZ3ÿ7>A3ÿ127>A>2DGC3ÿEF-=3F3ÿÿA>ÿOOÿ0ÿE7E33=C93ÿ0ÿ15O0577>3BEÿ3E0ÿFÿE3ÿ=jo3N21ÿD3OA>7ÿ6EFC>59ÿ6>>3E10>ADD1ÿFEÿ==A33113ÿ[EÿBÿ3O5A>76OAÿÿEN>1=DC3ÿÿE0>=1E3O3AÿFD6ÿCAPÿ2p>B3E0CCA1531ÿ7>>EFEÿ3Gn-30jEÿD=qÿÿAOEA=B63ÿÿFÿ061=3ÿAEl=BB370Dÿ613ÿZ3D3oE

a#%ÿ8%`79ÿ#8%8#8ÿ
#87ÿ"8ÿ`ÿ8
8ÿ%ÿ9887ÿ8
ÿ
ÿiÿ6ÿ#8ÿ0ÿÿ1
405ÿÿ!8
#ÿÿ9#88ÿ
ÿ8897ÿÿ7%7ÿ#ÿ
ÿ%ÿ_7

0
ÿY
ÿL89

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

*2+0

012321405
1
ÿ+8
ÿ,89

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

*
ÿÿ3
ÿ.
ÿ8

9 '
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ88ÿ8ÿ#
ÿ

 )
ÿ/9978ÿÿ
 (
ÿ ÿ%ÿ#8 ÿ989 58
ÿ67ÿ81ÿ0881ÿ
ÿ81
7
29
ÿÿ
ÿÿ!#
8"ÿÿ8ÿ87
9ÿ9878
ÿ7
ÿ
2#
ÿ#ÿ8
ÿ3

ÿ72

ÿ7#ÿ 4
ÿ6ÿ8081ÿ87
2

ÿÿ89978
ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ
7
 04
ÿ2#ÿ8

ÿ87ÿ78
ÿ%ÿ81ÿ78
ÿ%ÿ8081ÿ87
2

0809
ÿ5%%"7ÿ9#7ÿ%ÿ998ÿ!

ÿ
ÿÿ87ÿ6ÿ8ÿ#8ÿ6#ÿ#8ÿ87 01
ÿ+97ÿ7
#ÿ%1ÿ%ÿ888ÿ87ÿ%7ÿ8 8  0*
ÿ+81ÿÿ87ÿ#6ÿ1ÿ96 03
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ8
ÿ#8 ÿ8

9 0'
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ8
ÿ8081ÿ87
2

ÿ8

9 0)
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ8
ÿ8

%8ÿ6 0(
ÿ:##ÿ8
ÿ8

%8ÿ6ÿ68
ÿ7817ÿÿ7ÿÿ7ÿ%%ÿ998 05
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ8
ÿ8ÿ#8

04
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ0ÿ8ÿ#8
 1#4
8ÿ:#
ÿ#
ÿ
2ÿ#6ÿ#8ÿ
0ÿ8ÿ1405ÿ
#87ÿ6#ÿ81ÿ7
81ÿ%8
ÿÿ#87ÿ81ÿ7
81 10
ÿ:##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ
ÿ81ÿ9ÿÿ
ÿ#
 ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0ÿ1405
 11
ÿ:##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ8ÿ8ÿ6

ÿÿ8ÿ7
81ÿ#8 ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0ÿ1405
 18*

ÿ6

1
9ÿ"99ÿ80881ÿ8
7ÿ8
2

8
ÿ8ÿ
%
%

79ÿÿÿ87

7%ÿ88ÿ81ÿÿ%ÿ#6ÿÿ98
ÿ&ÿ
#ÿ8
7ÿ!ÿ#7
881 13
ÿ:##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ
7ÿ8ÿ68ÿ7
87ÿÿ///

1ÿÿ///

3ÿ%ÿ#ÿ6 9 1'#
ÿ8:8#8#ÿ
ÿ
2#8ÿ
#88
ÿ8ÿ88
8ÿ7ÿÿ

ÿ#8ÿ
ÿ88ÿ8
ÿ;ÿ
81ÿÿ68ÿ09ÿ91405;ÿ6,7$88
1'8
ÿ6##ÿ 89

1'8
ÿ6#ÿ6#8ÿ89978
 1'
ÿ6#ÿ6#8ÿ
 114)0
ÿ:5ÿ6#,#$ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ887ÿÿ
#ÿÿ88ÿÿ81ÿ69ÿ8

9ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0 1)8
ÿ6##ÿ69ÿ8

9

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

042*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

1)+
ÿ,#ÿ,#8ÿ89978

1)
ÿ,#ÿ,#8ÿ

1(
ÿ-##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ7ÿ8.ÿ
ÿ978ÿ8ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0ÿ1405ÿ6/$

1(8
ÿ,#ÿ,#8ÿ89978

15
ÿ-##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ7ÿ8.ÿ%%
ÿ978ÿ8ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0ÿ1405ÿ6/$

158
ÿ,#ÿ,#8ÿ89978

1#08
ÿ17ÿ8
.8ÿ9
ÿ8
ÿ,ÿ#6ÿ
ÿ0
ÿÿ1
405ÿ8ÿ6/8$ÿÿ998ÿ,##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ+ÿ
+&ÿ

108
ÿ#ÿ78

10
ÿ#ÿ8

*4
ÿ-##ÿ
2#ÿ#8
ÿ%7ÿ8.ÿ8
ÿ
ÿ6ÿ0ÿ1405

234567ÿ49:;ÿ5<ÿ7=6<ÿ6>7ÿ?6@7A5<A?=6@9>Bÿ9>C6;=:ÿD9;?ÿ;?=ÿ6E5F=ÿ9><5@C6;95>ÿ?=@=G
#
ÿ1 /ÿ%ÿ#

H@9=F6>I=:ÿ6>7ÿJ9:I9349>=

K@=?>=F6ÿB=;@?67>=@A;57Mÿ4<466=A:?4:4;O=:ÿÿ;6ÿDD5@99<5>;ÿ?;ÿB?L7ÿ=M9@>ÿ66;C5@D;3=6>9@;GI=:ÿG:NÿYÿUG7T4ÿ9=U76ÿ46=:>6=:Oÿ9=ÿ>JÿI>=45M6;7<=ÿ=KR>ÿÿ6KCÿ6446ÿCB;=@ÿ69ÿ=<:9F4V=69ÿ>>6BI>ÿ=O6:ÿEBN5ÿ@<9M5=;@FÿCW6>6X4IXÿ5=ÿBP@ÿ@ÿ99Q>=@<=F5C6@>C9>I6=74:=Nÿÿ@DERÿO?Sÿ=JJ;=?=66=<<@Sÿÿ9ÿ5>9>@CÿI>465M;;7=:=N: ÿZ
 ÿ/

BK<@ÿO9==F:6Nÿ>>IM=C:ER=@ÿ5<

K<ÿO=:Nÿ34=6:=ÿM34567ÿ6ÿ:MCC6@Oÿ;?6;ÿ7=:I@9E=:Nÿ<5@ÿ=6I?ÿB@9=F6>I=R ####,ÿÿÿ7ÿ
.88
9ÿÿÿ8%
ÿ
#7ÿ9ÿ8
7ÿ%%ÿ998ÿ7ÿ#ÿ8ÿ

234567ÿ:MCC6@Oÿ5<ÿB@9=F6>I=:ÿ?=@=G
#
ÿ1 /ÿ%ÿ#

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

002*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+>,-,-ÿ5/30:14ÿÿ2@<-?3?4ÿ:5,/06<64;74ÿ8098//88ÿ3/,:0:A-4774:ÿ94/-302ÿ,-ÿ94/-302ÿ/66,;;,:/83,0ÿ377<47=ÿ>?4/74

B87ÿC!
"

D?8,,300ÿ626,44;-ÿEA;Oÿ><P-30?ÿ3F6=/ÿG84HKFIÿL=MÿJ9347-ÿ430ÿ869?4<-:44ÿ/70ÿ/10ÿ:1ÿ377<636>9?3ÿ030/;-1/ÿ8>4-ÿ,J694,4ÿ:J30/72ÿ7/ÿ83ÿ015,,<?-5ÿ330027ÿ8/380<ÿ8330,;0ÿ/N8<48ÿJÿ379ÿ,0ÿ,73207 ÿQ
 ÿR
S@ÿ147=ÿ>?4/74ÿ<>?,/:ÿ@<??ÿ:,6<;408/83,0A B87ÿC!
"

D96,430/;6-;430ÿE<20ÿ>303-63;?/ÿF8/3=,8ÿ4G0UH77Fÿÿ@:I/3=3@ÿ?J@<364-<4-4ÿ?88ÿ,189Kÿ,4ÿN-P44ÿ1/ÿ0/10ÿÿ:,3-7:643->ÿ?L3,0-/ÿ8-,1ÿÿ7>8-/,06:4ÿ4@,:-30ÿ62,7<ÿ30085Oÿ,,?-5ÿ,30829ÿ4/-ÿÿ:>4,/84@ÿ0,8-3ÿ/9?/-:T,@T ÿQ
 ÿR
S@ÿ147=ÿ>?4/74ÿ<>?,/:ÿ@<??ÿ:,6<;408/83,0A B87ÿC!
"

V4:36/?ÿW-,647747
E889,-4ÿ4@ÿ3ÿ7?/?6ÿ?,?-ÿ<43048ÿ;0,3-/0ÿ8/247=7ÿX3ÿ0J46:9?ÿ<,Y:ÿ</34-0-72385ÿ3J,4ÿ09/748ÿA01ÿÿ,P38<ÿ3-7ÿ3ÿ0:7,80384<=ÿ8J3,90,ÿ-ÿ4:6,44375ÿ3308=2ÿ/ÿ/0ÿ:9ÿ4J/9-340829ÿ47-6ÿ8-9444ÿ03030;2/K8ÿ4Wÿ3?74ÿ/27345ÿ4:04ÿ7/6ÿ@-,3N-;4

W?4/74ÿ<>?,/:ÿ894ÿ94/-302ÿY<4783,00/3-4A
#
ÿC Rÿ%ÿ#

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

012*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-./-ÿ12,3.4ÿ56-ÿ6-.,56ÿ/7/5-8/ÿ/9:--;<;=ÿ>3:8?ÿ<;9,14<;=ÿ.;7ÿ@1-/5<3;ÿ.A315ÿ6-.:<;=B
#
ÿD Cÿ%ÿ#

E<6;-:8-.ÿ:.<<;5;-8=ÿ<ÿ.//5ÿ9=-:/<-Gÿ-F-;;6<ÿ;3.=ÿÿ:>J3-ÿ9:K8>-ÿ<7ÿG5-3-/ÿÿ.>?ÿ<ÿ2,:,ÿ,33-1.15/5<ÿ;-3-ÿ:4ÿÿ2.-6//L79-/:<4<A9ÿ-.@ÿ,1<ÿ5H-?.ÿ/<;;5;<931,;1./4,,B<7ÿ;ÿM=3ÿ:Fÿ-6G3-ÿ:27-ÿ5:F>33:ÿ83:/ÿÿ5<65ÿ:.-;-4ÿ7ÿF-.6:-/5I6ÿ:--:9ÿ5-6<-G<;=ÿ.

N5>6<,,--<9ÿÿ<4L/.ÿÿ6Q5.-E?:1ÿ-.4ÿ;5<334ÿ,ÿ.3569=-97;-ÿ+/ÿ1/:23ÿ.,=3ÿ5:.--48/ÿ/526ÿN,-.6ÿ54-.3ÿ:-59Oÿ1R9ÿ8P--,-ÿ8/;225ÿ:,F-.<.55-46B/Qÿ5ÿ66S--3-ÿ1:5-ÿÿ/>@361:3ÿ<5:16-,-44ÿÿÿ;<A;-->Oÿ3.5:ÿA8@,1-.-ÿ55</335ÿ;<43ÿ3A;F-Bÿ,P;36,F3-.Bÿ;4.ÿ586--ÿÿ>3<,>-ÿ5?ÿ6<;-215

E14<3,3=7ÿ+:3=:-//ÿN6.:5
DX8ÿÿ%
ÿ8Tÿ#ÿÿ%778ÿ%8ÿÿ#ÿ##ÿ8%7ÿ%U%9#8ÿ89ÿ87
ÿ89ÿ288#87ÿZ
ÿ%ÿTTÿÿÿ%
98ÿ
7ÿW78ÿT#ÿ#ÿ9
ÿU
ÿ7ÿXÿÿUÿ8ÿVÿY8ÿ
#8 0
ÿ8ÿ#8 ÿX9ÿ%
ÿ
7ÿÿ
 1
ÿ[Uÿ#8 ÿX9ÿU8
ÿ%
ÿ
7ÿÿ
 *
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ8ÿ#8 ÿ

 3
ÿ8ÿ%ÿ9
ÿÿ#8 ÿ

 '
ÿ

ÿ%ÿ9
ÿÿ#8 ÿ

 )
ÿ[8 ÿ87ÿ
8
$ÿ\
ÿU##ÿÿ8
$
!8"ÿ[8
ÿ#8 ÿ87!
"ÿÿU] ÿ7 !X"ÿWÿ

ÿ%ÿ79 ÿU##ÿ#8 ÿ87!
"ÿ8ÿ77 !"ÿWÿ

ÿ%ÿX8 ÿÿ8 ÿ#8 ÿ87!
" !7"ÿCÿ#8 ÿ87ÿ
ÿ77 (
%ÿÿD#ÿÿ78#
ÿ9ÿ888ÿ
ÿ
ÿ8
ÿ7!7"ÿ!ÿ8ÿ#ÿ#88ÿ8ÿ877
ÿ
ÿ77"ÿ8
ÿ7ÿ978ÿ798 5
ÿDÿ8ÿ9#8ÿ]9
ÿ8#ÿÿU##8ÿ#8
ÿÿ88ÿ7#ÿ898ÿ8X7ÿÿ7U#
ÿÿ8ÿ#ÿ87ÿ8ÿÿÿ!ÿ
T
"9ÿ
"^ÿ!_#
ÿTÿ% 8`

7ÿaÿÿÿ8U7
8
ÿÿ9
7ÿÿ##78ÿÿ%ÿÿU#ÿU#8ÿ#ÿÿ%#ÿ8987ÿ8
ÿÿ8ÿ877Xÿ
7
"$ÿ8ÿU8#
ÿ9ÿ%78T8ÿ8ÿ77

7ÿÿ!%XT9ÿÿU#7ÿ#ÿ8ÿÿ##88

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

0*2*0

012321405
!8"ÿ8

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

!+"ÿ
ÿ%ÿ

!"ÿ9ÿ%ÿ

,-./01ÿ34.5ÿ65758
#
ÿ: 9ÿ%ÿ#

;0ÿ66550<7ÿ4<</>=ÿ6044<1>Iÿÿ?J<.5?0@@?50ÿ.1ÿ650@-G7-45K<5@8ÿAÿL6/BÿC0<Dÿ/33E@4=5ÿ=74-@ÿ1/5@ÿ4=ÿ=0F5ÿ3/7ÿ0<ÿ4<C0=5ÿ=/ÿ75G54H5

M7<5ÿG=6545Hÿ5-ÿ00@ÿ6=ÿ5@04N7ÿ4C<>/ÿ<04=16I@ÿAÿ6L/BÿC0<Dÿ4<14H41?0.@ÿ60H5ÿ601ÿ=/ÿB04=ÿC/75ÿ=60<ÿ@4N=Dÿ10D@ÿ=/ ;60=ÿ4@ÿ=65ÿG0?@5ÿ/3ÿ=65ÿ15.0DIÿL

;60=ÿ@=5-@ÿ4@ÿD/?7ÿ4<@=4=?=4/<ÿ=0F4<>ÿ=/ÿ4C-7/H5ÿ=64@ÿ-7/G5@@IÿL

O5.5G/CC?<4G0=4/<@

P-6//5<@5ÿDÿ0/C?7-ÿ4.<43@45=47=@?R=I4/ÿ<Lÿ60H5ÿ0<Dÿ-6/<5ÿ0C-.43457@ÿQ</=ÿC575.DÿH/.?C5ÿG/<=7/.AÿK?=ÿ-/7=0K.5

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

032*0

012321405
ÿ+
 ÿ,

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

0-4./40/11/1ÿÿ3<9/ÿ1<4A5/6E7/Fÿ8ÿD99:@5ÿÿ6@;1/<.6.<ÿ3:9<6ÿ9<A;/=18ÿ/ÿ@>9?5/G5F6/ÿ;H4;/8ÿÿ@96<<AA/ÿ<5Aÿ4/91E/ÿE3//B;6<41/F1CÿD9@ÿ39ÿ6;E0</1ÿ97<06;

D9@ÿE0;8ÿ?A9;/ÿ0E?.6I6/51F JIÿ8/1Kÿ@A/;ÿ363ÿ89:5ÿ6;1<6<:<69;ÿL/<ÿ<A/1/ÿ3/B64/1F :J?I?ÿ589./9310:K34ÿ?ÿ<0=.1/ÿ3ÿ0191?4//:ÿ?4E65I9/64B;06<3<ÿ67/9/ÿ;/.916<ÿ@A9/C;5ÿÿ<0Aÿ/3ÿ/E104;56:?I<0694;<:ÿ95/Iÿ5<=A1/ÿ@ÿ?/579136:</4C<ÿ=M19ÿ1:?ÿ4/04;6Iÿ6?4059<6B96;31/ÿÿ96<5ÿ6ÿ;0ÿÿ.<6A;6G1ÿÿ<<9/ÿ><<Aÿ7/9>ÿ95

%8
ÿ%ÿ#ÿ89%

NO
ÿP

%8
ÿ%ÿ#ÿ89%

Q9/1ÿ89:5ÿ6;1<6<:<69;ÿA0B/ÿ0ÿ40?<69;/3ÿ</./?A9;/FÿR ÿ+
 ÿ, -04./40/11/1ÿÿ3<9/ÿ1<4A5/6E7/Fÿ8ÿD99:@5ÿÿ6@;1/<.6.<ÿ3:9<6ÿ9<A;/=18ÿ/ÿ@>9?5/G5F6/ÿ;H4;/8ÿÿ@96<<AA/ÿ<5Aÿ4/91E/ÿE3//B;6<41/F1CÿD9@ÿ39ÿ6;E0</1ÿ97<06;

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

0'2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/0123ÿ014ÿ-5676ÿ076ÿ8562ÿ9:64; <=ÿ26:3ÿ-561ÿ4>4ÿ2,97ÿ>1:8>898>,1ÿ?68ÿ856:6ÿ46@>A6:; 9<B=Bÿ72,C6,4:0934AÿBÿ80DC:6ÿ4ÿ0:,:BA669ÿBA/>7=,6>A@10>848ÿ>F6,6ÿ16C,:>8ÿ-5,6G17ÿÿ805ÿ64ÿ6/:0A17>9B=80>,A189ÿ,76=ÿ78D5:6ÿ-ÿB67F,:4>986AG8ÿDH:,ÿ:9BÿA60A1>=ÿ>BA07,8>@,>14:6ÿÿ,>87ÿ>ÿ10ÿÿC8>51>E:ÿÿ88,6ÿI885ÿF6,Iÿ,7
%8
ÿ%ÿ8J
KL
ÿM

%8
ÿ%ÿ8J
NOPOQRSTOU
VC60:6ÿC>:8ÿB5,16ÿC,A08>,1:ÿ0@0>C0FC6ÿ=,7ÿ>1/086:ÿ8,ÿ9:6ÿ,74>1072ÿWX6A979:Yÿ86C6B5,16:GÿZ

[,7ÿ60A5ÿ:9A5ÿC,A08>,13ÿ>:ÿ85676ÿ08ÿC60:8ÿ,16ÿB5,16ÿ->85ÿ0ÿ@,C9/6ÿ04\9:8/618;ÿZ ÿ]
 ÿ^

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

0)2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,ÿ./01ÿ23453ÿ6/5704/.8ÿ79:ÿ675;4.<ÿ7.=ÿ>3/.:ÿ2403ÿ7ÿ?/6@A:ÿ7BC@80A:.0D

EFGHIJKILHM
N3/ÿ48ÿ03:ÿ?4B:/>3/.:ÿ>9/?4B:9DÿO P/2ÿA7.=ÿQ;4/8;ÿ/9ÿ/03:9ÿ./.R67>0/>Sÿ?4B:/>3/.:8ÿ70ÿ=/@9ÿ4.8040@04/.DÿO N3:9:ÿ79:ÿ03:=ÿ6/570:BD

T9:ÿ?4B:/>3/.:8ÿ7?7467U6:ÿB@94.<ÿ03:ÿ87A:ÿ3/@98ÿ78ÿ>3/.:8DÿO ÿV
 ÿW PO78ÿ7.=ÿ4.A70:ÿ9:X@:80:Bÿ755:88ÿ0/ÿ03:ÿ?4B:/>3/.:8ÿ84.5:ÿT>946ÿY1ÿZ[Y\1ÿ7.BÿU::.ÿB:.4:BD ÿV
 ÿW 9+,:ÿ87/81/ÿ>.6ÿ:,/798ÿ:03ÿ::]ÿB>:67.44.7ÿ60_3:ÿ5495@A807.5:81ÿ4.56@B4.<ÿ03:ÿ4.A70:^8ÿ.7A:1ÿ03:ÿB70:1ÿ7.Bÿ03:

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

0(2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/012ÿ3024ÿ504ÿ6075ÿ,16ÿ8661ÿ91,:6;0<9=6ÿ3>;91?ÿ<56ÿ@04<ÿ<-,ÿA>0;<6;4BÿC

D9146<ÿE9<1>,<9-,1ÿ<ÿ540<0<ÿ1<536ÿ,ÿF1>ÿ4;,:@@=69ÿ1=9?3ÿ6<5,,:456,ÿ<166745ÿ51097=06@ÿÿ5309G3G9ÿ7<6>7@<5961497B0ÿ@Cÿ39GG97>@<964HÿD56;6ÿ3,64ÿ2,>;

D-55601<ÿÿ9<45ÿ62ÿ,=>93;ÿ6:,@0:15ÿ,G,1;6ÿ:ÿ94;,ÿ9=19,3:916?;0ÿ6<9A=>60B@ÿÿ0C77644ÿ<,ÿ<6@6:5,16ÿ46;=9764ÿG,;ÿ91/0<64ÿ-5,ÿ49?1

+:,1915;0,<ÿ/,65-;166ÿ:56;K;ÿÿ0H<6<[55=ÿ<6066Cÿ<ÿÿ6329,I,01:<>K6@ÿÿ006ÿ211I,0:3><@ÿ906ÿ,?9I110:H6=ÿ@L306M9ÿÿ1<5H5?69/0H3N<ÿÿÿÿO<,0ÿ,/;@<ÿÿ5665;<96/ÿ1-;0ÿÿ<9-<5<95=56ÿ6ÿ6O6Pÿ;Q<I6,:ÿÿÿR06@0,10153701ÿ55<ÿÿ9S,9,1/-1/Kÿ9ÿ<<00,5<1ÿ6ÿ093ÿ170ÿÿ<7G:5G666647;ÿ44/<6ÿ,<6351<B6ÿ5,ÿÿ,F@103@ÿ:6Tÿ8<0:,24;:ÿ69-@ÿÿÿ<@U5,94K9ÿÿ7><Vÿ546Wÿ60U2ÿ7X,9<5K>ÿÿ0ÿ-ÿ9?419<ÿ0/05=ÿ06Y<ÿ6Z5JO94/

F>4@66034ÿ96<ÿÿ:01;,3=ÿ-93566ÿ01ÿH@,?ÿ,Gÿ<56ÿ>46ÿ,Gÿ<56ÿ=936,:5,16ÿ0@<6;10<9=6ÿ<50<ÿ45,-4ÿ-5975ÿ91/0<6ÿ504
#
ÿ] \ÿ%ÿ#

^87ÿ#ÿ ÿ#
__`a
+,-ÿ/012ÿbbcÿ/0759164ÿ3,64ÿ2,>;ÿ914<9<><9,1ÿ50=6BÿC

D56;6ÿ0;6ÿ<562ÿE6:<BÿC

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

052*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

,-.ÿ0-12ÿ34ÿ546371ÿ817ÿ399122:

;<1ÿ==>2ÿ3?35@3A@1ÿ0B<548ÿ7C1ÿ2361ÿC-B<2ÿ32ÿDC-412:ÿE ÿF
 ÿG H@1321ÿ0129<5A1ÿ7C1ÿ3?35@3A@1ÿC-B<2ÿI-<ÿA-7CÿDC-412ÿ340ÿ==>2J

;<1ÿ7C1<1ÿD<54710ÿ5427<B975-42ÿK1D7ÿ.57Cÿ7C1ÿ==>2:ÿE ÿF
 ÿG H@1321ÿBD@-30ÿ5427<B975-42ÿI-<ÿ7C1ÿB21ÿ-Iÿ7C1ÿ==>J
#
ÿL Gÿ%ÿ#

,32ÿ34Mÿ546371ÿ<1NB12710ÿ==>ÿ399122ÿ25491ÿ;D<5@ÿOPÿQROSPÿ340ÿA114ÿ014510:ÿE ÿF
 ÿG T<I1ÿ23-2P-ÿD4@ÿ1I-3<2ÿ17Cÿ11Uÿ0D1@345543ÿ@7JC1ÿ95<9B62734912Pÿ549@B0548ÿ7C1ÿ546371V2ÿ4361Pÿ7C1ÿ0371Pÿ340ÿ7C1

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

0*2+0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

6778ÿ+9ÿ%ÿ+#ÿ998$
C9,C7AD8-#98977.788ÿÿB80#9ÿÿF.9#

#1ÿÿ1882ÿÿ.8ÿ
8ÿÿ3
ÿ98ÿÿ7.8
B8ÿ
8%4ÿÿ
7GKÿ
1ÿÿ
8Dÿÿÿÿ57ÿA
887#68%ÿ97ÿ778.

ÿÿÿ.ÿ+987#3+

ÿÿÿE
.99ÿÿ48
81ÿ
8ÿÿÿ+8ÿ8#B%8+
1ÿ79
9
Eÿ8ÿÿ1ÿ+ÿ.%ÿ#ÿ#
8C8
8ÿÿ:899ÿ;<ÿ
ÿ888ÿ=ÿ
%87>
8ÿÿ?+
%ÿ#ÿ8#ÿÿCÿ8@ÿ+Aÿ#999ÿ#789ÿÿ9ÿ9Aÿ7F
ÿÿ8ÿ8ÿÿÿ8J9Aÿ7Dÿ%9
ÿÿÿ89A7ÿ8ÿBÿ7
ÿ8ÿÿ#8ÿ#%99ÿ7
#Cÿÿ&ÿ
79ÿ
8B

988ÿ%
ÿÿÿ%

ÿ#89#
78ÿ%ÿ#ÿB88ÿ8ÿ87ÿ8ÿ%8ÿÿ#ÿ
H7ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ8
%ÿÿB8#ÿÿF9
##88ÿ7
ÿ9ÿ87ÿÿ8ÿ#
%
ÿÿÿÿ
A
CÿI7#

#ÿ8ÿÿÿ7%##9ÿÿ%8
%ÿ78

LMNÿ3OP-ÿ1Q3.ÿ97.ÿ4M4RS.9TÿQ4391.8ÿ922MN.Uÿ1MÿO8.ÿTM7ÿV-M4.ÿP9228WÿX
+9ÿÿ8ÿ87ÿÿ78BÿÿAG
LMNÿ3OP-ÿ1Q3.ÿ97.ÿS.9TÿQ4391.8ÿ922MN.Uÿ1MÿO8.ÿTM7ÿYQU.MV-M4.ÿP9228WÿX #7ÿFÿ1Jÿ#ÿ9ÿ8A
+9ÿÿ8ÿ87ÿÿ78BÿÿAG
LMNÿ3OP-ÿ1Q3.ÿ97.ÿS.9TÿQ4391.8ÿ922MN.Uÿ1MÿO8.ÿTM7ÿ,,ZÿP9228WÿX #7ÿFÿ*Jÿ#ÿ9ÿ8A
+9ÿÿ8ÿ87ÿÿ78BÿÿAG
0Q4Q.4bPO.Qÿ159Vc72Q.2ÿW[ÿ\ÿX]^[_\ÿ-9`.ÿaMOÿ39U.ÿ94aÿU.1.73Q491QM4ÿ1-91ÿ1-.ÿO896.ÿ977946.3.418ÿ97. ÿE
 ÿd
;TÿaMOÿ-9`.ÿ39U.ÿ8OP-ÿ9ÿU.1.73Q491QM4\ÿV2.98.ÿV7M`QU.ÿUMPO3.4191QM4ÿMTÿ1-.ÿ7.98M4Q46=
#
ÿe dÿ%ÿ#

S.`QP.8ÿ1Mÿ988Q81ÿNQ1-ÿ.TT.P1Q`.ÿPM33O4QP91QM4

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

142*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/012314
567ÿ9:;<ÿ=>?ÿ@:AB6ACÿD6ÿ<6EÿF:GHIÿJ

KFHLHÿ:LHÿBFH<ÿMHABIÿJ

N@H:CHÿAL6GODHÿ=>?ÿ@6PÿCF67O;PÿECHÿQ6LÿH:RFÿ6;HÿCO;RHÿSALO@ÿTUÿVWTXY
#
ÿ[ Zÿ%ÿ#

5:Cÿ:;<ÿO;9:BHÿLH\EHCBHDÿ=>?ÿCHLGORHCÿ:;Dÿ]HH;ÿDH;OHDÿCO;RHÿSALO@ÿTUÿVWTXIÿJ ÿ^
 ÿZ
?LQHÿC:6CU6ÿA;@ÿHQ6:LCÿHBFÿHH_ÿDAH@:;OO;:ÿ@BYFHÿROLRE9CB:;RHCUÿO;R@EDO;PÿODH;BOQ<O;PÿBFHÿO;9:BHUÿBFHÿD:BHUÿ:;DÿBFH

`:;ÿ:ÿ=>?ÿ]HÿECHDÿO;ÿLHCBLORBOGHÿF6ECO;PIÿJ ÿ^
 ÿZ 567I

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

102*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ,ÿ/01ÿ23ÿ4536ÿ7-ÿ893ÿ364:,87;-ÿ,<3,=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@

1Aÿ-;BÿC9Dÿ-;8=

E;35ÿ893ÿ/01ÿF,G8;Gÿ2,Hÿ7-:F463ÿ7-58<4:87;-5=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@ E;35ÿ893ÿ/01ÿF,G8;Gÿ2,Hÿ7-:F463ÿ,ÿ:;<6ÿ5GF7883<=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@ E;35ÿ893ÿ/01ÿF,G8;Gÿ2,Hÿ7-:F463ÿ,ÿF;-Hÿ:;IG483<ÿ:;<6=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@ E;35ÿ893ÿ/01ÿF,G8;Gÿ2,Hÿ7-:F463ÿ,-D897-Hÿ3F53=ÿ>

J53,<KK37:ÿD3;54M/ÿ90,N6Oÿ=;ÿ:>:,57;-ÿ8;ÿ453ÿD;4<ÿ/01ÿF,G8;Gÿ,5ÿ,ÿK763;G9;-3ÿL;<ÿA;<ÿK763;ÿ<3F,D ÿ?
 ÿ@

91A;ÿ5C;ÿBDÿ6;345ÿ9:<,7K233ÿÿ8839538ÿ3:67<ÿ:784PÿI>58,-:35Pÿ1Aÿ-;8BÿGF3,53ÿ3QGF,7-ÿ7Aÿ8975ÿ;G87;-ÿ75ÿ,K,7F,2F3ÿ8;ÿD;4Bÿ,-6

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

112*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/0,12123ÿ42ÿ567ÿ8-9ÿ:992ÿ;04<1=9=ÿ/4ÿ-/,>>?ÿ@ ÿA
 ÿB CD9,-9ÿ9E;D,12ÿ/4ÿFG4HIÿFG92Iÿ,2=ÿG4Fÿ/G9ÿ/0,12123ÿG,-ÿ:992ÿ;04<1=9=J

KLMLNOPOQRP
S09ÿ,DDÿT480ÿ12-/1/8/142U-ÿ-G,09=V-;,W9ÿX5-ÿW,;,:D9ÿ4>ÿ/802123ÿW,;/142123ÿ42?ÿ@ ÿA
 ÿB 1Y24H9,-/ÿ9T-4U8ÿ90,ÿ102;-G/14/82/914-?2ÿÿ8@-9ÿ0,=14ÿ40ÿ,24/G90ÿH9/G4=ÿ/4ÿ-92=ÿ-G,09=V-;,W9ÿX5ÿ-482=ÿ/4 ÿA
 ÿB 7>ÿT9-Iÿ;D9,-9ÿ=9-W01:9ÿ/G9ÿH9/G4=J

+4Fÿ=4ÿT48ÿ=9,DÿF1/GÿW,;/142123ÿ>40ÿ09W09,/142,DÿH4<19-?ÿ@

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

1*2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-./-ÿ,1/2ÿ.,,ÿ341-52.2135ÿ617-3/8ÿ9-8:8;ÿ15/212<2135.,ÿ341-52.2135;ÿ+=>?;ÿ-2@8AÿB

CD1@Dÿ35-/ÿ.4-ÿ@.E2135-7FÿB

?4-ÿ2D-ÿ@.E2135/ÿ71/E,.G15:ÿHD-5ÿ2D-ÿ617-3/ÿ.4-ÿE,.G-7ÿI34ÿ15J.2-/ÿ7<415:ÿ341-52.2135FÿB ÿK
 ÿL M3Hÿ717ÿG3<ÿ@D-@Nÿ35ÿHD-2D-4ÿ2D-ÿ@.E2135/ÿ.4-ÿ71/E,.G15:FÿB

O3-/ÿG3<4ÿ15/212<2135ÿD.6-ÿ-.4ED35-/ÿI34ÿE.43,-ÿD-.415:/FÿB ÿK
 ÿL P2I3ÿGÿE3,<<ÿ:Dÿ.156ÿ--ÿ./4<E@DD3ÿ5-.-4/Eÿ2D33ÿ25D--/ÿE;ÿ.H4D3.,-2ÿÿN611577-ÿ33ÿI/ÿG-/.24-EJD3F5ÿ-B/ÿ.4-ÿ2D-GFÿPIÿG3<ÿ73ÿ532;ÿ1/ÿ2D-4-ÿ.ÿH.G

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

132*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

.+2,-2.-//-/ÿÿ1:7-ÿ/:?23-4C5-Dÿÿ6B778>3ÿÿ4>9/-:,4,:ÿ187:4ÿ7:?9-;/6ÿ-ÿ><7=3-E3D4-ÿ9F29-6ÿÿ>74::??-ÿ:3?ÿ2-7/C-ÿC1--@94:2/-D/AÿB7>ÿ17ÿ49C.:-/ÿ75:.49

B7>ÿC.96ÿ.3-ÿ:?-3-Gÿ.91ÿ>?-3-ÿ.3-ÿ:?-6ÿ8/-1D H?-9ÿ141ÿ6783ÿ49/:4:8:479ÿI-:ÿ:?-/-ÿ1-@42-/D +1/=7,--2.28/4CJ-42ÿ-=.93::74ÿ75@94-1/,7-ÿ7ÿ>-9A4ÿ::??--3ÿÿC.ÿ.19-8/J2.324=:8:437-93ÿ;7/ÿJ>ÿ:?--5ÿ/=43:-7A1ÿK8728:;ÿ/2ÿ./9=ÿ-=2347J4@24.1:-47ÿ49:ÿ/49ÿ7ÿ:3?ÿ.4/ÿ,ÿ4:9-E<ÿ::ÿ75ÿ7:?<-ÿ7ÿ=3ÿ387=1,872.:1;/ÿ.
%8
ÿ%ÿ8#
ÿ%ÿ8ÿ#8

LM
ÿN

#8%
8
ÿ%ÿ8#
ÿ%ÿ8
O7-/ÿ6783ÿ49/:4:8:479ÿ?.@-ÿ-.3=?79-/ÿJ73ÿ734-9:.:479DÿP ÿQ
 ÿR +.2,-2.-//-/ÿÿ1:7-ÿ/:2?3-4C5-Dÿ6ÿB778>3ÿÿ4>9/-:,4,:ÿ187:4ÿ7:?9-;/6ÿ-ÿ><7=3-E3D4-ÿ9F29-6ÿÿ>74::??-ÿ:3?ÿ2-7/C-ÿC1--@94:2/-D/AÿB7>ÿ17ÿ49C.:-/ÿ75:.49

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

1'2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/0123ÿ014ÿ-5676ÿ076ÿ8562ÿ9:64;

<=ÿ26:3ÿ-561ÿ4>4ÿ2,97ÿ>1:8>898>,1ÿ?68ÿ856:6ÿ46@>A6:;

<B9=ÿ7B2,C6,4:0934AÿBÿ80DC:6ÿ4ÿ0:,:BA669ÿBA/>7=,6>A@10>848ÿ>F6,6ÿ16C,:>8ÿ-5,6G17ÿÿ805ÿ64ÿ6/:0A17>9B=80>,A189ÿ,76=ÿ78D5:6ÿ-ÿB67F,:4>986AG8ÿDH:,ÿ:9BÿA60A1>=ÿ>BA07,8>@,>14:6ÿÿ,>87ÿ>ÿ10ÿÿC8>51>E:ÿÿ88,6ÿI885ÿF6,Iÿ,7

%8
ÿ%ÿ8#
ÿ%ÿ8
JK
ÿL

%8
ÿ%ÿ8#
ÿ%ÿ8
MNOPQRSTNÿMNVQRPRQVWVXTN
Y,ÿ2,9ÿ50@6ÿ01ÿ07701?6/618ÿ=,7ÿ>1ZB67:,1ÿ[90C>=>64ÿ>1867B76808>,1ÿ:67@>A6:;ÿ\ ÿ]
 ÿ^ <=ÿ26:3ÿ->85ÿ-5,;
_>1CA6C09:46>ÿ14?6ÿ:85A67>ÿF160ÿ/606Aÿ,5=ÿÿ88>5/66ÿ>ÿ10/1ÿ0>186ZB3ÿ6857:6,ÿ410ÿ>816836ÿ071B476ÿ885667ÿÿ5,0A:Aÿ0F:6>6,11ÿG9:64ÿ:>1A6ÿ`B7>Cÿa3ÿbcad

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

1)2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ,/0ÿ1/2,34ÿ54674-348ÿ,/ÿ1/9:45-;/ÿ1/345:54345ÿ,/8ÿ<44/ÿ84/148=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@

A5B4ÿ0647-4C-ÿ:3ÿDH4,,--4ÿBÿ;854Cÿ-,E/581<ÿH4ÿF40,ÿE3FF4ÿ8ÿ544/61,7D4Cÿ-1/3ÿEHD7,-8ÿ18/4G/ÿ31F448ÿI1/2,34ÿHF;ÿ2,84ÿ3F4ÿ54674-3CÿHF,3ÿ3F4

J5,1/1/Gÿ,/8ÿA/B;52,31;/
A-ÿ3F454ÿ,ÿKLMNÿ,D453ÿ/;348ÿB;5ÿO4,Bÿ,/8ÿF,589;B9F4,51/Gÿ1/2,34-ÿ,3ÿ0;75ÿ1/-313731;/=ÿ> ÿ?
 ÿ@ A0-;ÿ37Fÿ4,ÿ/K-LHM45NSIÿÿ,ABDÿ4135T3-ÿ:ÿ/54;-3ÿ4,/U3,ÿB1D;,5<ÿ4D4,CEÿ/F;ÿO344ÿ,HBFÿ,0/I8ÿF,589;B9F4,51/Gÿ1/2,34=ÿPQD4,-4ÿEF4ERÿ<4B;54

ABÿ04-Cÿ:D4,-4ÿ7:D;,8ÿ,ÿ-E544/-F;3I
#
ÿV @ÿ%ÿ#

WF1EFÿ;Bÿ3F4-4ÿ35,1/1/G-ÿF,U4ÿ0;7ÿE;2:D4348ÿ,-ÿXOXÿY;;581/,3;5ÿPEF4ERÿ,DDÿ3F,3ÿ,::D0S

ÿ66ÿ78ÿZ8 ÿ![\6Z\[ÿ98"

ÿ9ÿ6 9ÿZ8

ÿÿZ8 ÿ%9ÿ]

ÿÿ#

ÿÿ

W3;FÿO,43ÿ,35Bÿ,,1//81/ÿFG,ÿ15-8ÿ<9;4B19/FG4ÿ,:551;/UG1ÿ81/428ÿ,3;34ÿ0-;=7ÿ5>ÿ1/-313731;/T-ÿ42:D;044-ÿ,/8^;5ÿE;/35,E3;5-ÿ54D,31/G

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

1(2*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+,-ÿ/01ÿ234-356ÿ07ÿ892:;03<ÿ8920303<ÿ:-=>?580-3@ÿA +=5,H208:ÿ:22?I8=5<5-398025?7ÿ,ÿ-512ÿ7?88,2E1ÿ51ÿ82:9J56ÿÿ9A5:50B03<ÿ8,5ÿ8920303<@ÿ/C5DEÿ5F07803<Eÿ:G78-H4Eÿ>9-<92=E

K=1ÿ2238549ÿ072G?7:I,7ÿ?80H925073ÿ0233<Hÿ0ÿ7-ÿG38-?083ÿ85,75ÿÿ-L1Mÿ2N34Oÿÿ-:9-2=??4>PG>895597PQ5327855HHÿÿ88992200330033<<JEÿ>?5275ÿ>9-B0H5ÿ234ÿD908853 R87ÿS!
"
M:---597Hÿ403-2G89-ÿ903Eÿ75880:8JG@8ÿ0-A3T7ÿ03=285ÿ,23HQ--;ÿ95159ÿ8-ÿ8,5ÿUMUEÿ8,5ÿ7588?5=538Eÿ8,5ÿUMU ÿV
 ÿW
XU?M5U27Eÿ58,ÿG5>ÿ7?-5288H?5ÿ2=3543ÿ>8E2ÿ8<,55ÿÿ-U1ÿM8,U5ÿ:ÿ0-3-7890H8G03802-83-T97Eÿÿ5038:=J285ÿ,23HQ--;ÿ8,28ÿ03:?GH57ÿ9515953:5ÿ8-ÿ8,5 R87ÿS!
"

X07?75G25775Iÿ2G:>:?--2=H=ÿ2-3H42ÿ18-0-9=37ÿ-Y9ÿH-:G=538ÿ<0B53ÿ03=2857ÿ95?2803<ÿ8-ÿ,52903< ^a#ZZZ7#8

ÿÿÿÿ%%%ÿZÿÿÿ68
[8ÿ%%ÿÿ8]99\ÿ8ÿÿ68!_87ÿ
ÿ
8]#ÿb8ÿ
ÿ7ÿ888ÿ
7ÿÿS9ÿ99Z
ÿ!ÿ7S]]8]

9ÿ
63ÿ
!"][]]
8
*\"ÿ67
ÿ87ÿ
"ÿ!`]

*"

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

152*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"
,87ÿ-!
"

.5=/011<2;:0<ÿ0425B/ÿ6=01/71ÿ;1:88A9ÿÿ;:68ÿ27;0:;14C;ÿ:66=8ÿD11/ÿ=576E/6:<CE:D020ÿ11=8:87Aÿ5ÿ:=86?<017;042=F0ÿ:28ÿ<>6/4=ÿ7?:80A?ÿ16G26ÿ04@;H5/1:8:8Aÿ<4==08; IKL#8#ÿ87ÿÿ
I
IJÿÿ
7#ÿ

,87ÿ-!
"
M561/N:<0:ÿ0128T9ÿÿ<UD18A02ÿG008ÿ?170ÿ2:8<0ÿO5=:/ÿPFÿQRPSFÿ:8ÿ189ÿ6Cÿ;D0ÿ1G6N0ÿ76<4?08;2ÿ6= ÿJ
 ÿV WCÿ902FÿXD1;ÿ<D18A02ÿD1N0ÿG008ÿ?170T

O=0ÿ;D0ÿ20;;/0?08;ÿ24??1=9Fÿ20;;/0?08;Fÿ187ÿG=6<D4=0ÿ1//ÿ:8ÿ;D0ÿ:8?1;0ÿ/1Xÿ/:G=1=9TÿU ÿJ
 ÿV YD08ÿ7:7ÿ964ÿ/12;ÿ<D0<Zÿ;6ÿ?1Z0ÿ24=0ÿ;D09ÿ1=0ÿ=01//9ÿ;D0=0TÿU

[:=0<;ÿ;D=01;ÿ=056=;:8Aÿ4870=ÿ;D0ÿOA=00?08;

\aDÿ088ÿa]0ÿ;8ÿ;/0ÿ?08
;7ÿÿOÿA
=
00#?ÿÿ80ÿ88;%ÿÿ2L;19;ÿ80I2#ÿ
>WÿW8%^OÿBÿ8%ÿÿ_I7&#ÿ`bÿÿ8ÿÿ78ÿ&#`ÿ98ÿ
ÿÿ#8%%ÿÿ
ÿL799
8ÿ
%ÿÿ8
ÿÿ7
ÿÿ7#%9
ÿÿ9ÿ8#`8ÿ

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

1*2+0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

7,%8#9
ÿ88ÿ878-
ÿ0
8#ÿ
7ÿ879ÿ8899ÿ
ÿ79887ÿ
8
ÿ+7#ÿ/ÿ8ÿ#ÿ,ÿÿ8
9-ÿÿÿ
%-ÿ#ÿÿ%ÿ
9#ÿ.

!97$ÿ08%0ÿ7
ÿ#87%#8 ÿ98

"

FB91AAB2D4C339ÿ4E9ÿ666E3ÿ7GE:37<ÿÿH48D>39KDK9:ÿ966<ÿAÿ<6CC;H9ÿÿB<36ABÿ=<I=>>A>49:@9KMÿ4ÿ<36ÿ34ANÿ4CI:<3?@ÿ97D69732ÿA63<6ÿÿ@ÿ<F<H3>ÿ99ÿA9Hÿ6@BÿAÿ9HDA9E@9Bÿ6K83B6<:@BÿÿA9:6A3ÿCC423ÿ;B6E33344D:3?ÿÿB68A7433BC24ÿ3B6K3H7<L94363ÿ:9ÿ>?AÿAH@99ÿE9JBEKK3B66BÿB263<B:6ÿB?83ÿ94:<Cÿ8224B9C3A3:6ÿ396A7L6<3ÿ9::3? ÿO
 ÿP
Q9AHEÿ<:E6<B<H?BDÿ38CDK3ÿ69<7:C339ÿ[ÿ6>B3<86A6K<KV3ÿ9SDWCUÿ3ÿC6A7<63Eÿ\ÿ>4<DB:AX3Bÿ6A8<64493ÿ6<:B<H3ÿA@Aÿ<6<3>HCR4ÿÿVSCÿTS3YUÿ6U63ÿ7943ÿDKÿB::BA36ÿ94<26HBBÿ<E67A33S?ÿ:ÿ8BUA4]BD2B9K363LS3:?UÿHÿ99HEHB3KBE6@63?ÿC9VCÿ92A9CAÿ6S9ZLUÿ3;ÿ<743Aÿ@<> ^87ÿ_!
"

G79,783-c8ÿÿ[ÿ98#3
ÿ6,
68K3%Dc9ÿ38ÿÿA

6#ÿÿ9`

L8ÿ+9
743#ÿ3ÿ8Dÿ
37ÿÿAÿ6ÿ/ÿ:
ÿ6,98637ÿÿ8ÿ:ÿ#ÿÿSa#9ÿQ]bÿ8Uÿ
-+ÿ0ÿ8#+%ÿ#d8%9ÿ-ÿÿÿ8#%ÿÿ
ÿÿ8&ÿÿ
-ÿe8
ÿ9ÿ87%
ÿ
ÿ8#8ÿ.##ÿÿ-7ÿÿ7
ÿf8ÿ8ÿ9,ÿ8#%ÿ8ÿd9ÿ78
0ÿ8ÿ-9ÿ-ÿÿ
ÿ##ÿ##
8
ÿ87 !97$ÿ08%0ÿ7
ÿ#87%ÿ#8 ÿ98

"
[8F4BBA<43E2E3BC6ÿÿ`3Gÿ876744B33Kÿ9ÿTF6?ÿÿ3<W9HgÿHBTÿABhAI>?Dÿ74@99ÿ62<334ÿ9ÿÿC@ÿ:<3>9>J6ÿ79:6ÿ66ÿ99<AAÿ96@Bÿ9ÿF8K3K<@9BÿAH3ÿ6B=ÿAC>D3969K3ÿ6<43D8ÿ<8B4A<ÿ34<6C6>7ÿA637B469:@6ÿÿÿ969<Aÿÿ;C67ÿ<69746X3ÿÿ;493<:H:4<XB4Lÿ39Aÿ:ED:7B3<LA:A63Dÿ8A34ÿA3A:<6M36ÿAÿ6<6N3Cÿ9 ÿO
 ÿP
Q@SHY<ÿ:U>ÿ<647?ÿÿC38ÿ3KA36939D4:D33ÿB:>Aÿ89<K6H<Bÿ<B9AACDSÿ:C9U<]63ES>:DUÿ93HAH369E66B3<CAVÿÿ<9HARÿCST?ÿUSÿZ6U7ÿ;3ÿ7;3<A4ÿX@ÿ<9>::ÿABL<A6BDHB33CAÿ66S7:3UVÿ[ÿSW3U6ÿ66K73D3ÿ43BA:6XÿS\:<UÿA8B463<:43ÿ<AH63CV ^87ÿ_!
"
Q:ÿ67343ÿ9A@67BALÿ3K:3ÿ@<>iCÿKBX3ÿ6<ÿK36ÿD3ÿXA<;M

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

*42*0

012321405

6789
ÿ
ÿÿ968ÿ98ÿ ÿ!140504"

+#8,
ÿ-ÿ9#ÿ%ÿ-ÿ7ÿ.,ÿÿ9- ÿ.#ÿ#ÿ9ÿ6 9
 /9

#
$22%9
&%9
9251'5(1335530)5

*02*0

APPENDIX D
The Categorization and Nonoperative Management of Impaired Hearing
Measurement of Hearing Loss
Sound levels are measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are measured on a logarithmic rather than a linear scale. What that means is that when the decibel level increases by ten, a sound is twice as loud— whether the increase is, for example, from 10 to 20 dB or 40 to 50 dB. To give you an idea of how loud certain decibel levels are, here are a few examples. According to the Centers for Disease Control1:
• A soft whisper is around 30 dB • The hum of a refrigerator is around 40 dB (which, for example, is 2x louder to our ears than a
soft whisper) • A normal conversation is around 60 dB • A dishwasher is around 70 dB
Hearing loss is also measured in decibels. If someone has a hearing loss of 40 dB, for example, they are functionally unable to hear a noise that is any softer than 40 dB.
Hearing varies depending on the pitch—technically, the frequency—of the noise in question. Different kinds of sounds occur at different pitches, so impairments at particular pitches may matter more than impairments at others. Pitch/frequency is measured in hertz (Hz), the vibrations per second. A person who has hearing within the normal range can hear sounds that have frequencies between 20 and 20,000 Hz. The most important sounds we hear every day are in the 250 to 6,000 Hz range.
Evaluation of Hearing Loss
The evaluation of hearing loss requires consideration of both volume (measured in dB) and frequency (measured in Hz). Both are included in the quantitative hearing test that an audiologist uses to record hearing testing.
The figure that follows is a blank quantitative hearing test2.

Revised May 8, 2018

Page |1

When a quantitative hearing test is filled in, it shows—for each ear—the lowest (“threshold”) dB level at which the patient can hear, at several spread-out frequencies:

The quantitative hearing test3 above shows a person with normal hearing in the lower frequencies, but increasing severity of hearing loss, in both ears, as the frequencies increase (as the pitch being tested gets higher).
Determining the Need for Intervention
Medicaid regulations for hearing aids were reviewed, as these were thought to be relatively objective criteria for determining the indication for intervention (i.e., provision of a hearing aid) for Medicaid beneficiaries with hearing loss. Kentucky does not cover hearing aids under Medicaid; however, coverage is provided in 28 of the 50 states. The procedure for determining the indication for intervention varies from state to state. Some states require that an average of the threshold at several frequencies exceed a specified decibel level; others require that the threshold at one or two frequencies exceed a specified level. Most states provide a single hearing aid; some prescribe additional criteria for coverage of two hearing aids.
Kentucky DOC Hearing Benchmark
Benchmark frequencies under this policy shall be 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 2,000 Hz, and 4,000 Hz. Kentucky Department of Corrections patients (inmates) who have a threshold of 25 dB or higher in one ear at two or more of the benchmark frequencies shall be assessed to determine the need for an assistive device. The ear with the lower threshold (i.e., the better ear) shall determine the intervention offered. Two hearing aids shall be provided to a patient who meets the criterion for a hearing aid in both ears and meets at least one of the following requirements:

Revised May 8, 2018

Page |2

• Legally blind • A compelling occupational, educational, or safety need for binaural hearing
Diagnosis and Intervention Protocols
1. Screening
The purpose of screening is to identify patients with impaired hearing in a proactive manner. Screening shall be done at the following times:
• Upon intake to the Kentucky Department of Corrections • At each periodic physical examination • During a sick call encounter where the patient reports hearing difficulty
Screening shall completed using the Hearing Screening Questionnaire in the electronic medical record only if one of the above criteria are met. The questionnaire may be administered by a nurse (LPN or RN), a nurse practitioner, a physician’s assistant, or a physician. If any question on the Hearing Screening Questionnaire is answered “Yes,” the patient will be referred to a primary care provider (PCP) for evaluation.
2. Provider Evaluation
A PCP (ARNP, PA, MD or DO) shall evaluate and document the patient’s hearing with the following:
• Inspection of the external auditory canals and tympanic membranes to assure that the external canals are not occluded with cerumen or other foreign objects, the tympanic membranes are intact (no perforations), and the middle ear is not filled with fluid. Any abnormalities identified shall be corrected, if possible, before proceeding with the provider screening.
• The provider shall perform an Audioscope hearing screen. The provider shall record the patient’s response in each ear to a 25 dB tone at each of the benchmark frequencies and shall record whether the patient is able to hear the tone at each of the benchmark frequencies.
• A patient shall be referred for a quantitative hearing test if he/she is unable to hear the Audioscope tone at two or more of the benchmark frequencies in at least one ear.

Revised May 8, 2018

Page |3

Obtaining and Interpreting the Quantitative Hearing Test
A scheduler will arrange for a quantitative hearing test to be performed by one of the following means:
• Performance of a quantitative hearing test on-site at those facilities which have an audiology booth
• Scheduling and assisting with an online quantitative hearing test • Scheduling an off-site hearing test
When a quantitative hearing test has been completed and a printed report has been received, the scheduler will scan the quantitative hearing test report into the medical record and assign the report to the ordering PCP. The PCP shall interpret the quantitative hearing test and assess the degree of hearing impairment at the benchmark frequencies separately in each ear.
• If the degree of impairment in the better is <35 dB at two or more of the benchmark frequencies the patient may be provided with an over-the-counter amplification device (“pocket talker”) if the PCP deems it appropriate.
• If the degree of impairment in the better ear is 35 dB or higher at two or more of the benchmark frequencies, the PCP shall refer the case to the CCS regional medical director for a hearing aid.
The PCP shall meet with the hearing-impaired patient within 30 business days after provision of a hearing aid or amplification device to assess the patient’s functional improvement (or lack thereof) with the device in use.
Patients with special circumstances will be referred for review and treatment planning by the KY DOC Therapeutic Level of Care Committee.
1. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/hearing_loss/what_noises_cause_hearing_loss.html 2. http://www.nationalhearingtest.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/audiogram.png. 3. http://www.nationalhearingtest.org/wordpress/?p=786#prettyPhoto/1/

Revised May 8, 2018

Page |4

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 1 of 37 - Page ID#: 2366

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS

Plaintiffs v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.

Defendants.

Sixth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor

April 23, 2019
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 2 of 37 - Page ID#: 2367
I. INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s order dated June 24, 2015, this is my sixth report to the Court and the parties concerning the status of compliance with this case’s Settlement Agreement, which comprehensively governs how the Kentucky Department of Corrections (“Department” or KyDOC) deals with inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing. In my last report, filed December 2018, I explained that in this one, I would cover the results of the October 2018 round of selfreporting, and an assessment of audiology delays.1
As I described in my prior report, I have continued to use a semi-annual self-reporting tool; the most recent version, from October 2018, is attached as Appendix A. (This same document was also Appendix C to my December 2018 report). Responses to this questionnaire demonstrate that KyDOC has continued to make progress towards compliance. Some institutions have implemented a timely and effective audiology process, managed interpretive services effectively, and even worked on improving communication with hard-of-hearing inmates by providing new amplification devices. That said, the most recent self-reporting cycle reveals the widespread continuation of two different kinds of problems. Procedurally, some institutions continue to struggle with keeping and sharing the records needed to comply with the agreement and to check on that compliance, including when I make requests for follow-up. And substantively, self-reporting and follow-ups reveal crucial areas of compliance weakness—areas that I have seen and described consistently in several prior reports, as many as three years ago. These include:
• Identification, tracking, and reporting of inmates who are deaf/hard-of-hearing • Ensuring prompt and accurate provision of audiology services • Providing interpretation, both in-person and remote • Providing videophone services.
I had hoped that by this report, institutions would have solved these matters and been able to move forward on issues that have emerged more recently, such as amplification and improvements like captioned telephones. But, unfortunately, the results of this most recent selfreporting cycle show that the earlier issues remain.
As in my prior reports, I thank the Department’s personnel, both at headquarters and at the various affected institutions, for their work on implementing the improvements that are required by the Settlement Agreement, and their professionalism and accommodation of my requests for information. There has been significant turnover both in the ADA coordinator assignments. This has posed real challenges, but the new personnel have been working to learn about the ADA, deaf/hard-of-hearing prisoners, and the settlement requirements, and to manage their reporting and compliance obligations. (More recently, there has also been significant turnover at KyDOC headquarters, but I have not yet had much interaction with the new/acting Director of Operations or other headquarters leadership.) I thank the ADA coordinators, as well, for their corrections to a draft of this report that was shared with them on April 9, 2019.
1 See Fifth Semi-Annual Report (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF 91, Pg.ID# 2241, 2244.
-1-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 3 of 37 - Page ID#: 2368
I am providing KyDOC a version of this report without redactions; for submission to the Court, I have redacted inmate names and ID numbers, to protect privacy.
This report has three Appendices:
Appendix A: October 2018 Self-Reporting Questionnaire Appendix B: Memo from me to KyDOC headquarters, setting out all information missing from
October 2018 self-reports as of January 25, 2018 Appendix C: Compiled recommendations
II. DEAF/HARD-OF-HEARING INMATES
As in prior reports, Table 1 tallies reported inmates who are deaf or hard-of-hearing (deaf/HOH). Deciding whom to include—both in the table and for purposes of tracking/reporting under the Settlement Agreement—requires some judgment. KyDOC’s current process for identification of deaf/HOH inmates has two screening phases and then a fuller assessment phase. Inmates are given 10 written or verbal screening questions to identify any need for a hearing evaluation.2 Those who answer “yes” or “sometimes” to one or more of those questions are then supposed to be further evaluated3; they are given either a whisper test4 or examined with an audioscope.5 If they fail the whisper test, or if they cannot hear at two or more
2 See Exhibit B-2 to Site Visit Report, Kentucky State Reformatory (April 21, 2016), Second Semi-Annual Report, Appendix II, ECF 84-2, Pg.ID #1639; Appendix C, Recommendation 54 (“All inmates should also fill out, in writing or orally, the multiple-question hearing screening [in Exhibit B-2].”). The questions currently used are those I recommended: “1. I feel frustrated when talking to others. 2. I hear but I don't always understand what others are saying. 3. I hear but have trouble hearing when people speak softly. 4. I have trouble hearing others speak when they are not facing me. 5. People tell me to turn down the TV/radio. 6. I find it hard to hear when I am in a group setting. 7. I have trouble hearing on the telephone. 8. I need to ask people to repeat themselves when talking. 9. I have trouble hearing with noise in the background. 10. I have trouble hearing others when I am at a restaurant /chow hall.”
3 The documentation provided this cycle demonstrates that KyDOC’s institutions are not consistent as to how many “yes” or “sometimes” responses are leading to further evaluation.
4 The administrator of the “whisper test” stands at arms’ length behind the patient (so he cannot read lips), and after instructing the patient to place one finger on the tragus of one ear to obscure sound, whispers three or four words towards the patient’s other ear, and asks the patient to repeat the word back. The test is then repeated for the other ear. For KyDOC, if an inmate fails the test for either ear, he is referred to an audiologist. See Site Visit Report, Kentucky State Reformatory (April 21, 2016), Second Semi-Annual Report, Appendix II, ECF 84-2, Pg.ID #1601.
5 An audioscope is a portable device for screening hearing; KyDOC policy states that it should be used at the 25 dB level at four benchmark frequencies (500 Hz, 1000 Hz, 2000 Hz, and
-2-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 4 of 37 - Page ID#: 2369
frequencies at the 25 dB level with the audioscope, their need for a hearing aid or other services is then assessed.6
Appropriately, KyDOC generally does not mark as deaf/HOH individuals who pass the whisper test or the audioscope test. Likewise, I do not tally them below (although they are included in Tables 4 through 6, in Part III.E’s description of audiology processing). The criteria for inclusion in Table 1, and in the services covered by the Settlement Agreement, might be whether an inmate’s impairment is significant enough to justify a hearing aid. I think this criterion is, however, inappropriate. Hearing aids are not useful for some individuals who have very significant hearing impairments; for example, several of the KyDOC inmates who are entirely deaf and sign to communicate do not use hearing aids. In addition, under KyDOC’s current policy, a hearing aid is provided only if there’s an impairment in both ears, even though a person who is deaf in one ear may require non-audiology accommodations under the Settlement Agreement. In addition, KyDOC’s policy does not authorize a hearing aid for someone who can hear at the 30 dB level at all frequencies, even though that does constitute a (mild) impairment.
Accordingly, inmates who fail the whisper test or audioscope screening are considered to be at least mildly hard-of-hearing unless subsequent testing or treatment establish that there is no hearing impairment, even if they don’t qualify for a hearing aid. Table 1 includes all such inmates in the Jan. 2019 column labeled “all.” This includes 52 inmates who failed the whisper test or audioscope screening but declined further assessment. Those who do qualify for a hearing aid, or who are deaf but don’t have a hearing aid because it would not assist them, are also tallied as “more severe” in Table 1’s last column.
There are additional, timing-related complications affecting the tally in Table 1, which is a snapshot of a moving subject. The November 2018 count includes inmates who had left by November 2018, but who had been in custody at some point during the prior six months. The February 2019 count, by contrast, reflects data provided by KyDOC in the 2018-10 Report and partial updates since then. The February 2019 count is probably too low, because I have received more up-to-date information about individuals who have left KyDOC custody than about new additions to the tally. On the other hand, the February 2019 “all” category includes 61 inmates who failed initial screening but are not yet fully assessed; some of these will likely eventually be included in the “more severe” category, and some may prove not to have any hearing impairment at all.
Currently KyDOC has 9 inmates who sign to communicate; as of March 2019, they are housed at KCIW (2), KSP (2), KSR (2), LSCC (1), and LLCC (2). During the reporting period, one of the current KSP inmates was housed at NTC, and one of the current LLCC inmates at GRCC. See Table 2 for details.
4000 Hz). See KyDOC policy (May 8, 2018), Fifth Semi-Annual Report, Appendix D, ECF 914, PgID# 2363-64.
6 Id.
-3-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 5 of 37 - Page ID#: 2370

Table 1: Distribution of Kentucky Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates

Institution

~Nov. 2016

Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)

0

Blackburn Correctional Complex (BCC)

5

Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex (EKCC) 9

Green River Correctional Complex (GRCC)

26

Kentucky Correctional Inst. for Women (KCIW) 13

Kentucky State Penitentiary (KSP)

6

Kentucky State Reformatory (KSR)

64

Lee Adjustment Center (LAC)

-

Little Sandy Correctional Complex (LSCC)

18

Luther Luckett Correctional Complex (LLCC)

6

Northpoint Training Center (NTC)

15

Roederer Correctional Complex (RCC)

10

Western Ky. Correctional Complex (WKCC)

5

Ross-Cash Center (Ross-Cash)

1

TOTAL 178

# of Deaf/HOH Inmates

Apr. 2017

Nov. 2017

Apr. 2018

Nov. 2018

Feb. 2019

All

More severe

5 8 6 64 2

4 15 21 26 14 10

11 30 44 51 46 22

35 36 55 57 51 35

13 10 11 11 14 11

11 13 19 28 26 15

75 98 176 189 204 136

-

- 16 20 21 9

8 12 36 74 56 27

26 39 96 94 75 52

28 38 54 68 57 29

16 16 24 20 11 7

10 31 47 45 42 18

2 4 7 65 3

244 350 612 695 626 376

III. KNOWN PROBLEM TOPICS
My last report identified five areas with ongoing substantive compliance problems; this report includes the same five, and adds the procedural problem of poor reporting, discussed first.
A. Reporting Issues
The Settlement Agreement grants me “unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement,” Agreement XV.B.1.a, and authorizes me to “request . . . written responses to any questions . . . related to the implementation of the Agreement or issues in this litigation, so long as the request does not interfere with security obligations of KDOC staff members and employees.” Agreement XV.B.1.e.7 My requests have been comprehensive, both to allow adequate monitoring of compliance and also to assist KyDOC staff in understanding the documentation they need to maintain and themselves review, to facilitate compliance. I have, as previously reported, hoped in the final year of the Agreement’s term to shift my compliance monitoring to oversight of selfaudits, and my reporting requests have been aimed to move in that direction. Unfortunately, the vast majority of reports this most recent cycle were missing requested information. It frequently took many attempts and requests to receive the right information. This does not bode well for
7 The Settlement Agreement is numbered in the version that is Exhibit B to my First SemiAnnual Report, ECF 83-1 (Feb. 4, 2016), Page ID# 1532-1555.

-4-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 6 of 37 - Page ID#: 2371
the transition to self-audits.
The most important categories of missing information were:
(1) Individuals not being tracked as deaf/hard-of-hearing at a given institution. In reporting to me the names and situations of their deaf/HOH inmates, 11 of the 13 institutions omitted at least one—for some, a dozen or more—of the inmates they should have been tracking and sharing information about. For many, the problem was that the inmate had been transferred to a new prison, and because no KOMS (Kentucky Offender Management System) alert had been entered, the ADA coordinator at the transferred-to prison did not receive a notification email on the transfer. For others, no transfer email seems to have been received notwithstanding the presence of a KOMS alert. In addition, two institutions—LLCC and LSCC—may have significantly overreported, including inmates whose hearing assessment demonstrates that they have no hearing impairment. This kind of overreporting can make it difficult for the ADA coordinator to focus his or her attention on the population that actually needs services or accommodations under the Settlement Agreement. See part III.B, below. (I say “may have” overreported because the documentation provided by LSCC is inconclusive on the appropriate status of some individuals.)
(2) Documentation of audiology results. For nearly all of the 13 institutions, I had to ask more than once—and for some of them, many times—for documentation that particular inmates did not qualify for a hearing aid. I have been asking for this information semi-annually since April 2017,8 as well as during every site visit I have done. So I had hoped that now that the audiology process is governed by an objective standard,9 the reporting would be smoother. In the event, however, obtaining the necessary documentation proved very difficult. For example, BCC initially provided written summaries instead of medical records containing the test results. Other institutions— EKCC, LAC, LLCC, and KSP—provided medical records that did not contain the audiogram results requested. As well, some institutions—KSP, LLCC, and NTC—informed me that the inmates had moved to different institutions, which does not obviate the need for documentation of determinations made prior to transfer. And one, EKCC, at first declined to provide documentation without getting releases from inmates—even though under the Settlement Agreement, no such releases are required.10
8 See Semi-Annual Compliance Reporting questionnaire (April 2017), Third Semi-Annual Report, Appendix VI, ECF 86-6, Pg.ID #2166.
9 For a discussion of the development of KyDOC’s current audiology standard, see Fifth Semi-Annual Report (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF 91, Pg.ID# 2244. The standard allows a single hearing aid for an inmate who can hear at 35 dB or louder in the better (that is, less impaired) ear, at two or more of four benchmark frequencies.
10 See Settlement Agreement XV.B.1.a (“The Settlement Monitor will have unlimited access to all records, files, and papers maintained by the KDOC that relate to the terms of this Agreement.”); HIPAA privacy rule, 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(d)(allowing disclosures for “health oversight activities” including “appropriate oversight of . . . entities subject to civil rights laws for which health information is necessary for determining compliance”); id. at (e)(1)(i) (allowing disclosures “in response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal”).
-5-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 7 of 37 - Page ID#: 2372
After more than four months of back-and-forth, I have at this point received nearly (but not quite) all the requested documentation for inmates deemed ineligible for hearing aids. As described below in Part III.E, this documentation proved very important, because it demonstrated that in numerous instances, KyDOC providers were misapplying KyDOC’s own audiology standard, applying too high a prerequisite both for full audiology testing and for hearing aid approval.
(3) Programming/jobs and accommodations. I asked each institution’s ADA coordinator to report the following information (inter alia) for each inmate:
• Whether s/he has participated or sought to participate in any programming (educational, rehabilitative, substance abuse, religious, transitional, etc.—since April 1, 2018), what programs, what accommodations were provided, and with what result.
• Whether /she has participated or sought to participate in any work assignment since April 1, 2018, what assignment, what accommodations were provided, and with what result.
Seven of the thirteen institutions—EKCC, GRCC, KSP, LAC, LLCC, LSCC, and NTC—did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual follow-up messages and explanations to receive this information. And even after three emailed explanations to LLCC, I still did not receive the information, and just had to give up and get this report filed.
(4) Delays in audiology results. I asked each ADA coordinator to tell me how many inmates had experienced a delay in the audiology process, so that evaluation for/provision of hearing aids took more than 60 days.11 Nearly every institution’s answer tallied fewer late resolutions than actually occurred. The total admitted late audiology resolutions was 39; the actual number, as of October, was several multiples of that.
To demonstrate the general difficulties, I attach as Appendix B to this report a memo to KyDOC headquarters, which set out all the information missing as of January 25, 2018—that is, after three months of back-and-forth on various missing answers and documentation with individual ADA coordinators. The memo demonstrates the issues with this cycle of selfreporting. And to give even a fuller sense, consider LSCC (the institution that has had the most difficulty meeting its self-reporting obligations). My assistant and I have, between us, sent at least ten emails and made at least three phone calls to LSCC’s ADA coordinator between November 25, 2018 and March 15, 2019. More precisely, here is the history of contacts:
11 Appendix C, Recommendation 6: “Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device. That time period should begin the day the potential need is indicated by the inmate’s request for evaluation, answers on the questionnaire, etc. Each KYDOC facility should track the time from request/questionnaire to provider visit to audiology visit to hearing aid provision, and ensure that inmates do not have a longer wait. (In future quarterly reporting periods, I will request this tracking data from all facilities.)”
-6-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 8 of 37 - Page ID#: 2373
• 11/25/2018: Email follow-up questions sent • 12/10/2018: Check-in email sent • 12/13/2018: Email received saying the answers would be provided on 12/14/2018 • 12/28/2018: Check-in email sent • 1/11/2019: Check-in email sent • 1/16/2019: Left phone message • 1/24/2019: Check-in email sent • 1/24/2019: Email received saying the answers would be provided that day • 1/25/2019: Memo with questions emailed to headquarters and passed along • 1/31/2019: Some answers received • 2/2/2019: Follow-up questions sent by email • 2/7/2019: Request for clarification received • 2/10/2019: Clarification provided by email • 2/13/2019: Left phone message • 2/22/2019: Left phone message • 2/27/2019: Some answers received • 3/6/2019: Follow-up questions sent by email • 3/14/2019: Check-in email sent • 3/15/2019: Some answers received
Even after all this, many issues remained open at LSCC. I had no real expectation of getting answers to most of the questions, but LSCC finally sent answers after receiving this report in a draft that detailed for the Court the still-missing information. (Because LSCC finally did provide the information, I have cut the detailed description from this final version of the report.)
B. Identification and Tracking of Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing Prisoners
As I noted in my last report, problems remain with respect to identification and tracking of deaf/hard-of-hearing inmates, particularly when inmates are transferred. I had hoped this problem would have been solved by KyDOC’s implementation of a uniform “KOMS” (Kentucky Offender Management System) alert—an entry in each affected inmate’s online file that is supposed to allow the system-wide tracking of deaf and hard-of-hearing inmates. The ADA Coordinators are supposed to receive routine automated transfer memos listing incoming inmates for each institution with an annotation if they are deaf/hard-of-hearing.12 But this selfreporting cycle makes clear that this is not happening reliably. First, KOMS alerts are not always present for each deaf/HOH individual. And even when a KOMS alert is present, institutions are
12 See Appendix C, Recommendation 80: “At each institution, the ADA Coordinator should be one of the staff members who receives each routine transfer memo listing arriving inmates. The ADA Coordinator should check, in advance, to see if any arriving inmate has a disability that may need accommodation in order to provide effective communication and full information during the intake/orientation process, and should make arrangements for that accommodation to be provided.” For my prior discussion of the KOMS alert system, see Site Visit Reports (Nov. 30, 2018), Exhibit B to Fifth Semi-Annual Report, ECF 91-2, Pg.ID# 2296.
-7-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 9 of 37 - Page ID#: 2374
not always receiving notice of transfers. As a result, individuals who are transferred sometimes are not tracked.
In addition, as described above, it has emerged that there is some confusion among the prisons about which inmates to track. For example, some institutions have improperly stopped tracking individuals who are not eligible for a hearing aid (but are still hard-of-hearing) or individuals who have refused further audiology services. Other institutions are continuing to track inmates who are not, in fact, hard-of-hearing. It’s important for the KOMS alert to be attached to the right individuals, to ensure that necessary accommodations and services are provided. KOMS alerts for inmates who are not deaf/HOH make the tracking system less useful and distract attention from where it is needed.
What is needed at this point is a system-wide check of three things, with prompt solutions of any problems revealed: (1) Is a KOMS deaf/HOH alert present for each inmate who should have one? (2) Is a KOMS deaf/HOH alert present for any inmate who should not have one? (3) Why are transfer emails sometimes failing to issue (or failing to issue to an appropriate person)?
C. Telecommunications Services
Videophones. One of the areas in which KyDOC made the speediest progress in Settlement Agreement compliance was provision of videophones (and the ancillary remote interpretive services for relay phone services) to inmates who sign to communicate.13 But nearly four years into the five-year settlement term, this round of self-reporting reveals two important problems. First, LAC, KyDOC’s newest (private) institution, does not yet have a videophone installed either using a kiosk or a laptop program. Second and more generally, technical difficulties that seem to relate to prison firewalls continue to undermine the availability of videophone services systemwide. Outages have been common at all the institutions at which inmates rely on videophones whose telecom provider is the company Purple; I was alerted to such a problem most recently in late March, at KSR. As I have mentioned before,14 if significant outages continue, an alternative or backup will be necessary. KyDOC headquarters officials need either to work with Purple to solve the problem or to switch to or add contracts with Sorenson, an alternative provider that seems to have fewer problems. Currently only KSP has contracts with both Purple and Sorenson, and it is the only prison where videophone access has not been interrupted by sustained outages.
Amplified telephones. I have recommended that each prison ensure that every group of phones for inmates include at least one volume-adjusted phone.15 Progress towards compliance
13 Settlement Agreement IX.D.3.a required that deaf inmates at all KyDOC institutions have access to videophones by the end of August 2015. This was accomplished by the time of my first court report. See First Semi-Annual Report (February 2, 2016), ECF 83, Pg.ID #1510.
14 See Fifth Semi-Annual Report (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF 91, Pg.ID #2242. 15 Appendix C, Recommendation 74: “Each facility should improve access of hard-ofhearing inmates to telecommunications, by . . . (b) Informing them that amplified phones are available, and ensuring that at least one such phone, whose amplification is compatible with a
-8-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 10 of 37 - Page ID#: 2375
has been real, but it remains true that at least one institution—WKCC/Ross—still does not have volume-adjusted phones available in all the areas where they are needed by hard-of-hearing inmates. (BCC just recently installed such phones.) In addition, I have also recommended that more powerful portable amplifiers be made available for check-out by hard-of-hearing inmates.16 But numerous institutions— BCRC, GRCC, KCIW, KSR, KSP, LAC, WKCC/Ross—do not yet have these. (However, KSR is considering getting these amplifiers.) Both these issues need to be solved.
Captioned Telephones. I have recommended that captioned telephones be made available, to allow access to telecommunications services by very hard-of-hearing inmates who cannot sign. At this point, several KyDOC institutions—LSCC, NTC, KSP, and KSR—are piloting the use of captioned telephones.17 If their experience is positive, the rest should follow suit.
TTYs. TTY technology is old and cumbersome, and very few inmates wish to use it. Still, for those who do—usually inmates who do not know sign language, but who have a significant hearing impairment—it may be the only option for telecommunications. (Outside of prison, captioned telephones have often been a far more effective substitute for TTYs.) But there continue to be problems with the availability of TTYs and their instructions. As part of the October reporting cycle, I asked each ADA coordinator to provide me with the TTY instructions in use in his or her prison. For half the institutions— BCC, BCFC, GRCC, KSR, LAC, LSCC, and NTC18—the resulting documentation was inadequate. For all of these except GRCC, I received generic TTY instructions that come with the device, rather than institution-specific instructions explaining to inmates where to obtain the TTY, where to plug it in, how to get access to an outside line, and the other issues that make TTY use difficult in prison. This is particularly disappointing because in 2016, I provided all the ADA coordinators with sample instructions, leaving bracketed blanks to be filled in.19 (At GRCC, the recommended instructions are used, but the blanks have not been filled in.) I will plan to do a round of TTY testing in April or May, and ask again for the instructions then.
D. Interpretive Services
Interpretive services are needed by inmates who sign to communicate; there are currently 9 such inmates in KyDOC custody. As Table 2 shows, they have moved around, demonstrating
hearing aid but does not require one, is available in every group of phones used by any hard-ofhearing inmate.”
16 Appendix C, Recommendation 85: “Portable phone amplifiers should be made available at every institution.”
17 Appendix C, Recommendation 74: “Each facility should improve access of hard-ofhearing inmates to telecommunications, by: . . . (c) Providing access to captioned telephones, unless on investigation such telephones are not available in the institutional setting.”
18 EKCC provided an internal memo, not instructions. 19 See Informational Pamphlet for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Inmates, Exhibit D-2 to Site Visit Report, Kentucky State Reformatory (April 21, 2016), Second Semi-Annual Report, Appendix II, ECF 84-2, Pg.ID #1763-66.
-9-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 11 of 37 - Page ID#: 2376

that each prison must be prepared to accommodate such an inmate if the need arises. That said, I am obviously more concerned about services that have been called up than those where the need is more hypothetical. The prisons and cells in Table 2 that are in bold are those where there was a need for interpretive services during 2018.

Table 2: KyDOC Inmates Who Sign

Inmate

O A

( 676)

R B

( 457)

E B

( 628)

J

C

( 848)

K C

( 285)

Ri H

( 622)

M

K

(233021)

J

M

( 961)

J M

( 566)

EKCC GRCC KCIW KSP KSR LLCC LSCC NTC RCC

2015 -

present

2016

mid 2018 2015-

2017-

- present 2016

2018

2017 2016-

2018

mid 2018-

2016 2016

2017

present

2015 -

present

2015 -

present

2015 -

present

2015 -

present

2017-

2015- 2019

2018

2017

2015-

2016-

mid 2018

2016

2018

- present

Remote interpretation. As with videophone access, an area in which KyDOC institutions made early progress in settlement compliance was Video Relay Interpretation (VRI). I previously reported that each institution has a working VRI laptop. But this round of selfreporting reveals that LAC has not yet set up the laptop—and at KSP, where two inmates need access to it, the VRI laptop appears not to work. LAC does not have any inmates who sign to communicate, so this is a failure of preparation rather than a current problem. But at KSP, the issue is a matter of real urgency; access to interpretation is a core element of the ADA and the Settlement Agreement. At other institutions, however, there has been real progress. The other institutions that housed at least one inmate who signs during the reporting period were: GRCC, KCIW, KSR, LSCC, LLCC, and NTC. Table 3 shows what the VRI log for each of them reveals.

In-person interpretation. As I have emphasized in prior reports, for some situations—
particularly those involving multiple speakers—in-person rather than remote interpretation is appropriate.20 At this point, the seven relevant institutions have used in-person interpretation

20 See Settlement Agreement VI; Appendix C, Recommendation 12 (“In-person interpretation should be provided to inmates who communicate by signing when it is necessary for effective communication. This includes during group classes in which student participation is

-10-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 12 of 37 - Page ID#: 2377

only in very limited situations. That said, at KCIW, in particular, it seems that the option is being appropriately considered, and it has been used both for repeat/routine and special situations— respectively, programming and misconduct investigation. Table 3 also shows the situation at the relevant institutions.

Table 3: Interpretation at Institutions with Inmates Who Sign

Institution VRI log observations

Use of in-person interpretation from April

2018 to October 2018

GRCC Log shows frequent use, but does not Used for programming: Substance Abuse

specify purpose—may be as a

Program (SAP) and Moral Reconation

videophone substitute.

Therapy (MRT)

KCIW Log shows frequent use by several Used for internal affairs investigation, when

staff members for one inmate.

VRI was not effective.

KSP

Log demonstrates that VRI has been None

inoperative over an extended period of

time.

KSR

Used for different types of encounters Used for Narcotics Anonymous/ Alcoholics

and several inmates.

Anonymous, and for a parole hearing. Note:

O A ( 676) has complained that

other requests for in-person interpretation

have been inappropriately rejected.

LLCC Regular training and software checks; None

very infrequent use for inmates.

LSCC Appears to be used for several types of None, except for during my site visit

encounters, and several inmates, but

mostly classification.

NTC

Cannot determine what the VRI is used None

for or whether it is working.

E. Audiology services

As previously reported, two problems with audiology services had been apparent: inconsistency and delay. Based on the self-reports and accompanying documentation, I can now conclude that these have not yet been solved.

Development of a consistent process and standard

As explained above, the first step of the KyDOC audiology process is that inmates are screened using a 10-question screening questionnaire; those whose responses indicate a hearing issue then receive further physical screening. See supra part III.B. My understanding/ recommendation had been that individuals would be rescreened whenever they transferred institutions, and also during their routine physicals (which occur annually for some and more

key, and in parole hearings. For other situations, an in-person interpreter should be provided if remote interpretation is unlikely to be, or has not been, effective.”).

-11-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 13 of 37 - Page ID#: 2378

rarely for others, based on history and age). It has recently come to my attention, however, that

at some institutions (including, at least, LSCC and NTC, and perhaps others), a new policy has

been implemented, under which no screening is done during intake; the institution is relying,

instead, on physicals and sick-call. This is not concerning for inmates who completed the intake

process not very long before their transfer. But for inmates for whom the initial screening/intake

process was ongoing at the time of transfer, the predictable result—which does in fact appear to

be occurring—is a screening failure. This is particularly likely for speedy transfers out of RCC.

For example, D

F ( 634) arrived at RCC in July 2018 and answered “yes” or

“sometimes” to 9 out of 10 questions about hearing difficulties. The next step should have been

a provider visit with a whisper test or audioscope. He was, however, transferred to LSCC in

August 2018, prior to that next step’s occurrence. LSCC reports that he is not being followed up

because he “has never placed any sick call r/t to any hearing issues while housed here at LSCC.”

No sick call request should be required in these circumstances; an inmate cannot be expected to

know that his prior screening is being disregarded because of a facility transfer. LSCC has also

provided to me some documentation where a single question (do you have hearing issues) is

substituting for the 10-question screening questionnaire. This is inappropriate. KyDOC can solve

this problem in one of two ways: Everyone can receive the full 10-question screening during

intakes to new facilities, as is occurring at many of the institutions. Or—more limited but more

difficult, administratively, for everyone for whom an intake screening/process is incomplete at

the time of transfer, the new facility can rescreen or continue the process.

A second process issue that I have described before relates to provision of hearing aids. The Settlement Agreement provides: “[T]he KDOC will provide all medically necessary hearing aids.” Settlement Agreement VIII.B.2. As I previously reported,21 to address inconsistent outcomes with respect to hearing aid provision, I worked with KyDOC to develop an objective standard for provision of a hearing aid. After review of Medicaid coverage and other comparison policies, the Department adopted the following standard, using benchmark hearing testing frequencies of 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 2,000 Hz, and 4,000 Hz.:

1) Inmates who have a threshold of 25 dB or higher in one ear at two or more of the benchmark frequencies shall be assessed to determine the need for an assistive device.
2) The PCP shall interpret the quantitative hearing test and assess the degree of hearing impairment at the benchmark frequencies separately in each ear. • If the degree of impairment in the better is <35 dB at two or more of the benchmark frequencies the patient may be provided with an over-the-counter amplification device (“pocket talker”) if the PCP deems it appropriate. • If the degree of impairment in the better ear is 35 dB or higher at two or more of the benchmark frequencies, the PCP shall refer the case to the CCS regional medical director for a hearing aid.
3) The ear with the lower threshold (i.e., the better ear) shall determine the intervention offered. Two hearing aids shall be provided to a patient who meets the criterion for a hearing aid in both ears and meets at least one of the following requirements: • Legally blind

21 Fifth Semi-Annual Report (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF 91, Pg.ID #2244.

-12-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 14 of 37 - Page ID#: 2379

• A compelling occupational, educational, or safety need for binaural hearing

This standard was finalized, with my sign-off, on May 31, 2018. I had previously reported22 that until October 2018, a misunderstanding of the standard led to erroneous implementation and denial of hearing aids that are appropriate under the standard: the audiology testing was being done only down to the 40 dB level, even though the policy threshold is 35 dB. Quite a few retests were necessary. I had hoped that that previously reported misunderstanding would be the only one needing correcting. Unfortunately, it has turned out that there have been several other misunderstandings/misapplications of the policy. These have appeared in two situations, screening and evaluation:

For screening, some KyDOC institutions are using the “whisper test”—a provider stands out of sight behind the patient, who covers one ear; the provider whispers and if the patient cannot hear the whisper, he proceeds to audiological evaluation. Other KyDOC institutions are using an audioscope. More fully described in note 5, above, the audioscope allows less subjective testing, at 25 dB, as stated in the standard quoted above. Unfortunately, my review of medical records uncovered that in two institutions, KSR and WKCC, the audioscope was at least sometimes being set to 40 dB. This was too high a screening level under the policy. These individuals had to be rescreened, and when they were, several of them turned out to need further audiological evaluation.

Another process problem is that WKCC used pocket talkers (a non-prescription

amplification device) as a screening tool in 2017 and early 2018: medical staff provided a pocket

talker and proceeded to evaluate the need for a hearing aid only if the inmate continued to

complain.23 The result was significant delays in the audiology process; audiology evaluation is

still in progress for at least two affected individuals whose hearing impairment was noted to

KyDOC in 2017 or 2018—R

C

( 900) (still at WKCC), and T G

( 357) (now at KSR).

For the evaluations themselves, when I was finally able to obtain audiogram results,24 my

review of those audiograms revealed that at least six inmates— H H

(NTC 445),

M L (EKCC 650), D S

(LLCC 937), R V

(LLCC

784), B V

(KCIW 716), D Y

(LLCC 60)—who qualify for

hearing aids under KyDOC’s policy had erroneously been denied. I referred these individuals to

KyDOC medical staff who confirmed that the prior denials were erroneous, and put the hearing

aid orders in process. The problem here was simple misreading of the audiogram. Some kind of

quality control/review would solve the problem.

Finally, it seems that KyDOC providers are not aware of the provision in the policy that allows binaural (that is, two) hearing aids where there is “a compelling occupational,

22 Id.
23 Site Visit Report (Nov. 30, 2018), Fifth Semi-Annual Report, Appendix B, ECF 91-2, Pg.ID #2306, 2308.
24 See supra pp. 5.

-13-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 15 of 37 - Page ID#: 2380

educational, or safety need for binaural hearing.” Since finalization of the policy, I am not aware of any inmate being given two hearing aids. In addition, W D (KSR 856) provided me with documentation that the provider at KSR told him that KyDOC’s policy simply did not allow two hearing aids, without evaluating his “occupational, educational, or safety” needs. Only after my intervention did the ADA coordinator undertake, in early March, to ensure that such an evaluation would occur. I have not yet been told the result.

Delay

Delay in meeting audiological needs remains a very serious problem. Including all the information on hearing aid provision since the settlement was entered, KyDOC institutions have evaluated over 1000 inmates for hearing impairments (that is, have conducted a screening examination, not merely administered the screening questionnaire). About 700 inmates who failed this screening then qualified for further audiology evaluation/services. As Table 4 shows, 440 inmates have received hearing aids; the rest are split between declining services, leaving KyDOC custody prior to the completion of audiology evaluation, and medical providers determining that no hearing aid is necessary. (Table 4 omits two inmates for whom I do not know the resolution.) Timeliness in all this processing remains a major problem. My recommendation, made in December 2016, was for a two-month or less turn-around.25 This has not been achieved; for inmates whose audiology needs were brought to the attention of medical staff in 2018, it took on average between 3 and 4 months for KyDOC to evaluate/meet those needs. That’s just an average; resolution times of far longer were not uncommon in 2018.

Table 4: Audiology Services Overall

Outcome type (a) Already had hearing aid
(b) Refused screening (c) Passed screening: no impairment
(d) No hearing aid needed (e) Refused further audiology services after failing screening (f) Discharged prior to resolution (g) Received hearing aid(s)
TOTAL resolved * Sums to 101% because of rounding

All resolved since 7/1/2015

Avg. days to
N %* resolution

24 2% NA

18 2%

57

313 28%

59

175 16% 149

75 7% 156

57 5% 177

450 41% 190

1,111

138

Prison alerted to need in 2018

Avg. days to
N % resolution

24 5% NA

7 1%

12

169 34%

32

88 18% 101

25 5%

63

26 5% 136

160 32% 112

499

79

25 See Appendix C, Recommendation 6 (“Inmates in need of a hearing aid—both initially or because the device they have is no longer working for them—should wait no longer than two months to obtain the necessary device.”).

-14-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 16 of 37 - Page ID#: 2381

Moreover, Table 4 somewhat overstates the speed of resolution, because there are 58 inmates whose audiology evaluation were still in process, as of the last report I received. I cannot specify a date, because it varies by the institution—and for some, I have gotten updates of both resolutions and new needs since October; for others, only of resolutions. (One additional inmate whose audiology issues are incomplete is not included because evaluation is paused while other health issues resolve). While 18 of the inmates tallied in Table 5 have been in process for three months or less, the oldest has been in process for over two years. The distribution is set out in the table.
Table 5: Ongoing Audiology Needs

Month prison alerted to the need (N = 58)

Aug. 2017 (1) Sept. 2017 (3) Oct. 2017 (2)

Nov. 2017 (1)

Dec. 2017 (4) Jan. 2018 (3) Feb. 2018 (4)

Mar. 2018 (3)

May 2018 (2) Jun. 2018 (3)

Jul. 2018 (5)

Aug. 2018 (2)

Sep. 2018 (2) Oct. 2018 (2) Nov. 2018 (3)

Dec. 2018 (4)

Jan. 2019 (6) Feb. 2019 (7) Mar. 2019 (1)

If each of these had been resolved by mid-March 2019, they would have taken an average of 252 days—over 8 months—for resolution. Obviously by the time they are resolved, the average will be higher.
These summary statistics mask considerable variation among facilities. For example, looking at the four institutions with the most activity in 2018, KSR has resolved 205 and has 20 outstanding; LLCC has resolved 87 and has just 3 outstanding; LSCC has resolved 29 and has 12 outstanding, and RCC has resolved 43 and has 1 outstanding. Not only does RCC have just one in-process case, but it managed its cases in an average 47 days each, complying with my recommendation. KSR’s average is 80 days on the resolved matters, and many of the 10% that are unresolved are quite old. LLCC’s unresolved matters are very old, but very few in number. LSCC is the least successful: even though it has managed to process less than three quarters of its docket, the resolution time for them averages over 3 months, and those that are left average over 9 months in age. To summarize, standing out for timely processing is RCC (LLCC does very speedy screening, but is not timely for those inmates who fail screening). Raising particular concern for untimely processing are EKCC, LSCC, and NTC.
Table 6 examines the issue in detail, facility by facility.26 The Table highlights several different measures of timeliness/delay: days to resolution for resolved cases, and percentage of total cases not yet resolved. Each institution should be aiming for an average resolution time well under 60 days both in general and even for those inmates who receive hearing aids, and for an unresolved percentage of under 15% at any given time. (I previously said the goal should be 25% unresolved at any given time, but on further consideration, I conclude that 15% is a more

26 Table 6 and Table 4’s figures do not match precisely, because Table 4 does not include inmates still in progress but Table 6 does include them—if their hearing need came to the attention of KyDOC in 2018.

-15-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 17 of 37 - Page ID#: 2382
appropriate goal, because 15% is two months of intakes—and resolution should take two months or less.)
My prior report on audiology statistics demonstrated more progress than this. Perhaps resolution times lengthened this past year because it took KyDOC time to work out the new audiology standard. Hopefully, the processes will now be smoother. Speedier resolutions should be greatly facilitated by the recent elimination of some or all of the trips to outside providers that had been needed for provision of hearing aids. It is my understanding that RCC now has a hearing booth, allowing audiology testing without transporting inmates to an outside provider. In addition, a number of institutions are using an online hearing testing service called Audicus, https://www.audicus.com/. Hearing aids are then shipped to the prison. The result is that no transportation is needed at any point in the process.
I have not heard complaints about the quality of the hearing aids provided, so it may be that this new efficiency is not creating any decrease in the quality of services provided. However, there is one significant down-side to the Audicus process: without an experienced professional administering the test, prison officials are less equipped to detect and respond to malingering. The ADA coordinator for KSP has shared with me suspicions that inmates are lying about their hearing impairments in order to get hearing aids they don’t really need. It is not clear to me whether this is truly occurring—or why an inmate would want a hearing aid he does not need. (There should not be any kind of black market, because other inmates should also be able to get hearing aids they need.) But in any event, the provided audiologists’ reports demonstrate that audiologists can and do occasionally observe that their audiology testing is unreliable because an inmates’ responses are inconsistent or non-credible. One response KyDOC might adopt when malingering is suspected is to refer the inmate for testing by an audiologist rather than using the online Audicus test.
-16-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 18 of 37 - Page ID#: 2383

Table 6: Audiology Services by KyDOC Institution

Total Resolved N Average Days Ongoing N Average Days

BCC BCFC EKCC GRCC KCIW KSP KSR LAC LLCC LSCC NTC RCC Ross WKCC Total

17

2

15

20

11 13 227 6 90 41 22 44 3

36 547

17

2

12

19

11 11 207 5 87 29 20 43 2

35 499

51

48 125

90

74 175 80 168

42 133 122 47 40 102 79

0

0

3

1

0 2 20 1

3 12 2 1 1

1 47

271

13

251 103 365 321 285 228 20 386

21 192

Resolved, in detail

N:

(a) Already had hearing aid

1

0

1

1

21 6 0

4

1 3 3 0

(b) Refused screening

0

0

0

0

00 6 0

1

0 0 0 0

(c) Passed screening: no

impairment

2

0

3

0

0 3 89 0 58

6 3 0 0

(d) No hearing aid needed

4

1

4

3

2 4 28 2

8

6 4 8 0

(e) Refused further audiology

services after failing screening

2

0

1

3

00 6 0

4

1 2 3 0

(f) Discharged prior to resolution 4

0

0

0

0 0 12 0

3

3 1 2 0

(g) Received hearing aid(s)

4

1

3

12

7 3 60 3

9 12 7 27 2

Average Days

(a) Already had hearing aid

NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

(b) Refused screening

.

.

.

.

.

. 12

. 13

.

.

.

.

(c) Passed screening: no

impairment

68

. 130

.

. 68 39

.

9 74 152

.

.

(d) No hearing aid needed

17

20 141 222

32 240 111 168

78

48 132 39

.

(e) Refused further audiology

services after failing screening

25

.

88

8

. . 76

. 65 38 29 12

.

(f) Discharged prior to resolution 62

.

.

.

. . 92

. 158 234 201 187

.

(g) Received hearing aid(s)

65

76 114

76

86 151 128 168 177

85 122 43 40

-17-

1 24

0

7

5 169 15 88

3 25 1 26 10 160

NA NA . 12
28 33 85 100
189 63 225 129 127 107

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 19 of 37 - Page ID#: 2384
F. Effective Communication/Equal Access to Services for Hard-of-Hearing Inmates
As I noted in my last report, the complaint I continue to hear the most frequently in my monitoring is that hard-of-hearing inmates cannot hear announcements, programming, and staff orders. This leads to a denial of equal access to services, and also, on occasion, to disciplinary consequences. I said in that report that each institution needs to develop a way that hard-ofhearing inmates can get access to the relatively simple announcements of pill-call, chow, count, and other institutional events. And each needs a way to amplify more complex communications like those in educational and rehabilitative programming and the like.27 The need extends to each religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming area.28 This self-reporting cycle, I collected information on systems in place, which is tallied in Table 7.
Table 7: Amplification and Other Devices by Institution

WKCC / Ross
RCC NTC
LSCC
LLCC LAC KSR KSP KCIW GRCC EKCC BCFC BCC

FM radio as amplifier system Bed shakers Vibrating watches Vibrating alarm clocks Pagers Portable phone amplifiers Captioned telephone Earphones for parole hearings (some provide only a way for inmates to plug in their own earphones)

C Y

C

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y

C

YY YYYC

Y Y Y

Y YC

Y C

YY YYYY

Y Y Y

Y

Y Y YY

Y

CY Y

Y Y YY Y Y

Y

YY Y

KEY: Y: Yes (or on order as of 10/15/2018); Blank: No ; C: No, but under consideration

Although I asked for information on how these various devices are working, I did not receive sufficiently detailed answers to offer any systemic evaluation.

27 See Fifth Semi-Annual Report (Dec. 4, 2018), ECF 91, Pg.ID #2244-2245.
28 See Settlement Agreement V.A.2 (“Appropriate Auxiliary Aids and Services, including Qualified Interpreters, will be made available so that Deaf Inmates may have an equal opportunity to participate in all services, privileges, and programs offered to other similarly situated Inmates in the KDOC’s custody.”); I.2 (defining “Auxiliary Aids and Services” to include “assistive listening systems”); Appendix C, Recommendation 67 (“Each religious, educational, and programming area should have available a device to allow wireless amplification for individual hard-of-hearing inmates.”).
-18-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 20 of 37 - Page ID#: 2385

IV. PRISON-BY PRISON COMPLIANCE OBSERVATIONS

Using both self-reports and inmate-provided information, this Part presents observations on each KyDOC institution.

BCC

Observed compliance issues • The TTY instructions are generic, not particular; they do not provide sufficient guidance to actually instruct someone how to use the TTY at this prison. (Where should it be plugged in? How do you get an outside line? Etc.)

• BCC provided an outdated hearing screening questionnaire, not the one that should be in use. That said, from looking at the medical records, it appears that the correct version may be being used, at least sometimes.

• Although BCC reported that none of its inmates had to wait longer than sixty days to

receive a hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible, in fact there were such delays for at least

6 (of 13) BCC inmates whose hearing impairment presented within the reporting period.

These are: A

C

(225 ) (65 days); S D

( 075) (117 days);

R G

( 925) (92 days); C

H ( 472) (101 days, ultimately

paroled prior to resolution); J

M l ( 718) (noticed on 8/24/18, later

transferred to RCC and discharged prior to resolution); H S ( 878) (68 days).

• I have not received documentation that D M

( 375) is not eligible to

receive a hearing aid. (Note, however, that I neglected to remind BCC that I needed this

information.)

• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid, BCC initially provided written summaries instead of medical records containing the test results.

• At least one individual, C aids/services assessment.

H ( 472), did not receive an auxiliary

• The method stated for interpretation for inmates in restricted housing cells is to use the VRI through the RHU cell door. Given low visibility and the absence of a suitable surface, this probably won’t work. BCC’s ADA coordinator reports that this issue is currently under reassessment.

• W

B

( 894) filed a grievance in February 2018 about not being placed in

what he called an “honor dorm,” and instead being housed in Dorm 2, where deaf/hard-

of-hearing inmates at BCC are housed. He stated that he does not use any special

equipment, and therefore should be allowed to live in the more advantageous housing

unit. His grievance was rejected: the Warden explained that inmates diagnosed as

deaf/hard-of-hearing are limited to Dorm 2. I explained to prison officials that such a

-19-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 21 of 37 - Page ID#: 2386

blanket rule is inappropriate under the ADA.29 I do not know if the particular decision in this case was correct or incorrect—it may be that Mr. B requires services that cannot be practicably provided elsewhere. The particular dorm Mr. B was concerned with has since been shut down; I do not know if the more general problem has been solved, so that hard of hearing inmates are not constrained to live in Dorm 2 without individualized consideration.

• The same inmate, W

B

( 894), contacted me and filed a grievance in

November of 2018 regarding a general rule excluding deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals

from certain jobs. The ADA Coordinator, Christy Peach, confirmed that the policy was a

general rule, not an individual-specific determination of direct threat, as the ADA and the

Settlement Agreement require. The prison changed this rule and Mr. B was

reevaluated and ultimately placed on the Governmental Services Program (GSP) job

assignment waitlist.

Observed positive practices • Dorm 2 Officer flashes lights for count and pill call; this is an appropriate nonauditory alert.
• VRI log demonstrates that it is being tested and training is being done.

BCFC

Observed compliance issues

• Overall, 2 individuals who completed the audiology process at BCFC during the

reporting period, or who are in progress at BCFC, waited for over sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. (The self-report stated that nobody had

experienced a delay.) Affected inmates were: B H ( 965) (417 days); J

J

( 656) (76 days).

• TTY instructions were generic, not particular; this was fixed in response to this report in draft.

Observed positive practices • VRI Log shows it is being tested • An inmate was given the job of ADA Aid, to assist with communications needs.

29 Appendix C, Recommendation 84: “In order to comply with the ADA’s integration mandate, inmates may be offered the chance to be housed in any hard-of-hearing cluster, but may not be compelled to do so in order to receive the accommodations to which they are entitled.” Site Visit Reports (Nov. 30, 2018), Exhibit B to Fifth Semi-Annual Report, ECF 91-2, Pg.ID# 2299-2300.
-20-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 22 of 37 - Page ID#: 2387

EKCC (Reporting still incomplete)

Observed compliance issues

• Six of the 8 EKCC inmates whose hearing impairment presented within the 2018-10

reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a hearing

aid or to be deemed ineligible. This includes: B

B

( 937) (alerted 7/2/18,

transferred to LSCC about February 2019, still ongoing); C

C ( 659)

(219 days); F

D (254 days); C

H

( 295) (88 days, ultimately

refused accommodations); D J

( 990) (92 days); J T ( 038)

(114 days). The self-report said that just 1-2 inmates had experienced a delay.

• As the ADA coordinator reported to me in October, the KyDOC ADA Coordinators webpage, https://corrections.ky.gov/Facilities/AI/Pages/ADA-Coordinators.aspx, did not have up-to-date information for EKCC. The ADA coordinator stated then that “I am arranging for its correction by the beginning of next month.” Several months later, this update still has not taken place.

• Inmates do not receive a hearing screening upon arrival at EKCC. This is appropriate only if they have gotten a screening within the past several years. But there does not seem to be a process that checks for that.

• The stated plan for videophone outages is: “Contact[ing] someone who can sign for them.” This is not an adequate plan.

• For several individuals, the date of last hearing assessment and date of last auxiliary aids/services assessment was reported as “not listed” or “not needed.”

• There is not a KOMS alert present for each deaf or hard-of-hearing inmate, and the ADA Coordinator doesn’t have access to the system to create a KOMS alert, so cannot solve the problem.

• At first, EKCC declined to provide necessary documentation without releases from inmates. This was then sorted out and documentation provided.

• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid, EKCC initially provided medical records that did not contain the audiogram results requested.

• At least one inmate, M L ( 650), was assessed as ineligible for a hearing aid, even though his audiogram showed that he fit the KyDOC policy criteria, and that the audiologist recommended one. I was able to correct the mistake only because I received the requested documentation.

• This institution did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual follow-up messages and explanations to receive this information.

• As at other institutions, EKCC hosts long-distance parole hearings. In the event someone who is hard-of-hearing has a parole hearing, earphones would be necessary for effective
-21-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 23 of 37 - Page ID#: 2388

communication. But EKCC does not have such earphones.
• The audiology records show fairly frequent conclusions by consulting audiologists of malingering. It would be useful for prison staff to try to figure out what is causing this issue and address it. That is, what gain do prisoners think they will obtain if they get a hearing aid they do not need?
Observed positive practices • Good summary of available resources in Inmate Handbook. • The appointment of a “Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing liaison” seems to be providing good information to inmates and more responsive accommodations.

GRCC

Observed compliance issues

• Four of the 10 GRCC inmates whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. This includes: D C ( 943) (76 days);

B

S

722) (83 days); D S

( 937) (143 days); B S

( 014) (294 days). GRCC’s self-report was that there were no such delays.

• This institution did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous follow-up messages and explanations to receive this information.

• GRCC has evidently had some issues with effective communication of announcements;

these need to be solved.

o Inmate K

L ( 525) filed a grievance on 5/17/18 asking to be

moved to the lower walk to hear announcements. Full documentation has not been

provided, but GRCC reported that he was moved. In addition, the response to his

grievance about staff failure to use the PA system explained that investigation had

revealed that on some of the units, the PA system was not working. The prison

substituted (electric, I think) bull horns; these need to be tested for their

effectiveness for hard-of-hearing inmates.

oC

N

( 631) reports that some of the staff at GRCC does not use the

PA system to notify individuals about what is going on. He says that they just yell

and sometimes say the PA system is broken, even though it works for certain

COs. Because of that, he says, he cannot hear announcements.

o R T ( 210) reports that he is unable to hear announcements because the

announcements are made by COs yelling instead of over the intercom system. In

one related incident, Mr. T was threatened with a write-up.

• The TTY instructions provided to me are the precise file I gave to the prison—with several areas still awaiting prison-specific information:

-22-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 24 of 37 - Page ID#: 2389

• E B ( 628), who signs to communicate, received a write-up on 8/29/18. The documentation of the write-up does not indicate that a VRI or interpreter was used to communicate with Mr. B .

• The videophone was inoperative for at least two months during the 2018-10 reporting period. But the ADA coordinator worked out a substitute, using the laptop VRS.

•D W

( 064) reported that when he was transferred from GRCC to KSR,

his hearing aid was not transferred with him.

Observed positive practices • Hearing aids are provided on-site. • In-person interpreter provided for SAP and MRT

KCIW

Observed compliance issues

• Two of the 7 individuals whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible: M

H

( 192) (63 days); T

R

( 805) (110 days).

• KCIW incorrectly deemed B V

( 716) ineligible for a hearing aid. Later,

after I noted the error, she was issued a hearing aid. Ultimately, 156 days passed between

the date KyDOC was alerted and the issuance of a hearing aid.

• Inmates seem not to be receiving receive regular or annual auxiliary aids/services

assessment. Four individuals have not received an assessment since 2016: D

H

( 729), K C ( 285) (signs to communicate), J

C

( 848) (signs

to communicate), A R

( 483). Two individuals have not received an

assessment since 2017: M D

( 290) and R R

( 756).

•K C

285), a deaf inmate, filed a grievance on 5/22/18 reporting that on several

different occasions, she had been paged. Because she is deaf, she did not hear the page

and had to rely on other inmates notifying her. In response, the Unit Administrator Sarah

Moore sent out a memo on 5/29/18 instructing staff to notify K C or J

C

in person of any pages.

• KCIW has had substantial difficulty using the VRI in all appropriate circumstances.

-23-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 25 of 37 - Page ID#: 2390

J

C

( 848) filed multiple grievances about the availability of the VRI:

o 6/7/18 – reported that the VRI is difficult to get because there is only one and

because staff don’t know what she is talking about when she requests it

o 6/7/18 – reported that after another inmate cut her, she requested the VRI over

and over, and it was not retrieved until after she had been cuffed and taken to

medical and continued to request it. Even in medical, it was not brought promptly.

The result was that she was unable to explain what had happened, either to

custody or medical staff.

o Response: rejected the idea of keeping it in the unit, but agreed it needed to be

obtained promptly, and to provide training during in-service.

More generally, I have discussed this issue repeatedly with KCIW’s ADA coordinator,

and it seems that staff intentions are good, but execution has been very challenging.

•A R

( 483) reported that when her hearing device was available, she was

paged to come get it. However, she did not hear the page and, as a result, did not receive

the device for weeks.

• Handbook does not provide info about ADA coordinator, accommodations, etc.

Observed positive practices • No deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals were missing from KCIW’s 2018-10 Report. • Hearing aids are provided on-site. • In-person interpretation provided for education.

KSP (Reporting still incomplete)

Observed compliance issues

• All of the KSP inmates whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

reporting period—5 individuals—had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a hearing

aid or to be deemed ineligible. This includes: R

A

( 980) (alerted

approximately 8/1/18, still ongoing as of 3/15/19); D C

( 509) (180 days);

D H ( 499) (79 days); T

P ( 242) (alerted 6/13/18, still ongoing

as of 3/15/19); J P

( 236) (131 days). KSP’s self-reporting failed to

acknowledge any of these.

• I have not received documentation that 2 individuals are not eligible to receive a hearing aid. This includes: R D ( 468) and R H ( 648).

• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid, KSP initially provided medical records that did not contain the audiogram results requested.

• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid for some individuals, KSP first informed me that the inmates had moved to different institutions, which does not obviate the need for documentation of determinations made prior to transfer.

-24-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 26 of 37 - Page ID#: 2391

• This institution did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual follow-up messages and explanations to receive this information.

• The VRI laptop is not working. This needs urgently to be solved.

• The KyDOC ADA Coordinators webpage does not have up-to-date information for KSP.

• Provision of auxiliary aids/services assessments is inadequate:

oL E

( 749) has not received an assessment.

o F F ’s ( 518) last assessment was years ago.

o Three individuals’ last assessment was in 2017: J C

T

( 207), S

H ( 444).

( 850), J

•M

K

( 021) filed a grievance on 4/5/18 reporting that staff continues to

turn off captions/subtitles for institutional channel 40 on the television. Staff response

was a reminder. Institutional channel 40 is intended to always have captioning on, so

individual reminders should not be necessary.

• TTYs are not available during the same hours as phones; arrangements have not been made to routinize access.

Observed positive practices • When inmates who don’t need captioning complained that captions blocked their view of movies, KSP instituted a new institutional channel to be captioned at all times. This was an excellent solution, if the implementation glitches described above can be solved. • The availability of a Sorenson videophone has protected KSP from the frequent outages experienced by other institutions.

KSR

Observed compliance issues

• About half of the 101 individuals whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC from

the beginning of the 2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1, 2018) through the end of 2018 had

to wait longer than sixty days to receive a hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. (We

have data going beyond the 2018-10 Report for KSR because KSR provides regular

audiology updates.) KSR had what their ADA coordinator described as a “huge backlog”

caused by transportation issues. That backlog is not yet entirely solved. Inmates

experiencing delays include:

J A ( 334) (113 days)

L A ( 265) (97 days)

A

B ( 693) (92 days)

J B ( 781) (alerted 11/13/18, still ongoing as of 4/15/2019; behavior

-25-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 27 of 37 - Page ID#: 2392

prevents testing)

E

B ( 740) (63 days)

T

B

( 164) (97 days)

W

C r ( 519) (148 days)

T

C ( 414) (96 days)

J C

( 943) (150 days)

C C ( 616) (127 days)

B D

( 943) (91 days)

B D

( 507) (112 days)

D

F

( 576) (129 days)

L G ( 138) (126 days)

D H

( 796) (62 days)

B H

( 083) (alerted 7/9/18, still ongoing as of 4/15/2019; other health

conditions prevent resolution)

Ja H ( 889) (117 days)

D J ( 651) (73 days)

K J

( 232) (alerted 11/7/18, still ongoing as of 4/15/2019)

F

J ( 313) (135 days)

C

K ( 505) (91 days)

D L ( 400) (87 days)

D L ( 628) (79 days)

R L ( 918) (106 days)

C M

( 249) (181 days)

J M ( 717) (155 days)

C

M

( 250) (76 days)

R M

032) (141 days)

R N ( 824) (alerted 9/16/18, still ongoing as of 4/15/2019; other health

conditions prevent resolution)

J O

911) (92 days)

D R

( 258) (84 days)

G R ( 005) (98 days)

S

R

( 420) (102 days)

L R

( 524) (129 days)

M

R

406) (100 days)

R

R ( 297) (106 days)

C

R ( 747) (119 days)

J S ( 919) (147 days)

H S

( 924) (116 days)

C S

( 007) (124 days)

R S

( 068) (86 days)

D T ( 732) (70 days)

A

T

( 394) (102 days)

V T

( 347) (176 days, ultimately paroled prior to resolution)

J

T ( 967) (63 days)

F

W ( 697) (295 days; KSR reports inmate was uncooperative)

J

W

( 309) (63 days)

-26-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 28 of 37 - Page ID#: 2393

M

W ( 583) (148 days)

• One of KSR’s medical providers was conducting audioscope screening at 40 dB instead of 25 dB. As a result, some inmates were improperly taken out of the audiology process.

• KSR offers some inmates pagers. But it denies this auxiliary aid to any inmate with less than 75 or 80 dB loss in one ear. For example, C P ( 176) (65 dB in right ear, 75 dB in left ear) requested a pager because he could not hear PA announcements (Grievance #18-0793) and was denied. The document offered in support of this policy is (a) out of date (it was replaced by the audiology memo), and (b) doesn’t mention pagers. In addition, the response to Mr. P states that the cutoff is 70 dB. But—unlike KSR’s bed-shaker threshold (50 dB), which was set based on consultation with an audiologist— there is no evidence that the pager cutoff is evidence-based. Two things are necessary for such a cutoff: someone needs to measure the volume of the announcements that the pagers substitute for, and an audiologist should be consulted. After reading this report in draft, KSR reported that this policy will be reevaluated.

• Other inmates, including D V ( 842) (Grievance #18-0983), have reported that they cannot hear PA announcements. This was solved for him with a commitment to make personal notifications.

• Even though the ADA coordinator approved R W

498) for the TTY and has

issued him a card saying he can use the TTY, Mr. W reports that other staff still will

not let him use it. KSR reports this issue has been resolved.

• There was a disciplinary incident involving J M ( 566) dated 3/27/2018: he shoved a table into Dr. Amos, who was his health care provider. The table was the one that the VRI was resting on, during their encounter. For that reason, prison staff decided to proceed without the VRI at the hearing (The documentation stated: “NOTE: The VRI wasn't used during this Adjustment Hearing due to the nature of the disciplinary that the VRI was used to allegedly assault staff. and Inmate M waived the VRI for this Hearing. Inmate used pen a paper to communicate and read his disciplinary also had a copy prior to Hearing.”) It’s unclear to me whether M truly waived use of the VRI, or whether it was not offered to him. If the latter, that was inappropriate: if staff were concerned about safety, they could have used restraints, and placed Mr. M far enough from the VRI that there was no safety risk.

• Disciplinary report against R H

( 622), dated 5/8/2018 states “Inmate

H

is deaf and does not sign[.] all questions to him were submitted in writing I find

him guilty of the cat 3-11 based on the fact that he admitted to being in a fight with

Inmate T .” But—as has come up in this case repeatedly30—Mr. H

does sign,

and is functionally illiterate. An interpreter must be used for effective communication

30 See Second Semi-Annual Report (Nov. 13, 2016), ECF 84-1, Pg.ID #1578; Site Visit Report, Kentucky State Reformatory (April 21, 2016), Second Semi-Annual Report, Appendix II, ECF 84-2, Pg.ID #1612-13.

-27-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 29 of 37 - Page ID#: 2394
with him. If a VRI interpreter cannot understand his somewhat unorthodox sign language, then an in-person interpreter should be used.
• KSR’s TTY instructions are generic and don’t really explain how to get the device, set it up, etc.
• W D r ( 856) filed a grievance explaining that with just one hearing aid, he was experiencing vertigo and also was worried about cars behind him. He had requested a second hearing aid, but health care staff told him that the policy allows just one; they referred him to the ADA coordinator. But in fact, the policy allows two where there is sufficient need. Thus the appropriate determination had not been made. I asked the ADA coordinator to explain this to health care staff and let me know what happened; she agreed. KSR staff report that they are awaiting a response from the KyDOC’s regional medical director, Dr. Frederick Kemen.
Observed positive practices • Generally, KSR efficiently tracks the audiology progress of a large number of individuals. • KSR provides auxiliary aids/services assessments to a large number of deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates. • Apparently, hearing aids are provided on-site. • KSR successfully facilitates in-person interpretation for O A ( 676) for AA and NA meetings • Great training on KOMS, VRI Laptop; step-by-step instructions inside the VRI laptop. • Aircard for laptop. • Very good notice on ADA for inmate handbook. • Use of pagers. • Really excellent HOH/Deaf ID:
• Excellent customization of staff training to include KSR-specific resources, address recent issues and solutions.
• Special training for “New ADA Features in KOMS” • Training on VRI • VRI Log shows that it is actually being used.
-28-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 30 of 37 - Page ID#: 2395
LAC
Observed compliance issues • LAC is way behind the other KyDOC institutions with respect to ADA/Settlement Agreement compliance. It has no policies, no training, no forms, no working system for managing audiology or communications needs. It has no videophone and no VRI laptop (although this has not yet actually affected anyone, because it has no prisoners who sign to communicate).
• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid, LAC initially provided medical records that did not contain the audiogram results requested.
• LAC has experienced problems tracking audiology progress and ensuring that a proper and timely determination is made for each individual.
• LAC has no procedure to ensure individuals receive an auxiliary aids/services assessment.
• There was no hearing screening during a routine physical, though (after intervention based on self-report, this has reportedly now been fixed)
• This institution did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual follow-up messages and explanations to receive this information.
• LAC’s ADA Coordinator has not completed settlement-related training.
• Settlement summary, settlement, and brochure are not in the inmate law library.
• Videophone not yet installed; VRI laptop not yet available.
• LAC is apparently not using any of the various forms previously recommended.
LLCC
Observed compliance issues • Twelve of the 37 LLCC inmates whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the 2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. (The self-report was that there were 4 such delays.) This includes: J L ( 912) (89 days, ultimately discharged prior to resolution) P M ( 384) (123 days) C M ( 866) (122 days)
-29-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 31 of 37 - Page ID#: 2396

R P ( 080) (185 days)

T R ( 246) (91 days)

E

S

( 424) (125 days)

H T

( 929) (183 days, ultimately refused)

D T ( 130) (204 days)

R V

( 784) (noticed 4/27/18, received an incorrect eligibility

determination at LLCC, finally received a hearing aid on 2/15/19 at KSR after 294 total

days)

M

V

( 878) (alerted 5/3/18, still ongoing as of 2/18/19)

T W ( 147) (196 days)

R

W ( 638) (107 days).

• I have not received documentation that D T hearing aid.

( 130) is not eligible for a

• Three individuals, D S

(103 ), D Y

( 160), and R

V

( 784), were incorrectly determined to be ineligible for a hearing aid at

LLCC.

• When asked for documentation of ineligibility for a hearing aid, LLCC initially provided medical records that did not contain the audiogram results requested.

• The preferred method of communication listed for two individuals in LLCC’s 2018-10 Report was “can hear with hearing aid,” even though they were not yet issued hearing aids.

• LLCC significantly overreported deaf/HOH inmates—including inmates who apparently have no hearing impairment.

• LLCC did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual followup messages and explanations to receive this information. After three emailed explanations to LLCC, I still did not receive the information and gave up to get the court report filed.

• LLCC has no method or plan to track whether deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates are witnesses in disciplinary hearings.

• LLCC does not provide hearing screenings when individuals arrive at the institution.

• When hearing aids belonging to P M ( 242) were sent out to be fixed, they were not returned in a timely manner (Grievances #18-761, #18-771).

Observed positive practices • Hearing aids are provided on-site. • Provision of shake-n-wake watches.
-30-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 32 of 37 - Page ID#: 2397

LSCC

Observed compliance issues • As described above, it has been extremely challenging to obtain information from LSCC.

• Most of the 29 LSCC inmates whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the 2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible.:

L B ( 299) (239 days)

F C ( 440) (256 days)

T

C

( 371) (133 days)

D

F

634) (alerted 7/2/18, still ongoing)

R G

( 190) (228 days)

B H ( 190) (alerted 8/7/18, still ongoing)

D H ( 789) (274 days)

J H

( 435) (alerted 7/24/18, was still ongoing when transferred to LLCC)

J M ( 453) (305 days)

J M ( 423) (124 days)

T M ( 826) (153 days, then discharged from KyDOC custody)

M M

( 789) (183 days, then discharged from KyDOC custody)

J

O

( 981) (alerted 5/29/18, still ongoing)

O R (183 ) (alerted7/24/18, still ongoing)

C S

( 877) (196 days)

L

T

( 860) (7/13/18, still ongoing)

G U ( 143) (306 days)

R

W ( 569) (198 days)

R W

( 024) (alerted 6/21/18, still ongoing).

•D P

( 748) waited 756 days to receive a hearing aid, from December 2016

until January 2019.

• There is a particular problem with individuals whose screening questionnaire indicates

hearing issues not getting appropriate services after a transfer. LSCC seems to use an

additional one-question screen (have you experienced hearing issues) and/or to wait for

such inmates to request services via sick-call, which is inappropriate, and apparently not

explained to the inmates. Affected inmates include:

o D F ( 634) (screened at RCC; no evaluation provided after transfer

to LSCC)

oJ H

( 435) (screened at EKCC; no evaluation provided at LSCC—

he’s since been transferred to LLCC)

oJ

O ( 981) (screened at RCC; no evaluation provided after transfer

to LSCC)

oL

T

( 860) (no evaluation provided after screening)

-31-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 33 of 37 - Page ID#: 2398

oR W

( 024) (screened at RCC; received medical care for ear

infection causing hearing difficulty but no additional evaluation/treatment after

transfer to LSCC)

• Only after many many requests was I finally given documentation of ineligibility for hearing aids for appropriate inmates.

• When L M

( 925) was transferred to LSCC, his hearing aid was lost. Mr.

M

reported that it took several requests to get LSCC to take steps to replace the

hearing aid.

• Four individuals at LSCC did not have auxiliary aids/services assessments completed:

J H

( 435), F S

( 473), P W

052), and J

W ( 201). Mr. S

’s assessment has now been completed; the other three

are no longer housed at LSCC.

• LSCC did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual followup messages and explanations to receive this information.

• At LSCC, a hard-of-hearing individual, D P

( 748), was written up for not

standing for count; he was told that he was responsible for standing up even if he could

not hear the alert, and was found guilty of the misconduct. Note: That finding was

promptly and appropriately dismissed on supervisory review.

• TTY instructions are generic and therefore inadequate.

• Wrong sick-call slip: doesn’t include request for auxiliary aid/interpretation.

Observed positive practices • In response to a grievance (18-603) about not hearing announcements, agreed on 7/13/2018 to create an inmate job for someone who would make announcements, wingto-wing (not cell-to-cell). This might work, but I have not been given any additional information.

NTC

Observed compliance issues

• Six of the 10 individuals whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. This includes: T A ( 625) (alerted

6/13/18 because hearing aid broke, still ongoing as of 11/5/18); R C ( 842)

(80 days); F

H

( 831) (338 days); P

H ( 732) (73 days); U

P ( 028) (195 days); C

S

210) (185 days).

-32-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 34 of 37 - Page ID#: 2399

• When I reviewed an audiogram, I discovered that NTC had incorrectly deemed H

H

( 445) ineligible for a hearing aid. I passed this along to KyDOC; Dr. Keman

reviewed the documentation and agreed that a hearing aid was appropriate under the

policy. One has been ordered. The resulting delay was significant: his audiogram was

done on May 9, 2018; it was months before the error was discovered and corrected.

• I have not received documentation for D S ( 693) demonstrating that he is ineligible to receive a hearing aid.

• NTC does not do hearing screenings for its arriving inmates.

• NTC did not initially provide adequate information about the result of each individual’s participation in programming or a work assignment. It took numerous individual followup messages and explanations to receive this information.

•G E

( 447) was unable to hear announcements, such as those for count or

chow. NTC offered him only the option of purchasing a vibrating watch. I informed NTC

that it is the prison's obligation to communicate effectively with him. Therefore, if the

method for communicating effectively is a watch, the prison needs to supply one to Mr.

E

without a fee. The prison agreed.

• TTY instructions are generic and therefore inadequate.

Observed positive practices • NTC effectively transitioned from one ADA Coordinator to another. • Hearing aids are provided on-site.

RCC

Observed compliance issues

• Four of the 17 individuals whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible. This includes: J B ( 020) (69 days);

D

D ( 194) (185 days); J

M ( 718) (alerted 8/24/18; later

transferred to RCC and then discharged); E N ( 599) (63 days).

• Only after M B

039) filed a grievance (#18-870) was he appropriately

assessed for a hearing aid, and given one.

Observed positive practices RRC has one of the very hardest jobs of KyDOC prisons—as the intake facility, it is where most inmates begin their prison term, and therefore need full screening. After some difficulties at the beginning of the Settlement Agreement implementation term, RRC is now managing the audiology processes efficiently.

-33-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 35 of 37 - Page ID#: 2400

• RCC provided complete information in the 2018-10 Report. • Hearing aids are provided on-site. RCC does this efficiently. • RRC informs inmates that earphones are available for parole hearings. • Moved TTY to unit where an inmate uses it.

WKCC/Ross

Observed compliance issues • In 2017 and early 2018, WKCC improperly issued some hard-of-hearing individuals pocket talkers without determining whether or not they were eligible for a hearing aid. I had raised this issue during a site visit, it was not solved until after I sought additional information in response to this most recent self-report, at which point WKCC agreed to retest the affected inmates who were still at the institution.

• R

C

( 000) was originally screened at the wrong threshold. Later, the

ADA Coordinator caught the mistake and ordered its correction. She is one of the

individuals who had earlier been given a pocket talker, rather than fully evaluated for a

hearing aid; after several months, at a routine physical, she reported that the pocket talker

was not effective for her. So she’s been waiting for appropriate audiology services for

over a year.

• At WKCC, there was a period where the videophone was inoperative. This is reflected in R B ’s grievance #8698. While efforts to solve the problem began immediately, this outage, like others at other institutions, persisted for several weeks.

Observed positive practices

• WKCC/Ross has established a pattern of regularly sending biweekly audiology reports.

• Only 2 of the 22 individuals whose hearing impairment presented to KyDOC within the

2018-10 reporting period (Apr. 1 – Oct. 1) had to wait longer than sixty days to receive a

hearing aid or to be deemed ineligible, and both were within two weeks of the 60 day

target: A

B

( 404) (73 days); J C

( 326) (68 days).

• Hearing aids are provided on-site. WKCC does this efficiently.

• TTY instructions are complete and specific.

• VRI is actually being used.

-34-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 36 of 37 - Page ID#: 2401
V. CONCLUSION The Kentucky Department of Corrections continues to progress towards compliance with
the Settlement Agreement, but implementation challenges remain. My next step is to ask each institution to conduct a self-audit by mid-June 2019, and follow up with several site-visits. Dated: April 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted, ____________________________________ Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 610 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 (202) 277-2506 Margo.schlanger@gmail.com Adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
-35-

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 92 Filed: 04/23/19 Page: 37 of 37 - Page ID#: 2402
Sixth Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor April 23, 2019 Appendices
Appendix A: October 2018 Self-Reporting Questionnaire Appendix B: Memo from me to KyDOC headquarters, setting out all information missing from
October 2018 self-reports as of January 25, 2018 Appendix C: Compiled recommendations

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 1 of 25 - Page ID#: 2471

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT FRANKFORT

OSCAR ADAMS and MICHAEL KNIGHTS

Plaintiffs v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, et al.

Defendants.

Seventh Semi-Annual Report by the Settlement Monitor

December 24, 2019
Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109

1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 2 of 25 - Page ID#: 2472

I. INTRODUCTION

The Settlement Agreement in this matter was approved by the Court on June 24, 2015, and was set to remain in effect for five years from that effective date. Therefore, it is scheduled to expire on June 23, 2020. As this report explains, there has been much progress on compliance, particularly at some institutions. But there remain very significant areas of non-compliance. I am not confident that KDOC will be in substantial compliance by June 2020.

This report is based on two basic sources of information—the self-audit process I have described in prior reports, and site visits undertaken in the summer of 2019. With respect to the self-audits, I shared a self-audit checklist with each KDOC ADA Coordinator and Warden in mid-June 2019, requesting that each institution complete and return it to me one month later. I did not receive most of the self-audits timely (receipt dates are in Table 1, below); two of them were not provided until mid-September 2019, which pushed back the date of this report. The self-audits themselves are attached as Exhibit 4. (I have redacted inmate names and id numbers.) Based on the number of deaf/hard-of-hearing (hereinafter “deaf/HOH”) inmates at each institution according to April data, and my prior encounters with each institution, I chose seven institutions for this most recent round of site visits (and pressed them hard to return the self-audits prior to those visits). Then I conducted site visits between July 29 and August 2. As previously, all staff provided me access to everything I asked for, and were entirely professional.

Table 1 tallies deaf/HOH inmates at each institution, and sets out dates each institution provided me with the self-audit and supporting documentation, and dates of my site visits. The number of deaf/HOH inmates listed at each institution is not their self-reported number; instead, I took a master list of deaf/HOH inmates that I maintain based on all the institutions’ reporting, updated it up to April 2019, and then updated locations using KDOC’s online inmate lookup page.

Table 1: KDOC Institutions

# HOH Inmates Self-audit received

Apr. 2019 master (Supporting

Site visit

list, locations as of documentation date, if

Institution

Sept. 2019

received)

applicable

Blackburn Corr. Complex (BCC)

12 (0 deaf)

July 26 (same)

Bell County Forestry Camp (BCFC)

3 (0 deaf)

Sept. 12 (Sept. 13)

Eastern Ky. Corr. Complex (EKCC)

59 (0 deaf)

Sept. 12 (same)

Green River Corr. Complex (GRCC)

49 (0 deaf)

July 25 (same)

July 30

Ky. Corr. Inst. For Women (KCIW)

17 (2 deaf)

July 12 (July 16)

Ky. State Penitentiary (KSP)

32 (1 deaf)

Aug. 5 (same)

July 29

Ky. State Reformatory (KSR)

217 (2 deaf)

July 18 (same)

July 31

Lee Adjustment Center (LAC)

32 (0 deaf)

July 26 (same)

Aug. 2

Luther Luckett Corr. Complex (LLCC)

155 (2 deaf)

July 22 (July 26) July 31

Little Sandy Corr. Complex (LSCC)

92 (1 deaf)

July 26 (same)

Aug. 1

Northpoint Training Center (NTC)

76 (1 deaf)

Aug. 20 (Aug. 27)

Roederer Corr. Complex (RCC)

26 (0 deaf)

Aug. 5 (Aug. 8)

Western Ky. Corr. Complex/Ross-Cash (WKCC) 55 (0 deaf)

July 26 (July 29)

TOTAL

825 (9 deaf)

2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 3 of 25 - Page ID#: 2473
In what follows, I begin with systemwide issues raised by the self-audits and visits. Given that we are over four years into the compliance period, I have concluded that systemwide intervention/direction is needed for some widespread problems. I put systemwide action items in bold text. For ease of reference, I have repeated these recommendations in Exhibit 1. In a draft of this report, circulated in mid-October, I asked KDOC to respond to these items with either (a) agreement to undertake the listed action, a time frame for it, and a list of the particular personnel who will be responsible to complete it, or (b) a declination of the action item, with an explanation. The response is included in Exhibit 2 to this report. (Unfortunately, I inadvertently omitted two of the report’s recommendations from the summary, and so they were not included in the initial response. I brought my oversight to the attention of KDOC and received a second response on December 17. It is the second part of Exhibit 2.)
Similarly, where I identified areas of concern for individual institutions, I requested that the institution’s warden send me a similar memo, either (a) agreeing to solve the problem and explaining how, the time frame, and a list of the particular personnel who will be responsible, or (b) declining to solve the issue, with an explanation. The resulting response memos are compiled and attached as Exhibit 3.
II. SYSTEMWIDE ISSUES
1. New ADA Coordinators. At this point, nearly every facility has had more than one ADA Coordinator since the settlement agreement became effective. But there is no system in place for training/transition. For example, in February 2017, I provided live training to all the ADA Coordinators. The two PowerPoint slide decks I used for that training (Settlement Agreement training and CREATE Compliance) are posted by KDOC on a shared drive. This drive also contains a library of useful materials, including the Settlement Agreement itself, the Department’s approved staff training, my various court reports, sample forms, and the like. But new ADA Coordinators are often not told about this training, and have not read the materials. Transitional assistance is often not provided to them. (Ideally, they would shadow their predecessor for some period of time, or have an experienced ADA Coordinator visit with them to provide guidance and advice.) In addition, KDOC has not implemented a system that updates the website listing of ADA Coordinators, at https://corrections.ky.gov/ Facilities/AI/Pages/ADA-Coordinators.aspx. Currently, EKCC, LSCC, and RCC all have out-of-date ADA Coordinator listings. KDOC should develop and implement an ADA Coordinator transition process, which should include processes for at least the following:  informing new ADA Coordinators about available resources,  linking them to other facilities’ ADA Coordinators,  walking them through auxiliary aid, reporting, and tracking processes,  updating the recipients of ADA related emails (for example, automated transfer emails),  updating the KDOC website list of ADA Coordinators.
2. Inmate tracking, transfer alerts, etc. a. Although some progress has been made, it remains the case that not all deaf/HOH prisoners are noted as such in the Kentucky Offender Management System (KOMS).
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 4 of 25 - Page ID#: 2474
What is needed is for someone at KDOC headquarters to check each and every inmate for whom there is a record of a hearing impairment, and ensure that each of them is being appropriately tracked in KOMS. I can provide my master list to facilitate this effort. See the rest of this item for a discussion of what “appropriately tracked” means. b. For those inmates who are noted in KOMS, there seem to be two different methods. Some are noted with a general precaution; others are noted with an ADA alert. See figures A & B.
Figure A: General Precaution
Figure B: ADA Alert
KDOC has implemented an automatic email alert to notify ADA Coordinators of transfers of individuals with ADA alerts. But it appears that individuals with the other, more general precaution, are not the subject of such alerts. Any such individuals need an ADA alert. In addition, it seems that the alerts are not always getting to the appropriate people at the transferred-to institution. Perhaps when the ADA Coordinator
4

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 5 of 25 - Page ID#: 2475
switches, no updates are being made? Or perhaps the transfers are not being entered in the system appropriately? I notified Adult Institutions Branch Manager Debbie Kays of the issue on September 19, 2019, but I believe it remains unresolved. The transfer notification system needs to be tested and problems solved, from KDOC headquarters.
c. Even when the transfer notice works as planned, it goes to the ADA Coordinator, not medical staff. Whether the information comes automatically to medical or is relayed by the ADA Coordinator, medical staff responsible for intake should be informed that a deaf/HOH inmate is incoming, so that they can ensure that audiology processes are not interrupted, deal with lost hearing aids, etc.
d. ADA Coordinators agreed that the ADA precaution would be far more useful if it included more information: whether the individual needs interpretation services, other accommodations, hearing aid status, etc. The ADA Coordinators should be polled to find out what information would be most useful, and the KOMS record of each individual with an alert should then be completed accordingly.
e. One of the major advantages of having the KOMS alert is that it enables generation of institutional-level reports of the deaf/HOH inmates. But only a few of the ADA Coordinators know how to run such a report. KDOC Headquarters should develop and promulgate a memo about how to run an ADA report from KOMS, sharing it with each ADA Coordinator—and ensuring that it is shared with new ADA Coordinators as well.
3. Audiology standards. a. In May 2018, KDOC’s medical providers set a systemwide standard for receipt of a hearing aid: after audiology testing, a hearing aid would be provided if the hearing threshold for the inmate’s better ear was 35 dB or higher at two or more of the benchmark frequencies of 500 Hz, 1,000 Hz, 2,000 Hz, and 4,000 Hz. The policy also provides that “Two hearing aids shall be provided to a patient who meets the criterion for a hearing aid in both ears and meets at least one of the following requirements: Legally blind [or having] a compelling occupational, educational, or safety need for binaural hearing.” In subsequent months, Dr. Frederick Kemen, the regional medical director for KDOC’s health care provider (currently WellpathCare) informed me that he was amending that standard to include an additional benchmark frequency of 8000 Hz—in my view an appropriate change. However, in administering this standard, numerous inconsistencies remain.  Not all the institutions are using the correct standard. I have reviewed a slide deck used to train institutional medical providers on the current policy, and it correctly states the policy. However, at least one institution is using the prior iteration, which set the threshold dB level higher. To solve this problem, providers at each institution should receive a new memo with the correct standard, and the update should be emphasized in some kind of training or other communications.
5

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 6 of 25 - Page ID#: 2476
 My interviews and several separate complaints from inmates suggest that some providers are not aware of the criteria for binaural hearing aids. I have seen several requests for binaural hearing aids rejected without evaluation of the correct standard. I have also been told that inmates who want two hearing aids need to file a medical grievance making the request. Providers at each institution should be trained about how to evaluate the need for binaural hearing aids, and should review recent requests for two hearing aids and evaluate them against the policy, with oversight from the regional medical director. In addition, inmates who have hearing deficits in both ears should have the policy explained to them when they are denied binaural amplification, so that they can make an informed decision whether to grieve the denial.
4. Audiology services delays. Timely delivery of audiology services remains a significant problem. a. It continues to be the case that tracking fails for numerous inmates, so that they can go extra weeks or months without moving to the next step of the audiology process. The systems already in place should solve this problem—if they are implemented correctly. But it seems clear that additional oversight/supervision is necessary. Barring unusual medical issues, the process can comfortably be accomplished in two months or less, the current recommendation. KDOC’s medical provider should centralize a reporting system so that if any inmate has not completed audiology processing in three months—from the first report of a hearing problem to provision of a hearing aid or other resolution—that is reported centrally and headquarters staff take a role in immediately solving the problem.
b. This is a particular issue when audiology processes are ongoing at the moment of an inmate transfer. KDOC has decided not to rescreen transferees, instead reserving hearing screening for their routine physicals (which they get every one, two, or three years, depending on age and health status). This is not itself a problem—but if transferees are not going to be rescreened, it is important that pending audiology services be continued. Currently, continuity is unreliable. It is unlikely to be sufficient to direct the transferring institution to notify the new institution of the ongoing need—this is the kind of handoff instruction highly likely to get lost. There needs to be an instruction to both the transferring and the new institution; the transferring institution should send a progress note for all inmates whose audiology evaluation/provision is in-process, and the new institution should do a thorough chart review for each inmate who might be HOH, to check for inprocess audiology needs. Note that among the difficulties here is that until audiology screening is completed, the ADA tab is typically not checked in KOMS. I am not sure of the best way for medical staff to know who is in-process; someone with familiarity with the electronic medical record system should figure this out. What is clear is that the current system is not working.
5. Request forms. In November 2016, I recommended that various printed request forms be edited to include a request for communication services. See my prior Recommendation 48
6

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 7 of 25 - Page ID#: 2477
(“The Healthcare Request form should include boxes to check if auxiliary aids or services, including remote or in-person interpretation, are needed.”); Recommendation 49 (“All the forms by which inmates apply for jobs, educational programming, etc., should have language similar to that in the recommended Healthcare Request form. So should classification and disciplinary forms that notify inmates of impending hearings or meetings.”). I provided the following recommended language, to be added to the forms:
If you are deaf or hard-of-hearing, do you need any communication assistance for this healthcare visit?
No Yes: Video Remote Interpreter (VRI) (via “purple” laptop) Yes: in-person qualified interpreter Please explain why you need an in-person interpreter rather than VRI Yes: other: (please specify) Language along these lines was duly added to the centrally-printed medical request form— but generally not to other forms. ADA Coordinators have reported to me that they are powerless to solve this problem; they say it must be handled centrally. Even for the medical request form, while I saw compliant versions of the printed forms at various points over the past several years, it now seems that the form in use at most or all institutions is the original version, without the pre-printed language that responded to Recommendation 48. KDOC headquarters staff should review all forms by which inmates make requests that lead to in-person meetings, and ensure that each one includes notice that communication assistance is available at such meetings. For medical forms in particular, whatever issue has caused the reversion to the prior form should be corrected. In addition, interpretation services forms should clearly encompass religious and other volunteerprovided programming, and all inmate-staff communications.
6. Hearing aid loss on intra-prison moves and inter-prison transfers. It seems to frequently happen that hearing aids are lost when inmates are moved from one prison to another or from one cell to another (particularly when this is an involuntary move, and the pack-up is done not by the inmate himself but by staff—for example, when someone is put into disciplinary segregation). This is an extremely expensive loss, and can take months to resolve, subverting access and communication rights. I recommend that “adaptive equipment” be added to the printed property list used to track property during moves, and staff receive training that they must affirmatively locate such equipment and manage it appropriately. For inter-prison transfers, the best policy would be to instruct inmates to wear their hearing aids during the transfer.
7. Auxiliary aids a. Particular devices. Here I list devices currently in use at KDOC institutions, with notes on each one.  Videophones: All of the KDOC institutions have a videophone kiosk. At all but KSP, those kiosks are provided by the telecommunications company Purple. At KSP, there is also a Sorenson videophone. The systemwide experience with the Purple phones is not good; the Purple videophones are prone to frequent outages, caused by faulty updates, conflicts with firewalls, and the like. KSP’s experience with its Sorenson videophone is much better.
7

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 8 of 25 - Page ID#: 2478
At this point, KDOC headquarters needs to solve the Purple videophone outage problem so that outages are both rare and brief, or make a systemwide switch to a more reliable videophone provider.
In addition, in a number of institutions, the videophone lacks any privacy from other inmates. Deaf inmates who use videophones in these circumstances report that other inmates frequently watch their calls, making comments about the individuals who appear on the screen. While some restrictions on privacy serve security purposes and avoid misconduct, it would be appropriate to provide a curtain that obstructs the television screen from casual observation by other inmates, without shielding the signing inmate from the waist down. Each institution in which the videophone is widely visible to other inmates should install such a curtain unless there’s a significant security obstacle.
 Portable phone amplifiers: These are now in use at a number of facilities, and working well. They should be available everywhere. See, e.g., : http://www.harriscomm.com/portable-telephone-amplifier.html.
Figure C: Portable Phone Amplifier.
 Phone volume control. These are available nearly, but not quite, everywhere. There should be at least one volume-control phone in every grouping of phones in every institution, including the phones used in restrictive housing. In fact, I’ve been told repeatedly that even inmates who have no hearing issues prefer the volume control phones—so it might make sense to have the feature universally installed.
 Captioned telephones (or “captels”). Several institutions agreed to pilot captioned telephones. There are some technical hurdles to installation— getting an outside line, linking the phones to the inmate pay-system, dealing with voice recognition. These need to be overcome, but KSP’s experience demonstrates this is possible. Captioned telephones should be made available in every institution, available at the same hours as a regular phone.
8

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 9 of 25 - Page ID#: 2479
Figure D: Captioned Telephone
 Amplified phones. None of KDOC’s institutions have an amplified phone, but these too would be worth looking into, centrally. The features needed would be: amplification to 50 dB, with control over the amplification range (that is, whether amplification is at the high or low frequencies). See, e.g., https://www.hearingdirect.com/us/clarity-jv35-talking-desk-amplifiedphone.html; https://www.harriscomm.com/clarity-alto-white-amplifiedphone.html. Once captels are provided, these devices could be provided in the same place, using the same installation setup.
 TTYs. Every KDOC prison has at least one TTY. But not every prison has staff who know how to use the device, and inmates who might need them are not reliably told that they are available. I’ve explained previously that the instructions need to be detailed and user-friendly. Each institution needs to work out and test a protocol by which TTYs can be used—and then write that protocol into full instructions capable of being followed by someone who has never used a TTY before. I will test these by asking that such a person place a call to me at times arranged in the coming month or two.
 Assistive listening systems. Assistive listening systems using FM transmission are low-cost and can really help hard-of-hearing inmates in aurally challenging environments. At every institution, assistive listening devices should be made readily available for such environments: religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming. The need is particularly urgent for Substance Abuse Programming, which many institutions conduct in extremely noisy and difficult locations. Currently, only a few institutions have the systems, and even some that have equipment have not actually started to use it. Systems currently in use include:  GRCC: Whole House FM Transmitter 3.0, https://www.amazon.com/Whole-House-FMTransmitterMicrophone/dp/B0742MMRKW/
9

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 10 of 25 - Page ID#: 2480
 LLCC: Peavey Assisted Listening System - 72.1 Mhz, https://www.amazon.com/Assisted-Listening-System-72-1Peavey/dp/B007Q2O2F4
 LSCC: System from www.kingdom.com
 Earphones for video communication. KDOC and the state of Kentucky communicate via video for several purposes. Some institutions use orientation videos to explain rights and responsibilities under the Prison Rape Elimination Act or (less often) institutional rules more generally. The Parole Board conducts many of its hearings via video. For inmates who are hard of hearing, it can be very helpful to provide earphones; these allow the inmate to turn the volume way up. KDOC should ensure that earphones for video communication are available in each prison, and also anywhere parole hearings are held—that is, in county jails. In addition, individuals who might need this equipment should be informed that it is available. (Figure E is a sign to this effect from WKCC.) I have discussed this issue with Kirstie Williard, a KDOC official who I understand to be responsible for KDOC interactions with jails. While she did not object to the recommendation, I have not been able to reach a resolution with her.
Figure E: Earphone Availability Sign
HEADPHONES AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST
 Non-auditory alerts. Many institutions now have non-auditory “bed shaker” alerts available to notify deaf/HOH inmates of fires and the like. These are fine—but they do not meet the need for non-auditory announcements. They are mostly triggered only by fire alarms (not intercom announcements for chow, pill-call, count, and the like). And they work only for the small number of inmates who have them, and only when those inmates are in their beds. Other options are crucial. In any housing unit where it is practicable, KDOC should direct staff to flash the overhead lights to signal chow and pill-call. In addition, KDOC should direct implementation of some kind
10

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 11 of 25 - Page ID#: 2481
of personal notification to deaf/HOH inmates, so that they do not miss personal announcements (e.g., “John Smith, report to the Unit Administrator.” See also subsection (b), below, for additional needed equipment.
b. Inmate purchases of non-auditory alarm devices. Several institutions have made it possible for deaf/HOH inmates to purchase non-auditory alarm clocks and/or watches. Many inmates have told me that these are extremely helpful devices, which facilitate deaf/HOH inmates’ participation in prison programs, services, and activities. But, currently, decisions about availability of these devices are made separately for each institution. KDOC headquarters should check with the institutions that have already piloted the devices about models and methods, and then should make them available for purchase by deaf/HOH inmates at all the institutions. (When inmates transfer from one institution to another, they should be authorized to bring these devices with them.) Indigent inmates could use loaners, or could have the cost placed on their accounts as a lien.
c. Bulletin boards. At some institutions, all non-routine announcements are written up and placed on a bulletin board in day-spaces. This includes, for example, pages of particular inmates, announcements about scheduling, rule changes, and the like. Anything non-routine that might be communicated via intercom also is posted on an accessible bulletin board. (The boards may need to be locked, to minimize interference by other inmates.) Bulletin boards posting non-routine announcements should be provided in every housing area at each institution.
d. Auxiliary aid processes. Many of the KDOC institutions conduct an auxiliary aid process, by which an ADA Coordinator meets with each deaf/HOH inmate upon his or her transfer to the institution or evaluation as deaf/HOH. At this meeting, the inmate is informed of available resources and decisions made about access to certain auxiliary aids and accommodations. Other institutions are far less consistent and formal about getting this done. At this point, it is clear to me that this more casual approach does not lead to Settlement Agreement compliance. Experience has established that an auxiliary aid evaluation/process is an essential part of Settlement Agreement compliance. KDOC should direct all institutions to implement this approach, and the auxiliary aid process should have the following characteristics:
 An auxiliary aid evaluation should be conducted within 2 weeks—and ideally substantially sooner—of each deaf/HOH inmate’s arrival at an institution or identification as deaf/HOH.
 The evaluation/process should be performed at a meeting between the inmate and the ADA Coordinator, so that the inmate learns who the ADA Coordinator is, and so that the inmate is given appropriate information about resources and services.
 Effective communication should be provided at the meeting—meaning that an interpreter is necessary for any inmate who signs to communicate,
11

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 12 of 25 - Page ID#: 2482
and that for inmates who do not read, any documents should be fully explained using accessible language.  At the meeting, the inmate should be informed about all services/resources available—hearing aids, telephonic assistance, interpretation, captioning, etc. The brochure that has been developed for this should be kept on hand, and distributed at the meeting. It should be updated whenever necessary, as new devices or new procedures come online.  Inmates should receive easy-to-provide resources no later than the meeting. For example, that is when they can get bed cards, hard-ofhearing IDs, etc. Criteria and a clear process should be developed for access to any limited resources (bed shakers, telephone amplifiers, etc.), and explained to the inmates.  Inmates should be informed at the meeting about a clear process for getting any additional auxiliary aids/assistance they need.
8. Inmate handbook. Every institution has an Inmate Handbook. At this point, most provide some notice about ADA issues. But the notices are often difficult to understand and leave out crucial issues. KDOC should standardize this notice, using text along the lines of what follows:
{Institution} is required to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity such as seeing, hearing, walking, bathing or breathing. (Temporary conditions, like a broken leg, are not considered a disability.) Under the Americans with Disabilities Act, {Institution} will ensure that inmates with disabilities have access to all services, privileges, facilities, advantages, and accommodations that is substantially equivalent to access provided similarly situated non-disabled inmates.
{Institution} will communicate effectively with inmates who are deaf and/or blind, ensuring that they can receive information from and provide information to staff. When needed for effective communication, {Institution} will provide “auxiliary aids and services.” This means devices or services that assist in communication, such as interpretation, hearing aids, captioning, videophones, amplifiers, etc.
HOWEVER, if something a disabled inmate seeks—a particular job, for example— would be dangerous, posing a direct threat of injury or death to the inmate or others, {Institution} can bar the inmate’s access to that job after individualized consideration and consultation with appropriate medical experts.
{Institution} has an assigned ADA Coordinator who is responsible for training and advising staff in ADA matters and monitoring ADA concerns such as accessibility requirements and accommodations. The ADA Coordinator also reviews requests for adaptive equipment and accommodations as well as ADA complaints. To contact the ADA Coordinator, you may {HOW TO GET IN TOUCH} {e.g., send written correspondence via Institutional Mail or, in the event you are unable to submit a written request, you may contact your Classification and Treatment Officer who shall document and forward your request.}
12

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 13 of 25 - Page ID#: 2483
There is a federal court Settlement Agreement that governs services for deaf and hard-ofhearing inmates. It is available, along with additional information about such services, for all inmates to read on request, in the Inmate Legal Library.
Again, I have summarized each of the above recommendations in Exhibit 2, and KDOC’s response is included in Exhibit 3. That response demonstrates very helpful engagement with the open issues, but additional inquiry/reporting will be necessary.
III. INSTITUTION-SPECIFIC ISSUES
Moving from systemwide issues to institution-specific ones, I now present information from the self-audits and my July/August 2019 site visits. The institutions are in alphabetical order. For several of the institutions, the circulated draft of this report also included some follow-up questions. Because those have now been answered, I omit them here (but some of the Warden’s memos in Exhibit 3 include answers to them, redacted to protect prisoner privacy).
BCC (self-audit only) Warden: Amy Robey ADA Coordinator: Christy Peach
Areas of concern  Deaf/HOH inmates live in Dorm 2C. This may be depriving some of opportunities only
available elsewhere. The self-audit form states that inmates are allowed to request a different housing assignment. But one inmate requested to be housed elsewhere and was refused— even though his only accommodations are an HOH ID and bed card. See my prior reports for a discussion of the considerations raised by dedicated HOH housing.  Devices: o BCC does not have portable phone amplifiers: one retailer declined to accept a Purchase
Order for them. An alternative supplier should be located. o No assistive listening systems are in place. o Inmates are not offered the opportunity to purchase vibrating watches (but they are
offered non-auditory alarm clocks). o No earphones are available for parole or other similar needs. o No captel.
Good practices  To provide a non-auditory alert for count and pill call, dorm officers flash the bay lights.  A TTY is available to inmates who use it, in a locked cabinet in a housing area; inmates are
given the combination, so that they do not have to make a special request each time they wish to make a call.
13

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 14 of 25 - Page ID#: 2484
BCFC (self-audit only) Warden: Brandy Harm ADA Coordinator: Derek Miracle
Areas of concern  No assistive listening devices or captioned telephone.
Good practices  BCFC has designated two “ADA inmates” whose job is to assist inmates with disabilities
with reading, writing, and comprehension when necessary. Any HOH inmate can ask them for assistance, or can ask the ADA Coordinator and back-up. If an HOH inmate is paged and does not appear in response, an ADA inmate is asked to find and alert the HOH inmate.
EKCC (self-audit only) Warden: David Green ADA Coordinator: Kristopher King
Areas of concern  The ADA Coordinator listed on https://corrections.ky.gov/Facilities/AI/Pages/ADA-
Coordinators.aspx has been incorrect for months.  It seems that the new ADA Coordinator has done only the computer-based training that is
provided all staff, rather than the ADA Coordinator training.  Audiology assessments are not always timely.  Audiology progress tracking is only sometimes shared with ADA Coordinator.  Devices:
o No portable phone amplifiers. o No assistive listening. o No bed shakers. o No earphones for parole hearings or other uses.
Good practices  ADA Coordinator walks the dorms each week, to facilitate access for deaf/HOH inmates.  Dorm 3 has a non-auditory alert—a green light—to indicate inmate movement times.  There is a working captel.
GRCC (July 30 site visit) Warden: Kevin Mazza ADA Coordinator: Mark Jackson
Areas of concern:  The ADA Coordinator rarely receives automated email notices of transfers of deaf/HOH
inmates to GRCC.  Prior to my visit, the ADA Coordinator and medical staff were not routinely sharing
information; there was insufficient communication regarding the identity of deaf/HOH inmates and of their progress through audiology processes. During the visit, a system was discussed that hopefully will solve the problem.
14

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 15 of 25 - Page ID#: 2485
 It seems that there are delays and other issues for inmates who need hearing aid parts—e.g., filters. Medical needs to work out (a) how to obtain these parts, and (b) how to make them easily available to inmates.
 The ADA Coordinator was not conducting auxiliary aid assessments, and not using the developed documentation explaining available services and resources. As a result, inmates are not getting items they need, such as deaf/HOH cell cards, IDs, and auxiliary aids.
 It is unclear how GRCC will accommodate deaf inmates if there is a “whistle alarm”—a drill or actual incident in which inmates on the yard are instructed by a whistle to lie down on the ground.
 Equipment/Devices: o GRCC was not making phone amplifiers available to inmates. o GRCC had a PA system in the housing units, but often used bullhorns instead. These are very difficult for HOH inmates; the PA system is better, so it should be used. o Inmates reported that they were not authorized to bring their own headphones or earbuds into the school building. That means that use of a pocket talker is unavailable. o The SAP program has an FM assistive listening system, but had not yet used it. o There was no captel. o The TTY lacked instructions and I could not get it to work; directions need to be developed and then a test done where someone who has never used it before follows the directions and calls me, TTY to TTY and using a relay service to a regular phone. o A test should be performed of the VRI and the videophone. o Inmates were not authorized to purchase non-auditory watches/alarm clocks o Data provided on the self-audit did not always seem to be accurate. For example, not even one inmate was listed as having low literacy, which is implausible.
 Audiology services: o There seemed to be some confusion about the screening criteria for a medical provider audiology assessment. The written documentation stated that a “Yes” or “Sometimes” answer to one screening question requires follow-up; interviews of medical staff elicited a different answer. o Inmates reported that obtaining necessary audiology equipment (e.g., hearing aid batteries, filters, and service) was time-consuming and sometimes impossible.
Good practices:  GRCC has used an in-person interpreter in a situation where the VRI would not be effective.  GRCC has an FM transmitter microphone, which is used as an assistive listening device for
educational programming. See https://www.amazon.com/Whole-House-FMTransmitterMicrophone/dp/B0742MMRKW/  GRCC offers an 8-hour sign language class for inmates.
15

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 16 of 25 - Page ID#: 2486
KCIW (self-audit only) Warden: Vanessa Kennedy ADA Coordinator: Lori Holderman
Areas of concern:  The ADA Coordinator reports only partial compliance with regularly communicating with
deaf inmates and ensuring effective communication for deaf inmates. No details are provided on the deficits.  Orientation videos are not captioned, not always shown in a quiet space, and not always amplified when needed.  The videophone has experienced long outages. The VRI has also gone down—and was restored to operation only when a software update was reversed.  Devices: o No personal phone amplifiers have been made available. o No assistive listening. o HOH inmates are not routinely allowed to purchase vibrating watches/alarm clocks. o No captel.  Non-auditory alerts not sufficient to signal count alert, not programmed to signal different alerts, not used to notify prison-wide events, and not used to notify Deaf / HoH inmates of events specific to them.
Good practices:  When inmates have missed announcements / alarms because they didn’t hear pages, in-
person notification is used.  An in-person interpreter has been used in situations in which the VRI is ineffective.  The ADA Coordinator monitors disciplinary reports to ensure that nobody is disciplined for
failing to follow an order she could not hear.
KSP (July 29 Site Visit) Warden: DeEdra Hart ADA Coordinator: Roger Mitchell
Areas of concern:  The audiology case list used by medical providers was incomplete. And audiology timeliness
was poor—the “order sheet” moving people along in the process would get lost. This problem was solved by Health Services Administrator Nancy Raines, who set up a tasking protocol using a function known as “L Jellybean.” Ms. Raines is retiring, though, and it is unclear whether the problem will stay solved once she is gone.  The ADA Coordinator had not received ADA Coordinator/Settlement Agreement training.  No auxiliary aid assessments/meetings were being performed. In their absence, there were several problems: o Inmates did not know who the ADA Coordinator is. o Inmates did not know what services etc. were available. (KSP has a brochure that
explains what resources are available, but that brochure was not routinely shared with deaf/HOH inmates.) o Inmates didn’t have bed cards, HOH IDs, and the like.
16

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 17 of 25 - Page ID#: 2487
 There seemed not to be an adequate process for considering requests for reasonable modifications to existing policies, housing assignments, etc. For example, when inmates requested a cell move to a quieter housing area, that request seemed not to trigger consideration of the disability-related need.
 MRT (Moral Reconation Therapy), a group class, took place in a space with significant hearing challenges, including a loud fan. Accommodations were scarce. Although it seems implausible, inmates report they aren’t aware of the possibility of moving up front. Consideration should be given to fixes: can the fan be moved? Can inmates be notified that they can move up front? Etc.
 Auxiliary aids: o There was no assistive listening/amplification system available, although HOH inmates expressed interest in using one, for example for MRT. o Inmates were not aware of the possibility of using a pager on the yard—and it was not a great notification system, in any event. Some alternative process for notifying inmates of individual pages and the like was needed—in-person notifications, bulletin board postings, or something else. o There were no portable phone amplifiers available. o Inmates were not given the opportunity to get vibrating watches or vibrating alarm clocks. o Not all phone banks had a phone with a volume control. o As is true systemwide, the Purple videophone had not worked consistently.
 Inmate transfers into restrictive housing separated inmates from their hearing aids, with long delays for their restoration.
 There continued to be an issue with the availability/utilization of the laptop-provided video remote interpretation (VRI). During my visit, the VRI was not operational. A VRI test is needed, in several locations of the prison, including from restrictive housing.
 It was not clear how KSP will accommodate deaf inmates if there is a “whistle alarm”—a drill or actual incident in which inmates on the yard are instructed by a whistle to lie down on the ground.
 It seemed that intercom announcements are not very accessible, because intercoms were difficult for HOH inmates to understand. There are announcements made via institutional tv channel, but of course this is no solution for inmates who don’t have televisions. Use of a bulletin board might ameliorate this problem.
 It is not clear that hand-restraint protocols for inmates who sign are compliant with the Settlement Agreement.
 It was challenging to schedule confidential interviews between my assistant and inmates.
Good practices:  For inmates undergoing audiology testing who struggle to use a computer, appropriate
assistance was made available.  The availability of a Sorenson videophone meant that difficulties with the Purple videophone
mattered less (or not at all).  KSP has implemented a good Special Needs Referral Form.
17

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 18 of 25 - Page ID#: 2488
KSR (July 31 site visit) Warden: Anna Valentine ADA Coordinator: Cynthia Wathan
Areas of concern:  As with other facilities, KSR’s ADA Coordinator is not getting email alerts for transfers. To
fill in the missing information, she has been checking the KOMS record for each inmate transferred to KSR. This is admirable but very inefficient.  Devices: o KSR had several portable phone amplifiers, but they are now missing; more should be
ordered and tracked. o There is no captel available, and there are several inmates for whom this would be a
useful technology. o KSR owns FM transmitters for use in the chapel and in the Sexual Offender Treatment
Program (SOTP) but has not actually used them yet.  Audiology/Hearing Aids
o As with other facilities, hearing aids have several times been lost during the transfer process.
o For new hearing aids, it has been taking the provider, Audicus, up to 45 days to ship them. This is way too long.
o A couple of times recently, Audicus has shipped hearing aids to the wrong prison.
Good practices:  KSR has implemented an excellent process for auxiliary aid assessment. The ADA
Coordinator meets with each incoming deaf/HOH inmate, promptly after arrival at the institution, to discuss available services and to assess what he needs. Needed equipment/services are then provided, and the meetings are memorialized. The ADA Coordinator meets with each inmate again after a year, to check in/update accommodations.  KSR’s ADA Coordinator memorializes requests for services and the response by scanning the kits she receives and their answers, and entering both into KOMS.  Two helpful non-auditory methods of communicating announcements are being used: bulletin boards in housing areas, and institutional channel 17.  To help avoid loss of hearing aids and other devices on cell moves/transfers, a checkbox for assistive equipment is being added to property forms.  Inmates are allowed to purchase non-auditory alarm watches; group orders are placed each quarter.  A useful HOH ID has been implemented. The regular ID card hangs horizontally; the HOH ID hangs behind it, vertically, so that both can be seen at once.  Dorm signs are well designed.  Hearing rescreening is done not during the annual physical, but at the same time as annual TB skin tests. This is an excellent method, because it’s more likely to occur, and because it facilitates follow-up.  An in-person interpreter has been used with success for a deaf inmate enrolled in sex offender treatment.  The information brochure for deaf/HOH services has been appropriately adapted with helpful institution-specific info.
18

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 19 of 25 - Page ID#: 2489
 There is a DVD available to inmates providing instruction in American Sign Language.  Temporary door signs are used to mark the cell of HOH inmates when CPTU does not allow
inmates to have their IDs due to the potential for self-harm.
LAC (August 2 site visit) Warden: Daniel Akers Assistant Warden: Troy G. Pollock ADA Coordinator: Mitchell Brandenberg
Areas of concern: LAC is run by CoreCivic, on a contract with KDOC. It is quite recently opened, so has had a shorter period of Settlement Agreement implementation. As of the time of my visit, there was essentially no Settlement Agreement compliance system in place. The ADA Coordinator reported that he simply had insufficient time to learn about the Settlement Agreement and carry out its terms.  ADA Coordinator had not been trained.  No training had been provided to staff.  No auxiliary aid process was being implemented, and there had been little to no
communication with deaf/HOH prisoners about how to access services or what services were available.  No forms for requesting/waiving services were available.  Devices: o No videophone or VRI was available. o TTY instructions were insufficient, and 711 didn’t work (but 800-648-6056 did). o No assistive listening, including in difficult hearing environments like SAP. o No portable phone amplifiers. o No earphones for parole etc. o No captel.  TV captioning was inconsistent.  Basic communication was highly inaccessible: o No intercom systems were in use. o Timing of meals and yard changed frequently, augmenting the need for communication. o Inmate aids were appointed (and designated as “town criers”) but it was clear that they
did not know all the deaf/HOH inmates, and the deaf/HOH inmates did not know them.  Audiology:
o Medical did not send any documentation to the ADA Coordinator on HOH inmates other than what the ADA Coordinator requests following a Monitor inquiry. Medical often had a long (30 days+) delay in responding to inquiries.
o It seemed that there were numerous inmates who had sought a hearing aid, but had not been provided audiology testing.
In response, I have had several follow-up conference calls with the ADA Coordinator and others. As of the end of September, it seemed that there had been progress. An auxiliary aid process was put into place and auxiliary aid meetings held; various forms were incorporated into that process. Videophones were installed (but the VRI remains inoperable). Information has gone out to
19

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 20 of 25 - Page ID#: 2490
inmates and staff about services. I believe, however, that the other items identified above remain unsolved.
LLCC (July 31 site visit) Warden: Scott Jordan ADA Coordinator: Sherri Grissinger
Areas of concern:  As in other facilities, the Purple videophone often fails. When outages occur, the VRS laptop
is used as a substitute—but it is made available only during the workday, leaving deaf inmates unable to make calls during the most useful hours after work and on the weekend.  Even when the videophone is working, it seems that there are access issues. Deaf inmates not housed in the unit where it is located must get permission to go to that unit; this should be easy and routine, but is apparently not.  Audiology: o Hearing aid testing is being performed on-site, but insufficient assistance was being given
to inmates whose computer literacy is low. After discussion during the site visit, this should be solved going forward. o Post-testing approval of hearing aids has been slow.  Medical staff have not implemented an easy method for using VRI interpretation.
Good practices:  The ADA Coordinator performed a survey of all the deaf/HOH inmates, asking about their
experiences and needs.  Devices:
o For HOH inmates who are learning to read, educational staff introduced a home-made device they call a Tubeloo, which amplifies their voices so they can hear themselves as they read out loud.
o A Peavey assistive listening system is available for HOH inmates in the chapel and the academic building.
o Deaf/HOH inmates are provided a quarterly opportunity to purchase vibrating alarm clocks and watches.
o TTY access is limited. o Portable phone amplifiers are in use. o Staff in the restrictive housing unit have set up a way to allow use of VRI/VRS when
needed.  There has been both preparation and training related to transport of inmates who sign to
communicate; an “ADA bag” includes special restraints that allow them to move their hands while being transported.
LSCC (August 1 site visit) Warden: Keith Helton ADA Coordinator: Rhonda May
Areas of concern  The new ADA Coordinator has not done ADA Coordinator training.
20

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 21 of 25 - Page ID#: 2491
 The KDOC website listing of the ADA Coordinator is out of date.  The self-audit information is incomplete.  Devices:
o Intercoms were not in use. o No captel was available. o No assistive listening system was in place outside of the chapel—it is particularly needed
in SAP (see below). o Inmates are not allowed to buy vibrating watches. o As elsewhere, Purple phones have long and numerous outages. o VRI: It was not clear how the VRI laptop would be used in the academic building, given
the configuration of power and internet access. Also, staff familiarity with VRI seemed low, particularly in medical. There seemed to be no routine software updates to the VRI laptop. o There were no TTY instructions, even though I pointed out this absence during a prior site visit.  The auxiliary aid process is not adequate: o Not everyone was in KOMS. o When audiology testing found an inmate who is deaf or HOH, no notice was provided to the ADA Coordinator, and therefore no non-audiology services were being provided. o Not all inmates had HOH card. o There was no consideration of specific housing assignment to minimize communication difficulties.  SAP was incredibly noisy; besides assistive listening, other quieting techniques should be considered. o The ice machine was extremely loud. Can it be moved or dampened? o On my last visit, over a year ago, SAP personnel agreed to try an assistive listening device, but they did not follow through, and on this last visit, they did not agree. This is urgently needed. o There was no volume adjustment button on any telephone in the SAP area. o Other measures should be considered as well.  Hearing aids were frequently lost on transfer into RHU.  Audiology: o As in other facilities, when an inmate is transferred to LSCC while still in-process for audiology services, there was no working system to ensure that the process continues. There was no hearing screening on transfer, and chart reviews have been insufficient to catch such inmates. o KDOC policy provides for hearing screening that leads to a medical provider visit, if one or more of the screening questions leads to an answer of “yes” or “sometimes.” But at LSCC, only three or more such answers are leading to the next stage of the process. o Medical staff tracking of audiology services has not been appropriate; the tracking methodology was not working. During my visit, we discussed alternative approaches to solve this. The audiology tracker needs to be updated frequently, not only after hearing aids are provided.
21

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 22 of 25 - Page ID#: 2492
Good practices  The chapel uses an FM assistive listening system, obtained from the church technology
catalog www.kingdom.com.  Used VRI for a program (note: ADA Coordinator should have but did not evaluate whether
this was effective, and if not, should have consider a live interpreter)  The Warden and ADA Coordinator conducted appropriately individualized review of
possibility of direct threat in a job placement.
NTC (self-audit only) Warden: Brad Abrams ADA Coordinator: Jennifer Baker
Areas of concern  ADA Coordinator has not received training. She also reports only partial compliance with
Settlement Agreement familiarity.  The self-audit is incomplete.  KOMS notifications are not occurring when deaf/HOH inmates arrive.  The notices outside of the housing units do not include a picture of the ID card.  Only partial compliance with instructions for the use of all auxiliary aids/services being
shared with staff.  Many of the training requirements are marked as only “partially compliant,” though no
details are provided.  Devices:
o Videophone does not allow for voice carry-over features. o Some issues using VRS when the videophone is out of service. o TTY stored in office, rather than made accessible to inmates. o No captel is available. o Apparently the VRI laptop was non-functional at some point.  No VRI log is available.  VRS is not being used to substitute for the videophone when the videophone is out.
Good practices  Vibrating watches made available to HOH inmates.  Classes in American Sign Language are provided and preference is given to HOH inmates
for enrollment.
RCC (self-audit only) Warden: Jessie Ferguson ADA Coordinator: Jessica Durrett
Areas of concern  The new ADA Coordinator has done only ADA basic training, not the Settlement Agreement
and other training.  The KDOC website lists the wrong ADA Coordinator.
22

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 23 of 25 - Page ID#: 2493
 No confirmation that settlement summary, settlement, and brochure are available in the library.
 KOMS alerts are inconsistent.
Good practices  Sign language class is offered, and HOH inmates are given preference.
WKCC/Ross-Cash (July 29 Site Visit) Warden: Tim Lane ADA Coordinator: Jacob Bruce
Areas of concern:  Audiology:
o As with other institutions, there was a hand-off problem when inmates in the middle of the audiology process arrived at WKCC (including Ross-Cash).
o WKCC’s medical provider had been using an outdated policy for decision-making about hearing aid prescriptions, and therefore not all inmates who should receive a hearing aid are getting one.
 Auxiliary aid assessments are not yet regularized, and are not being consistently performed in a timely manner.
 Coordination between the ADA Coordinator and medical staff is not yet smooth; a shared folder might solve this problem.
 Devices: o The Substance Abuse Program (SAP) should try an assistive listening device, and was willing to do so—but no devices had been bought for them. o WKCC had purchased portable phone amplifiers, but had not actually used them. o One TTY may be missing.
Good practices:  The “Jelly-bean” task management system has been in use for several months for audiology
processing in medical, and seems to be solving delays and hand-off problems within the institution.  A cordless telephone handset is available in restrictive housing for HOH inmates, facilitating their access to telephones.  The KOMS-generated transfer emails are frequently coming through.  A sign on the parole board video monitor makes clear that assistance is available for HOH inmates. (See Figure E, above)
Conclusion
As has been true throughout the Settlement Agreement period, KDOC staff have been professional in their efforts to implement the agreement, and helpful to me as I ask them monitoring questions. And as usual, there are both successes and challenges to report. The next self-reporting deadline will be in early February.
23

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 24 of 25 - Page ID#: 2494
Respectfully submitted, December 24, 2019 Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor 625 So. State Street Ann Arbor, MI 48109 adams.settlement.monitor@gmail.com
24

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 25 of 25 - Page ID#: 2495

Exhibit 1: Exhibit 2: Exhibit 3: Exhibit 4:

LIST OF EXHIBITS
Requested Action Item List for KDOC KDOC Responses, Nov. 14, 2019 & Dec. 17, 2019 KDOC Institution Responses (various dates) KDOC Self-Audit Spreadsheets

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-1 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 1 of 4 - Page ID#: 2496
EXHIBIT 1: REQUESTED ACTION ITEM LIST FOR KDOC
I requested that KDOC respond to the system-wide recommendations in this report, in a memo from Acting Commissioner Kathleen Kenney or Deputy Commissioner Randy White, as they are the officials with appropriate authority. For each recommendation below, I asked that KDOC either (a) state its agreement to undertake the listed action, provide a time frame for it, and a list of the particular personnel who will be responsible to complete it, or (b) explicitly decline the action item, with an explanation. The response memos are attached as Exhibit 2.
1. New ADA Coordinators. KDOC should develop and implement an ADA Coordinator transition process, which should include processes for at least the following:  informing new ADA Coordinators about available resources,  linking them to other facilities’ ADA Coordinators,  walking them through auxiliary aid, reporting, and tracking processes  updating the recipients of ADA related emails (for example, automated transfer emails),  updating the KDOC website list of ADA Coordinators.
2. Tracking, alerts, etc. a. Someone at KDOC headquarters should check each and every inmate for whom there is a record of a hearing impairment, and ensure that each of them is being appropriately tracked in KOMS. b. Each HOH inmate must have an ADA alert, not (or not just) a general precaution. The transfer notification system needs to be tested and fixed, from KDOC headquarters. c. Whether the information comes automatically to medical or is relayed by the ADA Coordinator, medical staff responsible for intake should be informed that a deaf/HOH inmate is incoming, so that they can ensure that audiology processes are not interrupted, deal with lost hearing aids, etc. d. The ADA Coordinators should be polled to find out what information would be most useful in the ADA tab, and the KOMS record of each individual with an alert should then be completed accordingly. e. KDOC Headquarters should develop and promulgate a memo about how to run an ADA report, sharing it with each ADA Coordinator—and ensuring that it is shared with new ADA Coordinators as well.
3. Audiology standards. Providers at each institution should all receive a new memo with the correct standard, and the update should be emphasized in some kind of training or other communications. Providers at each institution should be trained about how to evaluate the need for binaural hearing aids, and should review recent requests for two hearing aids and evaluate them against the policy, with oversight from the regional medical director. Inmates who have hearing deficits in both ears should have the policy explained to them when they are denied binaural amplification, so that they can make an informed decision whether to grieve the denial.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-1 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 2 of 4 - Page ID#: 2497
4. Audiology services delays. a. KDOC’s medical provider should centralize a reporting system so that if any inmate has not completed audiology processing in three months—from the first report of a hearing problem to provision of a hearing aid or other resolution—that is reported centrally and headquarters staff take a role in immediately solving the problem. b. When inmates are transferred, there needs to be an instruction to both the transferring and the new institution; the transferring institution should send a progress note for all inmates whose audiology evaluation/provision is in-process, and the new institution should do a thorough chart review for each inmate who might be HOH, to check for in-process audiology needs.
5. Request forms. KDOC headquarters staff should review all forms by which inmates make requests that lead to in-person meetings, and ensure that each one includes notice that communication assistance is available at such meetings. For medical forms in particular, whatever issue caused the reversion to the prior form that has taken place should be corrected. The interpretation services form should clearly encompass religious and other volunteer-provided programming, as well as all inmate-staff communications.
6. Hearing aid loss on intra-prison moves and inter-prison transfers. “Adaptive equipment” should be added to the printed property list used to track property during moves, and staff should receive training that they must affirmatively locate such equipment and manage it appropriately. For inter-prison transfers, the best policy would be to instruct inmates to wear their hearing aids during the transfer.
7. Auxiliary aids a. Particular devices.  KDOC headquarters needs to solve the Purple phone outage problem so that videophone outages are both rare and short, or make a systemwide switch to a more reliable videophone provider. Each institution in which the videophone is widely visible to other inmates should install a curtain unless there’s a significant security obstacle.  Portable phone amplifiers should be available at each institution: See, e.g., http://www.harriscomm.com/portable-telephone-amplifier.html.  There should be a volume control phone in every grouping of phones in every institution, including the phones used in restrictive housing.  Captioned telephones should be made available in every institution, available at the same hours as a regular phone.  KDOC should look into acquiring specialized amplified phones.  Each institution needs to work out and test a protocol by which TTYs can be used—and then write that protocol into full instructions capable of being followed by someone who has never used a TTY before.  At every institution, assistive listening devices should be made readily available for religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming. The need is particularly urgent for Substance Abuse Programming, which many institutions conduct in extremely noisy and difficult locations.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-1 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 3 of 4 - Page ID#: 2498
 KDOC should ensure that earphones for video communication are available in each prison, and also anywhere parole hearings are held—that is, in county jails. In addition, individuals who might need this equipment should be informed that it is available.
 Many institutions now have non-auditory alerts available, to notify deaf/HOH inmates who are in their beds of fires and the like. These are fine— but they do not meet the need for non-auditory announcements. They are mostly triggered only by fire alarms (not intercom announcements for chow, pill-call, count, and the like). And they work only for the small number of inmates who have them, and only when those inmates are in their beds. See 7.b, below, for additional needed equipment. In any housing unit where it is practicable, KDOC should direct staff to flash the overhead lights to signal chow and pill-call. In addition, KDOC should direct implementation of some kind of personal notification to deaf/HOH inmates, so that they do not miss personal announcements.
b. Inmate purchases of non-auditory alarm devices (vibrating watches and alarm clocks). KDOC headquarters should check with the institutions that have already piloted the devices about models and methods, and then should make them available for purchase by deaf/HOH inmates at every institution. (When inmates transfer from one institution to another, they should be authorized to bring these devices with them.)
c. Bulletin boards. For each housing area at every institution, all non-routine announcements should be written up and placed on a bulletin board in day-spaces.
d. Auxiliary aid processes. KDOC should instruct each institution to implement an auxiliary aid evaluation/process, with the following characteristics:  An auxiliary aid evaluation should be conducted within 2 weeks—and ideally substantially sooner—of each deaf/HOH inmate’s arrival at an institution or identification as deaf/HOH.  The evaluation/process should be performed at a meeting between the inmate and the ADA Coordinator, so that the inmate learns who the ADA Coordinator is, and so that the inmate is given appropriate information about resources and services.  Effective communication should be provided at the meeting—meaning that an interpreter is necessary for any inmate who signs to communicate, and that for inmates who do not read, any documents should be fully explained using accessible language.  At the meeting, the inmate should be informed about all services/resources available—hearing aids, telephonic assistance, interpretation, captioning, etc. The brochure that has been developed for this should be kept on hand and distributed at the meeting. It should be updated whenever necessary, as new devices or new procedures come online.  Inmates should receive easy-to-provide resources no later than the meeting. For example, that’s when they can get bed cards, hard-of-hearing IDs, etc.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-1 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 4 of 4 - Page ID#: 2499
Criteria and a clear process should be developed for access to any limited resources (bed shakers, telephone amplifiers, etc.), and explained to the inmates.  Inmates should be informed at the meeting about a clear process for getting any additional auxiliary aids/assistance they need.
8. Inmate Handbook. KDOC should standardize the ADA notice in inmate handbooks, using text along the lines set out in the report this exhibit accompanies.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 1 of 13 - Page ID#: 2500
Exhibit 2: KDOC Responses, Nov. 14, 2019 & Dec. 17, 2019

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 2 of 13 - Page ID#: 2501

Matthew G. Bevin Governor
John C. Tilley Secretary

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Adult Institutions P.O. Box 2400
Frankfort, Kentucky 40602-2400 Phone: 502-564-2220 Fax: 502-564-3520

Kathleen M. Kenney Interim Commissioner
Randy White Deputy Commissioner

MEMORANDUM

To: From:

Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor-- Adams & Knights v. KDOC
Randy White ,K' ~ ~ /vJ'1-
Deputy Commissioner, Adult Institutions

Thru:

Kathleen M. Kenney Interim Commissioner

Date: November 14, 2019

Re :

Responses: Exhibit 1: Requested Action Item Report from KY DOC

The following are KY DOC responses to the system-wide recommendations made in your report:
1-New ADA coordinators-KY DOC should develop and implement an ADA Coordinator transition process, which should include processes for at least the following: Informing new ADA Coordinators about available resources Linking them to other facilities' ADA Coordinators Walking them through auxiliary aid, reporting and tracking processes Updating the recipients ofADA related emails (for example, automated transfer emails) Updating the KY DOC website list ofADA Coordinators

While the Kentucky Department of Corrections has established a primary ADA Coordinator and published the information to the inmate population, we will have each Warden establish a back-up ADA Coordinator at each facility by December 1, 2019. Each Warden will be instructed to advise Central Office, specifically the KY DOC Central office ADA Coordinator and the Director of Operations, of any changes of these two staff members. Having a primary and a backup will help alleviate a lapse in services to the inmate population who are deaf/hard of hearing.

Kentucky U nbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 3 of 13 - Page ID#: 2502
The ADA Coordinators, backup ADA coordinator and Wardens will be made aware of a folder on the Gdrive, labeled "ADA Coordinators". This folder will contain an updated list of all ADA Coordinators and backups, available resources, forms, etc. Until training materials can be updated into a Computer Based Training module, previous training that was conducted via power point, will also be available on the Gdrive.
The KY DOC website was updated on November 6, 2019 to reflect current ADA coordinators at each facility. The website will continue to list only the Primary ADA Coordinators.
2- Tracking, alerts, etc.
a) Someone at KY DOC Headquarters should check each and every inmate for whom there is a record of a hearing impairment and ensure that each of them is being appropriately tracked in KOMS.
A KOMS report run on November 7, 20f9, revealed that there are 886 inmates who have an ADA flag for deaf/hard of hearing. It would be labor intensive for one individual to check each and every inmate to ensure they are being appropriately tracked in KOMS . Therefore, the KY DOC Central office will have each facility's list sent to them to review the inmates housed in their facility . The review will be completed within 30 days.

b) Each HOH inmate must have an ADA alert, not (or not just) a general precaution. The transfer notification system needs to be tested and fixed.from KY DOC headquarters.

During the review noted above in 2 (a), the ADA coordinators will be advised to check that the ADA alert is shown in the KOMS header. In addition, the transfer notification system mentioned is already in place and is operational. However, it has been discovered that all of the Transfer Coordinators are not being consistent in scheduling transfers between institutions in the correct manner. To address the issue, all Transfer Coordinators and back-ups will be sent the instructions again on the proper way to schedule an inmate transfer in KOMS that will generate the notification. ADA Coordinators and backups will also be sent an example of what an ADA alert should look like when a transfer of an inmate occurs between facilities. The Director of Operations will work with the Classification Branch to have them provide additional training on this issue with the appropriate staff. It is noted that in exigent circumstances, an inmate may be transferred using the External Movement feature in KOMS, meaning that an ADA alert would not be generated. However, the Director of Operations is currently working with the Administrative Coordinator in the Office of Support services to prioritize a request that has already been submitted to Marquis to also generate the ADA alert for transfers completed with an External Movement.

c) Whether the information comes automatically to medical or is relayed by the ADA Coordinator, medical staff responsible for intake should be informed that a deaf/HOH inmate is incoming, so that they can ensure that audiology processes are not interrupted, deal with lost hearing aids, etc.

The institutional transfer coordinator should see the ADA alert in the KOMS header when they review incoming inmates transferring to their facility and then notify the institutional ADA coordinator and medical staff that the inmate will be arriving. In addition, our medical intake process covers asking the inmate upon initial assessment if they need assistance with any particular device. Should they need one,

Kentucky UnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 4 of 13 - Page ID#: 2503
an alert is placed in the electronic health record (ECW) of the inmate. It is also documented when the person has a hearing aid or other devices.
d) The ADA Coordinators should be polled to find out what information would be most useful in the ADA tab, and the KOMS record of each individual with an alert should then be completed accordingly.

The KY DOC Central office ADA Coordinator is polling the institutional ADA Coordinators to see what

additional information would be useful to them to have in the ADA tab. Once compiled, a review will be

conducted to determine what can be added and if there is a cost associated with making these changes in

the KOMS system. ·

·

·

·

e) KY DOC Headquarters should develop and promulgate a memo about how to run an ADA report, sharing it with each ADA Coordinator-and ensuring that it is shared with new ADA Coordinators as well.

The KY Department of Corrections KOMS team can automatically generate a report to be sent to each ADA Coordinator and backup coordinator that pertains to their respective facility . Due to the complexity of the process to extract data from KOMS to generate the report, we believe an instructional memorandum would not be productive. Accordingly, the KY DOC Central office will automatically generate an ADA report to all ADA coordinators and backups on a weekly basis.
3-Audiology standards. Providers at each institution should all receive a new memo with the correct standard, and the update should be emphasized in some kind of training or other communications. Providers at each institution should be trained about how to evaluate the need for binaural hearing aids, and should review recent requests for two hearing aids and evaluate them against the policy, with oversight from the regional medical director. Inmates who have hearing deficits in both ears should have the policy explained to them when they are denied binaural amplification, so that they can make an informed decision whether to grieve the denial.

All providers were trained in March 2019 on the KY DOC Hearing Loss Protocol, Evaluation and Management of Hearing Loss, Interpretation of Audiograms-Practice. In addition, providers have been instructed that any denials of a hearing aid are to be presented before the Therapeutic Level of Care committee (TLOC) for review and final determination. After the TLOC decision has been made, the inmate can grieve the decision if they do not agree, in accordance with CPP15.6.
4- Audiology services delays
a) KY DOC's medical provider should centralize a reporting system so that ifany inmate has not completed audiology processing in three months- from the first report ofa hearing problem to provision ofa hearing aid or other resolution- that is reported centrally and headquarters staff take a role in immediately solving the problem.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 5 of 13 - Page ID#: 2504
The Health Services Division reviewed 353 inmates from 1-4-2019 through 10-29-2029 with the findings as follows:
221 inmates were seen by medical providers and issues were resolved in 30 days or less. 118 inmates were seen by medical providers and issues were resolved 31-90 days. 14 inmates were seen by medical providers and issues were resolved anywhere from 98 -211 days. These are currently being reviewed further to determine the reasons it took longer than 90 days to resolve the issues. The Director of Operations will follow up with the Health Services Division within 30 days.
The Health Services Division is committed to have inmates seen and have issues resolved in 30 days or less. Anything that exceeds 30 days will be documented with explanation.
b) When inmates are transferred, there needs to be an instruction to BOTH the transferring and the new institution; the transferring institution should send a progress note for all inmates whose audiology evaluation/provision is in-process, and the new institution should do a thorough chart review for each inmates who might be HOH, to check for in-process audiology needs.

Each inmate who is transferred has a complete chart review by the medical staff to see if there are any outstanding issues that need to be resolved. Again, as stated above, the Health Services Division has reviewed those 221 inmate cases to ensure services are provided and issues resolved within the timeframes.
5) Request Forms-KY DOC headquarters staff should review all forms by which inmates make requests that lead to in-person meetings, and ensure that each one includes notice that communication assistance is available at such meetings. For medical forms in particular, whatever issue caused the reversion to the prior form that has taken place should be corrected. The interpretation services form should clearly encompass religious and other volunteer-provided programming, as well as all inmate-staff communications.

The KY DOC state ADA Coordinator is currently gathering all forms from each institutional ADA Coordinator by which inmates make requests that lead to in-person meetings. Once received, a meeting will be held to review all forms and ensure each one includes notice that communication assistance is available at such meetings, to include interpretation services for religious and other volunteer-provided programming. Once standardized forms are finalized, they will be placed on the G-drive and distributed to all ADA Coordinators, back-ups, and Wardens . The Health Services Division has indicated that medical forms are standardized in the Electronic Health Record.

6) Hearing aid loss on intra-prison moves and inter-prison transfers. "Adaptive equipment" should be added to the printed property list used to track property during moves, and staff should receive training that they must affirmatively Locate such equipment and manage it appropriately. For inter-prison transfers, the best policy would be to instruct inmates to wear their hearing aids during the transfer.

The KY DOC will add "adaptive equipment" to the printed property list outlined in Corrections Policy

and Procedure 17.1. This policy is currently under review and should be ready to implement any changes

to the property form within 90 days. Plans are also in place to move towards an electronic property forms

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

n~.etl,,WtLEOu111"1,rrr'~ Y

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 6 of 13 - Page ID#: 2505
process in KOMS in 2020. In addition, a memorandum can be distributed to advise how to properly handle inmate hearing aids and to practice the best policy of instructing the inmates to wear their hearing aids during the transfer instead of packing them in their property.
7) Auxiliary aids-
a) Particular devices:
KY DOC headquarters needs to solve the Purple phone outage problem so that videophone outages are both rare and short, or make a system wide switch to a more reliable phone provider. Each institution in which the videophone is widely visible to other inmates should install a curtain unless there is a significant security obstacle..

KY DOC polled the ADA Coordinators on November 4, -2019 to see if there were any Purple phone outage problems ongoing. All facilities reported no issues, except for the Kentucky State Reformatory and Lee Adjustment Center as of November 7, 2019.
The Kentucky State Reformatory's issue is not directly related to Purple, but is a sporadic issue with slight pixilation happening during the call. The Warden had the new switch installed on November 8, 2019. However, the new circuit installation could take up to 90 days, as we have to wait until AT&T fulfills the work order.
While the Lee Adjustment Center has three operational Purple kiosks, they have been having issues making the laptop operational. The issue surrounds the laptop not being a Core Civic device that cannot be connected to or used on the company computer network. However, they have been working with our contractor with Praeses to overcome this barrier. The estimated time of completion is no later than December 15, 2019 . The Director of Operations will follow up to ensure this issue is resolved.
Institutions will be asked to be mindful of placement of the videophones away from populated areas or provide a curtain, depending on the physical plant.

Portable phone amplifiers should be available at each institution: see, e-g. , http://ww11·.harriscom111.com/portable-telephone-amplifier.html

After consulting the institutional ADA coordinators, the following institutions have portable phone amplifiers available to the Deaf/HOH population: BCFC, EKCC, KSP, KSR (ordering additional to accommodate population), LLCC, NTC, RCC, KCIW, LSCC and WKCC.
The following institutions have ordered portable phone amplifiers and are awaiting receipt of items: GRCC, BCC. The Director of Operations will follow up with these facilities within 30 days to ensure the items were received.
The Lee Adjustment Center currently does not have any portable phone amplifiers and has had no requests from their HOH inmates. The Director of Operations will follow up with the facility within 30 days to ensure the items were ordered and received.
There should be a volume control phone in every grouping ofphones in every institution, including the phones used in restrictive housing.

Kentucky U nbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 7 of 13 - Page ID#: 2506
All prisons report having volume control phones available in all areas.
The following KY DOC prisons do not have restrictive housing-BCC, BCFC, and RCC.
The Kentucky State Reformatory recently moved their RHU and are currently modifying having a portable amplifier available. The Director of Operations will follow up with the Warden in 30 days to ensure this issue has been addressed.
Western Kentucky Correctional Complex's RHU has wall mounted speakerphones. Therefore, inmates who are Deaf/HOH, are allowed access to a phone in the interview room when phone calls are scheduled.
All other pris0ns have a volume control phone in RHU.

Captioned telephones should be made available in every institution, available at the same hours as a regular phone.
There are currently four institutions that are utilizing the captioned phones in their facilities -- EKCC, LSCC, KSP, and NTC. While the KY Department of Corrections believes that inmates who are deaf/HOH are having their needs met with volume-controlled phones, portable amplifiers, TTY, videophones-YR! and YRS, we will compile and share the information on how the other facilities can purchase and provide if needed.
KY DOC should look into acquiring specialized amplified phones

At this time, the KY Department of Corrections believes that inmates who are deaf/HOH are having their needs met with volume-controlled phones, portable amplifiers, TTY, videophones-YR! and YRS. No institutions have indicated that the population's needs are not being met via any of these methods.
It is noted that the RFP for the Inmate Telephone Contract is currently out for bid. The following language has been incorporated into the Inmate Telephone Contract to the awarded company to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements including, but not limited to, providing telephones which are accessible to: persons in wheelchairs, Telephone Devices for the Deaf (TDD), Video Relay Services, Video Relay Interpreter services, etc.
i. Vendor shall provide the number of TDDs and ports at the Facilities specified in
Attachment G - Facility Specifications.
ii. TDDs should be able to work with any inmate telephone at the Facilities. iii. Vendor shall record and monitor TDD calls via the ITS. iv. TDD calls shall not be charged by the Vendor.
At no cost to KYDOC, Vendor shall work with KYDOC' s assigned ADA Coordinator at each Facility to provide Video Relay Service (YRS) and Video Relay Interpreter (VRI) services. Any cost, including but not limited to the Federal Cost, associated with the VRS and VRI services shall be the responsibility of Vendor. Vendor shall contract with KYDOC' s preferred YRS and VRI provider to ensure complete compliance with Attachment H - ADA Settlement Agreement. KYDOC currently utilizes Purple Communications. All VRS and VRI sessions are to be recorded and provided to KYDOC upon request.

Kentucky U nbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 8 of 13 - Page ID#: 2507
v. Vendor shall supply KYDOC with the number of laptops specified in Attachment G-
Facility Specifications for the purpose of conducting YRS and VRI sessions. The laptops shall each include a 13" screen . All laptops provided by the Vendor shall comply with the Commonwealth IT and security standards and shall become the property of KYDOC upon expiration and/or termination of the Contract. vi. Vendor shall supply a wireless connection to allow for portability in which to conduct the YRS and VRI services.
At no cost to KYDOC, Vendor shall provide the number of YRS and VRI units detailed in Attachment G - Facility specifications. These units shall be dedicated to YRS and VRI services and accessible to the applicable inmates at any time.
In addition, a video visitation system is also a requirement in the Inmate Telephone contract and once the contract is awarded and implemented, this will give Deaf/HOH inmates more access to visually see their friends and family.
Each institution needs to work out and test a protocol by which 1TYs can be used-and then write that protocol into full instructions capable of being followed by someone show has never used a 1TY before.

All institutions report having a TTY available with the instructions placed with the device. Therefore, the KY DOC does not believe it is necessary to write out a separate protocol on how to use the TTY.

At every institution, assistive listening devices should be made readily available for religious, educational, and rehabilitative programming. The need is particularly urgent for Substance Abuse Programming, which many institutions conduct in extremely noisy and difficult locations.

The KY Department of Corrections is currently gathering information from GRCC, KCIW, KSP, KSR, LSCC, LLCC, NTC and WKCC who have some type of amplification units for programming, education, and religious services. Once the information is gathered, the information will be disseminated to the institutional ADA coordinators and Wardens. Once this has been accomplished the Director of Operations will follow up with each Warden to ensure assistive listening devices have been purchased and provided for these areas.

Many institutions now have non-auditory alerts available to notify deaf/HOH inmates who are in their beds, offires and the like. These are fine-but they do not meet the need for non-auditory announcements. They are mostly triggered only by fire alarms (not intercom announcements for chow, pill-call, count and the like.) And they work only for the small number of inmates who have them, and only when those inmates are in their beds. See 7.b, below, for additional need equipment.

b) Inmate purchases ofnon-auditory alarm devices (vibrating watches and alarm clocks). KY DOC headquarters should check with the institutions that have already piloted the devices about models and methods, and then should make them available for purchase by deaf/HOH inmates at every institution. (When inmates transfer from one institution to another, they should be authorized to bring these devices with them.)

KentuckyU nbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 9 of 13 - Page ID#: 2508

The KY DOC Central Office ADA Coordinator is currently obtaining a list of non-auditory alarms and gathering information of where these items were purchased. Once the list is compiled and reviewed, the information will be placed on the G-drive folder for ADA Coordinators to be able to review.

c) Bulletin boards: for each housing area at every institution, all non-routine announcements should be written up and placed on a bulletin board in day-spaces.

Institutions routinely post changes via memo on inmate bulletin boards within units. Several institutions also notify deaf/hard of hearing inmates by using inmate "runners" to notify them of necessary information. Those facilities that have the capability of having an institutional television channel use this to post memos or changes in schedule. One institution sends out information utilizing the JPAY kiosk system. The KY DOC Central office ADA coordinator will place a summary of this information on the G-drive to share additional ways to convey non-routine announcements in addition to posting on bulletin boards.

d) Auxiliary aid processes. KY DOC should instruct each institution to implement an auxiliary aid evaluation/process, with the following characteristics:
* An auxiliary aid evaluation should be conducted within 2 weeks- and ideally substantially sooner- of each deaf/HOH inmate's arrival at an institution or identification as deaf/HOH.
* The evaluation/process should be performed at a meeting between the inmate and the ADA coordinator, so that the inmate learns who the ADA Coordinator is, and so that the inmate is given appropriate information about resources and services.
* Effective communication should be provided at the meeting-meaning that an interpreter is necessary for any inmate who signs to communicate, and that for inmates who do not read, any documents should be fully explained using accessible language.
*At the meeting, the inmate should be informed about all services/resources available-hearing aids, telephonic assistance, interpretation, captioning, etc. The brochures that has been developed for this should be kept on hand and distributed at the meeting. It should be updated whenever necessary, as new devices or new procedures come online.
* Inmates should receive easy-to-provide resources no later than the meeting. For example, that's when they can get bed cards, hard-of-hearing IDs, etc. Criteria and a clear process should be developed for access to any limited resources (bed shakers, telephone amplifiers, etc.), and explained to the inmates.
* Inmates should be informed at the meeting about a clear process for getting any additional
auxiliary aids/assistance they need.

All KY DOC prisons currently hold Treatment Team meetings with key staff to review a variety of treatment plans for inmates. This could be a function of the weekly treatment team that includes the ADA coordinator. When an inmate who is deaf/HOH comes into the prison, the Health Service

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/C

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 10 of 13 - Page ID#: 2509
Administrator will notify the ADA coordinator. The treatment team can meet with inmate, introduce the ADA coordinator and provides information/interaction to discuss needs, access to resources, etc.
8) Inmate Handbook- KY DOC should standardize the ADA notice in inmate handbooks, using text along the lines set out in the report this exhibit accompanies.
The KY DOC Central Office ADA Coordinator is gathering information from the institutional ADA coordinators to see what language is currently being used in the inmate handbooks. Once the information is gathered, a meeting will be "held to standardize the ADA notice in the inmate handbooks. After the standardized language is determined, there will be a deadline of 60 days to have the institutional inmate handbook revisions completed and the Director of Operations will follow up will all facilities within 30 days to ensure updates were completed.

Kentucky UnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/[

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 11 of 13 - Page ID#: 2510

Andy Beshear Governor

JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY CABINET
Department of Corrections
P.O. Box 2400 Frankfort, Kentucky 40602
Phone(502)564-4726 Fax (502) 564-5037 www.kentucky.gov

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

MEMORANDUM

To: Margo Schlanger Settlement Monitor-Adams & Knights v. KDOC

From: RandyWhite ~ ~ u f ) ~

Thru:

Deputy Commissioner,~ t Institutions

~ µ ·~0 Kathleen M. Kenney

1

Interim Commissioner

-

Date: December 17, 2019

Re: Additional Responses: Exhibit 1: Requested Action Item Report from KY DOC

The following are KY DOC responses to your follow up items for the system-wide recommendations that were added by you on December 2nd and December 3rd.

Item 7-- "In any housing unit where it is practicable, KDOC should direct staff to flash the overhead lights to signal chow and pill-call.
It is important to note that all KY DOC facilities are not the same regarding construction and layout. Therefore, the Wardens must maintain the ability to put into practice a mechanism to communicate meal times and pill-call to the Deaf/HOH that work for their respective facilities.
Blackburn Correctional Complex, which is open dormitories, is the only KY DOC facility that flashes overhead lights to signal count times and pill call.
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex operates on controlled movement and has a green light that is turned on from the control cab in the HOH Walks of Dorm 3 C-Lower and A-Lower to signal for any movement, including meal times and pill call.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 12 of 13 - Page ID#: The Kentucky State Penitentiary is the maxim25u1m1security prison. They do not flash overhead lights for any reason. Pill call is conducted immediately following population let-out for GP and PC, and does not require an announcement. In RHU, pill call is conducted at the inmate's cell door, on a schedule. Meals are conducted on a published schedule for GP and PC. In the Restrictive Housing Unit, each tray slot is unlocked prior to serving meals, which serves as an indicator.
The Kentucky State Reformatory has areas where lighting is controlled from a circuit box, making this suggested practice a safety issue. However, they have assigned inmate runners who will alert a Deaf/HOH inmate of schedules. They also have pagers for the deaf/HOH inmates, however, they do not always alert inside the dormitories, due to the construction of those buildings.
The Bell County Forestry Camp is open dormitory and they hire ADA support inmates to advise Deaf/HOH inmates. In addition they recently began flashing the lights for meals and pill call.
The Green River Correctional Complex have the security staff go and advise Deaf/HOH inmates personally. In addition, the Warden is also having maintenance install flashing lights to communicate to deaf/HOH inmates.
The Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women issues a personal memo on when the inmate may to go to the dining room to eat and when to go to pill call. Any changes to any of the schedules are given to the Deaf/HOH by a staff member.
The Lee Adjustment Center has inmates assigned to assist the Deaf/HOH inmates by making sure they are aware of announcements made in the housing units for meal times, pill call, etc.
The Luther Luckett Correctional Complex has inmate aides that notify Deaf/HOH inmates in person or make notifications via messages on dry erase boards.
The Little Sandy Correctional Complex have "resident helpers" who are assigned to the Deaf/HOH inmates, who communicate announcements to them.
Northpoint Training Center is open dormitory and they have assigned inmate runners to notify inmates. Staff also go down the wings to ensure that Deaf/HOH inmates are aware of these times.
The Roederer Correctional Complex have ADA aides to notify Deaf/HOH inmates in the units if they are having a difficult time hearing announcements. Also, Units 1, 2, 4 and 5 are open dormitory so they can observe other inmates leaving in large groups for recreation, pill call, and meal times.
The Western Kentucky Correctional Complex is open dormitory. Recently, the Warden implemented the procedure where the Dorm Officer in each dorm will flash the lights on and off briefly three times at each announcement for that dorm's meal time and pillcall, as well as the five-minute warning for count and count time announcements over the PA system.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-2 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 13 of 13 - Page ID#: In addition, KDOC should direct implementatio2n5o1f2some kind ofpersonal notification to deaf/HOH inmates, so that they do not miss personal announcements (e.g., "John Smith, report to the Unit Administrator. ").
All institutions have mechanisms in place to address personal notification to Deaf/HOH inmates so they do not miss personal announcements.
The following KY DOC institutions utilize staff to notify Deaf/HOH inmates of personal announcements: EKCC, KCIW, KSP, KSR, LAC, RCC, WKCC, GRCC and BCC.
The following KY DOC institutions utilize other assigned inmates to notify Deaf/HOH inmates of personal announcements: LLCC, LSCC, NTC, BCFC,
On TTY access, I am nearly certain that not every institution has working TTY instructions. They have device instructions -- but those do not include how to set it up, get an outside line, etc. To ensure access, I will run a test, in January -- I will ask that a staff member who has never used a TTY before be handed the TTY and its instructions and (without assistance) use it call me at an arranged time. The instructions should be adequate to facilitate this.
On December 5, 2019, all KY DOC Wardens were advised, via email communication, that the settlement monitor would be contacting them sometime in January 2020 to run a test and that they should review the written instructions and run their own test in advance.
"KDOC should ensure that earphones are available in each prison, and also anywhere parole hearings are held-that is, in county jails. In addition, individuals who might need this equipment should be informed that it is available. "
The KY DOC will make earphones available in each prison. The KDOC, however, has no authority over the jails, and therefore no authority to mandate that jails provide earphones.
The DOC is a regulatory agency charged with enforcing the provisions of KRS 441.055 to 441.075, which includes compliance with KY Jail Standards outlined in 501 KAR Chapters 2, 3 7 and 13, the Department has no real enforcement mechanism available to compel compliance, other than removal of state inmates or closure of the entire facility, as outlined in KRS 441.075.
The KY DOC is happy to explain to our 76 full service jails the importance of providing the recommended headphones to any inmate who may need/request them. But, there really is no legal authority to compel compliance. The accommodation of inmates with disabilities is not included in KY Jail Standards, therefore not subject to the actions outlined in KRS 441.075. The KY DOC will propose adding language to the standards at the next Commission on Corrections.
If the Parole Board is conducting a hearing where the offender has a hearing deficit, the Parole Board would not proceed without appropriate accommodations. The Parole Board would advise KY DOC that services would need to be arranged for the offender to accommodate his/her hearing deficit. The arrangements would be made by DOC and the Board would proceed after verification that appropriate services are in place.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 1 of 52 - Page ID#: 2513
Exhibit 3: KDOC Institution Responses

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 2 of 52 - Page ID#: 2514

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 3 of 52 - Page ID#: 2515

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 4 of 52 - Page ID#: 2516
Exhibit: BCFC
Report
Response

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 5 of 52 - Page ID#: 2517

Kathleen Kenney
COMMISSIONER

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex 200 Road to Justice
West Liberty Kentucky 41472 (606) 743-2800
Fax (606) 743-2811

David Green
WARDEN

To: Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor
kw"' From: David Green, Warden 13#4,4
Date: October 22nd, 2019
Re: ADA Self-Audit Follow Up Responses
Areas of Concern: 1.)Update to the ADA Coordinator listing on the KY DOC Website has been requested. 2.)Mr. King has completed the computer based training and has inspected the documentation on the ADA
Google Drive. Please let us know if there is any training in addition to these. 3.)We are currently working with Medical to better facilitate audiology assessments. 4.) Audiology progress tracking is shared with Mr. King from Medical when new hearing aids are received.
Further updates are in progress. 5.) Devices:
a. Portable Phone Amplifiers — These are provided to any Inmate who requests them. Currently have 6 portable amplifiers issued out for inmates that requested them during auxiliary aid assessments.
b. Assistive listening is currently in the research stage to find a system that will work with our current equipment. Your recommendations on devices would be appreciated on this item.
c. Bed Shakers — EKCC currently has Bed Shakers in the ADA equipment inventory but no Inmates are currently issued one.
d. Earphones for Parole — We are going to order two sets of earphones within the next week for use during Parole Board hearings.
e. Volume Control phones — All Phones in use in the Inmate housing areas have volume control. Securus installed these after your last site visit.
Good Practices: 1.)Mr. King continues to walk the dorms each week to facilitate access for Deaf/HOH Inmates. 2.)The Non-Auditory alerts in Dorm 3, in the form of a green light, have been working well and are installed
on A-Lower wing and C-Lower wing.
Follow-ups: 1.) Inmate David Nichols does have a Pocket Talker issued to him from EKCC's Medical Department.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 6 of 52 - Page ID#: 2518
2.) Inmate Michael Simpson was issued a portable phone amplifier while he was housed at EKCC. Inmate Simpson was transferred to Lee Adjustment Center on 08/02/2019. Please note that while Inmate Simpson was housed at EKCC he primarily used the TTY device for his communications.
3.)EKCC has a CapTel model 840 installed in Dorm 3 where the Deaf/HOH walks are located. Robert Sneed used the CapTel while he was housed at EKCC and said it was a great tool for communication. Inmate Sneed was transferred to Western Kentucky Correctional Complex on 09/12/2019. The CapTel is located in the Core area of Dorm 3 next to the Videophone. We are still working with Securus to integrate the CapTel into their systems. I will attach a photo of the CapTel and location at the end of this document. Regarding Inmate Justice, I have no record of an Inmate Justice currently at EKCC that is considered HOH. Please provide additional information and we will investigate.
Devices currently in use at EKCC: 1.)Shake and Wake Watches — 25 issued currently 2.)Portable Phone Amplifiers — 6 issued currently 3.)Volume Control phones in all housing areas 4.)TTY device 5.)Videophone and VRI Laptop 6.)CapTel model 840
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact us.
Regards,

David Green, Warden

er mg, afety Coord.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 7 of 52 - Page ID#: 2519

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

Green River Correctional Complex 1200 River Road P.O. Box 9300
Central City, KY 42330-9300 www.corrections.ky.gov

To: Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor From: Bobbi Jo Butts, Deputy Warden ~ ~ ~ Re: ADA Draft Court Report Date: October 25, 2019

Kevin R. Mazza Warden

Green River Correctional Complex Specific Reply: Site Visit: July 30, 2019

Area of Concern: 1. The ADA Coordinator rarely receives automated email notices of transfer of deaf/HOH inmates to GRCC
o The ADA Coordinator does receive automated email when an ADA inmate is transferred to a different institution and when they arrive at GRCC from another institution.
2. Prior to my visit, the ADA Coordinator and medical staff were not routinely sharing information; there was insufficient communication regarding the identity of deaf/HOH inmates and of their progress through audiology processes. During the visit, a system was discussed that hopefully will solve the problem.
o Medical staff had not been receiving notification when an ADA Inmate was arriving from another institution. They are now receiving that information, communicate, and share information with the ADA Coordinator.
3. It seems that there are delays and other issues for inmates who need hearing aid parts - e.g., filters. Medical needs to work out (a) how to obtain these parts, and (b) how to make them easily available to inmates. n o Delays do occur for many various reasons; some out of the institutions control. Inmates notify the ADA Coordinator when they need parts ordered. The ADA Coordinator notifies medical by either phone or email of the need. Delays occur when inmates wait until they are completely out of supplies to notify ADA Coordinator, the medical department is out of stock and waiting on orders to arrive; just to list a few. Other delays may occur as with any ordering process. Inmates have been advised that if they are getting low to let Medical and/or the ADA coordinator know. Medical has been advised that supplies should be ordered immediately upon notification from the ADA or inmate.
4. The ADA Coordinator was not conducting auxiliary aid assessments, and not using the developed documentation explaining available services and resources. As a result, inmate are not getting items they need, such as deaf/HOH cell cards, IDs, and auxiliary aids.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirilcom

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/0

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 8 of 52 - Page ID#: 2520
o Upon arrival to GRCC, their assigned unit staff and the medical department see all inmates. During this orientation, both the unit staff and medical department advise inmates who the ADA Coordinator is. Since your visit, the ADA Coordinator now meets with the inmates and has them complete an intake form. The intake form will also be scanned into KOMS effective immediately.
5. It is unclear how GRCC will accommodate deaf inmates if there is a "whistle alarm" - a drill or actual incident in which inmates on the yard are instructed by a whistle to lie down on the ground. o If there is a whistle alarm and the inmates cannot hear it, somebody will let them know or they will see everyone getting on the ground. In addition, the inmates have their HOH ID that staff will see to let them know they need to assume compliance position.
Equipment/Devices: 1. GRCC was not making phone amplifiers available to inmates. o ADA Coordinator has been actively trying to locate phone amplifiers to place in each dorm. No ETA of purchasing equipment is available at this time. 2. GRCC had a PA system in the housing units, but often used bullhorns instead. These are very difficult for HOH inmates; the PA system is better, so it should be used. o All intercoms are in working order as of the typing of this report. Staff have been advised to utilize the PA system and that the bullhorns should only be utilized when the PA system is not functioning properly. Staff have also been advised that HOH inmates should be notified when the PA is not working. All HOH inmates have signs on their cell doors. 3. Inmates reported that they were not authorized to bring their own headphones or earbuds into the school building. That means that use of a pocket talker is unavailable. o HOH inmates may bring their headphones/earbuds to class. They must present their HOH ID in order for this to be allowed. 4. The SAP program has an FM assistive listening system, but had not yet used it. o The system still has not been used as of this report. 5. There was no captel. o Unsure of what this is referencing. 6. The TTY lacked instructions and I could not get it to work; directions need to be developed and then a test done where someone who has never used it before follows the directions and calls me. TTY to TTY and using a relay service to a regular phone. o There is a phone in Building D that can be utilized if needed. ADA Coordinator has placed step-by-step instructions to the TTY with it. A test will be conducted with you by COB 11 /01 /19. **Note** No one has asked to use the TTY since current ADA Coordinator has been the Coordinator 7. A test should be performed of the VRI and the videophone. o Either the ADA or Assistant ADA Coordinator completes tests each week. They will create a checklist to sign off on weekly. 8. Inmates were not authorized to purchase non-auditory watches/alarm clocks.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/0

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 9 of 52 - Page ID#: 2521

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

Green River Correctional Complex 1200 River Road P.O. Box 9300
Central City, KY 42330-9300 www.corrections.ky.gov

Kevin R. Mazza Warden

o ADA Coordinator has been actively searching for non-auditory watches/alarm clocks for the inmates to purchase.
9. Data provided on the self-audit did not always seem to be accurate. For example, not even one inmate was listed as having low literacy, which is implausible. o ADA Coordinator reports that the self-audit has been updated.
Audiology Services: 1. There seemed to be some confusion about the screening criteria for a medical provider audiology assessment. The written documentation stated that a "Yes" or "Sometimes" answer to one screening question requires follow-up; interviews of medical staff elicited a different answer. o GRCC provider is using the current standard for determining if an inmate requires further testing or hearing aids. o Medical staff assessments have been corrected. Refresher training has been provided to the medical staff to remind them if the answer is "yes" or "sometimes", the inmate is referred to the provider for further evaluation. 2. Inmates reported that obtaining necessary audiology equipment (e.g., hearing aid batteries, filters, and service) was time-consuming and sometimes impossible. o Typically, supplies are kept in stock. However, sometimes items are on back-order. The items are distributed as quickly as possible.

Follow-ups needed: ADA Coordinator responded via email on 10/24/1 9 to these follow-ups. 1. What happened with respect to Lester Cook and Mark Yarmey, and the hearing aid filters and other equipment they requested? o Both inmates received their filters for their hearing aids on 7/8/19. Mark Yarmey has hearing aids ordered. They will be sent to LLCC once they arrive. 2. Did William Poynter get an HOH ID? o Yes, he has a HOH ID 3. What's the name of the inmate in Dorm 3 who uses the videophone? o Nicholas Justice 284350 3BL19L 4. Does Jamiah Mayberry have a bed shaker? If not, why not? o He had one while he was at GRCC, but transferred to LLCC in November 2018. 5. Can you provide a filled-in VRI Log? o Last used 9/5/1 8 6. Can you check the volume control buttons on the phones work? o ADA Coordinator checked and confirmed that all volume control buttons are working.

Not noted on report:

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 10 of 52 - Page ID#: 2522
GRCC currently offers American Sign Language classes weekly to the inmate population. The classes are 1 hour each week and the program lasts 8 weeks.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 11 of 52 - Page ID#: 2523

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
KENTUCKY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN P.O. Box 337
Pewee Valley, Kentucky 40056 Telephone: (502) 241-8454

TO:

Margo Schlanger

Vanessa Kennedy Warden

FROM: Vanessa Kennedy, Warden Vanessa Kennedy

DATE: October 31, 2019

RE:

Reply to ADA Concerns

• The ADA Coordinator reports only partial compliance with regularly communicating with deaf inmates and ensuring effective communication for deaf inmates. No details are provided on the deficits. – The ADA coordinator will either meet or Jpay all the deaf/Hard of hearing inmates on a monthly basis to ensure all their needs and concerns are being met. • The videophone has experienced long outages. The VRI has also gone down—and was restored to operation only when a software update was reversed. The inmates have no concerns about the Purple phone they stated it works much better than the old one. • Devices:
o Phone amplifiers have been made available and are in each unit o No assistive listening. KCIW has pocket talkers. o KCIW does not have captel and does not plan getting one due to having the VRI, VRS, TTY, and the purple phone. • Non-auditory alerts not sufficient to signal count alert, not programmed to signal different alerts, not used to notify prison-wide events, and not used to notify Deaf / HoH inmates of events specific to them. At this time there are no plans to get any non auditory alert system. We have bed shakers, strobe lights for the fire alarms, and yard alarm for emergencies

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 12 of 52 - Page ID#: 2524
Exhibit: KSP

KSP (July 29 Site Visit) Warden: DeEdra Hart ADA Coordinator: Roger Mitchell

Report Response October 28, 2019

Areas of concern: • The audiology case list used by medical providers was incomplete. And audiology timeliness
was poor—the “order sheet” moving people along in the process would get lost. This problem was solved by Health Services Administrator Nancy Raines, who set up a tasking protocol using a function known as “L Jellybean.” Ms. Raines is retiring, though, and it is unclear whether the problem will stay solved once she is gone.
Ms. Raines replacement, Kristy Ponzetti, has immediately demonstrated proficiency and timeliness in the performance of all H.S.A. duties in regards to the protocol established by her predecessor, Raines.
• The ADA Coordinator had not received ADA Coordinator/Settlement Agreement training.
ADA Coordinator was not informed of subject training until receipt of your 10/23/19 report; ‘ADA Basic Building Blocks Course’ was completed, as it was noted in previous assessments and referenced in ADA Coordinator turnover. The Deputy Warden of Programs was aware of the training and protocols covered in the establishment of the ADA Coordinator billet, but not the ongoing subject training. All established protocols and actions implemented since establishment of the initial KSP ADA are maintained in a file location and a hard copy manual was available for review at the time of the onsite meeting.
• No auxiliary aid assessments/meetings were being performed. In their absence, there were several problems: o Inmates did not know who the ADA Coordinator is.
Memos are posted in Institutional bulletin boards (cell houses and common areas) that identify the ADA Coordinator. Made know to inmates during initial classification orientation as well.
o Inmates did not know what services etc. were available. (KSP has a brochure that explains what resources are available, but that brochure was not routinely shared with deaf/HOH inmates.)
Memos are posted on institutional bulletin boards (cell houses and common areas) that identify the available aids and services. The brochure is provided to all HOH inmates and additional copies are available in the Legal Office. Classification staff discuss services available upon institutional intake and upon request of the inmate.
o Inmates didn’t have bed cards, HOH IDs, and the like.
Bed cards are available and provided to all identified HoH inmates. Unit Administrators who oversee housing units check frequently upon making rounds that the cards are in use and visible. HoH inmates are offered ID cards and sign a form if they chose to waive the use of an ID card. No complaints regarding these issues have been noted by staff.
• There seemed not to be an adequate process for considering requests for reasonable modifications to existing policies, housing assignments, etc. For example, when inmates requested a cell move to a quieter housing area, that request seemed not to trigger consideration of the disability-related need.
No requests for modifications to existing policies have been received. Medical or Mental Health staff provide input to the classification staff is accepted if it relates to a disability. Upon intake to KSP, all

1

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 13 of 52 - Page ID#: 2525
inmates are reviewed and screened as required by CPP 18 and IPP 10-04-01 to identify special needs inmates. Housing determinations are made based upon an inmate special needs such as lower level floor or a bottom bunk. HoH inmate are considered to be housed closer to officer stations. Twice a year, according to policy, inmates are reviewed to address programming plans, current job, and housing assignments. Prior to each bi-annual meeting, inmates may make requests at any time via case management staff that are available every business day. All requests for housing assignment change are given fair and equal consideration.
MRT (Moral Reconation Therapy), a group class, took place in a space with significant hearing challenges, including a loud fan. Accommodations were scarce. Although it seems implausible, inmates report they aren’t aware of the possibility of moving up front. Consideration should be given to fixes: can the fan be moved? Can inmates be notified that they can move up front? Etc.
- The AC unit has been addressed by KSP Maintenance, alleviating any future use of a fan. - NOA Counseling has updated their Operations Facilitator Manual and Program Policies Manual
which directs MRT instructors to verbally and visually inform inmates to notify the instructor of any needs that they have that may impact their ability to hear, see or understand course material.
Auxiliary aids: o There was no assistive listening/amplification system available, although HOH inmates
expressed interest in using one, for example for MRT.
Pocket talkers (amplifiers) have been available, and portable amplifiers have been purchased. The KSP brochure lists aids available upon the inmate’s request. Staff are not aware of any HoH inmate requesting assistance with any classroom programs.
o Inmates were not aware of the possibility of using a pager on the yard—and it was not a great notification system, in any event. Some alternative process for notifying inmates of individual pages and the like was needed—in-person notifications, bulletin board postings, or something else.
Pagers have been in use by both GP and PC inmates for an extended period of time. In-person notifications are made as necessary, initiated by the Yard Office. Inmates at KSP are not allowed to “not report”; staff will contact the inmate paged in person as has been a longstanding security practice to account for location of inmates. Bulletin boards in all housing areas and common areas and the institutional TV also post update information.
o There were no portable phone amplifiers available.
This aid was not indicated as needed during previous reviews. Volume-assisted telephones are available. Four (4) of the portable phone amplifiers have been purchased and the HoH Orientation Brochure will be updated with this aid availability.
o Inmates were not given the opportunity to get vibrating watches or vibrating alarm clocks.
Inmates at KSP have been allowed these items for some time. Non-auditory alerts are covered in the Deaf/HOH brochure. There is no standing denial, as these devices present no security concern and may be ordered routinely by any inmate.
o Not all phone banks had a phone with a volume control.
There is at least one in each area of SSU, yard, 3 Cell House (CH), 4CH, 7CH, OSD, and 5CH 4th Floor transition walk. The HoH Brochure covers the availability of these phones.
2

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 14 of 52 - Page ID#: 2526
o As is true systemwide, the Purple videophone had not worked consistently.
The Purple videophone has been updated and is VRI capable.
• Inmate transfers into restrictive housing separated inmates from their hearing aids, with long delays for their restoration.
RHU staff have been reminded not to separate an inmate from their hearing devices, as these present no security concern. There has never been a directive since 2015 to remove any ADA aid upon entry into RHU. This will be reiterated at various monthly meetings. An inmate who does something destructive with a device such as self-harm with a pocket talker, will have the item removed until the behavior improves.
• There continued to be an issue with the availability/utilization of the laptop-provided video remote interpretation (VRI). During my visit, the VRI was not operational. A VRI test is needed, in several locations of the prison, including from restrictive housing.
The Purple videophone has been updated and is VRI capable.
• It was not clear how KSP will accommodate deaf inmates if there is a “whistle alarm”—a drill or actual incident in which inmates on the yard are instructed by a whistle to lie down on the ground.
Inmates will have a visual que by noticing the inmates around them lowering to the ground and are informed during orientation of this protocol. Staff will identify HOH inmates via HOH ID, and no penalty will occur. Any other medically documented physically barrier to this action will not result in a penalty against the inmate either. The purpose of this action is to improve sight assessment of a situation, so a few inmates hesitating will not delay or disrupt a response.
• It seemed that intercom announcements are not very accessible, because intercoms were difficult for HOH inmates to understand. There are announcements made via institutional tv channel, but of course this is no solution for inmates who don’t have televisions. Use of a bulletin board might ameliorate this problem.
There are bulletin boards in every cell house for posting of updated information and have always been used to convey information.
• It is not clear that hand-restraint protocols for inmates who sign are compliant with the Settlement Agreement.
Our staff receive annual training on communication with Deaf/HOH inmates (see attached PowerPoint – a “Read only” document). This class contains instruction on hand-restraint protocols. Additionally, our mandatory online training addresses hand-restraints for Deaf/HOH inmates.
• It was challenging to schedule confidential interviews between my assistant and inmates.
The contacts did not stipulate that interviews were to be confidential, otherwise, appropriate arrangements would have been made. Due to the custody level of this facility, security staff are present when non-DOC individuals interact with inmates. If a request had been made for privacy, there is a designated meeting area with windows, monitored externally by security staff that can safely meet the needs of the interviewer having a one-on-one interview.
3

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 15 of 52 - Page ID#: 2527
Good practices: • For inmates undergoing audiology testing who struggle to use a computer, appropriate
assistance was made available. • The availability of a Sorenson videophone meant that difficulties with the Purple videophone
mattered less (or not at all). • KSP has implemented a good Special Needs Referral Form.
Followups: • Billy Greer, DOC 262879: Mr. Greer encountered issues with being told he could not replace
the battery for the special headphones he got to use with his TV. Can you explain this to me?
I am not certain who he discussed replacing the battery for his headphones with, but there are no sick calls or medical correspondence in his chart for this issue that I can find. I will be happy to call him down to medical to have the batteries replaced in his headphones.
• David Hollon, DOC 122648: Mr. Hollon said he was persuaded to sign a refusal for hearing aids in return for the promise of additional hearing testing, which he never received. He believes that he is hearing impaired but does not have a hearing aid, sticker, ID, or any other accommodations. Can you send me his hearing records? When was he most recently tested?
Patient had been seen by ENT and diagnosed with Tinnitus, follow up hearing evaluation on 1/31/2018 resulted in the need for hearing aids, but the patient refused the hearing aids at that time. On 10/2018 Mr. Hollon again refused his hearing evaluation. This is not one, but two refusals for further testing and hearing aids. I have attached both signed refusals so that you can see exactly what he himself wrote on the forms as to why he refuses.
• Charles Hitzeman, DOC 186295: Can you send me his hearing testing records? Mr. Hitzeman also alleges he was denied a work assignment in the gym due to his hearing impairment. Is this accurate?
He was scheduled for a hearing evaluation on July 18th after his intake and he refused and then refused his hearing test on July 19, 2019. He has not had his hearing tested as he continues to refuse. Hitzeman was not denied a work assignment in the gym; hearing is not relevant to job duty or task for that area.
In RHU, how are inmates informed that it’s mealtime? If they get an announcement they need to hear, how are deaf/HOH inmates notified?
Tray slots are unlocked prior to the delivery of meal trays and occur at designated times. There are no unit/walk announcements outside of count time, CTO rounds, daily pill pass, and medical rounds. Each of the listed actions uses the HoH identity placard and staff take time to visually cue the offender to include opening the tray slot if need be. Pagers and shakers can be used if needed.
4

Exhibit: KSR Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 16 of 52 - Page ID#: 2528
Report Response October 28, 2019
KDOC should ensure that earphones are available in each prison, and also anywhere parole hearings are held—that is, in county jails. In addition, individuals who might need this equipment should be informed that it is available. We have had the volume-controlled headphones in place for a while now. They are located in the Control Center, which is right next to the Parole Board Room. (See attachment “Headphones”)The Control Center is open 24/7 so they are always accessible, and the Re-entry team, who is in charge of running the Parole Board hearings, has been trained on their appropriate use. A sign has been posted outside the Parole Board Room to notify inmates of availability, and the Re-entry team screens inmates going up for parole to see if they have hearing issues.
In any housing unit where it is practicable, KDOC should direct staff to flash the overhead lights to signal chow and pill-call. I conferenced with Major St. Clair, and he said that we could flash the lights in the dorms, but the lights would only blink in the hall. If someone is in their cell, they would not necessarily see the lights blink. In some areas, it would involve shutting the lights off at a breaker panel- obviously this would be a safety issue, as it would have to be an inmate job. At our facility, both events are at set times every day, so I feel like we that covered with the vibrating alarm watches/bed shakers and in-person alerts. (Attached is an example of a log sheet from our inmate ADA helper in one of the dorms- “In-Person Alert Log Sheet”. As you can see, the inmates let the helper know what event they are having an issue with, and he notifies them at that time.) Since the implementation of the in-person alerts and the watches, I have not received any complaints.
As with other facilities, KSR’s ADA Coordinator is not getting email alerts for transfers. To fill in the missing information, she has been checking the KOMS record for each inmate transferred to KSR. This is admirable but very inefficient. Hoping necessary adjustments are made to KOMS alert. I still contact the ADA Coordinator when an identified HOH/Deaf inmate transfers to their facility. I also let them know if an inmate who is in the process, but not yet identified, is coming their way. It would be helpful if we shared tracking information on transfers. For example, if I get an inmate who was identified 2 years ago, my medical contact has to dig for all that information that should be readily available on the sending institution’s bi-weekly report.
KSR had several portable phone amplifiers, but they are now missing; more should be ordered and tracked. I purchased one for RHU and it is now available to HOH inmates housed there. It is in a locked box for which the officer has a key (See attachment “Amplifier”). I have a sign by the phone that lets them know what options for are available (TTY, VRI, amplifier) and how access each accommodation (See attachment “RHU Phone Sign”). I have more on the way for CPTU and Nursing care. I want to make sure we have a system in place so that they do not go missing again- staff awareness, a central location and easy process for checkout. Once I see how well they are received, I can order more.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 17 of 52 - Page ID#: 2529
There is no Captel available, and there are several inmates for whom this would be a useful technology. I discussed this several months ago with our Warden and she approved the technology, but we did not move forward because there is confusion about the installation. When I contacted our IT supervisor again regarding the Captel, she reached out to our phone provider and this was the response:
“The response we received from Lamar our inmate phone provider “ Securus” said “ It does not work thru the Inmate Phone system. At Northpoint the Phones are being used as a better volume control phone but the captioning has to be turned off to make calls. The institutions that are getting them to work over Securus are using phones that have to be registered to an individual inmate and can’t be used by just anyone. The Captel phones that don’t have to be registered need to go thru a regular phone line to work. Lamar is still trying to find a system that does what we need and uses Securus to make the calls. He has more sites coming to him about this issue and he is trying to find an answer that will work for all of us.”
KSR owns FM transmitters for use in the chapel and in the Sexual Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) but has not actually used them yet. Stacy McClure in our SOTP Program used it with IM Hollern for class several times. She reported it worked very well and he was thankful it was there for him to use. I am ordering another transmitter for the classes over in CTPU.
As with other facilities, hearing aids have several times been lost during the transfer process. Our Property Sheet has included Hearing Aids for quite a while. Our Property officer is going to add pocket talker as well. (See attached “Property Form”) I think the key is training security staff to be aware of inmates who are HOH and ask. The inmates are listed in KOMS, they wear IDs and they have door signs. It would be great if officers took note of this and asked the offender:
• If he has a hearing aid/pocket talker (if it is obvious it is not with the offender). • Where it is, if it is not on their person. • Marked the Property Sheet appropriately.
By documenting, we clearly establish if the hearing aid was or was not present at the time of pack up.
For new hearing aids, it has been taking the provider, Audicus, up to 45 days to ship them. This is way too long. A couple of times recently, Audicus has shipped hearing aids to the wrong prison. I spoke with our HSA, Dawn Patterson, regarding this. The Hard of Hearing nurse contacted Audicus and it has not been an issue since. We have started sending all of the inmates who fail the hearing screen at their annual directly to the hearing booth which is run by the same team. Since we are bypassing the whisper test, it takes a load of appointment times off the providers, and has been allowing us to complete the process faster.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 18 of 52 - Page ID#: 2530
There was going to be a trial of the FM transmitter in some program (SOTP?) for Mr. Blevins. Please report back. Mr. Blevins received his hearing aid the day before he was to try out the system. He was excited that he could hear so well with his hearing aid and did not want to try the transmitter.
Please provide a photo of the HOH ID hanging behind a regular id, as described above. (See attachment “HOH ID”) The ID for those who use sign to communicate says so in the yellow on the front. On the back of the ID is the inmate’s name, DOC # and info on how to appropriately communicate with someone who is HOH or deaf. It also has my name so they can remember my name for contact purposes.
Please provide a photo of a dorm sign.
(See attachment “Dorm Sign”)
Please provide a photo of the temporary door sign used for HOH inmates when CPTU disallows ID.
(See attachment “Temporary HOH Door Sign”)- These can be used in CPTU or RHU. They have a plastic sleeve that stays on the door, and the sign itself slides in.
We also note HOH on the bed board. (See attachment-“CPTU Bed Board”). It is post orders to review the bed board when an officer takes over shift.

Please provide a PDF of the information brochure for deaf/HOH services.

(See

attachment “Deaf-HOH Brochure 2.0”)

Travis Lee 291278 (on your spreadsheet as over 3 months)- Most of his process was at LLCC. According to my records, he came to KSR on 6/7/19 and was issued an Audicus Clara hearing aid for his right ear on 6/18/19. IM Lee was discharged shortly after he got to KSR (7/10/19).
Arthur Canter 273016 (on your spreadsheet as over 3 months- IM Canter was in process when he transferred to us. His initial Audicus test that resulted in him being diagnosed with hearing loss was on 7/19/19 at WKCC. He was evaluated on 8/5/19 by the provider and Dr. Kemen approved a hearing aid on 8/26/19. He transferred to us on 9/11/19 and was issued the hearing aid on 10/1/19. I noticed his transfer and notified medical who called and had his hearing aid routed to us instead of WKCC.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 19 of 52 - Page ID#: 2531

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 20 of 52 - Page ID#: 2532

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 21 of 52 - Page ID#: 2533

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 22 of 52 - Page ID#: 2534

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 23 of 52 - Page ID#: 2535

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 24 of 52 - Page ID#: 2536

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 25 of 52 - Page ID#: 2537

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 26 of 52 - Page ID#: 2538

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 27 of 52 - Page ID#: 2539

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 28 of 52 - Page ID#: 2540

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 29 of 52 - Page ID#: 2541

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 30 of 52 - Page ID#: 2542

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 31 of 52 - Page ID#: 2543

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 32 of 52 - Page ID#: 2544

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 33 of 52 - Page ID#: 2545

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 34 of 52 - Page ID#: 2546

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 35 of 52 - Page ID#: 2547

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 36 of 52 - Page ID#: 2548

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 37 of 52 - Page ID#: 2549

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 38 of 52 - Page ID#: 2550

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 39 of 52 - Page ID#: 2551

Exhibit: LSCC Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 40 of 52 - Page ID#: 2552

Report Response

LSCC (August 1 site visit)

October 25, 2019

Warden: Keith Helton

ADA Coordinator: Rhonda May (At the time of site visit I was training as ADA Coordinator)

Areas of concern

• The new ADA Coordinator has not done ADA Coordinator training. This has been completed.
• The KDOC website listing of the ADA Coordinator is out of date. An email was sent on Thursday 9/12/19 at 3:11 p.m. for update request (See attached email).
• The self-audit information is incomplete. Could you provide me with information how you would like this completed?

Devices:

• Intercoms were not in use. Officers use the intercom for individual cells, allcall for the yard & buildings on a daily basis.
• No captel was available. CapTel is now installed and available to HOH inmates.
• No assistive listening system was in place outside of the chapel—it is particularly needed in SAP (see below). SAP classes will now be in classrooms starting Monday, 10/28/19. All HOH inmates will be in 1 classroom with an amplifier.
• Inmates are not allowed to buy vibrating watches. Any inmate who wishes to purchase a vibrating watch must submit a request in writing to the Warden and ADA Coordinator and it is approved on an individual basis.
• As elsewhere, Purple phones have long and numerous outages. Anytime the purple phone is not working our IT department is notified about the issue.
• VRI: It was not clear how the VRI laptop would be used in the academic building, given the configuration of power and internet access. Also, staff familiarity with VRI seemed low, particularly in medical. There seemed to be no routine software updates to the VRI laptop. The classrooms in academics are set up for power and internet access. The Director of Nursing is in the process of getting all nurses trained on the VRI. All computer OS updates are performed by Commonwealth of Technology.
• There were no TTY instructions, even though I pointed out this absence during a prior site visit. TTY instructions are with the phone. Memo issued about usage (See attached memo).

The auxiliary aid process is not adequate:

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 41 of 52 - Page ID#: 2553
• Not everyone was in KOMS. This has been corrected. • When audiology testing found an inmate who is deaf or HOH, no
notice was provided to the ADA Coordinator, and therefore no nonaudiology services were being provided. Medical sends an updated Audicus/Hearing aid list to ADA Coordinator. • Not all inmates had HOH card. Inmates are not required to have the HOH card. All inmates who have requested a HOH card have been given one. • There was no consideration of specific housing assignment to minimize communication difficulties. All of our General Population dorms are the same. Inmates can request to be moved closer to the officer’s cab for accommodation. • SAP was incredibly noisy; besides assistive listening, other quieting techniques should be considered. Anyone who is HOH will now be in the unit classroom. Additionally another classroom in Academics has been allocated for SAP use. There will be an amplifier system in use. • The ice machine was extremely loud. Can it be moved or dampened? Due to the design of the institution when it was constructed, there is no other location to move the ice machine where it will have access to the drain, electric, and proper ventilation. • On my last visit, over a year ago, SAP personnel agreed to try an assistive listening device, but they did not follow through, and on this last visit, they did not agree. This is urgently needed. Please see SAP information above. • There was no volume adjustment button on any telephone in the SAP area. Maintenance is currently working on the phones in SAP to fix this issue. • Other measures should be considered as well. More explanation for this concern is needed. • Hearing aids were frequently lost on transfer into RHU. The procedure for handling hearing aids upon entrance to RHU is reviewed on a regular basis and is handled immediately when an issue is found.
Audiology:
• As in other facilities, when an inmate is transferred to LSCC while still in-process for audiology services, there was no working system to ensure that the process continues. There was no hearing screening on transfer, and chart reviews have been insufficient to catch such inmates. The Health Service Administrator is in the process of trying to review all transfers to check their hearing screenings.
• KDOC policy provides for hearing screening that leads to a medical provider visit, if one or more of the screening questions leads to an answer of “yes” or “sometimes.” But at LSCC, only three or more such answers are leading to the next stage of the process. The medical department has been going by the one “yes” or “sometimes” since it was changed.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 42 of 52 - Page ID#: 2554
• Medical staff tracking of audiology services has not been appropriate; the tracking methodology was not working. During my visit, we discussed alternative approaches to solve this. The audiology tracker needs to be updated frequently, not only after hearing aids are provided. Medical now has a spreadsheet to track audiology that they keep updated (See attached spreadsheet).
Good practices
• The chapel uses an FM assistive listening system, obtained from the church technology catalog www.kingdom.com.
• Used VRI for a program (note: ADA Coordinator should have but did not evaluate whether this was effective, and if not, should have consider a live interpreter)
• The Warden and ADA Coordinator conducted appropriately individualized review of possibility of direct threat in a job placement.
Follow-ups:
• Does I/M Jeston Murray have or need a pager? If Inmate Murray would like to request a pager it will be reviewed but to date he has made no request.
• Is there consideration of a captel for I/M Justice? Inmate Justice no longer resides at LSCC. The CapTel phone is now installed and available.
• Are non-auditory alarm clocks available for HOH inmates? If so, how do they get access? Yes, they are available. They can request one at any time with the ADA Coordinator.
• Has Kevin Dye been provided access? Yes Inmate Dye has received an alarm clock.
• Can you provide the specs for the assistive listening system? No purchase has been made for an assistive listening system to date.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 43 of 52 - Page ID#: 2555

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 44 of 52 - Page ID#: 2556

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 45 of 52 - Page ID#: 2557

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 46 of 52 - Page ID#: 2558

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 47 of 52 - Page ID#: 2559

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Northpoint Training Center P.O. Box 479
Burgin, Kentucky 40310 Telephone: (859) 239-7012

Brad Adams Warden

To: From: Subject: Date:

Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor Brad Adams, Warden Response to Areas of Concern October 28, 2019

1) The self-audit is incomplete.
ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker updated the self-audit tool and filled in all missing areas. ADA Coordinator will submit the self-audit tool to Settlement Monitor Margo Schlanger by close of business on October 28, 2019.
2) KOMS notifications are not occurring when deaf/HOH inmates arrive.
Central Office updated ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker and Administrative Section Supervisor Jessica Payton’s KOMS profiles on October 23, 2019 to allow correct ADA access and to receive notifications of deaf/HOH inmates arriving.
3) The notices outside of the housing units do not include a picture of the ID card.
ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker created the signs to hang with the picture of the ID card. She is working with Maintenance Branch Manager Kelvin Hundley to get them hung up in each housing area. Mr. Hundley ordered the materials needed to complete the project. The projected completion date is November 15, 2019.
4) Only partial compliance with instructions for the use of all auxiliary aids/services being shared with staff.
ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker ensured all instructions for use of all auxiliary aids/services are posted with the aids/services. In addition, the PowerPoint training material will be sent out quarterly for staff to review. The PowerPoint is also available on the NTC share drive.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 48 of 52 - Page ID#: 2560
5) Many of the training requirements are marked as only “partially compliant” though no details are provided. ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker updated the self-audit tool to reflect compliance with training requirements accurately and to provide any missing details. Ms. Baker will submit the self-audit tool to Settlement Monitor Margo Schlanger by close of business on October 28, 2019.

6) Devices: x x x x

Some issues using VRS when the videophone is out of service. TTY stored in office, rather than made accessible to inmates. No captel is available. Apparently the VRI laptop was non-functional at some point.

IT moved the VRS from the Legal Library to the ADA Coordinator’s office so that it can be utilized when the videophone is out of service. There are two Captel phones available at NTC, one on Dorm 2 and one on Dorm 6. The VRI laptop is functional and the ADA Coordinator is unaware of when it was non-functional. However, all staff at NTC were notified on 10/21/19 to make ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker, Administrative Section Supervisor Jessica Payton, and Deputy Warden Shea Carlson aware when any ADA equipment is out of order.

The TTY phone is currently stored in the Unit Administrator’s office and inmates must ask to use it. At this time, there is not a secure area for the phone to be placed that is accessible to inmates without them asking for it. The phone must be plugged into a phone line, which allows them to call areas throughout the institution.

7) No VRI Log is available.

ADA Coordinator Jennifer Baker located the VRI log. New sheets were put into the folder and staff were notified to have it completed each the VRI was utilized by a Hard of Hearing inmate.

8) VRS is not being used to substitute for the videophone when the videophone is out.

IT moved the VRS from the Legal Library to the ADA Coordinator’s office. It is now being used as a substitute for when the videophone is out.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 49 of 52 - Page ID#: 2561

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 50 of 52 - Page ID#: 2562

Kathleen M. Kenney Commissioner

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Western Kentucky Correctional Complex 374 New Bethel Road
Fredonia, Kentucky 42411 Phone: 270-388-9781

TO:

Margo Schlanger, Settlement Monitor

FROM:

UAI Jacob Bruce, ADA Coordinator

THRU:

Timothy W. Lane, Warden

SUBJ:

ADA Court Draft Response

DATE:

October 25, 2019

Timothy W. Lane Warden

Western Kentucky Correctional Complex/Ross-Cash Specific Reply: Site Visit: July 29, 2019

Area of Concern: • Audiology – 1. Continuality of Services upon transfer – Process continues to improve as KOMS alerts are properly utilized. Communication with medical department continues to improve. 2. Verified that the provider is using the correct standards for determining if an inmate is eligible for hearing aids • Auxiliary aid assessments – since site visit each inmate is seen within two weeks of arrival or notice from medical that the inmate is HOH. • A shared folder on H drive for ADA needs is being utilized and has streamlined the process. • WKCC was tasked with piloting the assistive FM transmitter with the SAP program. We are currently using a transmitter that we currently possess in the classroom before purchasing another transmitter for this area. Responsible party is ADA Coordinator Jacob Bruce. Purchase order has been submitted for new equipment. New equipment should be in use no later than November 30, 2019. • Amplifiers have yet to be checked out by HOH inmates, but they are aware that they exist. Notice concerning this device remains posted in the dorms on the bulletin boards and in the phone areas. • The misplaced TTY device was stored in a filing cabinet in the Ross-Cash unit supervisor’s office; it remains stored in that location, with instructions in the box with the device. The location has been added to the ADA handout for future reference.
Follow-up Requested: • TTY Instructions were resent to monitor. • Arthur Canter’s hearing aid status – inmate had been shipped to KSR on 9/11/19 for medical treatment, his hearing aids were shipped to KSR when they came in. Update on inmate status sent to monitor on 10/15/19.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 51 of 52 - Page ID#: 2563
Systemwide Issue Notes:
1. New ADA Coordinators – Current ADA Coordinator has been the ADA Coordinator since Feb 2017; back up coordinator was the previously assigned ADA Coordinator. The DOC website correctly displays the correct ADA Coordinator information. ADA Coordinators and Deputy Warden has access to the ADA materials provided in the ADA folder and the information that has been provided there.
2. Inmate tracking, transfer alerts, etc. a) KOMS has gotten better about sending the notice like it should, and have not noted any recent deficiencies in this area. b) When an inmate is identified as HOH WKCC, the ADA Coordinator places the ADA alert using method B. c) Medical staff are doing well in notifying the ADA Coordinator with new HOH inmate in a timely manner. d) The alert is manually updated to include information about what accommodations have been provided to each inmate. e) Reports – Information on KOMS function would be helpful.
3. Audiology Standards – • WKCC provider is using the current standard for determining if an inmate requires hearing aids. • WKCC provider is aware that two hearing aides are to be ordered if indicated.
4. Audiology Service Delays – During the site visit, the monitor complimented us on our timely dealings about audiology, with only a few exceptions. At that time, we only had two during the review period that had exceeded the 60-day window and that was by only two weeks. Of the four that WKCC/Ross-Cash has in process, NONE has exceeded sixty days.
5. Request forms – The forms noted in this section are mostly generated through KOMS and cannot be changed locally. A review of any internal notices or forms is being repeated in an attempt to identify any that may be edited.
6. Hearing aid loss on moves/transfers – WKCC has no documented occurrences of separation of inmate from hearing aid.
7. Auxiliary Aids • Videophones – Our videophones are operational. We currently do not have any inmate who is deaf and signs to communicate. • Portable phone amplifiers – these are available for inmates to check out from Operations (compound) or their dorm officer (Ross-Cash) • Captel device –Being considered. • Amplified phones – unsure at present if these devices would be necessary, with the current volume-adjusted phones and portable amplifiers. • Phone volume control – WKCC has ensured that all phone banks at the institution contain at least one volume-controlled phone for inmate use. • TTYs – Currently have one TTY device on compound in the Yard Office, and one device in the Ross-Cash Unit Supervisor’s office. • Assistive listening systems – WKCC currently assistive listening systems in the dorms for dayroom televisions. The chaplain uses the system for religious services. A current project is to pilot the assistive listening system in SAP. • Earphones- WKCC was noted as compliant. • Non-auditory alerts – Reviewing Current Processes.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-3 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 52 of 52 - Page ID#: 2564
• Purchase of non-auditory devices – WKCC has a catalog for inmate review to purchase approved
items. • Bulletin Boards- WKCC utilizes locked bulletin in every general population housing area and many
common areas for inmate communication. • Aux. aid process – Since site visit, each new arrival at WKCC is seen within two weeks of arrival or
notice from medical that the inmate is HOH. • Inmate Handbook – WKCC language is very similar which is compliant; however, the text
provided will be placed in the inmate handbook upon the next revision.

KentuckyUnbridledSpirit.com

An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/D

 Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 1 of 661 - Page ID#: 2565
Exbibit 4: KDOC Self-Audit Spreadsheets

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 2 of 661 - Page ID#: 2566
Blackburn Correctional Complex

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 3 of 661 - Page ID#:

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2567

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

A ADA coordinator
Both 1 Is an ADA coordinator designated? Has there been a time (since last audit) when there was no ADA coordinator
Both 2 appointed? Is correct ADA coordinator on KyDOC
Both 3 website? Is ADA coordinator info shared w/ affected
Both 4 inmates?

Christy Peach

C

C No

C

Yes

C

Yes

Was the ADA coordinator information shared with inmates in a timely and Both 5 appropriate manner? How?

upon arrival they are medically evaluated

to include hearing - the assessed by the

C

coordinator within 24-72 hours (allowing

for weekends/holidays)

Yes

Are inmates aware of ADA coordinator information? (THIS REQUIRES ASKING A Both 6 SAMPLE) Is the information prominently posted in any housing unit where deaf/HOH inmates Both 7 are held?
Both 8 Did the ADA coordinator receive training?
Both 9 Describe training Is training's length/method sufficient to
Both 10 adequately cover information? Adequate w/r/t federal law? (Online ADA
Both 11 training) Both 12 Adequate w/r/t state law?
Adequate w/r/t agreement? (Settlement Both 13 monitor's powerpoint)
Does ADA coordinator possess familiarity Both 14 with settlement agreement?
Does ADA coordinator retrieve at least monthly reports on KOMS/medical records Both 15 of deaf inmates?
Are additional inmates added to the Both 16 coordinator's tracking list?
Has the ADA coordinator assisted appropriately in implementing the Both 17 settlement? Is (s)he available to assist in Both 18 accommodating deaf inmates?

Describe method used to

ascertain:Inmate

was asked if he

knew the ADA Coordinator and if he had

C

been assesed by the Coordinator. He

replied to both yes, Christy Peach and yes

C Yes-Outside of the Dorm and the Bay

Training at KSR 2016

C

Describe: very informative. The ADA

Coordinator there shared all of

information and forms complete with

examples

NA

Yes

C

C C C

C

inmates are added to the list upon

arrival at the institution or upon

C

diagnosis of HOH/Deaf

Yes,

C Yes

C

Yes

Does (s)he regularly communicate with or Both 19 check on deaf inmates?

I frequently visit the Dorm and talk with

the Deaf / HOH inmates to see how they

C

are doing (giving them an opportunity to

express any issues they may have)

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 4 of 661 - Page ID#:

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2568

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Does (s)he ensure Effective Communication Both 20 for the inmates in those situations?
Does (s)he communicate in a timely and Both 21 effective way with the monitor?

Yes, there has only been one event that it

was needed. It was during an adjustment

hearing. The inmate was offered an

interpreter even though he does not sign.

He refused, signed a waiver and asked

that the ADA Coordinator sit in on the

adjustment hearing. I agreed and he

continued to say that he could not hear.

The ADA Coordinator offered to type

every word being said and show it to him.

He agreed and I did so. The inmate was

C

satisfied and effective communication

was accomplished. **several people

wispered to him and he answered. It was

deteremined by the ADA Coordinator and

all involved that the inmate was

attempting to manipulate the situation

by pretending to not understand slow

clear presice communication by all

involved. This inmate was transferred to

another facilty and has not had any more

communication issues since.**

C

Does (s)he facilitate inmate communication Both 22 with the monitor when necessary?
Both B Reporting obligations
If there was any change in ADA Both 1 coordinator, was monitor notified?
Does the ADA coordinator maintain a list of Both 2 deaf and HOH inmates? Both 3 Is the list complete? Both 4 Has it been shared in a timely manner?

C

C

No Change

C

Yes

C

Yes

C

Yes

Quarterly summary of all grievances by Both 5 deaf or HOH inmates shared with monitor?

Grievances are being sent to the ADA

C

Coordinator Qtrly.

Was there a direct threat determination made for jobs, activities, etc.? Both 6 (Y/N/describe) Both 7 Was it reported to the monitor? Both 8 Was the report complete? Both 9 Was the report timely? Did the institution consider any nonBoth 10 auditory alert? Both 11 If yes, was the monitor notified?

Describe:Only one determined in 2016

which included heavy traffic details. Each

inmate is assessed individually to ensure

proper determination.

NA

C

Yes

C

Yes

C

Yes

NA

No

C

N/A

Did the institution consult with the monitor Both 12 about the non-auditory alert?

Yes - Dorm Officers are flashing the bay

C

lights to signify count time and pill call.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 5 of 661 - Page ID#:

Deaf

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2569

/HO H or both

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

? # Issue/Question

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Adjustment in timing for phones: Both 13 Communicated?

During assesment - if determined by the

ADA Coordinator to be able to use the

phones - yes it is communicated and

C

explained

Both C Intake/Orientation - Corrections

HOH 1 Hard of hearing inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone
HOH 2 HOH is arriving?
Describe (The ADA Coordinator should HOH 3 receive automatic notifications.)

NA

C

Yes

Describe:There is an automatic email

generated by KOMs sent to the ADA

Coordinator

NA

Effective communications

HOH 4 planned/provided? (Describe)

Deaf

Deaf inmates

Adequate process for knowing if someone Deaf 5 deaf is arriving?

Deaf 6 Describe Deaf 7 Effective communications planning?

Describe:The automatic email contains

the inmates name and DOC number.

NA

Yes

Email is generated as soon as the transfer

is scheduled. Which is within 24 hours of

C

arrival

Describe:Medical notifies the ADA

Coordinator by email and phone call

upon diagnosis. All incoming inmates are

assessed by medical upon arrival.

NA

All medical staff have been notified and

are aware they need to contact the ADA

C

Coordinator.

Deaf 8 Effective communication provided?

Yes medical staff have been emailing /

calling. BCC has only had 2 deaf inmates

one could sign and one could not but

both their chosen method of

C

communication was spoken. Both of

them have either paroled or transferred

to a halfway house.

Deaf 9 Describe

Describe: Medical staff have been

emailing and calling the ADA

Coordinator. However BCC does not have

any Deaf inmates - BCC has only had 2

deaf inmates one could sign and one

could not but both their chosen method

of communication was spoken. Both of

them have either paroled or transferred

to a halfway house.

NA

Deaf 10 Use of VRI interpreter when needed? Deaf 11 Use of in-person interpreter when needed?

The VRI interpreter has not been needed.

(None of BCC inamates are Deaf. None of

C

BCC inmates know sign language.)

The in person interpreter has not been

needed. (None of BCC inamates are Deaf.

None of BCC inmates know sign

C

language.)

No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 6 of 661 - Page ID#:

Deaf

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2570

/HO H or both

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

? # Issue/Question

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Both

Orientation videos

Both 12 Captioned?

Both 13 Shown in a quiet space? Both 14 Amplification if needed?

The orientation for BCC is both a staff member talking with a powerpoint presentation. Yes Orientation is held either in the multipurpose room of the chapel or in the UA's office one on one. No amplification has been needed. Describe: yes Orientation/ handbook/

NA C
C C

Yes No basis for evaluation

Accommodation for deaf/HOH inmates who Both 15 are not literate? (Describe)

rules and anything else is being read to

the inmate in a office setting where all

background noise has been held to a

C

minimum by staff members or education

staff.

Both D Medical care: intake, care more generally, audiology services

Effective Communication during general

medical intake, and during medical care

NA

Both

more generally:

Both 1 Is there effective communications planning?

Does medical staff ask inmates who have

difficulty hearing if interpretation is

Both 2 needed?

Are pocket amplifiers on hand at medical

Both 3 office?

Are staff aware of, and use, effective

Both 4 communications techniques?

Both

Notice to medical staff:

Do medical staff know deaf or HOH status?

Both 5 How?

Medical file identifies individuals as

Both 6 deaf/HOH on cover and within the file?

Off-site medical: Provision of appropriate

Deaf 7 accommodations.

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

NA

C

YES

C

YES

NA

Knowledegable about obligation to alert offDeaf 8 site providers of need for interpretation? Deaf 9 Procedure in place to ensure notification?

Has there ever been a notification to provider?
Deaf 10 Deaf 11 Adequate notice?
Outside providers offering effective Deaf 12 communication to inmates who sign?

How?

Deaf 13

Both

Hearing screening/medical intake:

Both 14 Performed for all new inmates?

Both 15 Within first 3 days at institution?

C

YES

C

YES

Describe: Provider reviews audiology

report and order hearing aids if qualified.

Once ordered, the scheduler is cosigned

NA

to order to assure they will be arriving

onsite.

C

YES

C

YES

Describe: Given ample time of notice

prior to the appointment a translator will NA

be attend the appointment.

NA

C

YES

C

YES

Both 16 Approved screening form? (need to review)

C

YES

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 7 of 661 - Page ID#:

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2571

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Asks about functionality of current hearing Both 17 aid?
Hearing questions come at start of medical Both 18 intake?
How? Do inmates fill out the form or is it Both 19 administered by staff?
Which staff is responsible? (best practice is Both 20 medical)
Conducted with awareness of possible low Both 21 literacy?
Accommodations for low literacy? Describe. Both 22

C

YES

C

YES

Describe: Form is administered by staff, asks patient the questions

NA

Describe: Medical

NA

C

YES

Describe: Staff can assist with reading or

writing, and also refer to education for

C

YES

assistance

Both 23 Medical history includes hearing questions?

Both

Other methods of access:

Do annual/routine physicals include hearing

Both 24 screening?

Staff/ADA Cooardinator can refer for

Both 25 screening?

Both 26 Inmate can obtain screening on request?

If screening indicated problem (3+ "yes"

Both 27 answers), is there further assessment?

Adequate determination of need for

Both 28 designation/ audiology services? How?

Is further assessment timely (within several

Both 29 days)?

Separate determination of whether inmate

is deaf or HOH, apart from audiology

Both 30 services decision?

Both

After assessment, does medical:

Both 31 Note deaf or HOH status in ECW as alert?

Is the notice immediately obvious in

Both 32 electronic file?

Both 33 Notify ADA coordinator?

Both 34 Is notification prompt?

Audiology services/processes (See also

HOH

Audiology Checklist)

HOH 35 Audiology services offered when needed?

HOH 36 Timely? (60 days if no obstacles)

Amplifier offered while waiting for hearing

HOH 37 aid?

Adequate addressing of obstacles to

HOH 38 services

Hearing aid provided when medically

HOH 39 appropriate?

Adequate progress tracking? Should

HOH

include:

HOH 40 initial request/questionnaire?

HOH 41 each relevant medical visit?

HOH 42 any audiology visit?

HOH 43 hearing aid provision?

Audiology progress chart updated every 1-2

HOH 44 weeks?

HOH 45 Shared with ADA Coordinator?

C

YES

NA

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

NA

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

NA

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

NA

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 8 of 661 - Page ID#:

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2572

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

HOH 46 Shared with monitor when requested Summary

When nothing unusual happens, how many off-site trips does it take for an inmate to receive a hearing aid? Describe.
47 In the past year, how many individuals have had to wait more than sixty days to receive
48 a hearing aid?

49 What is the cause of the delay?

What steps is your institution taking (or has

50 it taken) to improve this process?

HOH

Co-pay and availability issues:

Charged only once -- not again for

HOH 47 followups

HOH

Hearing aid batteries

HOH 48 Available for free?

HOH 49 In sufficient numbers?

HOH 50 7 days/week?

HOH 51 regardless of housing?

C

YES

Describe: Audiology testing is now done

onsite in 4 visits. Sick call, refer to

provider, take onsite audiology test, follow up with provider to see if the

NA

patient qualifies, and orders hearing

device.

Describe: 1

NA

Describe: Repeated Audiology exams results inconsistant.

NA

Describe: institution orders the hearing

aids and they arrive from audicus

NA

typically in 2 weeks.

NA

C

YES

?

NA

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

C

YES

Both E Information provided inmates
Both 1 Provided at intake/orientation? (Describe) Inmate handbook adequately refers to non-
Both 2 discrimination and ADA services?

Both

Brochure? Items to include:

Both 3 Non-discrimination obligation
Both 4 Effective communication obligation Both 5 Auxiliary aids and services available
How to obtain, request, and use all aids/services (including hearing aids, and Both 6 batteries)

Describe: Information is handed out

during assessment after the medical

C

exam within 24-72 hours of arrival

C

Yes

Yes there is a brochure that was provived

to us by the settlement monitor and has

only been motified to include the name

of the institution and a picture of the

purple id card

NA

Yes there is a brochure that was provived

to us by the settlement monitor and has

only been motified to include the name

C

of the institution and a picture of the

purple id card

Yes The inmates are told during

assessment about the ADA and effective

C

communication

Yes

C

Hearing aides and batteries are aquired

C

thru medical

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 9 of 661 - Page ID#:

Audit item questions/concerns (note

2573

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Communication equipment available, and Both 7 how to use

Both 8 ADA coordinator and how to reach

Both

Other items:

Both 9 Institution schedule of interpreters

Request for Accommodations/ Both 10 Communications Assistance
Medical Request form includes request for Both 11 accommodations

Job application form includes request for Both 12 accommodations Both 13 Waiver forms
Classification form includes request for Both 14 accommodations
Discipline form includes request for Both 15 accomodations

SAP and other programming form includes Both 16 request for accommodation

NA/AA form includes request for

Both 17 accommocation

brochure available in law library? (Need to

18 check)

Both

Do request forms:

Both 19 list available services comprehensively?
clearly explain services and aids (what Both 20 they are and when they are available?
clearly explain how to request Both 21 services/aids?

The brochure contain information on

equipment that is available. When given

a pocket talker (provided by medical)

Medical staff show the inmate how to

C

work it. When issued a bedshaker the

inmates are told how to use it by the ADA

Coordinator and the instructions are

posted on the wall of the bay

There is a memo posted on the bulliten

board of all dorms stating who is the ADA

Coordinator and how she can be

C

reached.

?

NA

C

CTO's and UA's are trained by the ADA

Coordinator to call the ADA coordinator

C

immediately if an inmate request

accomodations or assistance

C

There is only one job application and that

is GSP Outside Detail. And it does contain

a request for accomodations however,

C

jobs are given and mostly applied for in

person.

C

C

C

AA/NA applications are done by the

CTO/UA in person and they are offered

C

accommodations.

SAP applications are done by the CTO/UA

in person and they are offered

C

accommodations.

ADA Coordinator asked one of the inmates if they had seen it in the library.

C

NA Yes. The request form is the same

request form provided by the settlement

monitor - only modified to include

C

institution name and ADA Coordinator's

name.

Yes. The request form is the same

request form provided by the settlement

monitor - only modified to include

C

institution name and ADA Coordinator's

name.

C

No basis for evaluation yes No Basis for Evaluationl Yes Yes yes
yes

Deaf /HO H or both ? # Issue/Question
expressly ask about preferred mode of communication/needed services and why Both 22 they are useful?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 10 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2574

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Yes however this is conveyed orally

C

during assessment

Both 23 explain which items are free?

encompass religious and volunteer-

Both 24 provided programming?

Effective communication of these

Both

resources:

Are the materials in language accessible

Both 25 to each inmate?

Is this information provided with effective

Both 26 communication?

Can inmates request and receive a

meaningful opportunity to meet with a

KDOC staff member and interpreter to ask

Both 27 questions about the materials?

All items offered (Bedshaker) are free to

C

use and returned upon parole or transfer

The Chaplain has included captioning and

braile to the blind

C

NA C

C

C

yes Yes
No Basis for evaluation - never been ne

Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment in/application for a program with staff, is effective communication
Both 28 provided? are potential accommodations covered in
Both 29 the discussion?

NA

All staff have been trained in effective

C

communication

Yes

C

Yes

Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment in/application in education with staff, is effective communication
Both 30 provided? are potential accommodations covered in
Both 31 the discussion?
Both F Notice re. deaf/HOH inmates
Both 1 Notice posted at entrance to institution? Include picture of ID card and other official
Both 2 indicator?
Both 3 Notice posted outside housing units? Include picture of ID card and other official
Both 4 indicator? Both 5 Cell/bed cards
Both 6 Staff aware of corresponding need to alert?
Both 7 Clear process to obtain? Describe
Both 8 Each inmate has one if not waived?
Both 9 Provided timely?

NA

all education staff are trained in effective

C

communication

C

The Blue Ear sign is posted at the

enstrance

C

This will be worked on by the ADA

Coordinator.

The Blue Ear sign is posted at the

enstrance to the Dorm

C

This will be worked on by the ADA

Coordinator.

NA

Yes, a memo is posted in the officer

station of Dorm 2 of what alerts and how C

to do them.

Describe: The memo also states to

contact the ADA Coordinator and the

C

extension to dial

Yes a sign is taped the end of their bed

(we are an open bay living style)

C

The sign is provided within 24 hours of

assessment

C

Yes Yes
NC NC

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Both 10 Replacements provided when needed?

Both

KOMS alert?

Both 11 Staff aware of use of KOMS

Working process to get new inmate alerts

Both 12 added? (Describe)

Present for each deaf/HOH inmate? (Need

Both 13 to check)

Both 14 Appropriately obvious

Both 15 Updated timely

Both

Individual ID cards

Both 16 Staff aware of meaning? Clear? (avoids unclear
Both 17 laguage/abbreviations?) Both 18 Provided to all deaf/HOH if not waived? Both 19 Provided timely? Both 20 Can the inmate carry the ID at all times?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 11 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2575

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

When the ADA Coordinator visits the

dorm signs are replaced or placed as

C

needed

Yes CTO's and UA's are aware and use them when communicating about the inmate

NA C

Describe: The ADA Coordinator and UA's

check for the alert on KOMs upon arrival

and checked qtrly to ensure they have

C

not been removed

Yes was checked in the month of June

2019

C

C

yes

C

yes

NA

all staff during training are told and

shown the purple ID card

C

C

yes

C

Yes

Upon arrival at the institution

C

yes

C

yes

Both 21 Prompt replacements provided?

replacement are provided free of charge

if more than an year old / otherwise

C

provided for a small fee $3

Can ID card be taken away for some Both 22 purpose?
If yes, what is the substitute official Both 23 indicator?

Both 24 Has any inmate signed ID Waiver?

Both 25 If yes, is the waiver kept in inmate's file?

Has any inmate who signed a waiver later

Both 26 requested ID?

Both 27 If yes, was an ID provided?

Both G Auxiliary Aids & Services Assessment

Both

Identification to ADA Coordinator

Does the ADA coordinator receive timely notification upon intake of each deaf/hoh Both 1 inmate?

Does the ADA coordinator receive timely Both 2 notification of other deaf/hoh inmates?

Describe: yes if determined by medical staff that there is no evidence of hearing loss which has been properly documented. (has only happened once the inmate passed all tests and requested to have it removed however he is still being tracked by the ADA Coordinator. NA

KOMs alert was not removed.

C

Describe: only one - he preferred to have

his veteran (American Flag) ID card

NA

Waiver was uploaded to KOMs

C

C

No

-

N/A

NA

An Email and phone call is provided from

medical staff to the ADA Coordinator

C

upon medical intake and diagnosis

An Email and phone call is provided from

medical staff to the ADA Coordinator

C

upon medical diagnosis

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 12 of 661 - Page

Deaf

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2576

/HO H or both

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

? # Issue/Question

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Does the ADA coordinator conduct an Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment with every arriving or newly identified Both 3 deaf/hoh inmate? At this meeting, are each inmate's available

C Yes

methods of communication expressly Both 4 ascertained and documented?
At this meeting, does the ADA coordinator

C

Services/Aides are discussed

yes

inform each inmate about available Both 5 auxiliary aids and services?
Are the auxiliary aids/services request forms Both 6 explained?
Is appropriate communication used during

C Services/Aides are discussed

C

Yes

this meeting? (oral and written; VRI; or

Both 7 visual descriptions )

Both

Other assessments

For all deaf/hoh inmates who didn't receive

Oral and written if needed

C NA

an assessment on intake, has one been Both 8 done?
Are Auxiliary Aids assessments updated Both 9 every year?

C yes

C

yes

Both H Particular Auxiliary Aids & Services Provided

Both 1 On-person ID cards
Both 2 Cell cards Both 3 Bed shaker
Both 4 In-person alerts Both 5 Pager

All Deaf/HOH inmates have the purple ID

card except one who wanted to keep his

C

veteran american flag ID

BCC is an open bay living arrangement

(no cells)

C

C

Flashing bay lights at count time and pill

call times

C

We do not have pagers

C

yes
No basis for evaluation Yes
Yes No basis for evaluation

Phone volume adjust setting (available in HOH 6 each location where phones are available?)
HOH 7 Amplifier for phone
Consideration of specific housing assignment to minimize communication Both 8 difficulties? Both 9 Other amplification Both 10 Other (describe)

BCC has installed volume control phones

C

at every phone bank and both dorms

Amplifiers have been ordered and not

received due to the company Maxi Aids

not accepting a Purchase Order to be

PC

paid

All Deaf/HOH inmates and Blind inmates

live in Dorm 2 C bay to ensure safety

during extreme events and effective

C

communication

C

Describe:

NA

yes No basis for evaluation

Deaf /HO H or both ?#
Both

Issue/Question General issues

Special housing area:

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 13 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2577

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

NA

Dorm 2 C Bay has been designated as the

ADA Bay

NA

Is there a special housing area for deaf/HOH Both 11 inmates? (Describe)

Describe: Dorm 2 C bay is the closest to

the medical building and has fire alarm

system that the Bed Shakers are hard

wired into - to ensure all bedshakers will

alert during a fire alarm

NA

If there is such an area, what is the benefit Both 12 from it? (Describe)
If there is such an area, are inmates required to be housed there? (such a Both 13 requirement is non-compliant).

Describe:Dorm 2 C bay is the closest to

the medical building and has fire alarm

system that the Bed Shakers are hard

wired into - to ensure all bedshakers will

alert during a fire alarm

NA

Not required to be housed there - if

needed or requested they can be moved

C

to any other wing in the dorm

If there is such an area, and an inmate chooses not to live there, are accommodations etc. still fully available to Both 14 the inmate? Describe any restrictions. In determining auxiliary aids/services to provide, is primary consideration given to Both 15 inmate request?
If any inmate filled out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services form after not being found deaf or HOH, signing a waiver, or not requesting aids/services, were Both 16 accommodations provided? Are waivers of Auxiliary Aids and Services Both 17 documented in inmate institutional files? Are instructions for the use of all auxiliary aids/services shared appropriately with Both 18 staff? Both 19 All auxiliary aids/services maintained?

Describe: The only restriction is living in

Dorm 2 (instead of Dorm 1 - we only have

two living units) This is because Dorm 1

C

does not have the fire alarm system that

Dorm 2 does and it is farthest away from

the medical building.

C

yes

The ADA coordinator was notified and

the inmate was immediately seen by

medical staff to determine diagnosis. The

few that have done that were

C

determined to have no hearing loss or

issues

Uploaded to KOMs

C

All staff are trained once a year to refresh C

their knowledge of all services and aides

All equipment is checked qtrly

C

Both 20 Have any been out of comission? Both 21 Describe -- which and for how long?
Inmates moving housing or transferred: not Both 22 separated from hearing aid?
Both 23 If (s)he has been, is replacement provided? Both 24 Promptly?

Describe: one bedshaker was reported

broken, brought to the ADA Coordinator

and determined to be in working order. NA

Describe: None

NA

No hearing aides have been removed

from any inmates

C

Hearing aides are replaced if damaged

C

C

yes

Deaf /HO H or both ? # Issue/Question
Has there been a direct threat Both 25 determination?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 14 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2578

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Describe: yes in 2016

NA

Both 26 Describe Appropriately individuated (must consider specific degree of impairment and specific
27 dangers posed) Both 28 Appropriately reported? Both 29 Was it the appropriate decision? Both 30 Are classes in sign language provided? Both 31 deaf inmates given notice? Both 32 priority given to deaf inmates?
Both I Interpretation in general

Describe: GSP Outside Detail requiring inmates to be in heavy traffic (which is only 2 of the 4 details available) Describe: Each inmate is assessed and medical staff consulted to determine on an individual basis.

NA
c C C

C C

yes yes NC No No determination for evaluation No determination for evaluation

Deaf

Qualified interpretation services available:

NA

Is the process for using VRI/in-person

Deaf 1 interpretation communicated to inmates?

covers all inmate-staff communication when

requested by inmate? (not limited to only

certain

Deaf 2 encounters/communications/settings)

Does the request form clearly encompass

religious and other volunteer-provided

Deaf 3 programming?

Effective process for choosing qualified

Deaf 4 interpretation method?

primary consideration given inmates'

Deaf 5 preferences?

Deaf

Standing arrangement with providers?

Deaf 6 In-person?

Deaf 7 VRI?

Deaf

Is VRI availability:

Deaf 8 flexible (regarding requests and usage)?

after hours when needed (not allowing for

Deaf 9 48 hours of notice)?

on weekends when needed (not allowing for

Deaf 10 48 hours of notice)?

during emergencies (including medical

emergencies) when needed (not allowing

Deaf 11 for 48 hours of notice)?

Appropriate preparations made for use in 12 RHU? Describe

C

C

C

C
C NA
C C NA C C
C

C

VRI laptop is available 24/7/365

Describe: BCC does not have RHU

however we do have holding cells for

disciplinary reason (only if being

transferred out for disciplinary reasons)

C

The VRI laptop can be used while in those

cells.

yes
No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Deaf

VRI laptop functional?

Deaf 13 In general

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 15 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2579

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Describe: VRI laptop is tested during each

and every inservice class which is held

almost weekly all year.

NA

C

Always checked for sufficient battery Deaf 14 power?
Deaf 15 Routine software updates?

VRI laptop is always charged daily and

C

charging cord is provided in the bag

VRI laptop is always in sleep mode so

that the state can "push update" when

updates are available (which is how they

C

do it for every computer)

Deaf

VRI laptop has necessary items with it?

Deaf 16 Splitter?

Deaf 17 Instructions?

Deaf 18 Long power cord?

Deaf 19 Usable as VRS?

Deaf 20 VRI effectiveness tracked?

Deaf 21 How?

Information used to determine when in-

person interpretation should be first

Deaf 22 recourse?

Deaf

Is in-person interpretation available:

When VRI insufficient in programming,

Deaf 23 medical

Deaf 24 Parole?

Describe each time in-person interpretation 25 has been offered
Describe each time in-person interpretation 26 has been denied.
Parole board notified of need for Deaf 27 interpretation at least 7 days before?
Has facility relied on another inmate to interpret? (Reliance in non-emergency is Deaf 28 non-compliant)
Deaf 29 Describe in an emergency? (in which time was of the
Deaf 30 essence and VRI was unavailable) Communication with inmates uses inmate's
Deaf 31 preferred method? Written communication is limited to only
Deaf 32 simple matters. Written communication is not needed when
Deaf 33 inmate has low literacy

Describe: The VRI laptop bag includes

laptop, charging cord, long ethernet cord,

spliter and folder (which contains

instructions on how to use the VRI laptop

and a log to record usage)

NA

C

C

C

C

VRI laptop has only been used for

training of staff - no inmate has

C

requested or needed it

C

C

C

C

C

Not needed - no inmates at the

institution have used sign language

except for one that made parole several

C

years ago

None

C

Not ever been needed

C

Never / nor has it been needed or

C

requested

Describe: Never been done / never been

needed

NA

C

C

Written communication was only used

one time - see notes above

C

C

No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation Yes Yes Yes
No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 16 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2580

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Deaf

Qualified interpretation services available:

Does the request form clearly encompass

religious and other volunteer-provided

Deaf 34 programming?

for all inmate-staff communication when

requested by inmate? (not limited to only

certain

Deaf 35 encounters/communications/settings)

Is the process for using VRI communicated

Deaf 36 to inmates?

Deaf J Hand Restraints

Hand restraints ever used on inmate who

Deaf 1 signs?

Used for an appropriate reason? transportation to/from prison? Escort in/out of restrictive housing? Individualized finding Deaf 2 of a security threat? Security procedure allows use of VRI by inmate who might ordinarily be restrained Deaf 3 (in RHU, e.g.)

Necessary equipment purchased and

Deaf 4 installed?

Deaf 5 Staff aware of the issue

Deaf

Off-site medical care:

Deaf 6 two-point hand restraint system used?

restraints removed when necessary for

Deaf 7 medical communication?

Both K Non-auditory Alerts

Does the prison have non-auditory alerts? Both 1 (Describe) Both 2 provided to all inmates who need it?

Both 3 can and does it give alerts in real time?

Both 4 sufficient to signal fire alarm?
Both 5 sufficient to signal count alert? Both 6 programmed to signal different alerts? Both 7 used to notify of prison-wide events?
used to notify deaf or HOH inmates of Both 8 events specific to them?
Have any requests for medically necessary Both 9 non-auditory alerts been denied?

Yes

NA

C

No "sign language as primary language"

or inmates that know sign language at

C

BCC

Yes during assessment is explained to

them

C

Describe:

NA C

C

We do not have RHU - we only have a few holding cells only used if the inmate is being transferred for disciplinary reasons

c
C NA
C

C

Describe: Yes in Dorm 2 C Bay - the Dorm

Officer flashes the lights to signify count

times and pill call

NA

C

Yes given every count time and pill call by

the officer

C

Fire alarm will automatic flash lights and

C

signal the bedshakers to flash and vibrate

Officer flashes bay lights to signify count

C

C

C

No - open bay living arrangement will not C allow for personal non auditory alerts

C No

yes No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation
Yes
N/A - done by a human No basis for evaluation

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 17 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2581

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Non-auditory alerts monitored to ensure Both 10 they are working? Both 11 frequently enough?
Both 12 monitored/recorded formally?

Both 13 Announcement boards Both 14 used to notify of schedule changes? Both 15 used consistently? Both 16 in all dormitories? Both 17 in gym? Both 18 in library? Both 19 audited and monitored?
In-person or personal system notification Both 20 when an inmate misses a page?
Has any inmate missed announcements/alarms/ info only because Both 21 of disability? Were corrective steps taken to solve the Both 22 problem in the future? Sufficient to notify inmates in Both 23 emergencies?

Plan to evacuate deaf or HOH inmates in

Both 24 emergency?

Does the plan account for how effective

Both 25 communication will be provided?

Both L Telecommunications

Deaf

Videophones:

Deaf 1 Installed?

Deaf 2 Allow voice carry-over features?

Deaf 3 Number of days out of service? (Specify)
Describe any technical difficulties, and 4 efforts to solve them.
When out of service, VRS used instead? Or Deaf 5 describe other alternative offered
Describe how inmates are informed of alternatives, when videophone is out of 6 service.

Deaf 7 Same times of access as non-deaf inmates?

Yes, frequently asking inmates if officers

are flashing the lights during every shift

C

to signify count and pill call

C

ADA Coordinator has made surprise visits

to ensure they are doing ti

C

Inmate TV Channel 40 continually plays a

power point with no sound conveying

information about the prison / rules /

changes etc.

NA

Updated daily

C

Updated daily

C

Updated daily

C

Updated daily

C

Updated daily

C

Updated daily

C

Describe: No - inmates are told of

changes in person , on the tv, on the

bulliten board and sometimes Jpay

message

NA

-------

C

updated daily

C

Officers are trained to evacuate Dorm 2 C

Bay with extreme caution to ensure

Deaf/HOH/Blind inmates are evacuated

C

in a timely manner

All BCC inmates are HOH and do not

know sign language

C

Describe: unknown. Equipment has not been used other than being tested to ensure it works. Describe: unknown. Equipment has not been used other than being tested to ensure it works. Describe: unknown. Equipment has not been used other than being tested to ensure it works.

NA C C
NA
NA c

Describe:

NA

yes, cabinet that contains videophones

have been locked with a combination

lock. Combination will be given to

C

inmates that can use them (if they know

sign language/Deaf)

yes
no basis for evaluation
yes No basis for evaluation no basis for evaluation no basis for evaluation No basis for evaluation

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Deaf 8 Appropriate location?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 18 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2582

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Centrally located in Dorm 2 Ice Room for

use of all ADA inmates

C

Escort routinely provided (incl. after hours, Deaf 9 weekends, emergency) if necessary? Deaf 10 Time: 2x that for non-deaf inmates?

11 Available same hours as ordinary phones? No more permission needed than that for
Deaf 12 hearing inmates using ordinary phones? Deaf 13 Advance request unnecessary? Deaf 14 Free?
Disciplinary oversight no more intense than Deaf 15 regular phone calls?

Has any inmate requested access to the 16 videophones and been denied?

Denial appropriate? Explain the

circumstances, including the inmate's name,

17 the date, and the reason for the denial.

Both

TTY:

Both 18 Installed?

Escort has never been needed.
Describe: all Deaf/HOH inmates are offered video phone and all have declined use None have requested

C C C C C C C
NA

Describe: No denials have been made

C
NA C

No Basis for evaluation yes yes yes yes yes yes
No basis for evaluation yes

Protocol for how to access TTY known to Both 19 inmates and staff?
Easy-to-understand, institution specific 20 instructions made available WITH TTY?

During the Services/Aid Assessment - use

of the TTY is discussed and offered. If the

inmate chooses to use it, they then sign

C

the ADA phone rules and is given the

combination to the lock on the cabinet

that contains the TTY phone

Instructions are posted inside the cabinet

beside the TTY phone

C

Both 21 Function -- days out of service? (Specify) Both 22 Access -- appropriate hours, days?
location substantially as accessible as conventional telephones for non-deaf Both 23 inmates?

Describe: Unknown if any, every time the

quipment has been tested it worked

however no inmates have used the TTY NA

Same as regular phones

C

C Easy access in Dorm 2 Ice Room

unknown / no basis for evaluation

Both 24 hard of hearing inmates allowed to access?
Both 25 Permission needed? Has any request to use the TTY been
Both 26 denied? (Describe) Both 27 Time: 3x that for non-deaf inmates?

Any of the Deaf/HOH inmates here can

request 1st initial access - all of them

have declined use of the TTY. If an inmate C

were to change their mind and want

access to use it, it would be immediate

(Day/Night/Weekend or holiday)

Once access has been granted - no

permission is needed to use the TTY

C

Describe: No requests have been made to

use the TTY phone

NA

C

No basis for evaluation
No basis for evaluation yes

Both 28 Money charged appropriate? (Describe)

Describe: Unknown, no one has used it. NA

Unknown

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 19 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2583

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Both 29 Annual test ok? (List when most recently)

Can access publicly available relay service

Both 30 phone numbers?

Has KDOC determined that time usage

permissions for videophones and TTY is less

Both 31 than equitable?

Both 32 If yes, how was ratio adjusted?

If yes, was determination (including

Both 33 reasoning, evidence, etc.) documented?

Both 34 Was monitor notified?

Both 35 Was reasoning explained to monitor?

Deaf

VRS via laptop

Deaf 36 Available?

Deaf 37 Known to relevant staff? (In RHU)

Deaf 38 Used when appropriate?

Both

Phones

Both 39 Amplification in every group of phones?

Portable amplifiers available to inmates

Both 40 who need them?

Both

CapTel

Both 41 Appropriate for any particular inmate?

Both 42 If so, installed and working?

43 Request by any inmate denied?

Both

TV/Movies

Both 44 Is captioning available?

Both 45 Is captioning used?
Both 46 Is the captioning checked regularly?
Both 47 Are the checks of the captioning logged? Recreational movies: Captioning turned on
Both 48 regularly (Describe) Are inmates allowed to purchase tvs w/
Both 49 captioning? Both 50 Amplification method? (Describe)
If inmate-purchased tv w/ captioning malfunctioned, did staff assist to same extent as w/other inmates regarding Both 51 malfunctioning personal property? All technology/ equipment in good working Both 52 order? (Describe problems)

Describe: Annual test ok 1/9/19

C

phone numbers are posted inside the

cabinet next to the TTY phone

C

Describe: No, we use the standard 3x longer than a regular phone call Ratio was not adjusted

NA C

C

Never been used or requested
amplifiers were approved and ordered however MaxiAids will not accept a Purchase Order to send them. We are working on this
Describe: Describe: Describe:
All inmates TV have captioning if they choose to use it. Captions are turned on in the Day Room TV's Yes I have spoken to one inmate whom was not Deaf/HOH but used the captioning yes , once a month the movies are inspected for captioning No they have not been logged, This can be added Describe: yes , once a month the movies are inspected for captioning All TVs have captioning capabilites they can buy them or rent them Describe:

C C NA C C C NA C
NA NA NA NA NA
C
C
C
C
C NA

Receiving and Discharge would switch the C TV out for one that works.

Describe any problems:

C

No Basis for evaluation No Basis for evaluation No Basis for evaluation No Basis for evaluation yes yes yes PC
No Basis for Evaluation No Basis for Evaluation No Basis for Evaluation
NC

Access to communication services for deaf inmates in segregated housing equivalent

C

Both 53 to non-deaf inmates of same status?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 20 of 661 - Page

Deaf

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2584

/HO H or both

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

? # Issue/Question

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Does KDOC monitor communications of

deaf or HOH inmates only to the same extent and with the same discretion as non-

C

Both 54 deaf inmates?

Both M Miscellaneous Devices

Both 1 Devices available? (Describe) Both 2 devices in commissary list?
possibility to request other devices from

Describe:

NA

Both 3 ADA coordinator?

Both 4 facilitation of purchase?

Purchase of any non-medically necessary

Both 5 device denied? (Describe)

Both 6 determined on case-by-case basis?

Both 7 because security threat?

Both 8 monitor notified?

Both 9 reasoning explained?

Both

ADA coordinator maintains records

Both 10 of requests?

Both 11 of denials?

Describe:

NA

Yes Everything is either scanned to KOMs or kept in their folder in the ADA Coordinators office Everything is either scanned to KOMs or kept in their folder in the ADA Coordinators office

NA C
C

Both N Disciplinary

Have any discipline occurred without an

interpreter and without an inmate waiver,

Deaf 1 for which an inmate has been punished?

Deaf 2 Was a re-hearing granted?

Both O Grievances

Inmates told they can share grievances

Both 1 with ADA coordinator?

If inmates choose to do that, does grievance

coordinator forward copy of grievance to

Both 2 ADA coordinator?

Records of all grievances filed by deaf/HOH

inmates? (not just those related to

Both 3 settlement)

Both 4 Adequate summaries provided in report?

Including all deaf or HOH inmate

Both 5 grievances, not just those in settlement?

Includes issues raised by inmate in

Both 6 grievance?

Includes institution in which grievance was

Both 7 filed?

Both 8 Includes summary of KDOC response?

Includes grievance resolution (or lack

Both 9 thereof)?

Both P Training

Both

Types available

Both 1 CBT? (Using approved training?)

Both 2 Who received? (Describe) Both 3 All appropriate staff?

C C C C

C

List is maintained as needed

List is maintained as needed

C

List is maintained as needed

C

C

C C C

required CBT Describe: All staff including P&P staff receiving training at BCC All staff

NA C
NA C

No Basis for evaluation No Basis for evaluation yes No Basis for evaluation
yes

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Both 4 Live training? (Information only) Both 5 Who received? (Describe) Both 6 All appropriate staff?

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 21 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2585

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Describe: All staff including P&P staff

receiving training at BCC in person called

"In-Service"

NA

Describe:All Staff

NA

All staff

C

Both

Targeted training on specific needs

Both 7 training on best communication practices?

Both 8 training on unique needs/problems?

training on possibility that deaf/HOH

Both 9 inmate may miss alert?

training on possibility that deaf/HOH

inmate may not hear verbal commands and

Both 10 strategies to handle that problem?

training on identification of communication

Both 11 needs?

consideration given to talking one-on-one

with deaf or HOH inmates, instead of in a

Both 12 group?

Both

Training on communication

Deaf 13 training on use and role of interpreters?

training on process for obtaining

Deaf 14 interpreters?

training on importance of not separating

Both 15 imate from hearing aid?

Both 16 training on communication technology?

Deaf 17 training on VRI?

training on how to turn on and check for

Both 18 captioning?

Both 19 training on non-auditory alert office switch?

Deaf 20 training on videophone rules?

Both

Training on Policies

Both 21 training on the Settlement?

training on identity and role of ADA

Both 22 coordinator?

Both 23 training on KDOC anti-discrimination policy?

Both 24 training on existence of KOMS/EMR alerts? Both 25 training on meaning of ID cards?
training on equipment/services/ Both 26 accommodation available?

Both 27 training on hand restraint policy? training on two-point hand restraint
Deaf 28 system? training on disciplinary and grievance
Both 29 practies?

Inmates currently at BCC with any special

needs are discussed. Any inmates

previously at BCC with any special needs

are discussed during training so that staff

can recognize and report needs not

requested by inmate

NA

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

C All staff

All staff

C

All staff are directed during training to do C

this

NA

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All Staff All Staff
All staff

C
C NA
c

All staff

c

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff even though it has not been

needed.

C

All staff even though it has not been

needed.

C

All stall as part of inservice

C

Deaf /HO H or both ?#

Issue/Question

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 22 of 661 - Page

Audit item questions/concerns (note

ID#: 2586

here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

remains)

Description/Notes

evaluation (Explain)

Do all relevant staff know about reporting Both 30 obligations? How do you know?

Both

Training specifically for housing area staff

training on the use of cell/bed notices that

Both 31 indicate an inmate is deaf/HOH

Both 32 training on bed shaker switches

Both 33 training on telecommunications

training on obligations to notify deaf and

Both 34 HOH inmates of alerts

Both

Training specifically for all corrections staff

training on accommodations for inmates

Both 35 who sign (esp. restraint policies)

training on strategies for inmates who may

Both 36 not hear directions/orders

Both

Training specifically for medical staff

training on process to obtain hearing aid

Both 37 within two months

training on obligation to notify off-site

Both 38 providers of needs

Both 39 Training provided for review by Monitor?
Both Q Monitor Access
Has the monitor been granted access to requested KDOC records, files, and papers Both 1 that pertain to the agreement? If no, was an explanation provided for the Both 2 refusal? Has the monitor been granted access to Both 3 KDOC staff members and employees? Both 4 Were staff/employees cooperative? Has KDOC responded to reasonable written Both 5 questions?

Describe: All staff have been directed to report any communication issues with the ADA coordinator immediately - so inmate can be assessed by medical to determine if HOH/Deaf/Blind All staff are required this training every year

C NA

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff

C

All staff All staff are required this training every year

C NA

All staff

C

All staff All staff are required this training every year

C NA

All staff

C

All staff - especially medical

C

Powerpoint provided by the monitor is

what is being taught

C

C yes

---

C

N/A

C

yes

C

yes

C

yes

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 23 of 661 - Page ID#: 2587

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:
Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening

Blackburn Correctional Complex

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

3/29/2018

12/1/2017

9/11/2018

7/26/2018

7/2/2015

intake screen

On Intake at RCC

Intake Screen

Hearing screen on intake On intake into DOC

to BCC

pocket talker issued

Intake screen

9/8/2017

4. Date of most recent hearing screening
5. Results of most recent hearing screening
6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies: (a) has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are needed (c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids (d) no hearing aid is needed
7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.
8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.

3/29/2018

12/6/2017

9/11/2018

6/25/2018

7/19/2016

9/8/2017

12/5/2018 Refered for further eval Hearing Aid Received

9/11/2018

7/26/2018

1/5/2018

12/5/2018

Answered yes to 3 or

more hearing screen

Referred to provider for

Referred for futher eval questions

Hearing aids ordered further evaluation.

a

A

c

a

d.

N/A

n/a

No hearing aid recomme

by provider.

N/A

The patient had refused hearing aids on 9/16/2018

9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)
Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description
Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

Yes

Yes

received hearing aids on

1/17/18

12/5/2018

12/11/2017

11/14/2018

7/26/2018

7/19/2016

9/8/2017

Patient complted

Referred to provider for

Intake screening

intake exam

audicus hearing test hearing eval

audiology consult

Hearing screen

audiology consult ordered

referred for review of no hearing aid

hearing test

recommended

mixed results with no refer to provider for hearing aids needed further eval

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 24 of 661 - Page ID#: 2588

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

12/12/2018

1/8/2018

11/30/2019

8/14/2018

8/17/2017

9/16/2017

Patient wants to have

pocket talker back that

Provider follow up with

he turned back in

Audicus exam

Audiology Consult

audicus

hearing eval

because he said he

Follow up with provider

Ear wax removal, return patient given another

Patient signed refusal

as needed if hearing pocket talker so he

stating his hearing had Provider approved

worsens or has not

would be able to hear in The patient refused

referred to Dr. Kemen improved

hearing aid for right ear. improved.

class

hearing aids

1/14/2019

2/2/2018

12/13/2018

3/11/2019

12/15/2017

Follow Up visit/patient

Follow up with Heather noted to have difficulty

Hearing aids issued

Transfer to BCC

issue of Heaaring aid Downs ARNP

even with pocket talker

patient answered yes to

multiple questions on Patient received hearing patient referred for

audiology consult

hearing aids picked up hearing screening

aid

Audicus testing

requested

2/14/2017 provider referral

3/14/2019

1/5/2018

Audicus test performed. audiology consult

audiology consult placed

hearing aids ordered

3/2/2018 Audiology consult aids

1/17/2018 audiology hearing aids received

289166

3/23/2018 pick up hearing aid Right hearing Aid received at this time 297039
3/30/2018 Follow Up after receiving hearing aid, states the right hearing aid is helpful and no

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:
Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening
4. Date of most recent hearing screening
5. Results of most recent hearing screening
6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies: (a) has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are needed (c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids (d) no hearing aid is needed
7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.
8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.
9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)
Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description
Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 25 of 661 - Page ID#: 2589

. . .

10/25/2018

7/20/2018

8/28/2018

11/19/2018

9/19/2018

4/9/2018

Intake screen

Outside medical trip hearing screen

follow up with provider Intake screen

aInntsawkeerteodRyCeCs to more

than 3 questions on

11/9/2018

5/10/2018

8/28/2018

5/8/2018

9/19/2018 hearing screening

11/9/2018

5/10/2018

8/28/2018

5/8/2018

9/19/2018

11/9/2018 normal

refer for further eval refer to audicus

refer for further eval

a.

a

a

b

d

d

n/a

n/a

does not meet criteria

Returned from audiologist on 8/10/2018 no need for hearing aids

yes

10/24/2018

8/6/2018

10/5/2018

11/19/2018

9/25/2018

5/2/2018

11/9/2018 referred to audicus

Audicus hearing test Audicus hearing test hearing eval by provider Intake to BCC

Patient received hearing

aid on 11/27/2018

received hearing aid

Referred to Dr. Kemen

audicus

answered yes to more than 3 questions on hearing screening

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 26 of 661 - Page ID#: 2590
. . .

10/17/2018
Review by Dr. Kemen The patient received hearing aid on 11/21/2018

11/27/2018

5/4/2018

audicus follow up
does not meet criteria for hearing aid.

provider referral Otology, Laryngology, Rhinology referral placed, appt scheduled for 7/10/18 (first

8/10/2018 hearing evaluated no need for hearing aids

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 27 of 661 - Page ID#: 2591

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening

6/18/2018

9/20/2017

8/10/2018

10/25/2018

1/24/2017

patient placed a sick call

Hearing screen on intake request in regards to Hearing screen on intake

to BCC

hearing

to BCC

Intake screen

On intake screening sick call

6/1/2018

9/20/2017

8/10/2018

10/25/2018

1/24/2017

4. Date of most recent hearing screening

6/18/20198

1/31/2018

8/10/2018

10/25/2018

11/14/2017

5. Results of most recent hearing screening

Answered yes to 3 or more hearing screen

Answered yes to 3 or more hearing screen

questions

hearing aid received questions

11/8/2018 hearing aid received

6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies:

(a) has hearing aid(s) in working order

(b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are

needed

(c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids

(d) no hearing aid is needed

a.

a

d

d

a

a

7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid

needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and

Does not meet criteria per Dr. Kemen for

ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.

Hearing aids not

patient to have hearing

n/a

N/A

recommended.

aid

N/A

8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does

it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of

receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an

induction loop system.

12/20/2018

7/19/2018

sick call 12/24/2018 12/24/2018

7/19/2018 7/19/2018

2/1/2019 Refer for futher eval

a

yes

yes

9. Please provide the following information about

each medical encounter from when the hearing

issue was presented to when the hearing issue

was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid

or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)

Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description
Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

hearing aid received

hearing aid received provided hearing aid

6/21/2018

9/20/2017

8/16/2018

11/8/2018

1/24/2017

12/20/2018

10/30/2018

Provider recommended patient placed a sick call The patient was seen be

intake process at the

10/30/2018 provider

hearing aid.

request in regards to the provider

follow up with provider intake center

referred to audicus follow up

It was not recommended

that the patient needs

hearing aids, however

The patient did receive

the patient was given an

failed hearing

hearing aid.

referral to provider

amplifier.

Referred for hearing test questionaire

refered to provider Referred to audicus.

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 28 of 661 - Page ID#: 2592

9/27/2017

8/20/2018

12/6/2018

6/1/2017

1/11/2019

1/15/2019

provider to evaluate hearing

Patient given a pocket

talker.

Hearing exam completed transfer to BCC

provider follow up Audicus results

audiology consult

referral to provider for

referred to Dr. Kemen hearing eval

audicus results

Hearing aid issued

1/12/2018 audiology consult appointment
hearing aid ordered 1/31/2018
follow up audiology hearing aid received

2/28/2019

6/6/2017

2/1/2019

audicus review Per Dr. Kemen, the patient does not meet criteria for hearing aid

provider to assess hearing
ENT consult ordered

hearing aids issued

6/27/2017 ENT Consult recommend different audiologist consult

10/24/2017 audiology consult testing inconclusive

11/14/2017 consult bilateral hearing aids ordered

12/7/2018

follow up audiology

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 29 of 661 - Page ID#: 2593

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening
4. Date of most recent hearing screening
5. Results of most recent hearing screening

11/21/2018

6/22/2017

10/16/2017

9/17/2018

sick call

hearing screening form provider visit

provider visit

sick call

patient refused testing

6/9/2017 6/26/2017

10/25/2017 10/25/2018

9/25/2018 8/9/208 9/25/2018

8/2/2018
sick call 8/9/208 8/9/2018

8/2/2018

12/6/2017

intake 8/9/2018

12/6/2017 1/9/2018

6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies: (a) has hearing aid(s) in working order (b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are needed (c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids (d) no hearing aid is needed
7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid needed) , consult the medical documentation of the decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.
8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an induction loop system.

normal hearing

severe bilateral

L ear moderate

amplifier

amplifier

passed whisper test

D

a

a

d

d

d

Passed whisper test

The patient does not The patient does not meet criteria 8/9/2018 meet criteria 8/9/2018 the patient does not me

9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)
Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description
Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

na

provided hearing aid provided hearing aid

10/16/2017

9/17/2018

provider visit

provider visit

referred for audiology t referred audiology test

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 30 of 661 - Page ID#: 2594

10/25/2017

9/25/2018

hearing test

hearing test

audiology results

audiology results

11/15/2017

10/31/2018

hearing aid issued hearing aid issued

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 31 of 661 - Page ID#: 2595

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # 1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC
2. How hearing problem was first presented to KDOC
3. Date of initial hearing screening

10/25/2019

provider viist

intake

9/28/2018

4/7/2017

8/11/2017

12/5/2018

Hearing screen

patient had hearing aids

on arrival to BCC

intake screen

sick call

1/24/2019

8/10/2018

Hearing screen on intake to BCC

1/4/2019

10/11/2018

4/7/2017

8/11/2017

12/5/2018

8/10/2018

4. Date of most recent hearing screening

1/4/2019

10/11/2018

7/13/2018

8/11/2017

12/5/2018

2/15/2019

8/10/2018

5. Results of most recent hearing screening

answered 3 or more yes

referred to provider for

Answered yes to 3 or more hearing screen

R ear severe-hearing aidamplifier

to hearing screen.

hearing aid in place

further eval.

R ear mild hearing loss questions

6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies:

(a) has hearing aid(s) in working order

(b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are

needed

(c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids

(d) no hearing aid is needed

a

d

a.

a

a

d

7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid

needed) , consult the medical documentation of

the decision against providing a hearing aid, and

ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.

Patient does not meet

eet criteria 1/9/18

passed audioscope n/a

N/A

criteria for hearing aid

8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does

it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of

receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an

induction loop system.

9. Please provide the following information about each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)

Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description
Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

provided hearing aid 4/23/19 10/25/2018

provider visit

intake

yes

yes

9/28/2018

hearing aid in place 7/13/2018

hearing screen

12/11/2018 Hearing screen follow up sick call

1/24/2019

10/3/2018

hearing screen

referred for audicus refer to provider

Patient has working hearing aid

ear irrigation

referred to provider refer to provider

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 32 of 661 - Page ID#: 2596

1/4/2019

9/28/2018

10/9/2018

hearing test

passed audioscope Patient signed refusal

auduiology results issued amplifier

The patient signed refusal for HOH pass

4/5/2019 hearing aid issued

12/14/2018

2/15/2019

10/5/2018

audicus hearing exam audiology hearing test jgoff

referred to Dr Kemen for

eval

referred to Dr Kemen forefer to provider

1/25/2019

2/15/2019

10/17/2018

Audicus follow up

provider f/u

provider follow up

hearing aid to right ear

Does not meet criteria

issued

hearing aid right ear issufor hearing aid.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 33 of 661 - Page ID#: 2597

Prison: Name of person filling out form: Date:

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC #

1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC

8/13/2018

4/20/2018

12/21/2017

7/12/2017

4/5/2017

1/15/2019

2. How hearing problem was first presented to

KDOC

3. Date of initial hearing screening

provider follow up

intake hearing screen On intake to DOC

IanntsawkeerteodByCeCs to more I4n/t5a/k2e01to7,RwCCas issued intake to RCC than 3 questions on pocket talker on 4/17/17

7/5/2018

4/20/2018

12/21/2017 hearing screening

and audiology consult

1/18/2019

4. Date of most recent hearing screening

1/21/2019

2/8/2017

5/23/2018

1/18/2019

5. Results of most recent hearing screening

hearing aids working

refer for further eval

hearing aid received

well

left ear moderate

6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies:

(a) has hearing aid(s) in working order

(b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are

needed

(c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids

(d) no hearing aid is needed

a

d

a

a.

a

a

7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid

needed) , consult the medical documentation of

the decision against providing a hearing aid, and

Received pocket talker,

ensure that it complies with KyDOC policy.

no indication for hearing

aids.

N/A

N/A

n/a

8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does

it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of

receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an

induction loop system.

na

yes

yes

yes

9. Please provide the following information about

patient refused to stay at

each medical encounter from when the hearing issue was presented to when the hearing issue was finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or determining that a hearing aid was not needed)

BCC for follow up appt. at audiology, stated he would sign a refusal so he could go to LSCC for PT. Patient signed a

hearing aid received refusal for hearing aids

Medical Visit 1 - Date

8/13/2018

4/27/2018

1/5/2018

7/27/2017

4/19/2017

1/15/2019

Medical Visit 1 - Description

provider assessment

Passed whisper test

follow up with provider referral

Provider Referral

audiology consult

intake to RCC

Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

Follow if hearing worsens

refer for audiogram

referral to audiology

failed whisper test, ENT

consult placed

hearing aids ordered

referred for audiology te

Prisoner First Name Prisoner Last Name KyDOC # Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description
Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description
Medical Visit 3 - Outcome
Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome
Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome DOC # ...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 34 of 661 - Page ID#: 2598

1/21/2019

6/28/2018

1/22/2018

9/15/2017

5/11/2017

1/18/2019

Heearing screen

sign IOP

audiology consult

ENT Consult

follow up audiology audiology test

Patient received pocket Failed hearing screen talker. issued pocket talker and set up appoitnemnt for audioscope
2/4/2019

hearing aid ordered

cleared for hearing aid use, Hearing Aid recommended

received bilateral hearing aids

hearing aid ordered

2/8/2018

10/19/2017

5/23/2018

2/8/2019

audioscope
referred for audicus 2/5/2019
Completed audicus referred to Dr. Kemen

follow up audiology hearing aid received

Audiology Consult hearing aid ordered

Intake to BCC

hearing aid isssued

answered sometimes to

some of the questions

on hearing screening

Received hearing aids

5/23/2018 physical stated hearing aids are working well

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 35 of 661 - Page ID#: 2599

Technology FM radio transmitters, usable as an amplifier system? Phone amplifiers (not volume control: portable amplifiers)

How many Where

0

N/A

0

N/A

Captioned Telephone

1

Other amplifiers, amplification

systems, or the like?

0

Bed shakers

5

Vibrating watches?

0

Vibrating alarm clocks?

5

Pagers?

0

Other non-auditory alerts or

assistive devices currently in use

or under consideration not

mentioned above.

0

Earphones for parole hearings Yes

Earphones for orientation videos 0

In Dorm 2 Ice Room N/A
Dorm 2 C bay N/A
Dorm 2 C bay N/A
N/A N/A

How well do they When obtained Specifications (URL) How do inmates obtain access? work?

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

2016

N/A

N/A

Once they have been assessed

upon arrival and the

determination has been made

that they want / can use the

TDD/TTY phone - An agreement

is signed and they are given the

comination to the lock, on the

cabinet that contains the phone.

N/A
2016 N/A
2016 N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

During assesment each

Deaf/HOH inmate is asked if he

wants one or does he think it

https://www.silentcall.cwill help him in any way.

N/A

N/A

N/A

During assesment each

Deaf/HOH inmate is asked if he

wants one or does he think it

https://www.silentcall.cwill help him in any way.

N/A

N/A

N/A

Other comments N/A N/A
N/A N/A N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 36 of 661 - Page ID#: 2600

Documentation to review KOMS alerts for each deaf/HOH inmate Grievances:
Provide/Review summary of ALL grievances by all deaf/HOH inmates. Covers formal, informal, withdrawn, etc.

Date reviewed 6/25/2019
7/17/2019

Comments (problems revealed, solutions, etc.) None
See attached.

Provide/Review full documentation of all grievances that address

7/17/2019

hearing/hearing accommodation issues. Solve any problems revealed.

Discipline

Review all disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate who signs.

Ensure that VRI or other effective communication was provided at each N/A

stage of each such proceedings.

Review all disciplinary proceedings involving failure to obey an order, or

failure to stand for count, or other communications difficulty by a deaf/HOH inmate. Ensure that no such inmate is being penalized for

7/11/2019

inability to hear.

VRI Log (review to ensure it's being used in appropriate circumstances. VRS or other videophone alternative (review to ensure that when videophone is inoperative, alternative is in fact available/used)

7/10/2019 7/10/2019

TTY instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.) 7/10/2019

VRI instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.) 7/10/2019

See attached.
We do not have any inmates that signs at this time
Captain Carter and I have reviewed any and all disciplinary reports. No inmates is being penalized for the inability to hear. The VRI has only been used for training staff members. None of our Deaf/HOH inmates sign VRS locked in cabinet in Dorm 2 Ice Room / Combination lock on the cabinet VRS locked in cabinet in Dorm 2 Ice Room / Combination lock on the cabinet VRS locked in cabinet in Dorm 2 Ice Room / Combination lock on the cabinet

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 37 of 661 - Page ID#: 2601

Questions regarding effective communications in particular activities or locations. For each, mark compliance (Y, partial, N, no basis) and explain. Goal: each deaf or HOH inmate has an equal

Amplification: (Not just hearing aid --

In-person interpretation

Availability of VRI:

space-specific amplification)

Appropriate

equipment

Used

available

Ever used? Used whenever

whenever

(computer line, How many appropriate? (without

Ever used?

appropriate? Staff trained? outlet, space) times?

special request)

Adequate? Describe efforts, issues

Intake/

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Orientation -- Non-medical

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Intake, Medical

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Auxiliary Aid Assessment

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Units

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Restrictive Housing

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Medical/MH care

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Programs

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Education

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Recreation

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Communications with Chaplain

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Prison-provided religious

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

programming

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Volunteer -led programming

(note: Only volunteer

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

interpretation is required)

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Parole hearings

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Classification/

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Transfer

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Legal Aid

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Grievance process

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Work assignments

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Court call and ALL parts of

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

disciplinary process

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Staff investigations

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Investigative interviews

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

Preparation of report

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Shift supervisor's review of

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

disciplinary report

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Investigator's review of

Not Needed / None know

Always available / Never

disciplinary report

sign language

Yes

Yes

0

used / no basis

N/A

N/A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 38 of 661 - Page ID#: 2602

In-person interpretation

Ever used?

Not Needed / None know

Miranda warnings

sign language

When advising inmate of right Not Needed / None know

to consult with legal aide

sign language

Notification of date, time, and Not Needed / None know

place of hearing

sign language

Not Needed / None know

Hearing or re-hearing

sign language

Not Needed / None know

If deaf/hoh inmate is witness

sign language

Used whenever appropriate?

Availability of VRI: Appropriate equipment available (computer line,
Staff trained? outlet, space)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Ever used? How many times?
0
0
0
0
0

Amplification: (Not just hearing aid -space-specific amplification)

Used whenever appropriate? (without special request)
Always available / Never used / no basis
Always available / Never used / no basis
Always available / Never used / no basis
Always available / Never used / no basis
Always available / Never used / no basis

Adequate? N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Describe efforts, issues N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Special questions: Has any inmate been required to attend a religious service without effective communication to receive any religious meal, diet, or other accommodation? No Are deaf or HOH inmates (who have witnessed or been suspected of violation) provided with an inmate or staff advisor on same terms as non-deaf inmates? Yes inmates can have a staff council upon request. It is reviewed and denied or appoved based on the same process as a non deaf inmate.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 39 of 661 - Page ID#: 2603

USE THIS SHEET FOR ENSURING THAT EACH DEAR/HOH INMATE IS GETTING APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE

Low literacy?

Other Alert

(So that

If signs to

Bed Shaker? Device

Signs to written

Has

Has

communicate, Auxiliary Aid (Not

(Not

Personal Phone

Listed with commu communicatio Deaf/HOH Bed/Door noted in KOMS Assessment requested; requested; TTY Access (Not Amplifier (Not

KOMS ADA nicate n is not

ID Card? (Y Card? (Y or precaution meeting denied;

denied; requested;

requested;

Name

ID

Precaution? (Y/N) effective)

or waived) waived) notes?

took place? granted)

granted) denied; granted) denied; granted)

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

N

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Not Requested

Not Requested Not Requested

Y

N

Y

Yes

Yes

Does not sign Yes

Granted

Not Requested Not Requested

USE THIS SHEET FOR ENSURING THAT

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 40 of 661 - Page ID#: 2604

Name

Shake & Wake

(Not

requested; Any other

denied;

auxiliary aid

Audit item

ID

granted)

requested?

Outome? issues/concerns

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

N/A

Not Requested

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 41 of 661 - Page ID#: 2605

Fill this out for EACH location where there are any deaf/HOH inmates

How many Volume

Bed

If there are

How inmates adjustable

shakers set Staff use If there are any

any inmates

many who sign phone available How up for use bed

inmates who

who sign:

Deaf/ to

to inmates

many for

shakers for sign: Location

Ready

HOH communic without special bed

multiple multiple available for If there are any inmates who access to

Dorm/unit

Walk

inmates? ate

request?

shakers? purposes? purposes? VRI?

sign: Staff trained for VRI videophone

Dorm 2

N/A

None

4

5 No

No

None Sign

None Sign all staff trained None Sign

Dorm 1

N/A

None None

2

0 No

No

None Sign

None Sign all staff trained None Sign

Date

Name

7/11/2019 Captain Kevin Carter

June - July Kristy Gamble

June - July David Penix

7/23/2019

7/23/2019

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 42 of 661 - Page ID#: 2606

Inmate or staff? Inmate number Staff title

Topics

Staff

Captain

Disciplinary Reports

Staff

Medical Staff

Medical Reports

Staff

Policy & Procedures

Grievances

Inmate

ADA Coordinator

Inmate

ADA Coordinator

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 43 of 661 - Page ID#: 2607

Prison
General General General General General General General BCC BCC BCC
BCC

LIST ALL ISSUES FROM PRIOR AUDIT TO RECORD THEIR SOLUTION. Any that are not solved report progress Where problem is

and place on "New Followup List"

documented

Untimely audiology processes

April 2019 Court Report

List of Deaf/HOH prisoners not complete

April 2019 Court Report

Not all Deaf/HOH prisoners in KOMS

April 2019 Court Report

Videophone outages are prevalent

April 2019 Court Report

VRI possibly underused

April 2019 Court Report

In-person interpretation possibly underused

April 2019 Court Report

Appropriate audiology standards used

April 2019 Court Report

Generic TTY instructions

April 2019 Court Report

Need appropriate method for VRI usage in RHU

April 2019 Court Report

Inmates should not be restricted to Dorm 2 without appropriate (individualized) reason

April 2019 Court Report

Inmates should not be barred from particular employment without individualized direct threat analysis

April 2019 Court Report

Solution: Notes

BCFC EKCC

Generic TTY instructions Incorrect ADA Coordinator info on https://corrections.ky.gov/Facilities/AI/Pages/ADA-Coordinators.aspx

April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report

EKCC
EKCC EKCC EKCC EKCC EKCC GRCC GRCC GRCC GRCC KCIW KCIW KCIW KCIW KSP KSP KSP KSP KSR KSR

Inmates who have not been screened in recent years do not receive a hearing screening upon arrival at EKCC. Need plan for videophone outages Auxiliary aids/services assessment not complete for all inmates ADA Coordinator needs access to KOMS to fix unlisted inmates Parole hearing earphones needed Need to address possibility of malingering. Ineffective announcements; PA system issues Incomplete TTY instructions Use of VRI or in-person interpreter at all disciplinary hearings for those who sign Denver Williams hearing aid Auxiliary aids/services assessment not complete for all inmates Inappropriate use of paging for deaf inmates Using VRI when appropriate? Handbook needs to provide ADA information VRI laptop working? Auxiliary aids/services assessment not complete for all inmates Institutional channel 40 has captions at all times? Routine availability of TTY New pager policy -- needs evidence base Ineffective announcements; PA system issues (are personal notifications being made, e.g. to

April 2019 Court Report
April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report ?) April 2019 Court Report

KSR

Appropriate use of interpretation, e.g. for

KSR

Generic TTY instructions.

LAC

Policy/form/training/etc development

LAC

Videophone/VRI available?

LAC

Auxiliary aids/services assessment not being done

LAC

Hearing screening during routine physicals?

LAC

ADA coordinator received training?

LAC

ADA documents in law library

LLCC

Need method to track whether deaf or hard-of-hearing inmates are witnesses in disciplinary hearings

LLCC

Hearing screening needed for new inmates who haven't received one in several years

LSCC

Auxiliary aids/services assessment not complete for all inmates

LSCC

Generic TTY instructions.

LSCC

Correct sick call slip

NTC

Hearing screening needed for new inmates who haven't received one in several years

NTC

Need to implement appropriate policy for non-auditory alerts (e.g., provide vibrating watches)

NTC

Generic TTY instructions.

WKCC/ ROSS Videophone outages

April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report April 2019 Court Report

Solution: Date

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 44 of 661 - Page ID#: 2608
Bell County Forestry Camp

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 45 of 661 - Page ID#: 2609

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

A ADA coordinator
1 Is an ADA coordinator designated? Has there been a time (since last audit) when there
2 was no ADA coordinator appointed? 3 Is correct ADA coordinator on KyDOC website? 4 Is ADA coordinator info shared w/ affected
Was the ADA coordinator information shared with inmates in a timely and appropriate manner? How?

5 Are inmates aware of ADA coordinator information?
6 (THIS REQUIRES ASKING A SAMPLE) Is the information prominently posted in any
7 housing unit where deaf/HOH inmates are held? 8 Did the ADA coordinator receive training? 9 Describe training
Is training's length/method sufficient to adequately 10 cover information? 11 Adequate w/r/t federal law? (Online ADA training) 12 Adequate w/r/t state law?
Adequate w/r/t agreement? (Settlement monitor's 13 powerpoint)
Does ADA coordinator possess familiarity with 14 settlement agreement?
Does ADA coordinator retrieve at least monthly 15 reports on KOMS/medical records of deaf inmates?
Are additional inmates added to the coordinator's 16 tracking list?
Has the ADA coordinator assisted appropriately in 17 implementing the settlement?
Is (s)he available to assist in accommodating deaf 18 inmates?
Does (s)he regularly communicate with or check on 19 deaf inmates?
Does (s)he ensure Effective Communication for the 20 inmates in those situations?
Does (s)he communicate in a timely and effective 21 way with the monitor?
Does (s)he facilitate inmate communication with the 22 monitor when necessary?
B Reporting obligations
If there was any change in ADA coordinator, was 1 monitor notified?
Does the ADA coordinator maintain a list of deaf 2 and HOH inmates? 3 Is the list complete? 4 Has it been shared in a timely manner?
Quarterly summary of all grievances by deaf or 5 HOH inmates shared with monitor?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

X

X

X

X

Inmates are told during orientation,

it is listed in the handbook, there are memo's posted, and when they

X

come to me for job assignments.

Describe method used to ascertain: T X

Powerpoint/Online Training

X
X NA
X
X X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

N/A X X X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 46 of 661 - Page ID#: 2610

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Was there a direct threat determination made for 6 jobs, activities, etc.? (Y/N/describe) 7 Was it reported to the monitor? 8 Was the report complete? 9 Was the report timely? 10 Did the institution consider any non-auditory alert? 11 If yes, was the monitor notified?
Did the institution consult with the monitor about 12 the non-auditory alert? 13 Adjustment in timing for phones: Communicated?

C Intake/Orientation - Corrections
1 Hard of hearing inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone HOH is
2 arriving? Describe (The ADA Coordinator should receive
3 automatic notifications.) Effective communications planned/provided?
4 (Describe) Deaf inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone deaf is
5 arriving? 6 Describe 7 Effective communications planning? 8 Effective communication provided? 9 Describe 10 Use of VRI interpreter when needed? 11 Use of in-person interpreter when needed?
Orientation videos 12 Captioned? 13 Shown in a quiet space? 14 Amplification if needed?
Accommodation for deaf/HOH inmates who are not 15 literate? (Describe)

D Medical care: intake, care more generally, audiology services
Effective Communication during general medical intake, and during medical care more generally: 1 Is there effective communications planning? Does medical staff ask inmates who have difficulty 2 hearing if interpretation is needed? 3 Are pocket amplifiers on hand at medical office? Are staff aware of, and use, effective 4 communications techniques? Notice to medical staff: 5 Do medical staff know deaf or HOH status? How? Medical file identifies individuals as deaf/HOH on 6 cover and within the file?

Description/Notes Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

NA

NA

X

Describe: Email/Medical NA
Describe: Inmate is asked which servi X

NA

X

Describe: Email/Medical

NA

Methods of communication are in pla X

X

Describe: In-person interpretter if reqNA

X

X

NA

X

X

X

Describe: We have two ADA inmates X

NA X X X X
NA It is listed in the inmates medical file. X
X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 47 of 661 - Page ID#: 2611

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Off-site medical: Provision of appropriate 7 accommodations.
Knowledegable about obligation to alert off-site 8 providers of need for interpretation? 9 Procedure in place to ensure notification? 10 Has there ever been a notification to provider? 11 Adequate notice?
Outside providers offering effective communication 12 to inmates who sign? 13 How?
Hearing screening/medical intake: 14 Performed for all new inmates? 15 Within first 3 days at institution? 16 Approved screening form? (need to review) 17 Asks about functionality of current hearing aid? 18 Hearing questions come at start of medical intake?
How? Do inmates fill out the form or is it 19 administered by staff? 20 Which staff is responsible? (best practice is medical) 21 Conducted with awareness of possible low literacy? 22 Accommodations for low literacy? Describe. 23 Medical history includes hearing questions?
Other methods of access: Do annual/routine physicals include hearing 24 screening? 25 Staff/ADA Cooardinator can refer for screening? 26 Inmate can obtain screening on request? If screening indicated problem (3+ "yes" answers), 27 is there further assessment? Adequate determination of need for designation/ 28 audiology services? How? 29 Is further assessment timely (within several days)? Separate determination of whether inmate is deaf 30 or HOH, apart from audiology services decision? After assessment, does medical: 31 Note deaf or HOH status in ECW as alert? 32 Is the notice immediately obvious in electronic file? 33 Notify ADA coordinator? 34 Is notification prompt? Audiology services/processes (See also Audiology Checklist) 35 Audiology services offered when needed? 36 Timely? (60 days if no obstacles) 37 Amplifier offered while waiting for hearing aid? 38 Adequate addressing of obstacles to services 39 Hearing aid provided when medically appropriate?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

X

Describe: Not here at BCFC

X NA
X

X

Describe: KY-DOC has a contract with NA NA X X X X X
Describe: Administered by staff NA
Describe: H.S.A and/or intake nurse NA X
Describe: The form is read by the staff member and completed by the staff member. X
NA

X

X X

X

Inmates are referred to outside care. X

X

X

NA X X X X

NA X X X X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 48 of 661 - Page ID#: 2612

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Adequate progress tracking? Should include: 40 initial request/questionnaire? 41 each relevant medical visit? 42 any audiology visit? 43 hearing aid provision? 44 Audiology progress chart updated every 1-2 weeks? 45 Shared with ADA Coordinator? 46 Shared with monitor when requested
Summary When nothing unusual happens, how many off-site trips does it take for an inmate to receive a hearing 47 aid? Describe. In the past year, how many individuals have had to 48 wait more than sixty days to receive a hearing aid? 49 What is the cause of the delay? What steps is your institution taking (or has it taken) 50 to improve this process? Co-pay and availability issues: 47 Charged only once -- not again for followups Hearing aid batteries 48 Available for free? 49 In sufficient numbers? 50 7 days/week? 51 regardless of housing?

E Information provided inmates
1 Provided at intake/orientation? (Describe) Inmate handbook adequately refers to non-
2 discrimination and ADA services? Brochure? Items to include:
3 Non-discrimination obligation 4 Effective communication obligation 5 Auxiliary aids and services available
How to obtain, request, and use all aids/services 6 (including hearing aids, and batteries) 7 Communication equipment available, and how to 8 ADA coordinator and how to reach
Other items: 9 Institution schedule of interpreters
Request for Accommodations/ Communications 10 Assistance
Medical Request form includes request for 11 accommodations
Job application form includes request for 12 accommodations 13 Waiver forms
Classification form includes request for 14 accommodations 15 Discipline form includes request for accomodations
SAP and other programming form includes request 16 for accommodation 17 NA/AA form includes request for accommocation

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe: Describe: ? Describe: ?
?

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA X X X X X X X X

NA
NA NA
NA NA
X NA
X X X X
X X NA X X X X X X NA X X
X
X X X X X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 49 of 661 - Page ID#: 2613

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Settlement summary, settlement, and brochure 18 available in law library? (Need to check)
Do request forms: 19 list available services comprehensively?
clearly explain services and aids (what they are and 20 when they are available? 21 clearly explain how to request services/aids?
expressly ask about preferred mode of communication/needed services and why they are 22 useful? 23 explain which items are free? encompass religious and volunteer-provided 24 programming? Effective communication of these resources: Are the materials in language accessible to each 25 inmate? Is this information provided with effective 26 communication? Can inmates request and receive a meaningful opportunity to meet with a KDOC staff member and 27 interpreter to ask questions about the materials? Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment in/application for a program with staff, is effective 28 communication provided? are potential accommodations covered in the 29 discussion? Effective communication re. programming When deaf/ HOH inmate discusses enrollment in/application in education with staff, is effective 30 communication provided? are potential accommodations covered in the 31 discussion?

F Notice re. deaf/HOH inmates
1 Notice posted at entrance to institution? 2 Include picture of ID card and other official 3 Notice posted outside housing units? 4 Include picture of ID card and other official 5 Cell/bed cards 6 Staff aware of corresponding need to alert? 7 Clear process to obtain? Describe 8 Each inmate has one if not waived? 9 Provided timely? 10 Replacements provided when needed?
KOMS alert? 11 Staff aware of use of KOMS
Working process to get new inmate alerts added? 12 (Describe) 13 Present for each deaf/HOH inmate? (Need to check) 14 Appropriately obvious 15 Updated timely

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

Describe date checked: 08/27/2019 a X

NA X

X

X

X

X X NA X

X

X NA
X

X NA
X

X

Describe: Describe:

X X X X NA X X X X X NA X
X
X X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 50 of 661 - Page ID#: 2614

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Individual ID cards 16 Staff aware of meaning? 17 Clear? (avoids unclear laguage/abbreviations?) 18 Provided to all deaf/HOH if not waived? 19 Provided timely? 20 Can the inmate carry the ID at all times? 21 Prompt replacements provided? 22 Can ID card be taken away for some purpose? 23 If yes, what is the substitute official indicator? 24 Has any inmate signed ID Waiver? 25 If yes, is the waiver kept in inmate's file?
Has any inmate who signed a waiver later requested 26 ID? 27 If yes, was an ID provided?

G Auxiliary Aids & Services Assessment
Identification to ADA Coordinator Does the ADA coordinator receive timely notification 1 upon intake of each deaf/hoh inmate? Does the ADA coordinator receive timely notification 2 of other deaf/hoh inmates? Does the ADA coordinator conduct an Auxiliary Aids and Services Assessment with every arriving or 3 newly identified deaf/hoh inmate? At this meeting, are each inmate's available methods of communication expressly ascertained 4 and documented? At this meeting, does the ADA coordinator inform each inmate about available auxiliary aids and 5 services? Are the auxiliary aids/services request forms 6 explained? Is appropriate communication used during this meeting? (oral and written; VRI; or visual 7 descriptions ) Other assessments For all deaf/hoh inmates who didn't receive an 8 assessment on intake, has one been done? 9 Are Auxiliary Aids assessments updated every year?

H Particular Auxiliary Aids & Services Provided
1 On-person ID cards 2 Cell cards 3 Bed shaker 4 In-person alerts 5 Pager
Phone volume adjust setting (available in each 6 location where phones are available?) 7 Amplifier for phone
Consideration of specific housing assignment to 8 minimize communication difficulties? 9 Other amplification 10 Other (describe)

Description/Notes Describe: Describe:
Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA X X X X X X
NA X
NA X

X

X

NA X X

X

X

X
X
X
NA X X
X X X X
X X X X
NA

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 51 of 661 - Page ID#: 2615

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

General issues Special housing area: Is there a special housing area for deaf/HOH 11 inmates? (Describe) If there is such an area, what is the benefit from it? 12 (Describe) If there is such an area, are inmates required to be 13 housed there? (such a requirement is nonIf there is such an area, and an inmate chooses not to live there, are accommodations etc. still fully 14 available to the inmate? Describe any restrictions. In determining auxiliary aids/services to provide, is 15 primary consideration given to inmate request? If any inmate filled out a Request for Auxiliary Aids and Services form after not being found deaf or HOH, signing a waiver, or not requesting 16 aids/services, were accommodations provided? Are waivers of Auxiliary Aids and Services 17 documented in inmate institutional files? Are instructions for the use of all auxiliary 18 aids/services shared appropriately with staff? 19 All auxiliary aids/services maintained? 20 Have any been out of comission? 21 Describe -- which and for how long? Inmates moving housing or transferred: not 22 separated from hearing aid? 23 If (s)he has been, is replacement provided? 24 Promptly? 25 Has there been a direct threat determination? 26 Describe Appropriately individuated (must consider specific 27 degree of impairment and specific dangers posed) 28 Appropriately reported? 29 Was it the appropriate decision? 30 Are classes in sign language provided? 31 deaf inmates given notice? 32 priority given to deaf inmates?

I Interpretation in general
Qualified interpretation services available: Is the process for using VRI/in-person interpretation 1 communicated to inmates? covers all inmate-staff communication when requested by inmate? (not limited to only certain 2 encounters/communications/settings) Does the request form clearly encompass religious 3 and other volunteer-provided programming? Effective process for choosing qualified 4 interpretation method? 5 primary consideration given inmates' preferences?

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe:
Describe: Describe: Describe: Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA NA

NA

NA X

X

X

X

X
X X NA NA X X X NA NA
X X X X X X
NA X
X
X
X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 52 of 661 - Page ID#: 2616

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Standing arrangement with providers? 6 In-person? 7 VRI?
Is VRI availability: 8 flexible (regarding requests and usage)?
after hours when needed (not allowing for 48 hours 9 of notice)?
on weekends when needed (not allowing for 48 10 hours of notice)?
during emergencies (including medical emergencies) 11 when needed (not allowing for 48 hours of notice)?
Appropriate preparations made for use in RHU? 12 Describe
VRI laptop functional? 13 In general 14 Always checked for sufficient battery power? 15 Routine software updates?
VRI laptop has necessary items with it? 16 Splitter? 17 Instructions? 18 Long power cord? 19 Usable as VRS? 20 VRI effectiveness tracked? 21 How?
Information used to determine when in-person 22 interpretation should be first recourse?
Is in-person interpretation available: 23 When VRI insufficient in programming, medical 24 Parole?
Describe each time in-person interpretation has 25 been offered
Describe each time in-person interpretation has 26 been denied.
Parole board notified of need for interpretation at 27 least 7 days before?
Has facility relied on another inmate to interpret? 28 (Reliance in non-emergency is non-compliant) 29 Describe
in an emergency? (in which time was of the essence 30 and VRI was unavailable)
Communication with inmates uses inmate's 31 preferred method?
Written communication is limited to only simple 32 matters.
Written communication is not needed when inmate 33 has low literacy

Description/Notes
Describe: Describe: Describe:
Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA X X
NA X

X

X

X

X
NA X X X
NA X X X X X X
X
X X X
X

X

X

X NA
X

X

X

X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 53 of 661 - Page ID#: 2617

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Qualified interpretation services available: Does the request form clearly encompass religious 34 and other volunteer-provided programming? for all inmate-staff communication when requested by inmate? (not limited to only certain 35 encounters/communications/settings) Is the process for using VRI communicated to 36 inmates?

J Hand Restraints
1 Hand restraints ever used on inmate who signs? Used for an appropriate reason? transportation to/from prison? Escort in/out of restrictive housing?
2 Individualized finding of a security threat? Security procedure allows use of VRI by inmate who
3 might ordinarily be restrained (in RHU, e.g.) 4 Necessary equipment purchased and installed? 5 Staff aware of the issue
Off-site medical care: 6 two-point hand restraint system used?
restraints removed when necessary for medical 7 communication?

K Non-auditory Alerts
Does the prison have non-auditory alerts? (Describe) 1 provided to all inmates who need it? 2 3 can and does it give alerts in real time? 4 sufficient to signal fire alarm? 5 sufficient to signal count alert? 6 programmed to signal different alerts? 7 used to notify of prison-wide events? used to notify deaf or HOH inmates of events 8 specific to them? Have any requests for medically necessary non9 auditory alerts been denied? Non-auditory alerts monitored to ensure they are 10 working? 11 frequently enough? 12 monitored/recorded formally? 13 Announcement boards 14 used to notify of schedule changes? 15 used consistently? 16 in all dormitories? 17 in gym? 18 in library? 19 audited and monitored?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA

X

X

X

Describe: BCFC does not have any inmNA

X
X X NA

Describe: The prison has bed

shakers and flashing strobe lights for

any type of emergencies.

NA

X

X X X X X

X

X
X X NA X X X X X X

BCFC has never used.
BCFC has never used. Yes, but must be approved by Warden.
BCFC currently has no inmates with equipment.
No requests have been made at this time.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 54 of 661 - Page ID#: 2618

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

In-person or personal system notification when an 20 inmate misses a page?
Has any inmate missed announcements/alarms/ info only because of disability?

21 Were corrective steps taken to solve the problem in
22 the future? 23 Sufficient to notify inmates in emergencies?
Plan to evacuate deaf or HOH inmates in 24 emergency?
Does the plan account for how effective 25 communication will be provided?
L Telecommunications
Videophones: 1 Installed? 2 Allow voice carry-over features? 3 Number of days out of service? (Specify)
Describe any technical difficulties, and efforts to 4 solve them.
When out of service, VRS used instead? Or describe 5 other alternative offered
Describe how inmates are informed of alternatives, when videophone is out of service.

6 7 Same times of access as non-deaf inmates? 8 Appropriate location?
Escort routinely provided (incl. after hours, 9 weekends, emergency) if necessary? 10 Time: 2x that for non-deaf inmates? 11 Available same hours as ordinary phones?
No more permission needed than that for hearing 12 inmates using ordinary phones? 13 Advance request unnecessary? 14 Free?
Disciplinary oversight no more intense than regular 15 phone calls?
Has any inmate requested access to the 16 videophones and been denied?
Denial appropriate? Explain the circumstances, including the inmate's name, the date, and the 17 reason for the denial. TTY: 18 Installed? Protocol for how to access TTY known to inmates 19 and staff? Easy-to-understand, institution specific instructions 20 made available WITH TTY? 21 Function -- days out of service? (Specify) 22 Access -- appropriate hours, days?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

X

Describe: No, if an inmate does not

show up after announcements, we

have ADA support inmates who will

go and inform them.

NA

N/A

X X

X

Describe: Describe:
Describe: If system is down VRS would be used. Describe: When the ADA coordinator/back-up meets with them individually or by the ADA handbook.

NA X X
NA
NA X
NA X X

X

X X

X

X X

X

Describe: Never. NA
Describe: No inmate has ever been denied.

NA X
X

Describe:

X
NA X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 55 of 661 - Page ID#: 2619

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

location substantially as accessible as conventional 23 telephones for non-deaf inmates? 24 hard of hearing inmates allowed to access?
Permission needed? 25
Has any request to use the TTY been denied? 26 (Describe) 27 Time: 3x that for non-deaf inmates? 28 Money charged appropriate? (Describe) 29 Annual test ok? (List when most recently)
Can access publicly available relay service phone 30 numbers?
Has KDOC determined that time usage permissions 31 for videophones and TTY is less than equitable? 32 If yes, how was ratio adjusted?
If yes, was determination (including reasoning, 33 evidence, etc.) documented? 34 Was monitor notified? 35 Was reasoning explained to monitor?
VRS via laptop 36 Available? 37 Known to relevant staff? (In RHU) 38 Used when appropriate?
Phones 39 Amplification in every group of phones?
Portable amplifiers available to inmates who need 40 them?
CapTel 41 Appropriate for any particular inmate? 42 If so, installed and working? 43 Request by any inmate denied?
TV/Movies 44 Is captioning available? 45 Is captioning used? 46 Is the captioning checked regularly? 47 Are the checks of the captioning logged?
Recreational movies: Captioning turned on regularly 48 (Describe) 49 Are inmates allowed to purchase tvs w/ captioning? 50 Amplification method? (Describe)
If inmate-purchased tv w/ captioning malfunctioned, did staff assist to same extent as w/other inmates 51 regarding malfunctioning personal property? All technology/ equipment in good working order? 52 (Describe problems) Access to communication services for deaf inmates in segregated housing equivalent to non-deaf 53 inmates of same status? Does KDOC monitor communications of deaf or HOH inmates only to the same extent and with the 54 same discretion as non-deaf inmates?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

X

X

No permission required if ADA, just have to request the equipment.

X

Describe:

NA

X

Describe:

NA

Describe:

X

X

Describe: NA

Describe: Describe: Describe:
By request.
Describe:
Describe:

NA X X X
NA X
X
NA NA NA NA NA
X X X X
X
X NA

N/A

Describe any problems:

X

X

X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 56 of 661 - Page ID#: 2620

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

M Miscellaneous Devices
1 Devices available? (Describe) 2 devices in commissary list?
possibility to request other devices from ADA 3 coordinator? 4 facilitation of purchase?
Purchase of any non-medically necessary device 5 denied? (Describe) 6 determined on case-by-case basis? 7 because security threat? 8 monitor notified? 9 reasoning explained?
ADA coordinator maintains records 10 of requests? 11 of denials?
N Disciplinary
Have any discipline occurred without an interpreter and without an inmate waiver, for which an inmate 1 has been punished? 2 Was a re-hearing granted?
O Grievances
Inmates told they can share grievances with ADA 1 coordinator?
If inmates choose to do that, does grievance coordinator forward copy of grievance to ADA 2 coordinator? Records of all grievances filed by deaf/HOH 3 inmates? (not just those related to settlement) 4 Adequate summaries provided in report? Including all deaf or HOH inmate grievances, not just 5 those in settlement? 6 Includes issues raised by inmate in grievance? 7 Includes institution in which grievance was filed? 8 Includes summary of KDOC response? 9 Includes grievance resolution (or lack thereof)?
P Training
Types available 1 CBT? (Using approved training?)
Who received? (Describe) 2 3 All appropriate staff? 4 Live training? (Information only) 5 Who received? (Describe) 6 All appropriate staff?
Targeted training on specific needs 7 training on best communication practices? 8 training on unique needs/problems?
training on possibility that deaf/HOH inmate may 9 miss alert?

Description/Notes Describe: Describe:

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

NA X X X
NA

X X

X Not necessary.

No grievances have been requested to be shared at this point in time.

X

X

X X

Describe: All staff during annual training.
Describe: Describe:

NA X
NA X
NA NA
X NA
X X
X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 57 of 661 - Page ID#: 2621

Issue/Question #

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

training on possibility that deaf/HOH inmate may not hear verbal commands and strategies to handle 10 that problem? 11 training on identification of communication needs? consideration given to talking one-on-one with deaf 12 or HOH inmates, instead of in a group? Training on communication 13 training on use and role of interpreters? 14 training on process for obtaining interpreters? training on importance of not separating imate from 15 hearing aid? 16 training on communication technology? 17 training on VRI? 18 training on how to turn on and check for 19 training on non-auditory alert office switch? 20 training on videophone rules? Training on Policies 21 training on the Settlement? 22 training on identity and role of ADA coordinator? 23 training on KDOC anti-discrimination policy? 24 training on existence of KOMS/EMR alerts? 25 training on meaning of ID cards? training on equipment/services/ accommodation 26 available? 27 training on hand restraint policy? 28 training on two-point hand restraint system? 29 training on disciplinary and grievance practies? Do all relevant staff know about reporting obligations? How do you know?

30 Training specifically for housing area staff training on the use of cell/bed notices that indicate
31 an inmate is deaf/HOH 32 training on bed shaker switches 33 training on telecommunications
training on obligations to notify deaf and HOH 34 inmates of alerts
Training specifically for all corrections staff training on accommodations for inmates who sign 35 (esp. restraint policies) training on strategies for inmates who may not hear 36 directions/orders Training specifically for medical staff training on process to obtain hearing aid within two 37 months training on obligation to notify off-site providers of 38 needs 39 Training provided for review by Monitor?

Description/Notes
Describe: Every relevant staff member is contacted by the ADA coordinator and/or back-up personally.

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

X
X
X
NA X X
X
X X X X X NA X X X X X
X
X X X

X

NA X X X X
NA X
X NA
X
X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 58 of 661 - Page ID#: 2622

Prison: Bell County Forestry Camp

Name of person filling out form: Susan Partin

Date: 09/09/2019

1

2

3

4

5

6

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC #

1. Date hearing problem first presented to KDOC

8/10/2016

7/13/2017

4/22/2019

10/14/2018

12/21/2016 N/A

2. How hearing problem was first presented to

KDOC

sick call

Intake

provider appt.

Intake H&P

H&P

3. Date of initial hearing screening

4. Date of most recent hearing screening 5. Results of most recent hearing screening

8/17/2016 9/8/2016

8/31/2017 9/26/2017

5/6/2019 5/7/2019

10/16/2018 1/7/2019

2/20/2017 2/20/2017

Hearing imparied

6. Hearing aid status - list which one applies:

(a) has hearing aid(s) in working order

(b) in process of determining whether hearing aids are

needed

(c) in process of obtaining or repairing hearing aids

(d) no hearing aid is needed

A

D

A

A

D

7. For each inmate in status (d) (no hearing aid

needed) , consult the medical documentation of the

decision against providing a hearing aid, and ensure

that it complies with KyDOC policy.

N/A

N/A

A

N/A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 59 of 661 - Page ID#: 2623

1

2

3

4

5

6

Prisoner First Name

Prisoner Last Name

KyDOC # 8. For each inmate who has a hearing aid , does

it have a t-coil (telecoil) receptor? (This type of

receptor makes the hearing aid compatible with an

induction loop system.

Yes

N/A

Yes

Yes

9. Please provide the following information about

each medical encounter from when the hearing

issue was presented to when the hearing issue was

finally addressed (by providing a hearing aid or

determining that a hearing aid was not needed)

Medical Visit 1 - Date Medical Visit 1 - Description Medical Visit 1 - Outcome

8/17/2016

8/31/2017

4/22/2019

Hearing imparied

trouble with hearing hearing screen

hearing test and hearin ENT

schedule audicus test

Medical Visit 2 - Date Medical Visit 2 - Description Medical Visit 2 - Outcome
Medical Visit 3 - Date Medical Visit 3 - Description Medical Visit 3 - Outcome

9/8/2016

9/26/2017

5/1/2019

Audiology consult seen in clinic

audicus hearing test

Hearing Aids x2 orderedrefused hearing aids HOH bilateral

aids.

10/13/2016

1/7/2019

5/7/2019

picked up hearing aid check hearingaid

evaluated

picked up hearing aid doing well with device hearing aid oredered

Medical Visit 4 - Date Medical Visit 4 - Description Medical Visit 4 - Outcome

Medical Visit 5 - Date Medical Visit 5 - Description Medical Visit 5 - Outcome

Medical Visit 6 - Date Medical Visit 6 - Description Medical Visit 6 - Outcome

N/A

10/14/2018

2/20/2017

audiology

2/20/2017

SNHL , tinnitus

3/19/2019

clinic visit

no further appt.

...

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 60 of 661 - Page ID#: 2624

Technology FM radio transmitters, usable as an amplifier system? Phone amplifiers (not volume control: portable amplifiers)
Captioned Telephone
Other amplifiers, amplification systems, or the like? Bed shakers Vibrating watches? Vibrating alarm clocks? Pagers? Other non-auditory alerts or assistive devices currently in use or under consideration not mentioned above. Earphones for parole hearings Earphones for orientation videos

How many
0
As many as requested
1
1
1 0 0 ?

Where N/A
Medical
Dormitory
Medical Procedures Inmate Canteen Inmate Canteen

When obtained N/A
Upon Request During normal
telephone Upon Request Upon Request By Purchase By Purchase

2 Two ADA Support inmates

2

ADA Coordinator

As needed

2

ADA Coordinator

As needed

Specifications (URL) N/A

How do inmates obtain access? N/A
Healthcare Request Form to see medical and obtain.
Located in the dorm for inmate use during telephone hours
Healthcare Request Form to see medical and obtain.
ADA Coordinator/Back-Up Order via the canteen Order via the canteen
Request Request

How well do they work? N/A
Normal
Normal
Normal Normal Normal Normal Normal
Normal
Normal Normal

Other comments N/A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 61 of 661 - Page ID#: 2625

Documentation to review KOMS alerts for each deaf/HOH inmate Grievances: Provide/Review summary of ALL grievances by all deaf/HOH inmates. Covers formal, informal, withdrawn, etc.

Date reviewed Comments (problems revealed, solutions, etc.) 9/9/2019 All known ADA inmates are current.
9/9/2019 As of this date no ADA inmates have filed a grievance.

Provide/Review full documentation of all grievances that address hearing/hearing accommodation issues. Solve any problems revealed. Discipline Review all disciplinary proceedings involving an inmate who signs. Ensure that VRI or other effective communication was provided at each stage of each such proceedings.

9/9/2019

BCFC has no inmates that communicate via sign language.

Review all disciplinary proceedings involving failure to obey an order, or failure to stand for count, or other communications difficulty by a deaf/HOH inmate. Ensure that no such inmate is being penalized for inability to hear.
VRI Log (review to ensure it's being used in appropriate circumstances. VRS or other videophone alternative (review to ensure that when videophone is inoperative, alternative is in fact available/used)
TTY instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.)
VRI instructions (must be easy to follow instructions on set-up, use, etc.)

9/9/2019
9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019

No deaf/H-o-H inmate has received disciplinary action due to one of these issues.
Log is up-to-date and verified monthly. Equipment is operative. If unoperative, VRI will be used to facilitate until repaired. No issues.
No issues.

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 62 of 661 - Page ID#: 2626

Questions regarding effective communications in particular activities or locations. For each, mark compliance (Y, partial, N, no basis) and explain. Goal: each deaf or HOH inmate has an equal opportunity to

In-person interpretation

Availability of VRI: Appropriate equipment

Amplification: (Not just hearing aid -space-specific amplification)

available

Ever used? Used whenever

Intake/ Orientation -- Non-medical Intake, Medical Auxiliary Aid Assessment Units Restrictive Housing Medical/MH care Programs Education Recreation Communications with Chaplain Prison-provided religious programming

Ever used? No No No No No No No No No No No

Used whenever appropriate?
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.
Has not been needed.

(computer line, Staff trained? outlet, space)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

How many times?
No No No No No No No No No No No

appropriate? (without

special request)

Adequate? Describe efforts, issues

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been needed.

Yes

Audit item issues/ concerns

Volunteer -led programming (note: Only volunteer

Has not been

interpretation is required)

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been

Parole hearings

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Classification/

Has not been

Transfer

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been

Legal Aid

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been

Grievance process

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been

Work assignments

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Has not been

Court call and ALL parts of disciplinary process

No

needed.

Yes

Yes

No

Has not been needed.

Yes

Staff investigations

Investigative interviews

Preparation of report

Shift supervisor's review of disciplinary report

Investigator's review of disciplinary report

Miranda warnings

aide

Notification of date, time, and place of hearing

Hearing or re-hearing

If deaf/hoh inmate is witness

Special questions: Has any inmate been required to attend a religious service without effective communication to receive any religious meal, diet, or other accommodation? NO Are deaf or HOH inmates (who have witnessed or been suspected of violation) provided with an inmate or staff advisor on same terms as non-deaf inmates? YES Inmates can have a staff council upon request. It is reviewed and denied or appoved based on the same process as a non deaf inmate. YES

Name

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 63 of 661 - Page ID#: 2627

USE THIS SHEET FOR ENSURING THAT EACH DEAR/HOH INMATE IS GETTING APPROPRIATE ASSISTANCE

Listed

Low literacy?

with Signs (So that

If signs to communicat

Bed Shaker?

Other Alert Device TTY Access

Personal Phone
Amplifier

Shake &

KOMS to

written

Has

Has e, noted in Auxiliary Aid (Not

(Not

(Not

(Not Wake (Not Any other

ADA commu communicatio Deaf/HOH ID Bed/Door KOMS Assessment requested; requested; requested; requested; requested; auxiliary

Precautio nicate

n is not

Card? (Y or Card? (Y or precaution meeting

denied; denied; denied;

denied;

denied;

aid Outome Audit item

ID

n?

(Y/N) effective)

waived)

waived)

notes? took place? granted) granted) granted) granted) granted) requested? ?

issues/concerns

Not

Not

Not

Not

Y

N Associates

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N

Seventh

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested time

N/A

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N Year of College

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested time

N/A

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N

GED

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested time

N/A

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N

Eighth

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested time

N/A

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N

GED

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Granted Requested time

N/A

Not

Not

Not

Not

Not Not at this

Y

N

GED

Y

Waived

N/A

Requested Requested Requested Requested Requested time

N/A

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 64 of 661 - Page ID#: 2628

Fill this out for EACH location where there are any deaf/HOH inmates

Dorm/unit

Walk

How many Deaf/ HOH inmates?

How many inmates who sign to communic ate

Volume

Bed

adjustable phone available
to inmates without special

How many bed shakers?

shakers set up for use
for multiple

request?

purposes?

Staff use bed
shakers for multiple purposes?

If there are any inmates who sign: Location available for
VRI?

If there are any inmates who
sign: Staff trained for VRI

If there are any inmates
who sign: Ready
access to videophone

No bed No bed

Wing 4

Wing 4

3

0

Yes

0 shakers in shakers in

N/A

N/A

N/A

use.

use.

No bed No bed

Wing 5

Wing 5

3

0

Yes

0 shakers in shakers in

N/A

N/A

N/A

use.

use.

Audit item issues/concerns

Date 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019 9/9/2019

Name

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 65 of 661 - Page ID#: 2629

Inmate or staff? Inmate number Staff

Staff title CTO/ADA Coordinator

Staff

Recreation Leader/Back-Up ADA Coordinator

Staff

Warden

Staff

Health Services Administrator

Inmate

Inmate

Inmate

Inmate

Inmate

Inmate

Inmate

Topics
H-o-H H-o-H H-o-H H-o-H H-o-H H-o-H Legally Blind

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 66 of 661 - Page ID#: 2630
Eastern Kentucky Correctional Complex

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 67 of 661 - Page ID#: 2631

# Issue/Question

Audit item questions/concerns (note here if a problem was discovered during the audit, and what has been done about it, or if the problem remains)

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

A ADA coordinator

1 Is an ADA coordinator designated?

Kristopher King, Safety Coord.

X

Has there been a time (since last audit) when there 2 was no ADA coordinator appointed?

No

X

3 Is correct ADA coordinator on KyDOC website?

Change requested from Frankfort

X

4 Is ADA coordinator info shared w/ affected

Yes

X

Was the ADA coordinator information shared with

5 inmates in a timely and appropriate manner? How? Yes. Information is shared weekly during Inmate Orientation.

X

Are inmates aware of ADA coordinator information? 6 (THIS REQUIRES ASKING A SAMPLE)

TV's in Cores of Dorms provide this

information

X

Is the information prominently posted in any 7 housing unit where deaf/HOH inmates are held?

Yes: See above response

X

8 Did the ADA coordinator receive training?

X

9 Describe training

Online Training

Online

Is training's length/method sufficient to adequately 10 cover information?

Yes

X

11 Adequate w/r/t federal law? (Online ADA training)

Yes

X

12 Adequate w/r/t state law?

Yes

X

Adequate w/r/t agreement? (Settlement monitor's 13 powerpoint)

Yes

X

Does ADA coordinator possess familiarity with 14 settlement agreement?

Yes

X

Does ADA coordinator retrieve at least monthly 15 reports on KOMS/medical records of deaf inmates?

Yes

X

Are additional inmates added to the coordinator's 16 tracking list?

Inmates are added to the list as they

are identified or transferred here

X

Has the ADA coordinator assisted appropriately in 17 implementing the settlement?

Yes

X

Is (s)he available to assist in accommodating deaf 18 inmates?

Yes. Caseworkers call regularly to

assist inmates

X

Does (s)he regularly communicate with or check on 19 deaf inmates?

Walk the dorms each week

X

Does (s)he ensure Effective Communication for the 20 inmates in those situations?

Yes

X

Does (s)he communicate in a timely and effective 21 way with the monitor?

As time permits with other duties

X

Does (s)he facilitate inmate communication with the 22 monitor when necessary?

Yes. Whenever requested.

X

B Reporting obligations

If there was any change in ADA coordinator, was 1 monitor notified?

No Change

X

Does the ADA coordinator maintain a list of deaf 2 and HOH inmates?

Yes

X

Should be complete unless there

are any without ADA notification on

X

3 Is the list complete?

KOMS

4 Has it been shared in a timely manner?

Yes

X

Quarterly summary of all grievances by deaf or 5 HOH inmates shared with monitor?

In Process

X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 68 of 661 - Page ID#: 2632

Audit item questions/concerns (note

here if a problem was discovered

during the audit, and what has been

done about it, or if the problem

# Issue/Question

remains)

Was there a direct threat determination made for

6 jobs, activities, etc.? (Y/N/describe)

Yes.

7 Was it reported to the monitor?

8 Was the report complete?

9 Was the report timely?

10 Did the institution consider any non-auditory alert? 11 If yes, was the monitor notified?
Did the institution consult with the monitor about 12 the non-auditory alert? 13 Adjustment in timing for phones: Communicated?
C Intake/Orientation - Corrections
1 Hard of hearing inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone HOH is
2 arriving? Describe (The ADA Coordinator should receive
3 automatic notifications.) Effective communications planned/provided?
4 (Describe) Deaf inmates Adequate process for knowing if someone deaf is
5 arriving? 6 Describe 7 Effective communications planning? 8 Effective communication provided? 9 Describe 10 Use of VRI interpreter when needed? 11 Use of in-person interpreter when needed?
Orientation videos 12 Captioned? 13 Shown in a quiet space? 14 Amplification if needed?
Accommodation for deaf/HOH inmates who are not 15 literate? (Describe)
D Medical care: intake, care more generally, audiology services
Effective Communication during general medical intake, and during medical care more generally: 1 Is there effective communications planning? Does medical staff ask inmates who have difficulty 2 hearing if interpretation is needed? 3 Are pocket amplifiers on hand at medical office? Are staff aware of, and use, effective 4 communications techniques? Notice to medical staff: 5 Do medical staff know deaf or HOH status? How? Medical file identifies individuals as deaf/HOH on 6 cover and within the file?

Description/Notes

Compliant

Partially Compliant

NonCompliant

NA, unknown, or no basis for

evaluation (Explain)

Job apps looked at by Jobs Coord. NA

X

X

X

Yes. Green light to indicate

movement on HOH walks in Dorm 3. NA

Yes

X

Yes

X

Yes

X

Yes. Auto Notifications

NA X

Describe: Auto Notifications

NA

Yes

X

NA

Auto Notifications

X

NA

X

X

Describe:

NA

Yes. Has not been needed recently

X

Yes. Has not been needed recently

X

NA

X

X

Headphones provided as needed.

X

Speak with the inmate and explain

rules and regulations

X

Yes Yes Yes Yes. They review Inmates medical Yes

NA X X X X
NA X X

Case: 3:14-cv-00001-GFVT-EBA Doc #: 93-4 Filed: 12/24/19 Page: 69 of 661

Output: On January 1, 2014, deaf and hard of hearing inmates in the Kentucky prison system filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky against the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the Kentucky Department of Corrections, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the First Amendment. Plaintiffs claimed that they were denied access to telecommunications and denied interpretative services for religious services, job training, disciplinary hearings, public announcements, educational and vocational training effectively excluding them from many governmental services. The parties reached settlement which was entered by the court in a consent decree in June, 2015. A monitor was appointed, who will submit a  semi-annual report during the five-year term of the settlement. The settlement includes provision of services and accommodations through a qualified interpreter and communication technologies, staffing, and training.