# 165



DJ 204-51-0                                  April 11, 1995
II-1.0000
II-3.6000


Mr. George M. Camp
Executive Director
Association of State Correctional 
  Administrators
Office of Executive Director
Spring Hill West
South Salem, New York 10590

Dear Mr. Camp:

     I am writing in response to your recent letter to President
Clinton.  Enclosed with your letter was a resolution adopted by
the Association of State Correctional Administrators urging that
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) be amended to
exclude pretrial and sentenced prisoners from coverage under the
Act.  Because of the nature of the concerns expressed in your
letter, it was referred to the Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice.  I apologize for any delay in responding
to your letter.

     The Civil Rights Division is responsible for the enforcement
of title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against
qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of
disability by State and local governmental entities, including
correctional institutions.  The Division also enforces section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, which
prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs
or activities conducted by recipients of Federal financial
assistance.  Correctional institutions are covered by section 504
if they receive such financial assistance.  

     In our view, amendments to the ADA to exclude coverage of
prisoners are not warranted.  The ADA is a comprehensive civil
rights statute that was enacted to eliminate longstanding
discrimination against the millions of Americans with
disabilities.  The goal of title II of the ADA is to ensure that
people with disabilities receive the same access to the programs,
activities, or services of a public entity as would be made
available to non-disabled persons receiving the same service or
participating in the same program or activity. 

     In drafting the ADA, Congress carefully balanced the needs
of individuals with disabilities with the legitimate concerns of
covered entities.  With respect to the Association's concern that
"... liberties taken with ... [the] language and intent [of the
ADA] produce requests for accommodations inconsistent with cost-
effective methods of meeting the needs and requirements of
disabled prisoners," please note that the ADA generally requires
reasonable modifications to a covered entity's policies,
practices, or procedures when such modifications are necessary to
avoid discrimination.  See  35.130(b)(7) of the enclosed title
II regulation.  Such modifications are not required when making
the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the
service, program, or activity.  Similar provisions, balancing the
rights of individuals with the concerns of covered entities,
occur throughout the ADA and its implementing regulations.  

     It is also important to note that the ADA requires a covered
entity to make reasonable modifications.  The ADA does not
require that the modification made be the most expensive  
modification possible, or even the modification requested by a
particular individual with a disability.  As long as the
modification effectively eliminates discrimination, the entity
has complied with its obligations under the ADA.  

     Thus, while the ADA may require the administrators of
correctional facilities to make changes to ensure that both
pretrial and sentenced prisoners are not discriminated against on
the basis of their disabilities, there is nothing in the Act that
would prevent such changes from being made in a cost-effective
and efficient manner.

     In addition, title II of the ADA does not require public
entities to make all buildings and other facilities fully
accessible to individuals with disabilities.  Instead, the focus
of title II and its implementing regulation is to ensure that, to
the extent that a covered entity provides programs, services, and
activities, they are readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities.  This concept, which is referred
to as program accessibility, is discussed on pages 22 through 25
of the enclosed title II Technical Assistance Manual. 

      As a result, a State correctional facility is not
necessarily required to make each of its existing facilities
accessible.  In many situations, providing access to programs and
activities through nonstructural methods, such as the acquisition
or redesign of equipment, the assignment of aides to prisoners,
and the provision of services at alternate accessible sites, may
be acceptable alternatives.  In addition, a correctional facility
is not required to provide program accessibility in an existing
facility if it can demonstrate that the required modification
would fundamentally alter the nature of the program, service, or
activity, or would result in undue financial and administrative
burdens.  See  35.150(a)(3) of the title II regulation.
      
     I hope that this discussion has alleviated your concerns
about the impact of the ADA on correctional institutions.  If you
have any further questions, please feel free to write directly to
my office.  In addition, the Department operates a toll-free ADA
Telephone Information Line for callers who have questions about
titles II or III of the ADA.  Operators can be reached from 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. (EDT), Monday through Friday (except for
Thursdays, when the operating hours are 1:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.). 
The numbers are 1-800-514-0301 (voice) and 1-800-514-0383 (TDD).

                                   Sincerely,




                                Deval L. Patrick
                           Assistant Attorney General
                             Civil Rights Division

Enclosures