Comment on FR Doc # 2011-01905

The notice of proposed rulemaking raises a concern about the meaning of “full compliance with PREA Standards, 76 FR 6265. There is another aspect of the full compliance rule that remains unaddressed. In order to avoid the 5% reduction of moneys received from DOJ, “the chief executive of the State” must certify “that the State has adopted, and is in full compliance with” the DOJ Standards. 42 USC §15607 (4)(c)(2). Perhaps without exception, the Governor of a State does not currently have jurisdiction over the operations of many of the facilities subject to the PREA Standards e.g., police lockups, city and county jails, local juvenile halls, etc. I expect that a great many of those facilities do not benefit from federal “prison purposes” funds and therefore have no monetary incentive to attempt to comply with the Standards. I also expect that local government officials responsible for operation of these facilities, strapped for funds already, will make no attempt to comply with the Standards. Even if every PREA-covered agency in a state makes a serious attempt to comply with the Standards, it is unlikely that every such agency will meet the “full compliance” standard, however defined. So, if every PREA-covered agency in a state must be in full compliance for the state to be in full compliance, a single recalcitrant police lock-up can effectively force the 5% funding penalty on the agencies who manage to comply with the Standards and who do receive federal funding. Can Standards be developed that would address this situation, perhaps limiting the prospect of the 5% penalty only to those agencies applying for or receiving DOJ prison purposes funds?