U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Disability Rights Section
4 Constitution Square
150 M St., NE
Washington, DC 20530

July 19, 2023
VIA EMAIL
Ryan Thornell, Director
Ashley Oddo, General Counsel
Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry
701 E. Jefferson St.
Phoenix, AZ 85034
Re:

The United States’ Findings and Conclusions Based on Its Investigation of the
State of Arizona’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry under
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, DJ # 204-8-265

Dear Director Thornell and Ms. Oddo:
The United States Department of Justice (the Department) has investigated the State of
Arizona’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry (ADCRR) under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, and its implementing
regulations, 28 C.F.R. pt. 35. The Department opened this investigation in response to
complaints from incarcerated persons with vision disabilities alleging that ADCRR discriminated
against them and similarly situated individuals because of their disabilities.
Under Title II of the ADA, no qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of
disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs,
or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 42 U.S.C.
§ 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a). ADCRR is a public entity. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1); 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.104. Title II authorizes the United States to investigate complaints, make findings of fact
and conclusions of law, and attempt to secure voluntary compliance where violations are found.
42 U.S.C. § 12133; 28 C.F.R. pt. 35, subpt. F.
The Department’s investigation of ADCRR’s compliance with Title II included
interviews with incarcerated individuals with disabilities and ADCRR Deputy Wardens across
multiple ADCRR facilities as well as a review of documents produced by ADCRR. Based on its
investigation, the Department has determined that ADCRR has discriminated against individuals
with disabilities in violation of the ADA by:
•

Failing to ensure ADCRR’s communications with individuals with disabilities are as
effective as its communications with others, 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(a), including failing to
provide appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford individuals with

disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from ADCRR’s programs,
28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b);
•

Failing to reasonably modify ADCRR policies, practices, or procedures where necessary
to avoid discrimination against individuals with vision disabilities, 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.130(b)(7); and

•

Denying qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to participate in or
benefit from its services, programs, or activities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.130.

This letter sets out the Department’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and the
minimum steps ADCRR must take to meet its legal obligations and remedy the violations
identified.
Findings of Fact
ADCRR discriminates against individuals with vision disabilities, including those who
are blind or have low vision. First, ADCRR fails to provide individuals with vision disabilities
with needed auxiliary aids and services or reasonable modifications. 1 Second, ADCRR does not
have accessible processes for making disability-related requests or filing complaints or
grievances regarding disability-related needs, living conditions, medical issues, and other
concerns. Third, ADCRR’s use of inmate aides and other incarcerated persons to assist
individuals with vision disabilities does not provide those individuals with effective
communication or equal access to ADCRR programs, services, and activities.
1. ADCRR Fails to Provide Individuals with Vision Disabilities with Needed Auxiliary
Aids and Services or Reasonable Modifications
ADCRR’s failure to provide necessary auxiliary aids, services, and reasonable
modifications for individuals with vision disabilities begins at intake. ADCRR’s intake
screening process is meant to identify each individual’s disabilities and their related needs.
ADCRR does not, however, have any written policies regarding how to screen for vision
disabilities or how to develop a plan to address individuals’ disability-related needs. As a result,
individuals with vision disabilities often wait for extended periods to have even basic needs
addressed. For example, it took ADCRR nearly a year to provide one individual who is blind
with a white cane he requested during intake.
ADCRR’s intake and orientation process is also supposed to provide newly incarcerated
individuals with critical information about prison policies and procedures. Much of this
information, however, is included in an “inmate handbook” that is only available in written form
that is not readable or accessible to individuals with vision disabilities. ADCRR policy provides
that the handbook and any other relevant written rules and policies will be read aloud to
Some common examples of auxiliary aids and services for individuals who are blind or have low vision include
providing information in large print, Braille, an accessible electronic format for use with a computer-screen reading
program, or as an audio recording. They also include a wide variety of technologies such as screen-reader or
magnification software, optical readers, and video description and secondary auditory programming (SAP) devices
that pick up video-described audio feeds for television programs.
1

2

individuals with vision disabilities and that processing staff will ensure those individuals
understand the materials read aloud. However, this policy is not followed.
ADCRR staff did not read or explain the handbook to multiple incarcerated individuals
with vision disabilities even when those individuals directly asked staff for such assistance.
Others were not even informed that there was an inmate handbook at intake. One individual did
not learn that such a handbook existed for more than a year.
Beyond intake, ADCRR’s failure to provide individuals with vision disabilities with the
modifications or auxiliary aids and services they need limits their ability to access and benefit
from various ADCRR programs, services, and activities.
While ADCRR’s official policy mandates that all education programs be accessible,
individuals with vision disabilities cannot effectively participate in ADCRR classes on topics
like reentering society, anger management, or job training because they cannot read the
materials.
ADCCR’s official policies also provide that individuals with disabilities will be eligible
to work as long as their participation does not pose a direct threat to the health and safety of
others. Nonetheless, multiple individuals with vision disabilities have few or no jobs available to
them because ADCRR refuses to consider providing effective communication and reasonable
modifications that would enable these individuals to work.
General requests for accessible materials or technology are also routinely denied or
ignored. Multiple individuals with vision disabilities were denied requests for audio materials,
materials in Braille, Braille printers, and Braille readers or displays, which are external devices
that convert computer text to Braille by raising and lowering different combinations of pins.
Although ADCRR claims to provide computers with screen reading software, many individuals
have never been given access to such technology. And the tablets ADCRR provides to
incarcerated persons for various activities—including filling out Health Needs Request (HNR)
forms, communicating with prison staff, sending emails, attending video visits with friends and
family, and taking classes—are not fully accessible to individuals with vision disabilities who
cannot see what is displayed on the touchscreen. Although the tablets’ built-in screen reading
feature allows individuals with vision disabilities to use a few features, such as purchasing
movies and music, the screen reader is incompatible with other important functions such as
filling out forms. The tablets can be connected to a keyboard with a Braille overlay. But, while
some individuals with vision disabilities read and need materials in Braille, many others do not.
Most individuals with vision disabilities must therefore forgo use of the tablets’ features or rely
on help from other incarcerated persons to use them.
Multiple incarcerated persons with vision disabilities have made requests for
modifications and auxiliary aids related to various other aspects of prison life that have been
denied or ignored. For example, two individuals waited more than a year to receive accessible
locks for their personal lockers. Both have had personal possessions stolen from their lockers
because their vision disabilities prevent them from using the standard-issue numerical
combination locks. Other individuals with vision disabilities have had ADCRR deny or delay
3

fulfilment of their requests for other disability-related aids, like white canes that they need to
safely move around, and audio recorders.
2. ADCRR Does Not Have Accessible Processes for Making Requests or Complaints
ADCRR does not provide accessible processes for incarcerated persons with vision
disabilities to request reasonable modifications or auxiliary aids or services or to complain about
or file grievances regarding unfulfilled requests.
As mandated by the ADA, ADCRR policy generally requires the provision of reasonable
modifications and auxiliary aids and services for incarcerated persons with disabilities upon
request. These modifications include things like white canes, accessible locks, and accessible
print materials. The primary way for incarcerated persons to make such requests is by
submitting an HNR. HNRs, however, are only available in paper form or on ADCRR-issued
tablets, neither of which are accessible to all individuals with vision disabilities. According to
ADCRR, individuals who cannot fill out HNRs can get help from other incarcerated persons,
including assigned “inmate aides,” or ADCRR staff. But these options are ineffective, often
compromise the privacy of those needing assistance, and do not allow individuals with vision
disabilities to complete these forms independently like their peers who do not have disabilities.
Given the sensitive nature of many of these requests, individuals with vision disabilities
are often put in the uncomfortable position of having to reveal their private medical information
to other incarcerated persons they do not fully trust, or foregoing the request process altogether.
Indeed, multiple individuals said that they do not feel comfortable relying on other incarcerated
persons to make their requests but have no other choice. One individual, for example, requested
to speak directly with someone in the medical unit rather than use an inmate aide to file an HNR,
but his request was denied.
ADCRR’s process to complain about requests that are ignored or denied is also
inaccessible. ADCRR policy provides that individuals with disabilities whose disability-related
requests are denied have the option of contacting the ADA Coordinator at their facility to discuss
their request. Many incarcerated individuals, however, were not informed there is an ADA
Coordinator at their facility or told how to contact them. ADCRR could not provide records of
any meetings ever having occurred between individuals with disabilities and facility ADA
Coordinators. And the individuals designated as ADA Coordinators admitted that they had
received no training on their ADA Coordinator responsibilities.
Where informal methods of obtaining requested aids or services fail, ADCRR policy
permits incarcerated persons to file a formal grievance. Like the HNR forms, however, the
grievance forms are inaccessible and require individuals with vision disabilities to rely on other
incarcerated individuals for assistance in filing them. In addition to the privacy concerns
associated with seeking such assistance, many incarcerated individuals told us grievances rarely
produce results.
Finally, ADCRR further deters individuals with vision disabilities from using its
inaccessible request and grievance processes by failing to adequately inform these individuals
about what modifications, aids, and services might be available upon request. One individual
4

who became blind while incarcerated, for example, did not know what services or modifications
might be available because no one had offered him any assistance.
3. ADCRR’s Use of Inmate Aides and Other Incarcerated Persons to Assist Individuals
with Vision Disabilities Does Not Provide those Individuals with Effective
Communication or Equal Access to ADCRR Programs, Services, and Facilities
Incarcerated individuals with vision disabilities may request an “inmate aide” to assist
them with physically navigating the facility and with other tasks such as submitting forms and
corresponding with friends and family members. ADCRR’s hiring, training, and supervision
practices, however, are not adequate to ensure that these aides provide effective assistance.
ADCRR admits that it does not provide any formal training to inmate aides. Instead, any
instruction they receive “occurs on the job” and is largely left to the individual with the disability
who is being assigned the aide. ADCRR does not, for example, train aides on how to help an
individual with a vision disability physically navigate the facility where they are housed, or on
the importance of providing reliable and confidential support to those they assist. This lack of
training is reflected in aide performance.
One individual who is blind has been led by his assigned aide into walls and other people
several times. When he requested his aide be properly trained on how to lead him, ADCRR
refused. Two others with vision disabilities, who rely on their aides to navigate around their
facilities, had aides that were regularly late or absent causing them to miss meals and medical
appointments.
Many individuals with vision disabilities are especially concerned about their aides’
failures to maintain their privacy and confidentiality. According to ADCRR personnel and
policy, incarcerated persons should never have to give confidential information to an aide. Yet
one of the roles of inmate aides is to help incarcerated persons fill out forms, such as HNRs,
which often include confidential information. Other inmate aide duties, such as helping make
purchases at the commissary or handling personal correspondence, also involve access to
sensitive personal information.
Many individuals with vision disabilities have had the trust they were forced to place in
their aides—or in other incarcerated persons—be abused. For example, one individual who
relied on another incarcerated person to help him write letters to a pen pal lost that relationship
when the individual assisting him tried, without his knowledge, to extort money from his pen pal.
Another person’s cellmate, who assisted him with writing letters to his sister, took the sister’s
address and wrote her a letter without his knowledge. Because of abuses of this nature, several
individuals reported that they had stopped sending any correspondence at all.
Conclusions of Law
Based on the above factual findings, the Department has determined that ADCRR has
discriminated against individuals with disabilities. First, by failing to provide them with
effective communication. Second, by failing to reasonably modify its policies, practices, and
procedures to avoid discriminating against them based on disability. And third, by denying them
5

an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from ADCRR’s services, programs, and
activities.
1. ADCRR Fails to Provide Effective Communication to Incarcerated Persons Who Are
Blind or Have Low Vision
The Title II regulations mandate that a public entity provide effective communication,
including by “furnish[ing] 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” provided by a public entity. 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.160(b)(1). These auxiliary aids and services must “be provided in accessible formats, in a
timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the individual
with a disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2). And, “[i]n determining what types of auxiliary aids
and services are necessary, a public entity shall give primary consideration to the requests of
individuals with disabilities.” Id.
To comply with these regulations, states operating correctional facilities have an
affirmative obligation to evaluate the needs of newly incarcerated individuals with disabilities—
as well as individuals who become disabled while incarcerated or whose disabilities change over
time—and to ensure they receive necessary auxiliary aids, services, and reasonable
modifications. See Pierce v. D.C., 128 F. Supp. 3d 250, 268 (D.D.C. 2015) (“[T]he failure of
prison staff to conduct an informed assessment of the abilities and accommodation needs of a
new inmate who is obviously disabled is intentional discrimination in the form of deliberate
indifference and violates Section 504 and Title II as a matter of law.”); see also Updike v.
Multnomah Cnty., 870 F.3d 939, 954 n.6 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[T]here may be situations where a
public entity’s duty to look into and provide a reasonable accommodation may be triggered when
the need for accommodation is obvious, and the public entity is on notice about a need for
accommodation.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
ADCRR does not satisfy this obligation. It does not proactively identify or develop a
plan to address the communication needs of individuals with vision disabilities nor does it
provide accessible processes for such individuals to independently request the aids, services, and
modifications they need or complain about those requests being unfulfilled. ADCRR’s failure to
engage with and promptly meet the ongoing communication needs of individuals with vision
disabilities is perhaps best exemplified by its ADA Coordinators who are unknown to the
individuals they are meant to assist and who keep no records of having met with any individuals
with disabilities.
By failing to proactively or reactively meet the needs of individuals with vision
disabilities, ADCRR denies them effective communication throughout their incarceration. At
intake, individuals with vision disabilities are denied equal access to the inmate handbook,
leaving them without information fundamental to their day-to-day lives. They are regularly
forced to wait for extended periods to obtain basic disability-related aids, services, and
modifications. And, after intake, ADCRR’s failure to provide necessary aids, services, and
modifications to individuals with vision disabilities prevents them from equally participating in
education and employment programs or benefiting from other services available to individuals
without disabilities.
6

ADCRR’s primary answer for its failure to individually assess and provide for the needs
of those who are blind or have low vision is that these individuals can get help from other
incarcerated persons, especially via ADCRR’s inmate aide program. But this is no answer.
ADCRR’s inmate aides are untrained, poorly supervised, and at times untrustworthy. They do
not enable individuals with vision disabilities to privately and independently engage in essential
programs, services, and activities—like submitting HNRs, making purchases from the
commissary, or corresponding with loved ones. As a result, individuals with vision disabilities
must choose between giving up their privacy to obtain basic prison services, or simply going
without—a burden not placed on those without disabilities.
2. ADCRR Fails to Make Necessary Reasonable Modifications for Incarcerated Persons
Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision
ADCRR fails to comply with its obligation under Title II to reasonably modify its
policies, practices, or procedures where necessary to avoid discrimination against incarcerated
individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i).
As discussed above, ADCRR routinely fails to meet its obligation to evaluate the
disability-related needs of incarcerated individuals and address them. See Pierce,128 F. Supp.
3d at 268; Updike, 870 F.3d at 954 n.6. See also Clark v. Cal., 739 F. Supp. 2d 1168, 1178
(N.D. Cal. 2010) (“[D]efendants must ensure that developmentally disabled prisoners are
properly identified in order to provide reasonable accommodations to those prisoners under the
ADA and § 504.”). ADCRR’s inaccessible processes for making requests, including those for
reasonable modifications, lead many individuals not to make requests in the first place. Even
when such requests are successfully submitted, they often are ignored or denied.
There also is no indication that ADCRR providing the modifications at issue would
fundamentally alter its programs, services, or activities, or impose an undue burden on ADCRR.
See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i). Indeed, some modifications that may be necessary to avoid
discrimination, such as reading the inmate handbook aloud to individuals with vision disabilities,
are already part of ADCRR official policies. ADCRR fails, however, to consistently implement
them. Other potentially necessary modifications, like permitting an individual with low vision to
speak directly with someone in the medical unit to avoid relying on the help of another
incarcerated person, or providing an accessible lock to someone who is blind who cannot use a
numerical combination lock, are capable of implementation and are not unduly burdensome.
3. ADCRR Denies Incarcerated Persons Who Are Blind or Have Low Vision an Equal
Opportunity to Benefit from Its Programs, Services, and Activities
Under Title II, ADCRR must provide individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to
participate in and benefit from ADCRR programs. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b). ADCRR does not
comply with this mandate. ADCRR’s failure to provide necessary auxiliary aids, services, and
reasonable modifications prevents individuals with vision disabilities from equally participating
in a wide range of ADCRR programming. ADCRR’s inaccessible handbook denies individuals
with vision disabilities an equal opportunity to understand and comply with prison policies. The
lack of accessible course materials and reasonable modifications denies them an equal
7

opportunity to participate in education and employment programming. The inaccessible HNR
and grievance processes deny them an equal opportunity to obtain care or services they need.
And ADCRR’s untrained, unreliable, and sometimes untrustworthy aides deny individuals with
vision disabilities an equal opportunity to safely move about their facilities and to independently
and privately engage in basic activities of prison life.
ADCRR’s failings have severe consequences. Along with demeaning and diminishing
the quality of life of individuals with vision disabilities during their incarceration, ADCRR
prevents these individuals from fully taking advantage of ADCRR programs and services that
could further their rehabilitation and better prepare them for eventual release.
Remediation
ADCRR has violated and continues to violate Title II of the ADA through its
discriminatory treatment of individuals with vision disabilities. To remedy these violations, and
to protect the civil rights of individuals with disabilities going forward, ADCRR should promptly
implement corrective measures, including:
1. Adopt, revise, and implement relevant policies, practices, and procedures to ensure
ADCRR provides individuals with vision disabilities with effective communication and
an equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from ADCRR services, programs, and
activities.
2. Reasonably modify ADCRR policies, practices, and procedures when necessary to ensure
that individuals with vision disabilities have equal access to ADCRR services, programs,
and activities.
3. Train all ADCRR employees on and ensure they comply with the requirements of Title
II, its implementing regulation, and ADCRR’s non-discrimination policies.
4. Designate and train employees to coordinate ADCRR’s overall efforts to comply with
Title II, and employees at each ADCRR facility to coordinate that facility’s ADA
compliance efforts, with the responsibilities of these individuals to include coordinating
appropriate and timely responses to disability-related requests and investigating and
resolving ADA complaints and grievances.
5. Provide the United States with written status reports and other information, including
access to facilities and files, delineating all steps taken to comply with these
requirements, including the dates on which each step was taken, and, where applicable,
information sufficient to demonstrate compliance.
We hope to work cooperatively with you to resolve the Department’s findings. If
ADCRR declines to enter into voluntary compliance negotiations, or if our negotiations are
unsuccessful, the United States may take appropriate action, including initiating a lawsuit.
Please also note that this letter is a public document that will be posted on the Civil Rights
Division’s website and shared with the complaining parties. A complainant may file a private
suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133 whether or not we find a violation.
8

Please contact Adam Lewis (adam.lewis@usdoj.gov) and Stephanie Berger
(stephanie.berger@usdoj.gov), Trial Attorneys at the Disability Rights Section of the Civil
Rights Division, within 14 days of the date of this letter if ADCRR is interested in working with
the United States to reach an appropriate resolution.
Sincerely,

Rebecca B. Bond
Chief
Disability Rights Section
cc:

Bill C. Solomon
Assistant United States Attorney
District of Arizona

9