PHILADELPHIA – Philadelphia’s public schools have come under serious legal scrutiny as federal prosecutors on Thursday charged the district with neglecting proper inspections of eight schools for asbestos damage. In response, the district has opted for a deferred prosecution agreement, enabling judicial oversight of its corrective measures.
This marks the first instance where a school district in the United States has faced such allegations tied to environmental crimes. The school district faces eight accusations of breaching the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, displayed by its failure to conduct timely inspections over a recent five-year period.
The government indicated that terms of the deferred prosecution agreement must receive judicial approval. If approved and adhered to, this agreement sidesteps a formal grand jury indictment, allowing charges to be dismissed contingent upon the district’s compliance with federal regulations.
Of the 339 buildings operated by the district, approximately 300 are reported to contain asbestos, per the U.S. attorney’s office. Asbestos, once a prevalent material in construction until its risks became well-known in the 1980s, is associated with severe health risks, including cancer and lung disease.
According to investigators, some issues stemming from asbestos were not managed adequately, leading to school closures due to safety concerns. Prosecutors stated that this “longstanding and widespread problem” posed significant risks to both students and educators.
The deferred prosecution agreement outlines that the school district has made strides in revising policies, procedures, and compliance related to asbestos inspections and removal efforts. Superintendent Tony B. Watlington Sr. expressed to The Philadelphia Inquirer that this agreement symbolizes progress made by the district in tackling the asbestos issue. He emphasized that the district plans to train employees in asbestos management as part of the agreement.
Note: This article reflects information that has been updated to correct previous errors concerning details of the deferred prosecution agreement. The U.S. attorney’s office clarified that there is no provision involving a district-paid monitor in this agreement.