Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge STARR.
Dissenting Opinion filed by District Judge HAROLD H. GREENE.
*829STARR, Circuit Judge:This case ushers us into the sensitive and difficult arena of prison-conditions litigation. In the wake of a prison riot, a number of inmates at the District of Columbia’s facilities in Occoquan, Virginia, brought suit in federal district court, challenging their conditions of confinement as violative of the Eighth Amendment. The District Court sustained the challenge and entered a remedy imposing a population cap on the Occoquan facilities. For the reasons that follow, we are constrained to conclude that the District'Court’s analysis as to liability and its conclusions with respect to remedy failed to comport with governing Supreme Court precedent.
I
A
Seventeen inmates of Occoquan filed this class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1982), alleging that conditions at the prison violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The inmates promptly sought class certification and a preliminary injunction imposing a limit on the number of prisoners who could be housed at Occoquan. Nine days later, the District Court heard arguments and, at day’s end, granted plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and preliminary injunction.1
After further skirmishing, the District Court granted the District’s motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction and, during pendency of the stay, conducted a ten-day trial on the merits of plaintiffs’ Eighth Amendment claims. On December 22, 1986, the District Court filed its opinion and accompanying order entering judgment in plaintiffs’ favor. The principal feature of the order was its imposition of a population cap on each of the nineteen housing units within the Occoquan facility and its requirement that the District of Columbia reduce the total number of prisoners to no more than 1,281 by June 1, 1987.2 The District was also directed to submit written reports no later than January 15, 1987 indicating its plans for complying with the population limits and for remedying the extensive “deficiencies” enumerated in the court’s opinion. Finally, the court required the District to submit follow-up reports at 30-day intervals.
After further proceedings, including an eventually failed attempt to join the Attorney General in the proceedings, see Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 841 F.2d 1133 (D.C.Cir.1988), the District Court in July 1987 issued, an order disallowing further stays of the population caps pending appeal. In the meantime, inmate population levels had continued to grow to approximately 1,950 prisoners.3 The court directed that the inmate population be reduced by no less than 100 inmates per month until the court-mandated limit of 1,281 inmates was reached.
B
The District Court’s opinion is reported at 650 F.Supp. 619 (D.D.C.1986). We are nonetheless constrained to canvass the District Court’s findings of fact extensively, inasmuch as those findings, as well as the court’s analytical approach to the case, are essential to understanding and resolving the issues on appeal.
The District Court’s findings were set forth in five parts: (1) environmental conditions (broadly defined); (2) fire safety; (3) *830medical services; (4) mental health services; and (5) the cumulative impact of the conditions found “deficient.”
1
The District Court analyzed “environmental conditions” by examining six specific areas: housing, food service, classification of inmates, programs for inmates, inmate supervision, and punitive segregation.
Housing. In its discussion of housing, the District Court pointed to a number of “deficiencies.” It began by observing that both parties’ public health experts agreed that the American Public Health Association (“APHA”) standard, which prescribes 95 square feet per inmate, is “acceptable as a minimum standard.” 4 Id. at 620. Applying the APHA standard, the court concluded that “the Occoquan Facilities do not provide adequate living space for inmates.” Id. at 621. Noise levels in the dormitories were found to be “excessive” (under standards promulgated by the American Correctional Association (“ACA”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and lighting to be “inadequate” (using a 30-foot-candle minimum, the APHA’s recommended standard, as a benchmark). Id. at 621.5
General sanitation conditions in the dormitories were below “acceptable” environmental standards. Id. Here, the court pointed to several specific problems: (a) dormitory windows lacked screens, resulting in a fly infestation problem aggravated by a shortage of disinfectant for use in toilet and shower areas; (b) failure to clean or sanitize mattresses used by inmates between users and failure to supply mattress covers; and (c) torn and damaged mattresses.
The cumulative effect of these conditions, the court found, created serious health risks for inmates. The court pointed to testimony that “[c]onfining excessive numbers of people in limited spaces significantly increases the risk of transmission of airborne diseases.” Id. Moreover, “sustained excessive noise levels increase stress levels and pose a significant risk to inmates’ physical and mental health.” Id. Inadequate lighting could lead to accidents and inhibit work, reading, and recreational activities. Damaged and soiled mattresses could become a vehicle for transmission of disease. These risks were compounded by “inadequate” ventilation in the dormitories and “inadequate” medical screening of inmates entering the prison.6 See infra p. 833.
Conditions in three dormitories were viewed as particularly troublesome. Dormitories J-l, J-2, and 5 were warehouses hastily converted into housing. Dormitory 5 was situated in the basement of the Occo-quan gymnasium. All three facilities suffered from the inadequacies observed above, but these facilities, the District Court found, were particularly cramped and poorly ventilated. Poor ventilation at the J-l and J-2 dormitories was exacerbated by acrid fumes from a nearby coal pile.
Food Services. The court observed that “neither [side’s] expert felt that the conditions in the kitchen posed any imminent threat of harm to the inmates.” Id. at 622. Nevertheless, the court faulted Occoquan’s food facilities because they failed to conform to APHA standards with respect to kitchen space. Although APHA recommends seven to nine square feet of kitchen space per inmate, Occoquan’s facilities were, under that standard, adequate for *831only 696 inmates (rather than the 1637 then in residence, id. at 620).
The District Court additionally made a number of highly specific observations. First, it expressed concern about the adequacy of the contractual arrangements with an outside food service vendor to provide meals.7 Second, the court found that food storage areas were “filled beyond capacity” with “insufficient space in the refrigerated areas to thaw frozen meat in a safe manner.” Id. at 622. Third, the court observed that although prison authorities had recently undertaken an “aggressive vermin control program,” they nonetheless “acknowledged the existence of a prior infestation.” Id. at 623. Finally, the court found fault with the lack of a preventative maintenance program for the kitchen facilities, as evidenced by missing window screens and broken freezer gaskets. The want of such a program, the court concluded, “has serious adverse health and safety implications that are only compounded by greater numbers of inmates using these facilities.” Id.8
Inmate Classification. The District Court was also critical of Occoquan’s inmate classification system. The court cited ACA standards and other testimony discouraging the use of dormitory housing save for minimum security prisoners classified for group living. As a result of court-ordered population caps on other District of Columbia prison facilities, Oecoquan was forced to house maximum security inmates together with the general prison population that included misdemeanants. In the court’s view, it was important that violent inmates and those in need of psychiatric care be identified, so that they could be segregated from the remainder of the prison population. The court believed Occo-quan’s staff inadequate to the task and observed that the classification system at Oecoquan appeared “dangerously overtaxed.” Id.
Programs. The District Court decried Occoquan’s lack of adequate activities and programs for inmates. Penologists, the court noted, uniformly agree that “inmates should be engaged in some productive enterprise, properly supervised.” Id. Furthermore, “[b]oth parties agreed that Occo-quan needs to develop a prison industries program and provide more space for programmed activities.” Id. at 624.9 Occo-quan failed to provide “meaningful program opportunities.” Id. at 623. As a result, “enforced idleness presents a major problem” that could potentially lead to “heightened tension, frustration, and violence.” Id.
Security and Supervision. The District Court was critical of the level of supervision exercised by prison personnel in the sleeping areas of the dormitories. Patrols were infrequent and irregular; correctional officers were not strategically stationed. Oecoquan departed from “sound correctional practice,” id. at 624, by practicing double bunking in some dormitories. This practice resulted in obstructed lines of sight for supervisory personnel. In addition, inmates were sometimes allowed to exercise authority over other inmates, a practice disapproved by experts on both sides.
Without specifically saying so, the District Court appeared to find a causal link between security practices and the level of violence in the prison. The court observed that defendants’ own statistics showed that over the past year at least 40 serious assaults had occurred, including five with shanks and three with pipes. Three inmates testified about specific incidents of violence in which they had been targets. Because less serious fistfights did not fall within the ambit of “assaults,” the court concluded that “the level of violence at *832Oecoquan is significantly greater than defendants’ statistics reflect.” Id. The court cited no evidence comparing the incidence of violence at Oecoquan to that at other institutions and made no findings of a comparative nature.10 Nevertheless, the court found “not well supported” expert testimony to the effect that the assault rate was “unremarkable.” See id.; Tr. at 1178-79.
Segregation of Q Block. Also found wanting was the use of Occoquan’s only cell-block, Dormitory Q, as a holding area for inmates of different classifications who prison officials determined for a variety of reasons should be kept apart from the prison’s general population. The cell-block houses inmates placed there for disciplinary reasons, those under protective custody, inmates first entering the Oecoquan complex, and inmates with mental health problems. Although the inmates are separated by cells, the court found the practice of mixing these prisoners together a departure from “sound correctional practice.” Id. at 625.
The lack of programs and exercise for inmates assigned to Dormitory Q likewise troubled the court. Inmates in that facility were permitted very little exercise — a thrice-weekly walk in the corridor outside their respective cells, for about a half hour. Psychological testimony was cited for the proposition that these conditions lead to “psychoses in inmates who suffered no apparent mental health problem before being placed in Q block.” Id. The District Court deemed it significant that “[b]oth parties’ experts were in complete agreement” that inmates held in protective custody and for disciplinary reasons at Dormitory Q “should be permitted” daily exercise and access to prison programs. Id.
2
Fire safety at Oecoquan was found “inadequate” in a number of respects. The court was of the view that “[the Life Safety Code] constitutes the minimum standards for fire safety in a correctional setting.” Id. at 626.11 Many of Occoquan’s facilities — particularly those that had undergone recent renovation and were therefore subject to more stringent code provisions applicable to new buildings — failed to pass muster under existing codes, “let alone the more enlightened building standards under the Life Safety Code.” Id.
The District Court credited testimony by plaintiffs’ expert that the fire alarm systems were “deficient.” Id. Many of the alarms and smoke detectors were not in working order; none provided automatic retransmission to sound the alarm in the prison Control Center as well as at the site of the alarm. The court counseled that installation of an automatic retransmission system “may well be advised.” Id.
Most fire extinguishers were water-type, which the court found “inadequate to extinguish an electrical fire.” Id. Many were not situated in their proper locations and were overdue for servicing. Electrical wiring was exposed in many places, exacerbating the risk of fire. Also found troubling was the lack of “adequate” emergency lighting in Occoquan’s dormitories, id., and the failure to provide “adequate” evacuation plans and training for prison staff. Id. at 627.12
*8333
The third broad category examined by the District Court was Occoquan’s provision of medical services. The court began by observing that experts on both sides “agreed that deficiencies [in Occoquan’s medical care] exist.” Id. The experts concurred that “the APHA and the ACA standards for health care ... represent the accepted minimums in this area.” Id. Against this backdrop, the court addressed eight separate aspects of medical care: sick call, staff, emergency care, chronic care and records, screening, specialty clinics, medications, and dental care.
The District Court found “insufficient” the prison’s practice of providing formalized sick call — opportunities for prisoners to get routine medical attention — only three times per week. Id. at 628. Expert testimony was cited to the effect that Occo-quan “ought to conduct formalized sick call ... at least five times per week.” Id.
By the time of trial, Occoquan’s medical staff consisted of one full-time and one part-time physician, three physician assistants (“PA”), and three medical technician assistants (“MTA”). PA’s have limited formal medical training; MTA’s typically have only on-the-job training received while serving in the Armed Forces. MTA’s were allowed to perform individual diagnoses, despite the fact that “such a practice is considered improper.” Id. Only one of the PA’s had formal certification, despite the fact that “state or national certification is recommended.” Id.
The medical staff was inadequate to the job at hand, the court concluded, noting agreement among experts that for a prison population of approximately 1,500 inmates, Occoquan “needed” two or three full-time physicians and three to five “properly certified” PA’s. Id. Also found lacking was the want of medical coverage during the midnight shift.
A number of aspects of emergency medical care troubled the court. Dissatisfaction was expressed with the lack of training in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) among both correctional officers and medical personnel. The prison ambulance was not “properly equipped.” In general, Occo-quan had “only inadequate emergency equipment.” Id.
The District Court cited testimony about specific instances of delay in the administration of medical care to inmates as illustrating the “systemic nature of the problem with emergency care at Occoquan.” Id. One inmate had to wait 45 minutes for a stretcher to arrive after striking his head against the back of a bunk; another was forced to wait over an hour before being transferred to Central Facility for emergency care.
The court criticized the lack of formal procedures to ensure that adequate followup care would be given to sick or injured inmates. The court cited examples of failure to renew an inmate’s seizure medication in timely fashion and to follow up on an inmate who required suture removal. The trial judge expressed concern over significant delays in obtaining medical records for inmates following their intake processing at the D.C. Jail or treatment at the D.C. General Hospital. Testimony by defendants’ medical expert was cited to the effect that “additional records and clerical personnel are needed” to alleviate the problem. Id. at 629.
The court noted that proper documentation of screening tests for communicable diseases — conducted on all prisoners entering the D.C. correctional system at the D.C. Jail — often failed to accompany inmates’ transfers to Occoquan. This was of particular significance because a population such as that at Occoquan could be expected to test positive for such diseases “with some frequency.” Id. Indeed, the District Court cited testimony concerning “specific instances of infected inmates whose conditions were not documented or followed properly.” Id.
The court below also found that “[inordinately long and significant delays” confront inmates who need to visit specialty clinics. Id. The trial judge recounted the experience of one inmate who had been referred to the surgery clinic to be seen “as soon as possible,” but was still waiting *834for an appointment over three months later. Id.
Medications, the court observed, are often distributed by MTA’s, although they are not certified to do so, and prescriptions signed by PA’s were not routinely countersigned by a physician, “even though such a practice is required.” Id. No procedures were in place to ensure that prescription renewals were made and that documentation of prescription processing was complete. Also, prison authorities had difficulty ensuring that diabetic inmates received insulin injections in a timely manner.
Finally as to medical services, the court was critical of dental care at Occoquan. The court credited testimony that the current staff of two dentists and one dental assistant was “insufficient to handle the current population’s needs.” Id. at 629-30. The trial judge commented that testimony concerning lengthy delays was “buttressed by the numerous administrative complaints filed by inmates complaining of the pain they are suffering due to these delays.” Id. at 630.
4
Four areas of the mental health services provided by Occoquan troubled the District Court. First, the informal system of screening inmates for psychological problems was deemed “entirely inadequate” because it was not conducted by “trained mental health professionals]” and did not include “appropriate psychological tests.” Id. Second, the court pointed to “widely acknowledged deficiencies” with respect to the mental health staff at Occoquan, “evidenced by a ‘burned out’ staff, overwhelmed by their work load.” Id. The court noted a “pressing need for additional mental health personnel.” Id. Third, based on testimony from mental health experts on both sides, the court found that “Q block is an inappropriate place to house inmates suffering from serious mental health problems.” Id. Inmates in need of hospitalization for mental health treatment were not being transferred in a timely fashion. Finally, some mentally ill inmates at Occoquan were not receiving medications prescribed for them. Moreover, according to the court, the unavailability of various medical records posed a problem for the facility.
5
The District Court concluded its detailed factual recitation with a discussion of the cumulative impact of its findings. The trial judge believed that “conditions at Occo-quan, not to mention the experts on both sides and the Occoquan administrators, cry out for a population cap.” Id. at 630-31. The court was of the view that “virtually every facet of the Occoquan system is at or beyond the breaking point.” Id. at 631. The District Court concluded with the following observation:
It is apparent that even with significantly fewer inmates, the physical plant and the various services and programs at Oc-coquan are, at best, substandard. This situation, taken cumulatively, presents a clear and present danger to the health and safety of plaintiffs.
Id.
Having set forth its findings of fact, the District Court summarized its conclusions of law as follows:
Every facet of the operation at Occo-quan is characterized by systemic deficiencies. While any one component, i.e., harmful noise levels, food services, etc., may not fall below the prescribed eighth amendment standard, the cumulation of the various deficiencies aggravated and exacerbated by an ever-increasing number of inmates creates a constitutionally unacceptable situation.
Id. at 632.13
Relying on its broad equitable powers once a constitutional violation is found, the court then ordered the population limits referred to previously. See supra p. 3. It *835did not fashion a specific remedy tailored to specific findings of constitutional violations.14
II
The framework for analysis in this case was established by the Supreme Court in Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981). There, the Court faced for the first time the meaning of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the setting of a challenge to conditions of confinement. Although cases prior to Rhodes had made clear that prison conditions were subject to Eighth Amendment scrutiny, id. at 345, 101 S.Ct. at 2398, the Court had not theretofore been squarely confronted with a challenge requiring articulation of “the principles relevant to assessing claims that conditions of confinement violate the Eighth Amendment.” Id. Rhodes was thus a ground-breaking decision. It was manifestly more than a narrow decision establishing the limited principle that double celling per se does not work a violation of the Eighth Amendment. To be sure, Rhodes held just that, but the Court took the occasion to articulate more broadly the principles to guide the lower courts in coming to grips with this difficult area of constitutional litigation.
The themes of Rhodes are clear. The judiciary is to be cautious in the sensitive terrain of the Eighth Amendment. In writing for the majority, Justice Powell made the point in the following way:
This Court must proceed cautiously in making an Eighth Amendment judgment because, unless we reverse it, “[a] decision that a given punishment is impermissible under the Eighth Amendment cannot be reversed short of a constitutional amendment,” and thus “[revisions cannot be made in the light of further experience.”
Id., 452 U.S. at 351, 101 S.Ct. at 2401 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 176, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2926, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). The Court was not blind to the harsh reality of prison conditions in Amer-ica; but that reality did not mean that judicial caution was to be thrown to the winds. “[T]he problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable, and more to the point, they are not readily susceptible to resolution by decree.” Id. 452 U.S. at 351 n. 16, 101 S.Ct. at 2401 n. 16 (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 404-05, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1807, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1976)).
Writing in 1981, five years after Martinez, the Rhodes Court indicated its keen awareness of the exacerbation of problems afflicting prison systems across the country. “Since our decision in Martinez, the problems of prison population and administration have been exacerbated by the increase of serious crime and the effect of inflation on the resources of States and communities.” Id. This observation touched upon a broader principle that the Court has often emphasized; ultimately, the administration of prisons implicates broader concerns over judicial competence to decree sweeping modifications in prison conditions. That is, in addition to Rhodes-mandated caution about carving correctional desiderata into constitutional stone, the Court has instructed the lower courts that “the operation of our correctional facilities is peculiarly the province of the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government, not the Judicial.” Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 548, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1879, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). See also Procunier v. Martinez, supra, 416 U.S. at 405, 94 S.Ct. at 1807.
Rhodes thus rearticulated the recurring theme of judicial caution in the area of *836institutional conditions litigation. Certain basic elements of prison life are, Justice Powell reminded us, matters entrusted to correctional officials, not judges. The Court stated it simply: “[A] prison’s internal security is peculiarly a matter normally left to the discretion of prison administrators.” 452 U.S. at 849 n. 14, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 14. Formidable authority was summoned to buttress that proposition, including Bell v. Wolfish, supra, 441 U.S. at 551, 99 S.Ct. at 1880-81; Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, 433 U.S. 119, 132-33, 97 S.Ct. 2532, 2541-42, 53 L.Ed.2d 629 (1977); Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 827, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 2806, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974).
Rhodes thus stands as a reminder to lower courts to adhere to basic principles. And those principles clearly signal caution as we proceed into the inner workings of a prison, armed with the demands of the Eighth Amendment. As Justice Brennan aptly stated in concurring in Rhodes, “[cjourts must and do recognize the primacy of the legislative and executive authorities in the administration of prisons.” 452 U.S. at 362, 101 S.Ct. at 2407.
But there is more to Rhodes than a reminder of enduring principles. The Rhodes Court also set forth a framework for analysis of Eighth Amendment challenges. Drawing from its prior cases, the Court emphasized the Amendment’s prohibition of “punishments which, although not physically barbarous, ‘involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.’ ” Id. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, supra, 428 U.S. at 173, 96 S.Ct. at 2925). The Court indicated that Eighth Amendment judgments are not to be governed by the peculiar views of individual trial judges. The courts are, rather, to search for objective factors to guide constitutional analysis. The exercise is, to be sure, not mechanical in nature; “ ‘the Constitution contemplates that in the end [a court’s] own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of a given punishment.’ ” Id. 452 U.S. at 346, 101 S.Ct. at 2399 (quoting Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584, 592, 97 S.Ct. 2861, 2866, 53 L.Ed.2d 982 (1977)). But judges are to be guided by principles, not impressions; and the ultimate constitutional principle articulated by Rhodes was this: “Conditions must not involve the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain, nor may they be grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime warranting punishment.” Id. 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399.
In fleshing out this principle, the Court in Rhodes articulated (in the context of the conditions prevailing at the Ohio prison at issue) the proposition that not all deprivations rise to constitutional significance. Indeed, certain sorts of “deprivations,” such as limited work and educational opportunities, do not even fall within the broad compass of “punishments” within the meaning of the Constitution. Id. at 348,101 S.Ct. at 2400. Instead, the “deprivations” that trigger Eighth Amendment scrutiny are deprivations of essential human needs. Specifically, the conditions the Rhodes majority thought significant were these: “deprivations of essential food, medical care, or sanitation.” Id. And to that list of basic needs, the Court added concern over physical safety. Id. When measured against this demanding yardstick, the allegation of overcrowding did not even come close to establishing a constitutional violation. Even though this condition was not, by virtue of prison capacity, temporary in nature, the Court was unmoved:
These general considerations fall far short in themselves of proving cruel and unusual punishment, for there is no evidence that double celling under these circumstances either inflicts unnecessary or wanton pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of crimes warranting imprisonment.
Id.
The Court brushed aside the asserted significance of expert testimony, which had formed an integral part of the two lower courts’ agreement that conditions in the Ohio facility did not meet the Eighth Amendment’s demands. The Rhodes court flatly discounted expert opinion. Of greatest import under the Constitution is the public’s attitude toward a given sanction *837or condition. Justice Powell wrote for his colleagues in the following way:
Indeed, generalized opinions of experts cannot weigh as heavily in determining contemporary standards of decency as “the public attitude toward a given sanction.”
Id. at 348-49 n. 13, 101 S.Ct. at 2400 n. 13 (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 2925, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)). The basis of the expert testimony adduced at trial had been, not surprisingly, the standards of professional organizations. Rhodes reaffirmed the Court’s view in this respect, laid down two years earlier in Bell v. Wolfish: “[T]he recommendations of these various [professional] groups ... simply do not establish the constitutional minima; rather, they establish goals recommended by the organization in question.” 441 U.S. at 544 n. 27, 99 S.Ct. at 1876 n. 27. Once again rejecting professional standards as doing service for constitutional benchmarks, the Rhodes Court observed that the conditions in question, although falling below professional standards, did not violate “decency.” The cells were heated, ventilated, and equipped with hot and cold running water, and a sanitary toilet.
The demand for objective facts going to essential human needs is, we believe, the clear message of Rhodes. It will not do to assert that there are “deficiencies” in the prison. Nor will it do to invoke the standards of professional organizations as showing failings of purportedly constitutional significance. In this setting, it is decency — elementary decency — not professionalism that the Eighth Amendment is all about.
This basic insight was, we think, instructively captured by our colleagues in the Eighth Circuit recently. Sitting en banc, the court had occasion to review the findings of a district court which had concluded that conditions in a South Dakota prison facility fell below constitutional norms. Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d 912 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 108 S.Ct. 1078, 98 L.Ed.2d 237 (1988). After canvassing the District Court’s findings and finding them wanting, the en banc court had this to say:
The conditions described in this record cannot be said “to inflict pain or amount to punishment,” nor can prison administrators making “sincere efforts” be said not to be acting in “good faith.” The present case is light years removed from the torture, cruel deprivation, and sadistic punishment with which the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause is concerned.
Id. at 915.
It is, in short, these latter sorts of conditions that the Eighth Amendment will not tolerate. It is cruel conditions, defined by reference to community norms, to which the Constitution speaks; neither “deficient” conditions nor conditions that violate “professional standards” rise to the lofty heights of constitutional significance. Indeed, the obvious danger of employing professional standards as benchmarks is that they ineluctably take the judicial eye off of core constitutional concerns and tend to lead the judiciary into the forbidden domain of prison reform. And the line between discerning and remedying constitutional violations, on the one hand, and mandating reforms to improve the quality of life behind prison walls, on the other, is of pivotal importance to judicial legitimacy in a democratic society.
In its search for principled lines, the Cody court’s succinct formulation of core Eighth Amendment concerns is, in our view, entirely harmonious with Rhodes itself. We have already canvassed the majority opinion authored by Justice Powell, with its emphasis on deprivations of essential human needs. This conclusion was reached, we cannot but observe, in the face of a vigorous dissent by Justice Marshall who, invoking the specific findings of the trial court, pointed to expert testimony that the conditions prevailing at the Ohio prison would cause “serious mental, emotional, and physical deterioration.” 452 U.S. at 371, 101 S.Ct. at 2411-12 (Marshall, J., dissenting). The dissent was emphatic; Justice Marshall emphasized that the trial judge, whose judgment had been affirmed *838by the Sixth Circuit, had concluded that the Ohio conditions necessarily involved “physical and mental injury.” Id. at 374, 101 S.Ct. at 2413. Particularly in the face of Justice Marshall’s vigorous dissent, it is clear beyond cavil that Rhodes was not about abstract principles or per se rules; it was about whether the indisputably undesirable conditions in the Ohio facility passed constitutional muster.
Among the eight Justices who rejected the lower courts’ conclusion that constitutional infirmities infected the facility in question was Justice Brennan. His concurring opinion, joined by two colleagues, is likewise instructive in getting at the core of the Eighth Amendment’s meaning in the context of prison conditions litigation. There, Justice Brennan spoke of “ ‘soul-chilling inhumanity of conditions.’ ” 452 U.S. at 354, 101 S.Ct. at 2403 (quoting Inmates of Suffolk County Jail v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. 676, 684 (D.Mass.1973)). The cases Justice Brennan discussed in reviewing the judicial literature were of the very sort identified by the Eighth Circuit in Cody. These were cases involving conditions of unspeakable inhumanity. Here, by way of example, is a portion of Justice Brennan’s description, drawing in turn from an opinion of then-Chief Judge Frank Johnson about one such system:
The institutions were “horrendously overcrowded to the point where some inmates were forced to sleep on mattresses spread on floors in hallways and next to urinals.” The physical facilities were “delapidat[edj” and “filthy,” the cells infested with roaches, flies, mosquitoes and other vermin. Sanitation facilities were limited and in ill repair, emitting an “overpowering odor”; in one instance over 200 men were forced to share one toilet. Inmates were not provided with toothpaste, toothbrush, shampoo, shaving cream, razors, combs, or other such necessities.... A United States health officer described the prisons as “wholly unfit for human habitation according to virtually every criterion used for evaluation by public health inspectors.” Perhaps the worst of all was the “rampant violence” within the prison. Weaker inmates were “repeatedly victimized” by the stronger, robbery, rape, extortion, theft, and assault were “everyday occurrences among the general inmate population.”
Id. 452 U.S. at 355, 101 S.Ct. at 2403-04 (citations omitted).
This sort of prison system was not unique. In Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978), the Court noted unchallenged findings by the lower court that the Arkansas prison system subjected inmates to conditions amounting to “ ‘a dark and evil world completely alien to the free world.’ ” Id. at 681, 98 S.Ct. at 2569 (quoting Holt v. Sarver, 309 F.Supp. 362, 381 (E.D.Ark.1970) (Holt II)). This was not hyperbole by judges carried away with the harsh realities of prison life. The following description by Justice Stevens, writing for the Court in Hutto, powerfully conveys the sinister reality of the Arkansas system:
[T]he institution at the center of this litigation[] required its 1,000 inmates to work in the fields 10 hours a day, six days a week, using mule-drawn tools and tending crops by hand. The inmates were sometimes required to run to and from the fields, with a guard in an automobile or on horseback driving them on. They worked in all sorts of weather, so long as the temperature was above freezing, sometimes in unsuitably light clothing or without shoes.
Inmates were lashed with a wooden-handled leather strap five feet long and four inches wide.
The “Tucker telephone,” a hand-cranked device, was used to administer electrical shocks to various sensitive parts of an inmate’s body.
Most of the guards were simply inmates who had been issued guns. Although it had 1,000 prisoners, [the prison] employed only eight guards who were not themselves convicts. Only two nonconvict guards kept watch over the *8391,000 men at night. While the “trusties” maintained an appearance of order, they took a high toll from the other prisoners. Inmates could obtain access to medical treatment only if they bribed the trusty in charge of sick call. As the District Court found, it was “within the power of a trusty guard to murder another inmate with practical impunity....”
Id. 437 U.S. at 681-82 & nn. 3-6, 98 S.Ct. at 2569 & nn. 3-6 (citations omitted).
It was against this wretched backdrop that the Rhodes Court articulated the twin evils of “wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain” and conditions “grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.” The Court cited two examples as illustrative of conditions condemned by the Eighth Amendment: the deliberate indifference to an inmate’s serious medical needs, such as that at issue in the case of Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976); and the conditions, which we just recounted, prevailing in the prison system of Arkansas which provided the backdrop of Hutto v. Finney, supra. (“[T]he conditions of confinement in two Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment because they resulted in unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs.” Rhodes, supra, 452 U.S. at 347, 101 S.Ct. at 2399). On the heels of citing these two examples, the Rhodes Court employed language which is said to signal its embrace of a “totality of the circumstances” test, the theory of the plaintiffs’ case now before us.
Conditions other than those in Gamble and Hutto, alone or in combination, may deprive inmates of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.
Id.
But to say that the Rhodes Court sanctioned a “totality of the circumstances” approach (as evidenced by Justice Brennan’s characterization in his concurrence, 452 U.S. at 363 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. at 2398 n. 10; see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2571-72) is to recount only half of the Court’s formulation; it is the second part that provides content and specificity to the test — deprivations of “the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities. ”
In light of this standard (or, at least, mandated approach to constitutional analysis), we need not tarry long in indicating why the District Court’s analysis in the present case misses the mark. Time and again, the District Court pointed to “deficiencies” in conditions prevailing at the Occoquan facilities. Time and again, the court referred to the standards promulgated by various professional organizations or “agreement” among the experts concerning “sound correctional practice.” This approach, as we read the court’s opinion, provided the foundation for its conclusion that liability was established under the “totality of the circumstances.” But what we see, unfortunately, wanting in the analysis is a determination that these “deficiencies” and shortfalls — alone or in combination — rose to the level of deprivations of the “minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities.” Those necessities — food, shelter, health care, and personal security — must be analysed with specificity to determine whether essential mainstays of life have been denied to the inmates of Occoquan. If the necessities are provided, then the Eighth Amendment has been satisfied (apart of course from any claim, not asserted here, that the conditions are disproportionately severe in view of the various offenses for which the inmates stand convicted).
By virtue of the District Court’s misconception of the applicable constitutional standard, its liability analysis is fatally infected with error. Its approach, with all respect, simply cannot be squared with Rhodes. Reading the court’s opinion, with its elaborate recitation of expert testimony at trial concerning “sound correctional practice,” we are unable to discern whether the conditions as described rose to the level of deprivations of constitutional moment. That the conditions were undesirable and indeed harsh does not, as should by now be evident, aid constitutional analysis. The Eighth Amendment gets at the basic necessities of life; it does not go to the undesira*840bility of conditions to which inmates are subjected.15
We do not, however, go so far as to conclude that the District Court could not have found on this record conditions falling within the zone of legitimate constitutional concern. Several areas discussed by the court give us pause and may be of such seriousness as to warrant further analysis under the appropriate constitutional standards as elucidated by the Supreme Court’s holdings in such cases as Estelle, Hutto, and Rhodes.16
But we can make no such determination on the record before us without, in effect, performing the District Court’s task. And, crucially, the record is already stale. The District has represented to us that it has already addressed and remedied many (if not all) of the specific “deficiencies” enumerated by the trial court. Indeed, at oral argument counsel for the District represented that the local government’s concern in the appellate stage of this litigation was solely with the population cap; in fact, counsel indicated that the District was keenly interested in correcting (and had corrected) conditions found unacceptable by the District Court.17
As we will more fully develop in Part III of this opinion, if there still exist conditions violative of constitutional commands, then the task of the court is to remedy the offending conditions. But in our view, the District Court succumbed to the very error *841discerned by the Eighth Circuit in the South Dakota litigation, namely that a variety of deficiencies in the prisons in question warranted a global remedy (an end to double-celling), rather than a remedy mandating specific corrections of specific problems:
The District Court detailed such problems ... as unsanitary practices in storing and preparing food, the use of untrained inmates to provide medical services to other inmates, inadequate ventilation and plumbing and substandard electrical wiring and other fire hazards. Whatever the merit of these findings, there has been no showing, and the District Court has made no finding, that the elimination of double-celling will alleviate these problems to any perceptible degree. An appropriate remedy would relate to correction of the constitutionally deficient conditions that have been found to exist, if any there be, rather than to the elimination of double-cell-ing.
Cody v. Hillard, 830 F.2d at 914 (emphasis added).
Ill
This, finally, brings the remedial aspect of the District Court’s order into sharp relief. It has long been held that the equitable power of the federal courts will be brought to bear to insure that constitutional wrongs will be effectively redressed. But the breadth and flexibility inherent in equity have limits. Certain bedrock and frequently reaffirmed limiting principles are to guide the trial courts in their employment of equity’s power.
A
First and foremost, once a right is established the remedy chosen must be tailored to fit the violation. The Supreme Court has made the point this way: “The controlling principle consistently expounded in our holdings is that the scope of the remedy is determined by the nature and extent of the constitutional violation.” Milliken v. Bradley, 418 U.S. 717, 744, 94 S.Ct. 3112, 3127, 41 L.Ed.2d 1069 (1974) (Milliken I). Equitable remedies in constitutional cases must therefore seek to redress the “condition alleged to offend the Constitution.” Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U.S. 267, 280, 97 S.Ct. 2749, 2757, 53 L.Ed. 2d 745 (1977) (Milliken II). Second, the remedy chosen must in fact be remedial in nature. That is, the remedy must seek to cure the constitutional violation, to place victims of unconstitutional conduct in “ ‘the position they would have occupied in the absence of such conduct.’ ” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 280, 97 S.Ct. at 2757 (quoting Milliken I, 418 U.S. at 746, 94 S.Ct. at 3128). Finally, district courts are to “take into account the interests of state and local authorities in managing their own affairs, consistent with the Constitution.” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757.
These principles, expounded in the main in school desegregation cases, are fully applicable in cases in which prison conditions are found to constitute cruel and unusual punishment.18 In the prison context, therefore, district court judges must identify the conditions which, either alone or taken together, violate the Constitution; that being done, the remedial task is to correct those conditions to bring the prison as a whole within constitutional strictures.
But in carrying out their remedial task, courts are not to be in the business of running prisons. The cases make it plain that questions of prison administration are to be left to the discretion of prison administrators. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 349, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 2400-01, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); Cody v. Hillard, supra. Thus it is that the Supreme Court has admonished the lower courts to be mindful that “ ‘[local] authorities have the primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving,’ ” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, *84297 S.Ct. at 2757 (quoting Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 349 U.S. 294, 299, 75 S.Ct. 753, 756, 99 L.Ed. 1083 (1955)), the problems that inevitably arise in the process of ensuring full compliance with the Constitution’s demands. If, however, “ ‘[local] authorities fail in their affirmative obligations ... judicial authority may be invoked.’ ” Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757 (quoting Swann, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1276). Only at this point — after local authorities have been found wanting at the remedial stage — has the Court emphasized the breadth and flexibility of the district courts’ equitable power. See Swann, 402 U.S. at 15, 91 S.Ct. at 1276; Milliken II, 433 U.S. at 281, 97 S.Ct. at 2757.
That the Supreme Court understands the equitable discretion of district courts to be at its zenith after prison authorities have abdicated their remedial responsibilities was made clear in Hutto v. Finney, supra, 437 U.S. 678, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 57 L.Ed.2d 522. In that case, the Court approved as within a district court’s equitable power the imposition of a far-reaching and highly intrusive remedy; a significant factor in the Court’s approbation of such sweeping remedial action was the long history of the litigation and the continued failure of the prison officials to bring about compliance with earlier, less intrusive orders. In upholding the lower court’s action, the Supreme Court stated:
In fashioning a remedy, the District Court had ample authority to go beyond earlier orders.... The District Court had given the [prison authorities] repeated opportunities to remedy the cruel and unusual conditions in the isolation cells. If [the authorities] had fully complied with the court’s earlier orders, the present [stringent remedy] might well have been unnecessary. But taking the long and unhappy history of the litigation into account, the court was justified in entering a comprehensive order to insure against the risk of inadequate compliance.
Id., 437 U.S. at 687, 98 S.Ct. at 2572.19
B
Measured against these fundamental principles, we are constrained to conclude that the District Court’s remedial order is misguided. After setting forth a variety of “deficiencies,” the District Court stated broadly, “[t]he conditions at Occoquan ... cry out for a population limit.” 650 F.Supp. at 630-31. The court imposed as its remedy a population limit, based on a formula to guarantee each prisoner 95 square feet of living space.20 The court explicitly listed the maximum number of prisoners it would allow the District of Columbia to house in each dormitory at Occoquan.
The District Court did not hold that overcrowding at Occoquan offended the Eighth Amendment, Rather, it repeatedly observed that overcrowding exacerbated the effects of numerous deficiencies, which taken together, violated the Constitution. As we indicated before, an approach commensurate with Supreme Court precedent would have sought to identify the conditions causing the constitutional violation and order those conditions remedied. The District Court’s power, it bears repeating, was to bring the prison into compliance with the Constitution; the court was powerless to seek to make Occoquan a “better place” or to bring it within “sound penological practices.”
In our view, immediate report to a population cap was much too blunt an instrument in view of the court’s specific findings of “deficiencies” which the District of Columbia was ordered to correct (and which, the District maintains, have indeed since been corrected, see supra n. 17). This is especially so because a population limit, or put another way, a minimum square footage requirement, directly implicates deci*843sions with which the political process is charged. Such fundamental decisions as how many prisons to build and how large to build them — basic decisions regarding the allocation of public resources — are simply outside the domain of federal courts.21 Indeed, it would have been difficult for the District Court to fashion a remedy that more fundamentally implicates the tensions between the prerogatives of local authorities and the demands of the Constitution.
Our reading of the Supreme Court’s teachings in Swann, Milliken I, Milliken II, and Hutto v. Finney reinforces our conclusion that the remedy here swept too broadly. In those cases, the Court uniformly held that the scope of constitutional violations determines the scope of constitutional remedies, and that the equitable powers of the federal courts are at their broadest only after state officials default in their obligation to remedy constitutional wrongs. Thus, it will not do mechanically to invoke the talisman of “broad equitable discretion” as the basis for demanding that the District of Columbia either build more prisons or let convicted prisoners go free. In our view, counsel for the District put it aptly at oral argument when he characterized the choice of a population limit at Occoquan as “a last resort remedy as a first step.”22
IV
Our dissenting colleague’s thoughtful and careful opinion joins well the issues presented by this important case. Our disagreements are, nonetheless, fundamental. They are, reduced to essentials, twofold. First, our colleague reads the District Court’s opinion rather differently than we do. As we have elaborated at some length, the District Court, in our view, fell into grave error by its continuous resort to the standards articulated by professional agencies in evaluating the constitutionality of the conditions at Occoquan. In addition, the court enumerated a considerable variety of “deficiencies” to condemn the entire panoply of prison conditions, rather than scrutinizing specific dormitories or services found to fall short of the constitutional minima. This, we believe for reasons already stated, is incompatible with the Supreme Court-mandated duty to focus with care on the specific circumstances said to occasion the Eighth Amendment violation. We acknowledge that opinions from other courts may point in different directions, but we believe that our colleagues in the Eighth Circuit sitting en banc have arrived at the proper approach to guide our analysis.
Our parting of the ways is equally fundamental with respect to our respective visions of the nature and scope of judicial power. Our colleague reads the judicial literature to give the courts broad power to fashion sweeping remedies to correct identified constitutional violations. There can be no doubt that the literature indeed contains language supporting precisely that broad vision, summoning up the historic image of the chancellor taking whatever steps in his broad discretion seem appropriate to rectify the situation found tainted with illegality. But it scarcely needs to be *844said that the lawsuit before us is no ordinary suit in equity. In this setting of institutional conditions litigation, courts must, as the Supreme Court has said time and again, craft remedies with extraordinary sensitivity. Here, courts work in an arena that represents a crossroads where the local political branches of government meet the Article III branch and the higher commands of the Constitution. Those expressions of concern, of restraint, mean something quite clear to us. It is, upon analysis, an attitude of respect for and consideration of the extreme difficulties confronting the political branches whose charge it is to make the policy decisions eventuating in the construction and operation of the Nation’s prison systems. It also means that we will not be quick to presume that the two other branches will cavalierly succumb to engaging in what the lower courts have been, at times, rather quick to condemn as systemic constitutional violations.
And it is but another dimension of the Supreme Court-mandated attitude of respect and consideration, albeit emphatically not to degenerate into judicial enervation and abdication, that the Court has impressed upon the lower tribunals in emphasizing the need narrowly to tailor the remedy to fit the violation. Rhetoric aside, that fundamental teaching, we believe, is at the core of the Supreme Court’s message to the inferior federal courts over the last decades. That core message, to put it simply, trumps the broad rhetoric that our colleague understandably features.
V
Accordingly, we conclude that the clear holdings of the Supreme Court require us to vacate the District Court’s order imposing as it does a population limit at Occo-quan generally and in each dormitory individually. In the circumstances of this case, the District Court acted beyond its equitable powers.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
.The temporary injunction provided that the inmate population at each of the three Occo-quan complexes should not exceed the capacity limits set forth by the consent decrees entered by the District Court in John Doe v. District of Columbia, No. 79-1726 (D.D.C.) and Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, No. 80-2136 (D.D.C.). Those suits involved Eighth Amendment challenges by prisoners to the conditions at the District of Columbia's Maximum Security Institution and Lorton Central facility, respectively.
. As of December 27, 1987, the inmate population at Occuquan was 1,678. Affidavit of Hal-lem H. Williams, Attachment 1 (filed July 21, 1987 with the District Court in support of plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction).
. See Affidavit of Hallem H. Williams, Attachment 1, supra n. 2.
.On cross-examination, defendants' expert, Mr. Gordon, stated that he would "endorse” the APHA standard; he did not state that he believed that standard to represent the constitutional minimum. The court observed that the APHA standards "were written by environmental health and safety professionals" and that they are "supported by epidemiological evidence." 650 F.Supp. at 620.
. There was testimony that the excessive noise was caused by unregulated volume settings on the television sets in the dormitories. Tr. 1125-27, 1145, 1152. Defendants’ expert witness recommended that prison authorities install volume governors in the sets or change their location. Tr. 1126.
. The court cited no testimony that these conditions had in fact led to increased disease among the inmate population.
.The vendor was contractually obligated to serve three meals a day to a maximum of only 1,400 inmates, with an option to increase to 1,600 with 30 days notice. There was, however, no testimony that food service had been disrupted or inadequate.
. There was, however, no testimony that the lack of regular maintenance had lead to inmate illness or accidents.
. The District Court cited testimony of defendants’ expert witness, George Camp, who agreed that Oecoquan "could use” a prison industries program. Tr. at 1192.
. In fact, on several occasions the court sustained plaintiffs' objections to defendants’ efforts on cross-examination to elicit comparative testimony. Tr. 123, 721-22.
. The court assumed that two sets of standards might be applicable to the facilities at Occo-quan: the District of Columbia Building Code, although it does not specifically address correctional facilities, and the “Life Safety Code" — a professional standard developed specifically for detention and correctional facilities by the National Fire Protection Association. Although between 20 to 25 States have adopted the Life Safety Code for application to their prisons, the District of Columbia apparently has not. In any event, plaintiffs advanced no statutory claim based upon code violations.
.Specifically, the court found the plans lacking because they failed to specify whom correctional officers were to call first in the event of an emergency; failed to provide separate plans for different buildings; and, in the case of Dormitories K-l and K-2, failed to call for a second officer to be stationed outside the dormitories to unlock the rear exit to facilitate evacuation.
. The court made separate note of medical care at Occoquan, holding that appellants’ "cavalier attitude” with respect to the prison’s inadequate medical services violated constitutional standards articulated in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 97 S.Ct. 285, 50 L.Ed.2d 251 (1976). 650 F.Supp. at 633.
. The court observed that duties of administering prisons obviously fell to prison authorities themselves, not to courts. This seemed to suggest the court's apparent view, echoed in the dissent, see dis. op. at 855, that a population cap represented a less intrusive remedy than a more detailed order going to specific constitutional violations. At the same time, however, the court’s reliance upon a “totality of the circumstances" analysis, see infra at p. 839, seemingly suggested that, in the trial judge's view, remedying specific areas of concern would not cure the "true” violation, which boiled down to too many prisoners at Occoquan. Our dissenting colleague takes a similar position. Dis. op. at 853.
. Our dissenting colleague asserts that the District Court used the term "deficiency” as a shorthand for constitutional violations or deprivations. Dis. op. at 849 n. 21. We respectfully disagree. Read fairly, the District Court’s opinion tallies up a series of “deficiencies" below specified norms, usually supplied by professional organizations, and, without further analysis as to whether any of these "deficiencies” amount to constitutional violations, concludes that, in aggregate, they constitute a violation of the Eighth Amendment. It is precisely this failure to draw the critical distinction between deficiencies and constitutional violations that led the District Court into grave error. Because this error infects the District Court’s entire analysis, we cannot agree with the dissent that "the record in this case demonstrates at least some such deprivations.” Dis. op. at 847. See infra n. 16.
. The trial court was, helpfully, more specific in its constitutional analysis (and truer to the Supreme Court’s mandated approach) in regard to medical conditions at Occoquan. See supra n. 13. Because of our disposition of this case, however, we need not pass upon, and express no opinion with respect to, the specific question whether the conditions at Occoquan fell within the Supreme Court’s "deliberate indifference” standard enunciated in Estelle v. Gamble, supra. See also infra n. 17 (noting, inter alia, reports of recent improvements in medical care).
. Appellants' Report to the [District] Court, filed June 10, 1987, detailed improvements that the District has made in virtually every area of deficiency noted in the District Court's opinion. Among the improvements, over 1300 new fire retardant mattresses had been ordered, window screens had been installed on all dormitory windows theretofore lacking them, and medical staff had been increased from one to three full-time physicians.
The District also reported that it had implemented a number of new procedures. The prison had in place (1) new general housekeeping procedures to ensure sanitary conditions; (2) a routine fire inspection schedule; (3) new evacuation plans and training in implementing them; (4) sick call five days per week; and (5) new procedures for medical record transfers and follow-up medical care for inmates.
In addition, as part of its phased construction program at Occoquan, the District has undertaken renovation of Dormitories J-l, J-2, and 5, which the reader will recall were found particularly inadequate with respect to ventilation, wiring, and emergency lighting. See Report to the [District] Court at 10 (filed January 29, 1987). Our dissenting colleague complains, with respect to the District’s work here, that "bids for a contract to perform the work were opened ... ten months after the relevant order was entered.” Dis. op. at 855. But having undertaken such major construction work, the District has naturally been required to commission and approve design drawings and compile contract specifications before letting the project out to bid. Although greater speed and efficiency are surely desirable, all of this, it goes without saying, takes time.
As the controversy over these three units illustrates, it is clear from the record that some of the dorms at Occoquan are worse than others; it is for this very reason that a tailored approach to remedies is appropriate. See infra Part III.
The dissent argues that we should totally discount representations by the District of Columbia with respect to improvements at Occoquan. Dis. op. at 853. As should be clear from the litany of improvements noted above, however, what we have before us are not representations of counsel or mere promises of progress. Rather, we rely on reports of actual improvements described in the record.
. The Supreme Court has indicated that its statements in school desegregation cases as to the appropriate nature and scope of equitable remedies are fully applicable to Eighth Amendment prison litigation. See Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 687 n. 9, 98 S.Ct. 2565, 2572 n. 9, 57 L.Ed.2d 522 (1978) (discussing Milliken II and Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1, 91 S.Ct. 1267, 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971), as applicable to Eighth Amendment case).
. Cf. Swann, 402 U.S. at 16, 91 S.Ct. at 1276 ("In default by the school authorities of their obligation to proffer acceptable remedies, a district court has broad power to fashion a remedy that will assure a unitary school system”) (emphasis added).
. The court chose the 95 square feet figure on the basis of professional standards. See supra p. 829 & n. 2.
. This is so absent a showing of a complete abdication of the District’s responsibility to remedy ongoing constitutional violations. See supra pp. 841-842.
. Plaintiffs defend the District Court’s order on the ground that it was necessary to ensure that conditions at Occoquan do not in the future once again become cruel and unusual. Citing Ruiz v. Estelle, 679 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir.1982), modified on other grounds, 688 F.2d 266 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1042, 103 S.Ct. 1438, 75 L.Ed.2d 795 (1983), they argue that the equitable discretion of the district court allows it to "command! ] measures that safeguard against recurrence” of the constitutional violation. 679 F.2d at 1155-56. But that duty cannot overwhelm the obligation of the lower courts to craft equitable remedies with sensitivity and care; it certainly does not warrant the imposition of a last resort remedy as an initial remedial step. We thus do not hold today that use of a population cap as a remedy is per se impermissible.
Our dissenting colleague claims that the population cap is an appropriate remedy because all of Occoquan's problems ultimately stem from overcrowding. It bears repeating that, on the record before us, the population cap is an unnecessarily intrusive remedy inasmuch as the constitutional violations, if any there were, could have been corrected by other means. We do not understand the dissent to say otherwise.