Independent Ombudsman for the Texas Juvenile Justice System Gainesville State School Site Visit Report O10-SV-19-068 December 12-13, 2018 Observer: Allen E Wallace; Janet Clark; and Nicole Prather Purpose: Routine Secure Facility Site Visit Report: This report is designed to identify problems and seek remedies that help secure the rights and ensure the safety of youth housed at the facility. The issues identified in this report are based entirely on the Ombudsman’s observations, interviews with staff and youth, and collected data. Unless otherwise noted, the issues identified in this report do not constitute formal legal findings. Last Review Date: October 10-11, 2018 Facility Budgeted Capacity: 234 / Capped at 200 Facility Population: 186 Number of Youth Interviewed: 63 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY; Facility, Programs, Processes or Administrative Functions: This report contains information regularly reported in a normal monthly site visit, as well as observations and information regarding the major campus-wide disruptions of facility operations that occurred on or about November 29‘ through December 4, Executive management mandated a facility wide shut down on or about December 7, Sporadic disruptions have continued since that time. Based upon formal and informal interviews conducted with youth and staff, the Ombudsmen were able to identify 3 primary reasons for the campus wide disruptions: 1) gang-related conflicts; 2) boredom - lack of activities and continued or extended confinement in rooms; and 3) a form of protest to call attention to issues on campus (ie. - case management issues, failure to respond to youth complaints (not grievances), feeling that no one was listening, and staff shortages that youth felt negatively impacted them). These will be discussed further in this report. Special Tactics and Response Team (STAR Team) members from other TIJD facilities were deployed to Gainesville to assist and support facility staff during the campus shutdown. T)JD executives removed top ranking facility management staff 2 days before the site visit and replaced them with interim personnel. Upon arrival at the facility, the Ombudsmen met briefly with the Interim Assistant Superintendent. The facility population has decreased to 186 as of the site visit date. As reported by facility management, there are 70 vacant Juvenile Correctional Officer (JCO) positions, with a fill rate of 69%, and 60% available for coverage. Twenty positions are unavailable for duty due to training status or extended leave/alternate work assignments. This indicates a continued increase in vacant positions from the previous site visits and a decrease in percentage available for duty. There is only 1 case management vacancy. Security and dorm JCOs stated they were regularly working 12 to 16 hour shifts, which was confirmed by supervisory staff. JCO Supervisors and case management staff have also been required to "work the floor” in an attempt to maintain staff-youth ratios,Youth were seen primarily on their dorms, in the Security Unit, and the Redirect Program (RDP) as the campus was on ‘shut down’ during the site visit. On the first day of the site visit, 2 dorms were allowed to go to classes, and the second day several more dorms were allowed to go to school. Three STAR team members from Ron Jackson SJCC provided additional supervision in the school hallways. Meals were being served in trays on the dorms. On the first day of the site visit, there were 4 youth assigned to the security program (SP), 1 assigned to Medical Observation (MO), and 1 assigned to Institutional Detention Program (IDP) status awaiting transfer to another facility, The youth on MO status was being housed on the RDP pod. On the second day, there were 5 youth assigned to SP, and the MO youth had been released back to campus. Review of security files revealed no discrepancies in documentation, and safety/welfare checks were in compliance with standards. ‘Twelve youth were assigned to RDP. Two of the RDP youth were being housed on the SP pod, Three of the RDP youth were awaiting transfer to the Giddings facility, and 3 others were awaiting approval for placement into the Phoenix Program at the McLennan County facility. Seven of the RDP youth had been placed in the program the previous day. All youth on the RDP pod, except one who was cleaning, were secured in their rooms and being monitored by a Juvenile Correctional Officer (JCO) and intermittently by the RDP case manager. The posted room checks indicated the checks were conducted according to policy. Four RDP files were reviewed and contained Level Il Disciplinary Hearing Reports resulting in placement in RDP, the Individual Performance Youth Rating Logs with staff comments on most shifts and supervisory signatures on most logs, and the Redirect Program Activity Tracking Sheet which indicated all required services were provided except one mental health status check for one youth. Three youth RDP binders did not contain Individual Case Plans (ICPs), and the one plan present for review referenced the wrong, youth’s name on one occasion in the plan’s narrative. The RDP case manager said the ICPs would be completed by the following day. The Level II Hearing Reports indicated an advocate was present during the hearing and appeals were offered to each youth. Two youths’ binders included appeals to the Executive Director. ‘Their names were provided to management during the exit conference to ensure the appeals had been processed correctly. The repainting of the interior of the security cells had been discontinued. It was noted that rooms on the security pods and RDP pod that had been repainted already had new tagging with markers and/or had paint peeled from the walls. On most dorms (9/10, 13/14, 3/4), youth were secured in the rooms and/or conducting one-man shower and bathroom routines. On dorm 3/4, one youth with a large “13” printed on the back of his shirt was out of his room cursing at staff. Other youth who were in their rooms were yelling and cursing at the JCO, and began cursing the Ombudsmen. The IO was unable to remain on Dorm 3 to interview the youth due to their behaviors. This dorm was allowed to go to school on the second day of the site visit. The JCO and case management staff on dorm 13/14 were unaware of how to over-ride the fire alarm panel to prevent the exit doors of the building from opening. One case manager was fairly rude and interrupted a formal youth interview being conducted by the Ombudsman. On dorms 17/18, most youth were in their rooms, while a counselor provided instruction to youth in the day area, as they were preparing to move to a different dorm to participate in Structured Psychotherapy for Adolescents Responding to Chronic Stress (SPARCS), the treatment program recently implemented to replace the Violent Offender Program (VOP). Their opinions and feedback about the program are included in the interview section below. Gainesville State School, December 12-13, 2018 Page 2 of 13, 10-003 05/18On dorm 7/8, individual youth were participating in MDTs in the group room, and all others were in the day area for unstructured time. The maintenance supervisor and fire alarm contractors were on the dorm reprogramming the alarm system in an effort to reduce the youth's ability to set off the alarms. On dorm 11/12, all youth except one were participating in group with their case manager. The JCO successfully redirected the noncompliant youth. After group, youth remained in the day area for recreation and were loud but generally compliant. The Individual Youth Performance Logs included staff comments on most shifts, and the majority related to the youth’s target skill. The logs were signed by a staff member but did not include the staff member's title. Although these dorms maintained a dorm-wide ratio of 1:12, dorm 12 was periodically out of ratio as one JCO was observed supervising more than 12 youth. This concern was discussed during the exit conference with management. Inconsistencies were found on the daily shift logs on several dorms. The 10 found youth movement/activities were not documented uniformly, and lacked notation of specific recreational activities, large muscle exercise (LME), and whether youth were in their rooms due to the shutdown or slow down. The posted room checks on all dorms observed indicated the checks had been conducted in random intervals not exceeding 15 minutes, During the visit, case management staff members stated that their training did not sufficiently prepare them to perform their duties and had asked to be assigned a veteran case manager as a mentor, Additionally some requested more thorough training that included the day-to-day case manager tasks such as conducting Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) meetings and completing transfer/release packets. One case manager stated she was instructed to watch YouTube videos to learn motivational interviewing skills. They also said that since they were often included “in the count’ to maintain ratio, performing their case manager duties and addressing youths’ needs was difficult. This information was provided during the exit conference. Several staff members said they did not always feel safe on their dorms but reported feeling “hopeful” after the TJJD Executive Director visited their campus to speak to them and listen to their concerns. Other staff members said they were frequently held over past their shift due to staffing issues. During the site visit, 1 JCO Supervisor requested to be demoted so that he would not always be on call and to improve his work-life balance. Site Visit Interviews: ‘There were 63 youth formally interviewed across campus, and several more informal interviews with youth and staff were conducted. Youth provided inconsistent responses regarding the services provided during the shutdown, Some said they attended treatment and behavior group, received LME, and had access to the TJJD hotline and campus grievance system. Others said they received one or several of these services, and others said they did not receive access to any of these and only left their rooms for one-man shower and bathroom routine. Two youth said that they missed their MDT because they were scheduled to occur during the campus shutdown. Additionally, youth across campus provided inconsistent information about being handcuffed and/or shackled during restroom and shower routine. Some said they remained in the mechanical restraints for all routines, while others said JCOs un-cuffed one or both hands during restroom routine and/or to brush their teeth. During an informal interview with a group of youth participating in SPARCS instead of VOP said that SPARCS was “a lot easier” and “faster” than VOP. One youth who had recently completed VOP and but is now enrolled in SPARCS said that he benefited from VOP because he “learned about his offense Gainesville State School, December 12-13, 2018 Page 3 of 13, 10-003 05/18