DOCSLIB.ORG

TYC) Secure Facilities That Violate Federal Constitutional and Statutory Standards and Jeopardize the Health, Safety, and Rehabilitation of Youth

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
TYC) Secure Facilities That Violate Federal Constitutional and Statutory Standards and Jeopardize the Health, Safety, and Rehabilitation of Youth August 24, 2010 Judy Preston Chief, Special Litigation Section United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW, PHB Washington, DC 20530 (202) 514-0212 FAX Dear Chief Preston, We are writing to advise you of systemic problems in the Texas Youth Commission’s (TYC) secure facilities that violate federal Constitutional and statutory standards and jeopardize the health, safety, and rehabilitation of youth. We have become aware of these problems through direct representation of youth, visits to TYC facilities, and meetings or conversations with service providers and TYC leadership. These problems include, but are not limited to: Inability to ensure safety of youth; Inadequate mental health care; Lack of educational programming; Inadequate special education programming; and, Over-Reliance on Short-Term Security & Lack of programming for youth in security (segregation). The Texas Youth Commission System The Texas juvenile justice system is bifurcated between two state agencies: the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), which operates state-run institutions for youth committed to its care after being adjudicated delinquent of a felony offense, and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (TJPC), which oversees county-based juvenile probation departments and pre and post-adjudication county facilities. TYC’s mission is to: [P]romote public safety by partnering with youth, families, and communities to provide a safe environment where youth in the agency’s care and custody receive individualized education, treatment, life skills and employment training, and positive role models to facilitate successful community reintegration.1 During the 2007 Texas legislative session, media reports emerged documenting extreme sexual and physical abused in TYC facilities. 2 As a result, the legislature passed sweeping reforms that resulted in a drastic reduction in the agency’s population, as well as changes to the agency’s leadership and structure.3 Today, TYC houses about 2,000 youth in 10 secure, lockdown facilities, 175 youth in contract facilities, and 169 youth in nine halfway houses.4 About another 1,700 youth are on parole under TYC supervision.5 Most of TYC’s secure facilities are well outside urban areas, and many are in rural areas, making staffing the facilities a challenge. The 10 secure facilities are: Al Price State Juvenile Correctional Facility – Beaumont, TX Corsicana Residential Treatment Center – Corsicana, TX Crockett State School – Crockett, TX Evins Regional Juvenile Center – Edinburg, TX Gainesville State School – Gainesville, TX Giddings State School – Giddings, TX McLennon County State Juvenile Correctional Facilities I & II – Mart, TX Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex I & II – Brownwood, TX6 1 TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION, COMPACT WITH TEXANS, available at http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/privacy.html#compact 2 See, generally, Dallas Morning News, Investigative Reports – TYC, http://www.dallasnews.com/investigativereports/tyc/. See, also, Doug Swanson, Officials Indicted in Abuse at TYC, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, April 10, 2007, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/041107dntextyc.b e59c6b.html, Holly Becka et al., Young Inmates Endured “Deplorable Conditions,” DALLAS MORNING NEWS, October 3, 2007, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN- tyc_03tex.ART0.State.Edition2.42910b9.html, Doug J. Swanson & Steve McGonigle, Seven TYC Workers Fired After Inmates Found Living in Filth, DALLAS MORNING NEWS, October 4. 2007, http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/dmn/stories/100407dntextycfirings.368cc 6e.html. 3 See Senate Bill 103, 80th Reg. Leg. Sess. (TX 2007); TYC, Strategic Plan 2011-2015 (2010), at 14-15. 4 TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION, STRATEGIC PLAN 2011-2015 (2010), available at http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/about/TYC_Strategic_Plan_2011_to_2015.pdf 5 Id. 6 Map of TYC facilities available on their website at http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/programs/facility_map.html 2 Though TYC generally places youth in the facility closest to the county where they were living before they were committed, there are a few exceptions. Mart I is the orientation unit where all youth spend a short time just after being committed.7 Corsicana is intended to house youth who have a serious mental illness that cannot be addressed in another facility.8 Giddings State School runs a specialized program for capital and serious violent offenders.9 Ron Jackson I is the facility devoted to girls,10and Ron Jackson II runs the Accelerated Reintegration Program (ARP) for youth who have violated conditions of their parole.11 Department of Justice Investigation of Evins Even before the sexual abuse scandals broke in the media, the Department of Justice had begun an investigation of the Evins facility after receiving reports of physical abuse of youth by staff.12 During its investigation, DOJ identified serious violations of federal law and sent a findings letter to the Governor on March 15, 2007.13 A complaint and proposed settlement were filed in the United States District Court Southern District of Texas on February 1, 2008.14 The Court’s docket indicates that after a hearing the parties filed a revised agreement on April 8, 2008, which the Court subsequently approved. However, the most recent audit of the facility revealed ongoing problems similar to many of those we have discovered in other facilities, including serious concerns related to youth’s safety.15 History of Signing Organizations’ Advocacy with TYC Advocacy, Incorporated, the Center for Public Representation, the National Center for Youth Law, and Texas Appleseed have been working together in advocating for reform of the TYC system since 2007. Advocacy, Inc. is the protection and advocacy (P&A) organization for Texans with disabilities; since 2007, they have provided direct representation to 221 youth in TYC custody. With the support of the agency, the signing organizations have made multiple trips to TYC facilities system-wide; we have been able to interview youth at almost every facility within the system. 7 TYC, STRATEGIC PLAN, supra note 4. 8 Id. 9 Id. at 60. 10 Id. 11 Texas Youth Commission, Description of Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex Unit II, available at http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/programs/jackson2/index.html 12 Letter to Hon. Rick Perry, Governor from Wan J. Kim, Ass’t Attorney General (March 15, 2007) available at http://www.justice.gov/crt/split/documents/evins_findlet_3-15-07.pdf . 13 Id. 14 United States v. Texas, No. 7:08-cv-00038 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 1, 2008). 15 Jeremy Roebuck, DOJ: Youth prison continues to improve conditions for inmates, THE MONITOR, May 20, 2010 (though auditors saw progress, they noted problems with youth safety, blind spots in security camera surveillance, and extortion of food, personal items and clothing among inmates). 3 Our early advocacy focused on addressing punitive practices that we felt had to be eradicated in order to make way for a culture of reform, including escalating use of OC spray in facilities and placement of youth in long-term isolation. We worked with TYC to rewrite the agency’s administrative rules relating to Use of Force, as well as their rules relating to long-term security. These amended rules went into effect in September 2009. While we were pleased with the cooperation and progress we made in addressing these focused issues, our recent visits to facilities indicate broader systemic problems that TYC leadership has not resolved. These problems are not isolated to specific sites, but exist throughout TYC’s system of 10 lockdown facilities. Many of these problems are caused or exacerbated by an inability to adequately staff the facilities. In addition, while TYC leadership has been working to change the punitive climate that prevailed pre-reform, not all facilities have moved away from the use of aversive behavior intervention techniques. The more progressive, reform-minded attitudes of the TYC leadership in its Central Office do not appear to be filtering down to the local facility level, even after three years of “reform.” Of even greater concern are the youth’s reports that they do not feel safe in TYC facilities. Systemic Issues I. Inability to Ensure Safety of Youth The Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment governs the standards for conditions of confinement of juvenile offenders. Gary H. v. Hegstrom, 831 F.2d 1430, 1432 (9th Cir. 1987). Subjecting confined juveniles to undue restraint or excessive force violates the Due Process clause. See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 73 L.Ed 2d 28, 102 S. Ct. 2452 (1982). The Due Process clause also requires TYC to keep juveniles reasonably safe from harm inflicted by third parties, including by other juveniles in the facility. See J.H. ex rel. Higgin v. Johnson, 346 F.3d 788, 791 (7th Cir. 2003). Recent visits to two facilities – Corsicana and Al Price – revealed a recurring theme among the youth we interviewed: youth do not feel safe in these facilities.16 Youth at both facilities reported problems with both youth-on-youth violence and improper restraints by staff. Corsicana and Al Price have two of the highest rates for reports of assault – by youth and by staff – according to data kept by the TYC Office of Inspector General.17 Only one other secure facility – Crockett State School – is a consistent source of a higher number of reports of assault by staff or youth.18 Corsicana also was named in the 2010 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report on Sexual Victimization in Juvenile 16 DOJ’s 2007 investigation of Evins found strikingly similar conditions. Letter to Hon. Rick Perry, supra note 12, at 6 (“Youths consistently reported that they did not feel safe. One said,’It’s not safe for me to be on this campus.’ Another related,’In a gang you’re not safe, but safer.’”). 17 TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION, OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL, QUARTERLY REPORTS, available at http://www.tyc.state.tx.us/oig/index.html 18 Id.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SAP Crystal Reports
    Texas PK-16 Public Education Information Resource Texas Public Prekindergarten Programs and Enrollment Ages 3 and 4 Public Prekindergarten Enrollment for 2015-16 School Year Public Prekindergarten Enrollment by Student Instruction Type and ADA Eligibility for 2015-16 School Year 220,640 190,848 (86%) 88,295 (40%) 2015-16 Student Total Students Enrolled Economically Limited English Total Enrolled ADA Eligible Not Eligible for ADA Instruction Ages 3 and 4 Disadvantaged Proficiency Type Students Percent Students Percent Students Percent Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled 8,594 (4%) 6,611 (3%) 5,471 (2%) Age 3 Full-day 12,206 47% 11,616 47% 590 50% Special Education Military Children Homeless Half-day 13,573 53% 12,974 53% 599 50% Total 25,779 100% 24,590 100% 1,189 100% Age 4 Full-day 103,380 53% 96,791 53% 6,589 60% 1,695 (0.8%) 109,816 (50%) 110,824 (50%) Half-day 91,481 47% 87,071 47% 4,410 40% In Foster Care Females Males Total 194,861 100% 183,862 100% 10,999 100% Total Total 220,640 100% 208,452 100% 12,188 100% Public Prekindergarten Enrollment by Ethnicity for 2015-16 School Year Districts Providing Public Districts Providing Public Prekindergarten Prekindergarten for 2015-16 School Year for 2015-16 School Year by Instruction Type 64% 13% Hispanic/Latino Districts 30% White Not Full & Providing Half-day 40% Black or African PK Full-Day American Only Asian Two or more races Districts American Indian or Providing 15% 15% Alaska Nat Half-Day PK Native Hawaiian/Other Only Percentage of Students Enrolled Students of
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and Transferred All Functions, Duties and Responsibilities of These Former Agencies to TJJD
    Comprehensive Report Youth Reentry and Reintegration December 1, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................... 1 ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................................................................ 1 PROGRAMS ................................................................................................................................ 2 NETWORK OF TRANSITION PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 5 IDENTIFICATION OF LOCAL PROVIDERS AND TRANSITIONAL SERVICES .................................... 7 Children’s Aftercare Reentry Experience (CARE) ................................................................ 9 Gang Intervention Treatment: Reentry Development for Youth (GitRedy) ....................... 9 SHARING OF INFORMATION .................................................................................................... 10 OUTCOMES ................................................................................................................................. 10 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 14 APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Texas Youth Commission
    JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION PRELIMINARY REPORT OF INITIAL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS A REPORT TO THE LT. GOVERNOR AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE 80TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE JOHN WHITMIRE JERRY MADDEN SENATE CO-CHAIRMAN HOUSE CO-CHAIRMAN Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission Preliminary Report of Initial Findings and Recommendations Table of Contents I. Executive Summary II. Preliminary Report III. Proclamation IV. Attachment One - Recommended Action Plan by Committee V. Attachment Two - Statistical Breakdown by TDCJ-OIG VI. Attachment Three - Filed Legislation VII. Attachment Four - State Auditor's Report 07-022 VIII. Attachment Five - McLennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility - Case File Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background The Texas Youth Commission (TYC) is the state agency responsible for the care, custody and rehabilitation of the juvenile offenders who have been committed by the court. The ages of youth committed to TYC ranges from 10 to 17. The TYC can maintain custody of the youth until the age of twenty-one (21). Allegations of mistreatment, disturbances and abuse began to surface and the TYC came under federal scrutiny due to the riot at the Evins Regional Juvenile Center in Edinburg, Texas. The U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, began an investigation at the Evins facility in September 2006 and issued their report on March 15, 2007, stating "certain conditions at Evins violate the constitutional rights of the youth". The Senate Criminal Justice Committee, the House Corrections Committee and the Juvenile Justice and Family Issues Committee conducted separate public hearings allowing staff, youth, family members, child advocacy groups, the ACLU and other concerned citizens to be heard.
    [Show full text]
  • Texas Education Agency Overview
    Texas Education Agency Overview 100 - Office of the Commissioner; Senior Policy Advisor The Commissioner's Office provides leadership to schools, manages the Texas Education Agency (TEA), and provides coordination with the state legislature and other branches of state government as well as the U. S. Department of Education. SBOE activities and rules, commissioner rules and regulations, commissioner hearing decisions, coordinates with state legislature, Commissioner’s Correspondence and Complaints Management. Number of FTEs: 6 Correspondence Management Function Description: This function serves to oversee, coordinate, and conduct activities associated with managing and responding to correspondence received by members of the public, local education agencies (LEAs), legislature, and other state agencies. This function operates under the authority of Agency OP 03-01, for which the Office of the Commissioner is the Primary Office of Responsibility (OPR). This function serves as a review and distribution center for correspondence assigned to other offices in coordination with Complaints Management and the Public Information Coordination Office. Complaints Management Function Description: This function serves to oversee, coordinate, and conduct activities associated with managing and responding to complaints received by members of the public. Through various activities, this function ensures that the operations of the Agency’s complaint system is compliant with applicable regulations and policy and effectively meets identified needs of the Agency. This function operates under the authority of Agency OP 04-01, for which the Office of the Commissioner is the Primary Office of Responsibility (OPR). This function mainly serves as a review and distribution center for complaints assigned to other offices in coordination with Correspondence Management and the Public Information Coordination Office.
    [Show full text]
  • Jerry Patterson, Commissioner Texas General Land Office General Land Office Texas STATE AGENCY PROPERTY RECOMMENDED TRANSACTIONS
    STATE AGENCY PROPERTY RECOMMENDED TRANSACTIONS Report to the Governor October 2009 Jerry Patterson, Commissioner Texas General Land Office General Land Office Texas STATE AGENCY PROPERTY RECOMMENDED TRANSACTIONS REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR OCTOBER 2009 TEXAS GENERAL LAND OFFICE JERRY PATTERSON, COMMISSIONER INTRODUCTION SB 1262 Summary Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 31, Subchapter E, [Senate Bill 1262, 74th Texas Legislature, 1995] amended two years of previous law related to the reporting and disposition of state agency land. The amendments established a more streamlined process for disposing of unused or underused agency land by defining a reporting and review sequence between the Land Commissioner and the Governor. Under this process, the Asset Management Division of the General Land Office provides the Governor with a list of state agency properties that have been identified as unused or underused and a set of recommended real estate transactions. The Governor has 90 days to approve or disapprove the recommendations, after which time the Land Commissioner is authorized to conduct the approved transactions. The statute freezes the ability of land-owning state agencies to change the use or dispose of properties that have recommended transactions, from the time the list is provided to the Governor to a date two years after the recommendation is approved by the Governor. Agencies have the opportunity to submit to the Governor development plans for the future use of the property within 60 days of the listing date, for the purpose of providing information on which to base a decision regarding the recommendations. The General Land Office may deduct expenses from transaction proceeds.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report (January 2011)
    Criminal Justice Uniform Cost Report Fiscal Years 2008 – 2010 SUBMITTED TO THE 82ND TEXAS LEGISLATURE JANUARY 2011 LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD STAFF CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIFORM COST REPORT FISCAL YEARS 2008–2010 LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD JANUARY 2011 COVER PHOTO COURTESY OF HOUSE PHOTOGRAPHY CRIMINAL JUSTICE DATA ANALYSIS TEAM Michele Connolly, Manager Jamie Gardner, Analyst Adriana Marin, Analyst Laurie Molina, Analyst Ed Sinclair, Analyst PUBLIC SAFETY AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE TEAM John Newton, Manager Angela Isaack, Analyst David Repp, Analyst Melissa Wurzer, Analyst CRIMINAL JUSTICE UNIFORM COST REpORT FISCAL YEARS 2008-2010 January 2011 One responsibility of the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Team of the Legislative Budget Board is to calculate cost per day information for various adult and juvenile correctional populations for use in funding determinations and to provide a basis of comparison between correctional programs and previously published cost figures. This report summarizes uniform cost information for programs, services, and facilities operated or contracted by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), the Texas Youth Commission (TYC), and the Texas Juvenile Probation Commission (JPC). The appendices detail the methodology used for data collection and cost per day calculations, provide an overview of each agency's operations and programs, and provide comparisons to other cost per Director Legislative Budget Board ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The LBB staff would like to thank the adult and juvenile criminal justice agencies and their staff
    [Show full text]
  • Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas
    JuvenilesJuveniles inin thethe AdultAdult CriminalCriminal JusticeJustice SystemSystem inin TexasTexas by Michele Deitch Special Project Report Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas By Project Director Michele Deitch, J.D., M.Sc., Senior Lecturer LBJ School of Public Affairs Student Participants Emily Ling, LBJ School of Public Affairs Emma Quintero, University of Texas School of Law Suggested citation for this report: Michele Deitch (2011). Juveniles in the Adult Criminal Justice System in Texas, Austin, TX: The University of Texas at Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs A Special Project Report from the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin Applied Research in Juvenile and Criminal Justice—Fall Semester 2010 March 2011 © 2011 by The University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved. Cover design by Doug Marshall, LBJ School Communications Office Cover photo by Steve Liss/The AmericanPoverty.org Campaign TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures v Acknowledgements vii Executive Summary x Part I: Introduction 1 A. Purpose of Report 1 B. Methodology 2 C. Structure of Report 2 Part II: Overview 3 A. Historical Background 3 B. Sentencing and Transfer Options for Serious Juvenile Offenders Under Texas Law 4 C. Problems with Confining Juveniles in Adult Prisons and Jails 6 Part III: Findings 9 A. Numbers of adult certification cases vs. juvenile determinate sentencing 9 B. Characteristics of certified and determinate sentence populations 10 (1) Demographics 10 Age 10 Gender 11 Ethnicity 12 County of Conviction 12 (2) Criminal Offense 13 (3) Criminal History 16 Prior Referrals to Juvenile Court 17 Prior Referrals to Juvenile Court for Violent Offenses 17 Prior TYC Commitments 18 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Committee on Criminal Justice Interim Report To
    Senate Criminal Justice Committee Table of Contents Executive Summary .......................................................................................................... 4 Interim Charge One ........................................................................................................ 13 Interim Charge Two ...................................................................................................... 20 Interim Charge Three..................................................................................................... 27 Interim Charge Four ...................................................................................................... 34 Interim Charge Five ....................................................................................................... 48 Interim Charge Six ......................................................................................................... 53 Interim Charge Seven ..................................................................................................... 69 Interim Charge Eight ..................................................................................................... 73 Interim Charge Nine ....................................................................................................... 81 Interim Charge Ten ........................................................................................................ 96 Interim Charge Eleven ..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Representing the Juvenile Delinquent: Reform, Social Science, and Teenage Troubles in Postwar Texas
    Texas A&M University-San Antonio Digital Commons @ Texas A&M University-San Antonio History Faculty Publications College of Arts and Sciences 2004 Representing the Juvenile Delinquent: Reform, Social Science, and Teenage Troubles in Postwar Texas William S. Bush Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.tamusa.edu/hist_faculty Part of the American Studies Commons, and the United States History Commons Copyright by William Sebastian Bush 2004 The Dissertation Committee for William Sebastian Bush Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Representing the Juvenile Delinquent: Reform, Social Science, and Teenage Troubles in Postwar Texas Committee: Mark C. Smith, Supervisor Janet Davis Julia Mickenberg King Davis Sheldon Ekland-Olson Representing the Juvenile Delinquent: Reform, Social Science, and Teenage Troubles in Postwar Texas by William Sebastian Bush, B.A., M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin May 2004 Dedication For Mary and Alexander Acknowledgements Researching and writing a dissertation tests the emotions as well as the intellect. The two become so closely intertwined that scholarly advice invariably doubles as a salve for personal anxieties. Whether they knew it or not, practically everyone mentioned below bolstered my ever-flagging confidence even as they talked out ideas or problems that seemed bound within the more detached constraints of a dissertation project. Others just listened patiently to barely coherent thesis ideas, anxious brainstorming outbursts, and the usual angry tirades against academia.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10. Texas Dispositional Alternatives Danny Pirtile Introduction Juvenile Judges and District Attorneys Play an Important
    Chapter 10. Texas Dispositional Alternatives Danny Pirtile Introduction Juvenile judges and district attorneys play an important role in determining appropriate and often-necessary sanctions for those youth deemed delinquent and incorrigible. In the late 1980s, there was a transitional period for the juvenile justice system, where state legislatures began to institute policies aimed at violent, serious, and chronic juvenile offenders (Snyder & Sickmund, 1995; TJPC, 2003). Texas was not immune to the dramatic policy shifts being initiated during the late 1980s and early 1990s that was due to an overwhelming increase in juvenile crime and public fear of habitual and violent youthful offenders. Cox, Conrad, Allen and Hanser (2007) present a plethora of programs and dispositional choices available to juvenile justice officials. This chapter presents dispositional programs available to Texas juvenile officials and the milieu of these dispositions. Texas lawmakers developed policies that sought to decrease the non-adversarial nature of the juvenile court and replace them with increased procedural similarities to the adult criminal justice system. These legislative changes resulted in the creation of laws that significantly altered dispositions or adjudicatory outcomes in the juvenile justice system. Juvenile judges and prosecutors received increased authority and were provided with a wide range of dispositional alternatives which included placing a youth on probation to transferring the case to the adult system. Thus, the new goal was to focus more on providing tougher, offense based sanctions, while still retaining some of the safeguards provided in the juvenile justice system, which ultimately rely on the parens patriae doctrine of rehabilitation and focus on the best interests of the child.
    [Show full text]
  • UNT-0020-0177.Pdf
    TxD Y200.6 J826 95/09 i1OCUMEN!TSW0 :VTRV 95-28JAN0. i9; Texas Youth Commission September 1995, Fall Issue 4900 N. Lamar, Austin, TX 78765 News and Information from throughout the Agency Lindgren resigns; Briscoe named acting de puty director In this issue: ay Lindgren, Deputy Executive Direc- Lindgren's duties in Rhode Island will tor of the Youth Ccommission since include responsibility for youth correction Marlin 'Reception January 15, 1988, as resigned to ac- juvenile probation, pretrial detention, men- cept the position of Director of the Rhode tal health services for children, and child Center' opens Island Department of Children, Youth and protective services. His appointment was Story on page 7. Families, effective August 15. made by Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Executive Director Steve Robinson ap- Almond. pointed Judy Briscoe, TYC's Director of "It has been an honor to serve on what Outstanding 1995 Delinquency Prevention, as acting deputy I am certain is the best juvenile corrections director. Employees Honored (rontinuedd o"rpage ) Stories and photospages 11-16. IN THIS ISSUE Legislation.................................. 3 Annual Workshop.........................11 Construction Contract .................. 15 RIF Policy......................................23 New Administrators.................23 m SanctionSancion Unit......25nit.................................2 Former TYC Board Member Lary York, center was honored when the TYC halfway house in Corpus Christi was renamed York House. Also pictured are current Board Chairman Gary D. Project RIO....................................26 Compton ofAmarillo, left, and State Senator John Montford ofLubbock; keynote speaker SECTIONS Halfway house renamed to Around TYC ............................... 3 honor former Board Member Volunteers ............. 18 e Corpus Christi halfway house, formerly called Nueces House for the county in Youth g ........................
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Addressing Youth Violence in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department
    UNDERSTANDING AND ADDRESSING YOUTH VIOLENCE IN THE TEXAS JUVENILE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT Report to the Office of the Independent Ombudsman by Michele Deitch, J.D., M.Sc. Amy Madore Kate Vickery Alycia Welch SPECIAL PROJECT REPORT Understanding and Addressing Youth Violence in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department Report to the Office of the Independent Ombudsman by Project Director Michele Deitch, J.D., M.Sc. Senior Lecturer, LBJ School of Public Affairs LBJ School Student Participants Amy Madore Kate Vickery Alycia Welch Special Project Report Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs The University of Texas at Austin May 2013 ISBN: 978-89940-924-5 © 2013 by the University of Texas at Austin All rights reserved. Table of Contents Acknowledgements vii Executive Summmary ix List of Findings xix List of Tables and Figures xxv Chapter I: Introduction 1 A. Origins of the Report 1 B. Purpose of the Report 2 C. Methodology 2 D. Structure of the Report 4 Chapter II: Background 7 A. TYC Crisis of 2007 7 B. Reform Efforts Since 2007 8 (1) Senate Bill 103 8 (2) Reduction in Population and Closure of Facilities 9 (3) Shift Towards Treatment-Oriented Approach 10 C. Major Operational Changes and Challenges at TYC 11 (1) Use of Force and Use of Pepper Spray 11 (2) Staffing Shortages 11 (3) Sexual Assault Allegations 12 D. Creation of Texas Juvenile Justice Department (TJJD) 12 E. Recent Reports about Violence in TJJD 13 v Understanding and Addressing Youth Violence in the Texas Juvenile Justice Department Chapter III: A Profile of Violence in TJJD’s Secure Facilities 15 A.
    [Show full text]