Common use of Compliance Rating Partial Compliance Clause in Contracts

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance. Discussion Behavior Management Program The development and implementation of an effective behavior management program is an area in which very little progress has been made since the inception of the Agreement. It is also one of the key strategies needed to reduce youth violence and to address some of the behavioral issues that challenge the academic program at BCJJC (as discussed in the “Special Education” section of this report). Its full implementation is an essential step for coming into compliance with this Agreement over the next 12 months. During the previous monitoring period, the BCJJC adopted an earnings-based behavior management program. Prior to implementing the new program, all staff and youth were provided written and verbal guidance on how the new system would operate. When interviewed, both youth and staff could explain how both the new and the old systems worked. At the end of the previous monitoring period, use of the system had just gotten underway. In March, 2008, the facility administration felt that the system was not achieving its objectives and decided to change the program from an earning-based program to a point deduction-based program. Rather than beginning the day with zero points and earning points for engaging in prosocial behavior, youth instead begin the day with 100 points and lose them if they violate the various facility rules. Although it may have been possible to implement the deduction-based system in a manner that could have fulfilled the requirements of this provision, the new system was not well-conceptualized nor was it well- articulated to staff or youth. When interviewed, both groups had a difficult time explaining how the system worked and how points were deducted or how they could be used to purchase incentives. Perhaps most notably, the new system involved a major conceptual change (and one which is not well-supported in behavior modification research) that appeared to be moving in the opposite direction of the facility’s behavioral health program that seeks to teach adaptive behaviors. As a result, the program was changed again toward the end of the current monitoring period in late April 2008. The basic structure of the current behavior management program is solid—youth are able to earn up to 100 points per day and as points accumulate, youth are promoted to a higher level that comes with greater privileges. The range of privileges and incentives available through the program are meaningful to youth—they want to earn them and also do not want to lose them. Both staff and youth were given instruction as to how the new system would work. Unfortunately, the program was implemented too late in the monitoring period for the Monitors to fully assess its operation. When interviewed, staff indicated their support for the earnings-based system, although 8 of the 10 indicated that they needed additional training. While youth reviewed the system favorably, no two youth explained the mechanics of the system the same way, suggesting that additional instruction is also needed for the youth. In order to fully implement the program, the following steps are recommended: ▪ Update the Student Handbook to reflect the CURRENT system and re-engineer orientation materials to ensure that youth are fully briefed on the program’s structure; ▪ Finalize the forms that will be used to track point earning; ▪ Ensure that staff understand the mechanics for adding and deducting points (i.e., the progression from verbal warnings, to loss of allotted points for the given activity, to major point deductions that is built into the system); ▪ Post point totals and levels on each unit for each youth on a daily basis; ▪ Audit the point logs every couple of days to make sure that staff are using the system properly and so that major problems are addressed correctly and do not have the chance to compound; ▪ Revisit the design of the system after a couple of months to see the types of errors that staff make or the areas in which the system is not working as planned. Make targeted revisions that are philosophically aligned with the treatment program at BCJJC; and ▪ A couple months following any revisions, assess the program to determine its effectiveness. Use both process measures (e.g., length of stay on each level; rate of promotions across levels; quality of incentives; meaningfulness of consequences) and outcome measures (e.g., impact on the rate of youth violence; impact on youths’ performance relative to treatment goals). Seclusion While the facility is not permitted to use disciplinary isolation as a sanction, seclusion may be used to provide youth with an opportunity to calm down after an altercation or other tense situation. Practices designed to protect the safety of youth in seclusion are discussed in a subsequent section (III.C-1.iii). Given that seclusion is permissible only in situations where the safety of youth and staff or the security of the facility is compromised, the justification for the use of seclusion is relevant here. In order to be released from seclusion, a youth must discuss his behavior with staff, must take responsibility for himself, and articulate how he could have behaved differently. A total of 44 seclusion episodes were randomly selected from those occurring between January 1 and May 5, 2008. The reasons offered for keeping the youth in seclusion were audited. Shift Commanders are required to visit with the youth every two hours to assess his readiness for release. Documentation supports that these visits occurred at required intervals. However, in approximately half of the cases, the Shift Commander did not properly justify the continued used of seclusion (i.e., the reason the Shift Commander decided the youth was not ready to return to the general population). Most gave only vague statements such as “not ready to process” or statements such as “youth agitated that he is in his room” that do not explain why the youth was judged to be a continued safety threat. These reasons for the continued use of seclusion must be better articulated in order to substantiate that seclusion is used only as a mechanism to control a legitimate threat to safety, and not as a punitive measure. On a positive note, the duration of seclusion episodes decreased steadily during the monitoring period. The Quality Assurance audit in March 2008 calculated a 23.4 hour average length of stay. During the Monitor’s April 2008 tour, the average length of stay had decreased to 12 hours, and dropped again, to 8.27 hours, by the May 2008 visit. Returning the youth to the general population as soon as the safety risk has been addressed is not only in the youth’s best interest but also returns the staff to their normal supervision duties. This same trend is observed in April 2008 PbS Report for the standard Order 9. As an interim measure, the facility also uses “social separation,” in which a youth is sent to his room and must remain there for 60 minutes or less. The door to the room is at least partially open, and is unlocked. There are situations in which the youth still has not calmed down, even after the period of separation. In these cases, the youth is then placed in seclusion. During the latter part of the monitoring period, the facility began to observe and document the youth’s behavior while separated, so that if the youth needed to be transferred to seclusion, the reasons for the transfer were well-documented. This is a useful process to ensure that social separation does not become de facto seclusion. Social separation forms for February, March and April 2008 were audited for all three pods. On all three pods, social separation routinely extended beyond the 60 minutes allowed by policy. On D and E Pods, many of the cases reviewed (35% D Pod; 59% E Pod) greatly exceeded this limit (e.g., durations of 3 or 4 hours). A smaller proportion of cases on F Pod (15%) exceeded the 60 minute limit, and only by 30 to 60 minutes. Mental Health Consultation The problems with the development and implementation of a behavior management program discussed above have precluded an effective collaboration between direct care and mental health staff regarding the behavior management of the average youth receiving mental health services. There were two exceptions, however. Guarded Care plans were developed for two youth with significant mental health issues. These plans were comprehensive and involved a cross-section of facility staff in the plan to support the youth’s progress while at BCJJC and also included specific performance measures to assess progress. While this level of intervention and planning will not be necessary for most youth receiving mental health services, regular consultation and discussion of youths’ performance in the behavior management program should be part of the Treatment Team meetings. The youth’s level and point totals are discussed for most youth, but it is recommended that this become a formal part of the Treatment Team meetings in order to forge the needed linkage between mental health and direct care staff. Daily Schedule The facility’s daily schedule has a large impact on the level of youth violence. Both youth and staff reported that the unit schedules are followed dependably, with few exceptions. This provides a high level of predictability for both youth and staff which is important for reducing stress and tension. The facility assembled an impressive array of engaging activities for youth. The calendar of special events is posted throughout the facility, and an effort to engage parents in some of the events is notable. Recreation space is somewhat limited—the facility has only one gymnasium. Free time on weekends and in the evenings seems to rely on card playing, TV and video games. While some leisure time is of course important, the evening and weekend free time periods should be as structured as possible and staff should be encouraged to interact with youth, rather than simply supervising them from a distance.

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance. Discussion Behavior Management Program The development and implementation of an effective behavior management program is an area in which very little progress has been made since the inception of the Agreement. It is also one of the key strategies needed to reduce for reducing youth violence and to address some of the behavioral issues that challenge the academic program at BCJJC (as discussed in the “Special Education” section of this report)violence. Its full implementation is an essential step for coming into compliance with this Agreement over the next 12 months. During the previous monitoring period, the BCJJC adopted an earnings-based behavior Behavior management program. Prior to implementing the new program, encompasses all staff and youth were provided written and verbal guidance on how the new system would operate. When interviewed, both youth and staff could explain how both the new and the old systems worked. At the end of the previous monitoring period, use of the system had just gotten underway. In March, 2008, the facility administration felt that the system was not achieving its objectives and decided to change the program from an earning-based program to a point deduction-based program. Rather than beginning the day with zero points and earning points for engaging in prosocial behavior, youth instead begin the day with 100 points and lose them if they violate the various facility rules. Although it may have been possible to implement the deduction-based system in a manner that could have fulfilled the requirements of this provision, the new system was not well-conceptualized nor was it well- articulated to staff or youth. When interviewed, both groups had a difficult time explaining how the system worked and how points were deducted or how they could be used to purchase incentives. Perhaps most notably, the new system involved a major conceptual change (and one which is not well-supported in behavior modification research) that appeared to be moving in the opposite direction of the facility’s behavioral tactics for shaping youth’s behavior—its system for awarding incentives; consequences for breaking facility rules; immediate responses to youth violence; and strategies for keeping youth occupied with pro‐social activities. Throughout all of these, case management, education and mental health program that seeks staff should be involved to teach adaptive behaviorsensure consistency and increasing support for youth who struggle to comply with facility rules. As a result, the program was changed again toward the end of the current monitoring period in late April 2008. Point/Level System The basic structure of the current behavior management program is point/level system remains solid—youth are able to earn up to 100 points per day and as points accumulate, youth are promoted to a higher level that comes is associated with greater privileges. Point deductions, or fines, are issued when youth do not follow facility rules. Although simple in concept, the system is actually quite complex, which may account for the persistent implementation problems discussed below. At the appropriate time, the facility should consider revising the point/level system to emphasize the behaviors it is trying to promote and to reduce the current focus on negative behaviors. Such systems have been shown to produce better outcomes among incarcerated youth. On each of my three visits during the current monitoring period, I reviewed youths’ point sheets from 3 units across a one‐month period (August, September, and November, 2009). These records continue to be complete and well‐organized. Administrative staff and supervisors are responsible for overseeing the daily operation of the point/level system. Although they accurately identify various errors made by staff, often their feedback is not incorporated into the youth’s point/level sheets for several days. A significant number of examples were noted where youth committed major rule violations, but were not demoted until several days later. The failure to immediately impose consequences (i.e., level drop) for youth involved in violence limits the effectiveness of the point/level system. In addition, there are two parts of the system that are not being utilized as designed. First, the daily 100 points are distributed across the various activities in which youth are involved. By design, staff are supposed to address non‐compliant behavior verbally, then inform the youth that he will not earn the points allocated to the activity at hand, and then, if the youth remains non‐compliant, assess a fine. In past monitoring periods, staff often exceeded the allowable fine amounts prescribed by policy. While this problem appears to have been largely resolved, many staff now appeared to skip a step in the path toward correcting youth’s behavior. Instead of withholding the smaller number of points allotted to the activity at hand, many staff take the much larger point deduction instead. For example, if a youth is not following directions in the dining hall, rather than withholding the 5 points allocated to that meal, the staff assess a 50 point deduction instead. The point/level system was constructed to be proportional—if non‐ compliant behavior can be effectively addressed with smaller point deductions, this is preferable to levying a fine that subtracts half of the day’s points. While the effectiveness of the smaller point deductions cannot be known, it is essential that staff implement the program as it was designed and explained to the youth. Second, the BMP was designed with a rebate option. Youth who are assessed fines for minor rule violations should be permitted to engage in some sort of restorative activity so that they can earn a portion of the points back. This does not occur with any regularity, although I do not know the reasons underlying staff’s failure to use this option. The State should consider making rebates mandatory, which would shift the focus on the BMP toward reinforcing the behaviors that are desired, rather than its current singular focus on attempting to extinguish undesirable behaviors through fines. On a positive note, all youth interviewed were aware of their points and level and reported that they received all of the incentives that had been promised to them. The range of privileges incentives has dramatically increased over the past six months and now includes commissary, special late night activities, access to game rooms, extra phone calls and special visits. Youth reported that these incentives available are meaningful and that they made striving for Level 4 “worth it.” Youth of any level are also permitted to apply for an extended stay in each unit’s Honors Room which features upgraded bedding, a videogame console and other activities. A review of applications for the Honor’s Room indicated that the privilege is granted to youth of all levels. Guarded Care Plans Case management and mental health staff are involved in the behavior management of certain youth with serious behavioral and mental health problems, through the program are meaningful development of Guarded Care Plans (GCPs). The concept of the GCP reflects the requirements of this provision related to youth—they want to earn them and also do not want to lose themmental health consultation. Both staff and youth were given instruction as to how In practice, GCPs lacked important content during the new system would work. Unfortunately, the program was implemented too late in first half of the monitoring period but showed significant improvements in the latter half. At first, GCPs did not include sufficiently detailed behavioral goals, relying instead on vague terms such as “improve safe behaviors,” nor did they establish a specific performance threshold for the Monitors youth to fully assess its operationreceive a reward. When interviewedBy November, staff indicated their support these problems were resolved, and youth’s GCPs now include specific targets and cues, along with specific behavioral objectives. Further, frequent performance reviews for all youth, and the earnings-based systemdelivery of rewards when earned, although 8 are well‐ documented. Only a small glitch in this process remains: the extent to which all members of the 10 indicated that they needed additional trainingmulti‐disciplinary team (MDT) have been engaged. While youth reviewed the system favorably, no two youth explained the mechanics ideally all members of the system team would be involved in the same wayplans’ development, suggesting that additional instruction more importantly, they should all be at least aware of their obligations for implementing the plans. Mental health staff develop the plans; case managers are provided copies of GCPs for youth on their caseload; unit staff have access to all GCPs in a binder in the Pod Offices. The only remaining piece is also needed for the youth. In order to fully implement the program, the following steps are recommended: ▪ Update the Student Handbook to reflect the CURRENT system and re-engineer orientation materials to ensure that youth are fully briefed on the program’s structure; ▪ Finalize the forms that will be used to track point earning; ▪ Ensure that staff understand the mechanics for adding and deducting points (i.e., the progression from verbal warnings, to loss of allotted points for the given activity, to major point deductions that is built into the system); ▪ Post point totals and levels on each unit for each youth on a daily basis; ▪ Audit the point logs every couple of days to make sure that staff are using the system properly and so that major problems are addressed correctly and do not teachers who have the chance youth in class are aware of their responsibilities under the GCP. A mental health staff is currently assigned to compound; ▪ Revisit the design school—this individual could be made responsible for informing all of a youth’s teachers of the system after a couple requirements of months to see the types of errors that staff make or the areas in which the system is not working as planned. Make targeted revisions that are philosophically aligned with the treatment program at BCJJC; and ▪ A couple months following any revisions, assess the program to determine its effectiveness. Use both process measures (e.g., length of stay on each level; rate of promotions across levels; quality of incentives; meaningfulness of consequences) and outcome measures (e.g., impact on the rate of youth violence; impact on youths’ performance relative to treatment goals)his GCP. Seclusion While the facility is not permitted by State law to use disciplinary isolation as a sanctionisolation, seclusion youth may be confined to their rooms when they represent a legitimate safety threat to other youth or staff (e.g., immediately following a fight). The period in seclusion is used to provide de‐escalate the youth with so that he may be safely returned to the general population. In order to prevent an opportunity to calm down after an altercation or other tense situation. Practices designed to protect the safety of youth in seclusion are discussed in a subsequent section (III.C-1.iii). Given that seclusion is permissible only in situations where the safety of youth and staff or the security of the facility is compromised, the justification for over‐ reliance on the use of seclusion is relevant hereseclusion, staff must seek authorization from an Administrator to place a youth in seclusion. In order Toward the end of the current monitoring period, staff were also required to collaborate with Mental Health staff when determining whether a youth was prepared to be released from seclusion, a youth must discuss his behavior with staff, must take responsibility for himself, and articulate how he could have behaved differently. A total of 44 seclusion episodes were randomly selected from those occurring between January 1 and May 5, 2008This is an excellent practice. The reasons offered for keeping the youth in seclusion were audited. Shift Commanders are required to visit with the youth every two hours to assess his readiness for release. Documentation supports that these Across my three visits occurred at required intervals. However, in approximately half of the cases, the Shift Commander did not properly justify the continued used of seclusion (i.e., the reason the Shift Commander decided the youth was not ready to return to the general population). Most gave only vague statements such as “not ready to process” or statements such as “youth agitated that he is in his room” that do not explain why the youth was judged to be a continued safety threat. These reasons for the continued use of seclusion must be better articulated in order to substantiate that seclusion is used only as a mechanism to control a legitimate threat to safety, and not as a punitive measure. On a positive note, the duration of seclusion episodes decreased steadily facility during the monitoring period. The Quality Assurance audit in March 2008 calculated a 23.4 hour average length of stay. During the Monitor’s April 2008 tour, the average length of stay had decreased to 12 hours, and dropped again, to 8.27 hours, by the May 2008 visit. Returning the youth to the general population as soon as the safety risk has been addressed is not only in the youth’s best interest but also returns the staff to their normal supervision duties. This same trend is observed in April 2008 PbS Report for the standard Order 9. As an interim measure, the facility also uses “social separation,” in which a youth is sent to his room and must remain there for 60 minutes or less. The door to the room is at least partially open, and is unlocked. There are situations in which the youth still has not calmed down, even after the period of separation. In these cases, the youth is then placed in seclusion. During the latter part of the current monitoring period, I reviewed approximately 50 seclusion records for youth involved in serious institutional misconduct from August through November, 2009. Consistently, these documents revealed that youth were monitored closely while they were in their rooms; they were visited by medical staff several times during their stay; and their readiness for release was monitored closely by the facility began Shift Commanders. The facility’s practices in this area have improved consistently since the Agreement was signed into effect. Court Reports In response to observe and document a historical lack of consequences in the facility’s approach to behavior management, a system was devised to inform the Court of the youth’s behavior while separatedhoused at BCJJC. Prior to all scheduled court hearings, so facility case managers prepare a one‐page summary of the youth’s behavior while in custody that if includes the youth’s total points, level, involvement in institutional misconduct, participation in education and programming, and contact with parents. These reports are well‐designed and capture the salient facts needed for a Judge to assess the youth’s behavior while at BCJJC. Under the guidance of the Case Manager Supervisor, the process was implemented in November 2009. A review of records verified that reports were generated for all youth needed (n=58) with scheduled court appearances during that month. When interviewed, youth indicated that their Judges commented on their behavior during their court appearances and that this was an effective deterrent to their getting involved in misconduct. The current level of performance needs to be transferred to seclusion, the reasons for the transfer were well-documented. This is a useful process sustained over time to ensure that social separation does the court reporting process contributes to effective behavior management at the BCJJC. Intensive Services Unit As noted in previous Monitors’ Reports, a significant number of youth‐on‐ youth assaults at BCJJC involve a rather small proportion of youth. Because the point/level system had not become de facto seclusionuntil recently been effectively designed with an array of incentives for positive behavior, and the court reports had not yet been implemented, youth reported there were few reasons for them to refrain from involvement in serious misconduct. Social separation forms Further, staff indicated that they felt disempowered by the lack of serious consequences for February, March and April 2008 youth who were audited for all three pods. On all three pods, social separation routinely extended beyond the 60 minutes allowed by policy. On D and E Pods, many of the cases reviewed (35% D Pod; 59% E Pod) greatly exceeded this limit (e.g., durations of 3 or 4 hours)involved in violent institutional misconduct. A smaller proportion couple of cases on F Pod (15%) exceeded months into the 60 minute limitcurrent monitoring period, and only by 30 the State committed to 60 minutes. Mental Health Consultation The problems with developing a segregated, highly‐structured unit for the development and implementation small number of a behavior management program discussed above have precluded an effective collaboration between direct care and mental health staff regarding the behavior management of the average youth receiving mental health services. There were two exceptions, however. Guarded Care plans were developed for two youth with significant mental health issueschronic involvement in violent misconduct. These plans were comprehensive The Intensive Services Unit (ISU) was designed to provide intensive programming and involved a cross-section of facility staff in the plan structure and to support limit the youth’s progress while at BCJJC movement and also included specific performance measures access to assess progresspotential victims. All services, including education, are brought to the unit. Any staff may refer a youth to the ISU; admission is determined by a committee that reviews the youth’s facility record and is ultimately approved by the Superintendent. ISU staff were hand‐picked and the esteem of the ISU was enhanced by the administration’s formal recognition of the ISU staff’s expertise. While this level the ISU had been in operation for only two weeks at the time of intervention and planning will not be necessary for most youth receiving mental health services, regular consultation and discussion of youths’ performance in the behavior management program should be part of the Treatment Team meetings. The youth’s level and point totals are discussed for most youth, but it is recommended that this become a formal part of the Treatment Team meetings in order my final visit to forge the needed linkage between mental health and direct care staff. Daily Schedule The facility’s daily schedule has a large impact on the level of youth violence. Both youth and staff reported that the unit schedules are followed dependably, with few exceptions. This provides a high level of predictability for both youth and staff which is important for reducing stress and tension. The facility assembled an impressive array of engaging activities for youth. The calendar of special events is posted throughout the facility, its initial implementation is promising. Youth had not been involved in any violent misconduct during their stay on the ISU. Strict enforcement of facility rules, near‐constant programming, and an effort to engage parents in some of collaboration among staff from various disciplines are among the events is notablereasons offered for the unit’s effectiveness. Recreation space is somewhat limited—the facility has only one gymnasium. Free time on weekends and in the evenings seems to rely on card playing, TV and video games. While some leisure time is of course importantAs happens with all new program initiatives, the evening and weekend free time periods initial stage of implementation revealed a number of weaknesses that need to be addressed: • Length of Stay. The original program design set a minimum stay of 7 days, which, for the first two cohorts of youth, ended up being the exact length of stay for all youth involved. ISU staff noted that 7 days was not sufficient for solid treatment planning, an assessment with which I agree. The length of stay on the ISU should be individually – derived and based on the youth’s behavior as structured as possible he is slowly re‐ integrated into the general population. Shortly after my visit, the State reportedly removed references to a specific number of days from the program design and staff should be encouraged to interact with youth, rather than simply supervising them from a distance.the youth handbook. •

Compliance Rating Partial Compliance. Discussion Behavior Management Program The development and implementation of an effective behavior management program is an area in which very little progress has been made since the inception of the Agreement. It is also (BMP) should be one of the key strategies needed to reduce for reducing youth violence and to address addressing some of the behavioral issues that challenge the academic program at BCJJC (as discussed in the “Special Education” section of this report). Its full implementation is an essential step for coming into compliance with this Agreement over the next 12 months. During the previous monitoring periodThe current program was implemented in mid-September, the BCJJC adopted an earnings-based behavior management program. Prior to implementing the new program, all staff and youth were provided written and verbal guidance on how the new system would operate. When interviewed, both youth and staff could explain how both the new and the old systems worked. At the end of the previous monitoring period, use of the system had just gotten underway. In March, 2008, the facility administration felt that the system was not achieving its objectives and decided to change the program from an earning-based program to a point deduction-based program. Rather than beginning the day with zero points and earning points for engaging in prosocial behavior, youth instead begin the day with 100 points and lose them if they violate the various facility rules. Although it may 2008 although minor modifications have been possible made from time to implement the deduction-based system in a manner that could have fulfilled the requirements of this provision, the new system was not well-conceptualized nor was it well- articulated to staff or youth. When interviewed, both groups had a difficult time explaining how the system worked and how points were deducted or how they could be used to purchase incentives. Perhaps most notably, the new system involved a major conceptual change (and one which is not well-supported in behavior modification research) that appeared to be moving in the opposite direction of the facility’s behavioral health program that seeks to teach adaptive behaviors. As a result, the program was changed again toward the end of the current monitoring period in late April 2008time. The basic structure of the current behavior management program BMP is solid—youth are able to earn up to 100 points per day and as points accumulate, youth are promoted to a higher level that comes with greater privileges. The range Point deductions, or fines, are issued when youth do not follow facility rules. Although simple in concept, the system is actually quite complex, which may account for the implementation problems discussed below. These problems may also limit the BMP’s usefulness in reducing assaults and disturbances at BCJJC. On a positive note, behavior management records are complete and well-organized. A full set of privileges documents could be produced for all 10 units for all of the days requested. Further, visual inspection indicated that point sheets are posted on each unit, each day, and incentives available through most of the program youth knew what level they were on. A sample of point sheets from all 10 units over approximately 30 days in February, March and April, 2009 was reviewed. Across these point sheets, there were very few calculation errors and nearly all of the point deductions were explained on the back side of the point sheet. However, many of the point sheets revealed point deductions in excess of those permitted by the BMP guidelines (e.g., staff deducted 50 points for refusing a directive, when the guidelines allow only 25 points to be deducted). Further, youth were not always held accountable for their behavior via point deductions. Using the incident report log, youth involved in youth-on-youth assaults on all three pods during March and April, 2008 were identified. Xxxxx referencing these with the point sheets revealed that points were not deducted for about one-third of the youth involved in the assaults. While this has improved somewhat from the previous reporting period (when point deductions were not taken in two-thirds of the cases reviewed), the lack of accountability limits the overall effectiveness of the BMP. Further, a review of point sheets from several units suggested that point deductions do not have any real deterrent value for a small subset of youth. Across several weeks, these youth routinely received between 5 and 10 fines for misbehavior each day. They frequently lost significantly more points than they earned. These were the same youth who were involved in more serious forms of misconduct (assaults and group disturbances). This pattern leads to a few plausible theories: youth do not perceive the points to be valuable and thus do not care if they earn or lose them; or, youth cannot control their behavior and are meaningful not being taught how to youth—they want to earn them and also do so in an effective manner; or, youth do not know or do not want to lose themdemonstrate alternative ways to handle these situations. Both staff and youth were given instruction Whatever the underlying cause, point deductions as the sole consequence for misbehavior appear to how be of limited utility. Perhaps because of the new system would work. UnfortunatelyState’s legislative limitation on the use of seclusion (i.e., it cannot be used as punishment), the program was implemented too late State has been careful when implementing structured sanctions for misbehavior that include segregation from the general population. The practice of isolating (i.e., placing them behind a locked door, by themselves) youth who commit major rule violations does not have support in the monitoring period research on creating long-term behavior change in adolescents. However, segregating these youth (meaning keeping them separate from the general population until a series of interventions designed to suppress assaultive behavior and to teach new skills for managing frustration, anger and peer pressure can be implemented, for example) could be an effective response for the Monitors small proportion of youth who are undeterred by the regular behavior management program. The State is encouraged to fully assess its operationcontinue to consider this type of segregation among the range of consequences to be added to the existing behavior management program. When interviewed, staff youth complained that there was little distinction between the levels— only their bedtimes were different—and thus many felt that earning points “isn’t worth it.” Others indicated that, aside from commissary, they cannot purchase anything meaningful with their support points. Still others complained that the written guidelines for the earningsBMP promised a greater array of incentives that were not available to youth. Staff echoed these problems and reported their feelings of “helplessness” in the face of non-based systemcompliance because they have too few options for holding youth accountable. Of additional concern is that the current structure does not provide a mechanism for staff to reward the behaviors they want the youth to demonstrate. Either on-the-spot or over the long term, although 8 staff must notice, comment on, and reward the pro-social behaviors they seek in order to increase the likelihood that the youth will replicate them. These behaviors could include things like refraining from the use of profanity for an entire day, exhibiting appropriate behavior upon returning from court, staying out of a group disturbance among other members of the 10 indicated housing unit. If staff could promote such behaviors more effectively, youth may be more likely to choose pro-social behaviors instead of maladaptive ones the next time they find themselves in a similar situation. Thus, while the basic structure of the current BMP is solid and while the mechanics have improved, the program still lacks integrity and therefore has very limited utility in reducing the level of youth violence in the facility. Mental Health Consultation Case management and mental health staff are involved in the behavior management of certain youth with serious behavioral and mental health problems, through the development of a Guarded Care Plan (GCP). The concept of the GCP is right on target with the requirements of this provision; however, the GCPs as currently executed are not of sufficient quality. A total of 14 GCPs for youth in custody in February and April 2009 were reviewed. Most were developed by a a case manger with some input from direct care, education and mental health staff. Overall, the plans lacked originality. Not only did they all bear a striking resemblance to each other, they did not describe behavioral interventions that they needed additional trainingare any different from how staff would respond to a youth in the general population (e.g., separate the youth from the group, process with him, seek mental health consultation). Many of the plans did not identify any specific incentives for the youth to comply with the plan and most were not reviewed on a regular basis. While the GCP is a solid strategy for addressing youth reviewed the system favorably, no two youth explained the mechanics involved in a disproportionate number of the system the same way, suggesting that additional instruction is also needed for the youth. In order to fully implement the programserious incidents, the following steps are recommended: ▪ Update the Student Handbook to reflect the CURRENT system plan must be both individualized and re-engineer orientation materials to ensure that youth are fully briefed on the program’s structure; ▪ Finalize the forms that will be used to track point earning; ▪ Ensure that staff understand the mechanics for adding and deducting points specific. The plan should define a baseline (i.e., type and frequency of problem behaviors at the progression from verbal warningstime of referral), identify the skills the youth needs to loss develop in order to display more appropriate behaviors, set specific behavioral goals and how progress toward them will be measured, and specify a range of allotted points rewards and incentives for youth who meet these goals. GCPs must be reviewed routinely and youth must be given access to rewards if they have earned them in order to have an impact on youth’s behavior. Toward the given activity, to major point deductions that is built into the system); ▪ Post point totals and levels on each unit for each youth on a daily basis; ▪ Audit the point logs every couple of days to make sure that staff are using the system properly and so that major problems are addressed correctly and do not have the chance to compound; ▪ Revisit the design end of the system after monitoring period, the GCP was overhauled and a couple of months new policy, procedure and forms were developed. Hope Health staff will reportedly be taking the lead on GCP development, which will likely lead to see the types of errors that staff make or the areas in which the system is not working as planned. Make targeted revisions that are philosophically aligned with the treatment program at BCJJC; a higher-quality and ▪ A couple months following any revisions, assess the program to determine its effectiveness. Use both process measures (e.g., length of stay on each level; rate of promotions across levels; quality of incentives; meaningfulness of consequences) and outcome measures (e.g., impact on the rate of youth violence; impact on youths’ performance relative to treatment goals)more effective product. Seclusion While the facility is not permitted to use disciplinary isolation as a sanction, seclusion may be used to provide youth with an opportunity to calm down after an altercation or other tense situation. Practices designed to protect the safety of youth in seclusion are discussed in a subsequent section (III.C-1.iii). Given that seclusion is permissible only in situations where the safety of youth and staff or the security of the facility is compromised, the justification for the use of seclusion is relevant here. In By DJS policy, in order to be released from seclusion, a youth must discuss his behavior with staff, must take responsibility for himself, and articulate how he could have behaved differently. The previous Monitors’ Report described significant increases in the use of seclusion and its duration and expressed concern that seclusion was overused during that 6-month period. The current monitoring period witnessed a brief swing to the opposite pole—the near cessation of seclusion—followed by a rebalancing of the practice. Toward the end of 2008 and in early 2009, the facility recorded approximately 150 uses of seclusion per month. Following an incident in which staff were disciplined for their failure to follow seclusion procedures, staff all but halted the practice, using seclusion only 10 times in February, 2009. Staff were cautioned that while seclusion should not be used as punishment and youth should not languish in seclusion, seclusion serves an important safety function in the facility by providing an opportunity to process with youth and to restore calm and more reasonable thinking. In March and April, 2009, rates of seclusion hovered at approximately 100 per month. It is not the Monitor’s intention to prescribe a specific number of seclusions, but merely to point out that swings in one direction or the other should be analyzed to ensure they do not represent an over- or under-reliance on the practice. Supervisors and administrators must use their judgment to determine whether seclusion in each instance would promote safety or would amount to an unnecessary exclusion from the general population. Along with reductions in the use of seclusion, the recent monitoring period also witnessed significant reductions in the duration of seclusion. In general, youth should be held behind a locked door only when a legitimate safety concern exists. Otherwise, the downsides of this practice (i.e., the risk of self-harm dramatically increases; after an initial cooling off period, youth tend to get more aggravated when excluded from the general population; absent specific programming, youth do not learn anything from being isolated) far outweigh the benefits. As such, limiting the duration of seclusion is encouraged. At the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009, the duration of seclusion averaged approximately 12 hours. In March and April 2009, the average duration of seclusion was only 2 hours. Providing that the underlying dispute is actually resolved, this reduction is a significant achievement. The effectiveness of these shorter periods of seclusion should be confirmed by examining the youth’s subsequent involvement in serious incidents. If immediate retaliation or continued non-compliance are evident, seclusion practices should be reviewed. A total of 44 35 seclusion episodes were randomly selected from those occurring between January 1 and May 5April 15, 2008. The 2009 to assess the reasons offered for keeping the youth in seclusion were auditedseclusion. Shift Commanders are required to visit with the youth every two hours to assess his readiness for release. Documentation supports that these visits occurred at required intervals. However, in intervals approximately half 90 percent of the cases, the time. Shift Commander did not Commanders properly justify justified the continued used of seclusion (i.e., the reason the Shift Commander decided the youth was not ready to return to the general population). Most gave only vague statements such as “not ready to process” or statements such as “youth agitated that he is in his room” that do not explain why the youth was judged to be a continued safety threat. These reasons for the continued use presence of seclusion must be better articulated in order to substantiate that seclusion is used only as a mechanism to control a legitimate threat to safety, and not as a punitive measure. On a positive note, safety concern) about 80 percent of the duration of seclusion episodes decreased steadily during the monitoring periodtime. The Quality Assurance audit in March 2008 calculated a 23.4 hour average length quality of stay. During their justifications improved noticeably toward the Monitor’s April 2008 tour, the average length of stay had decreased to 12 hours, and dropped again, to 8.27 hours, by the May 2008 visit. Returning the youth to the general population as soon as the safety risk has been addressed is not only in the youth’s best interest but also returns the staff to their normal supervision duties. This same trend is observed in April 2008 PbS Report for the standard Order 9. As an interim measure, the facility also uses “social separation,” in which a youth is sent to his room and must remain there for 60 minutes or less. The door to the room is at least partially open, and is unlocked. There are situations in which the youth still has not calmed down, even after the period of separation. In these cases, the youth is then placed in seclusion. During the latter part end of the monitoring period, a trend which needs to be maintained over time. In summary, the facility began to observe has drastically reduced the use of seclusion and document its duration since the youth’s behavior while separatedAgreement was signed. Building on this accomplishment, additional methods for addressing crises and de-escalating tensions should also be sought so that if staff’s responses can be customized to the particular needs of individual youth. Programming The facility continues to struggle to engage youth needed to be transferred to seclusion, the reasons for the transfer were well-documentedin structured programming each day. This The facility’s limited indoor programming space and outdoor recreation space is a useful process serious detriment to ensure this objective. Direct care staff frequently conduct groups on the unit that social separation does not become de facto seclusionserve mostly to set behavioral expectations and review the day’s activities. Social separation forms for FebruaryMental health staff conduct Aggression Replacement Training (ART) groups on the units, March and April 2008 were audited for all three pods. On all three pods, social separation routinely extended beyond but these are frequently cut short because of problems maintaining the 60 minutes allowed by policy. On D and E Pods, many of the cases reviewed (35% D Pod; 59% E Pod) greatly exceeded this limit facility’s schedule (e.g., durations of 3 or 4 hourslunch is ready late, youth are delayed in returning from school, etc.). A smaller proportion of cases on F Pod (15%) exceeded the 60 minute limit, and only by 30 to 60 minutes. Mental Health Consultation The problems with the development and implementation of a behavior management program discussed above have precluded an effective collaboration between direct care and mental health staff regarding the behavior management All of the average youth receiving mental health servicesinterviewed complained of boredom and indicated that while they participated in some sort of structured program 1 or 2 nights per week, they were not engaged in anything meaningful the other 5 or 6 nights or on the weekend days. There were two exceptionsWhen they are not in school, howeveryouth reported that they spend most of their time watching TV and playing cards and videogames. Guarded Care plans were developed for two youth with significant mental health issues. These plans were comprehensive and involved a cross-section of facility staff in the plan to support the youth’s progress while at BCJJC and also included specific performance measures to assess progress. While this level of intervention and planning will not be necessary for most youth receiving mental health services, regular consultation and discussion of youths’ performance in the behavior management program should be part The arrival of the Treatment Team meetingsBoys & Girls Club programming (BGC) in late 2008 was an extremely positive development. The youthBGC program was repeatedly identified as the facility’s level strongest program and point totals are discussed for the time of day when youth felt the least stressed and most interested in what was going on around them. Facilities throughout the country notice a direct correlation between youth violence and idle time. The more structured programming available to youth, but it is recommended that the fewer assaults and group disturbances. Continued investments in this become area are likely to yield a formal part substantial return in terms of the Treatment Team meetings reduction in order to forge the needed linkage between mental health and direct care staff. Daily Schedule The facility’s daily schedule has a large impact on the level of youth violence. Both youth and staff reported that the unit schedules are followed dependably, with few exceptions. This provides a high level of predictability for both youth and staff which is important for reducing stress and tension. The facility assembled an impressive array of engaging activities for youth. The calendar of special events is posted throughout the facility, and an effort to engage parents in some of the events is notable. Recreation space is somewhat limited—the facility has only one gymnasium. Free time on weekends and in the evenings seems to rely on card playing, TV and video games. While some leisure time is of course important, the evening and weekend free time periods should be as structured as possible and staff should be encouraged to interact with youth, rather than simply supervising them from a distanceviolence at BCJJC.