Description of Monitoring. After construction of the RSC device, stormwater monitoring will be conducted for a 12 month period. The goal of this monitoring is to determine the improvements to hydrology and water quality that these devices provide. These devices have the potential for application across North Carolina, and this study will provide data on load reduction from these devices in Durham’s Triassic Basin soil type. Monitoring will occur at two locations: (1) the outlet of the untreated watershed, which will serve as the inlet to the RSC and (2) the outlet of the RSC device. These sites will be used in an upstream-downstream design to determine system performance. Compound weirs (sharp-crested v-notch lower portion and broad crested upper portion) and bubblers will be used to determine flow volumes and peak flow rates at the inlet and outlet of the SCM. ISCO 6712 automated samplers will collect flow-proportional water quality samples (triggered by the bubblers) at these locations. These samples will be preserved (as needed) and delivered to a lab on NCSU campus for analysis. Rainfall will be measured on site continuously during the monitoring period. The RSC device will be monitored to determine functionality for removal of nitrogen species (NH3, NOx, organic nitrogen, and TKN) and total nitrogen (TN), phosphorus species (orthophosphate and particle- bound phosphorus) and total phosphorus (TP), total suspended solids (TSS), and heavy metals (Cu, Pb, and Zn). After construction of the RSC, monitoring will commence for eighteen storm events (over a roughly twelve month period) for TN, TP, TSS, and heavy metals. Storm events will be spread throughout the seasons to determine if seasonal differences in performance exist. Statistical analysis will be performed to determine the hydrologic and water quality improvement imparted by the RSC device. The North Carolina Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Grant Program administered through NCDENR has agreed to pay for approximately 57% of modified total direct costs to conduct this research project ($132,854 of total project cost of $232,798), which includes design, construction, monitoring, mileage and graduate student tuition. The City of Durham has agreed to provide 28% of the total modified direct costs ($66,066) to cover salary and fringe for the graduate student, extension associate and research technician that will work on the project. The City of Durham funding is conditional on approval by the Durham City Council and ...
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed use of force data, incident reports, and the number of investigations for excessive or unnecessary use of force. Findings & Analysis From May 2022 to September 2023, there were a total of 2,393 incidents reported at BRRC. Of these, 169 (6.9%) involved use of force. When staff complete an incident report and indicate that force was used, they must select from a drop-down menu the reason(s) why force was necessary. The options include defense or protection of others; maintain or regain discipline and order; prevent an escape; protection of property; and self-protection. Staff must also answer yes or no if a verbal directive was attempted. If they answer yes, they must describe the verbal directive attempted and then provide a statement about the force used. Staff’s statements on reports frequently contained the type of force used, including the technique (i.e., Mach 1 hold or Mach 2 escort), and that it was used for the minimum amount of time necessary. The form does not require staff to describe whether they attempted or used graduated interventions. Staff would often state that they gave multiple directives before employing force. Multiple directives, however, are not the same as attempting graduated interventions, although not every situation would safely permit staff to exhaust a range of graduated interventions before using force. Requiring staff to explicitly explain why graduated interventions were not used or enhanced training in this area may help remind staff about other options to attempt. Two incident reports reviewed indicate that enhanced training may be needed to understand what constitutes force and how to document it correctly in reports. In one report, the staff indicated they were not aware of any use of force but later described in the narrative that a taser was used. A telecommunication operator completed this report based on radio communications, which may explain why this was overlooked. In another report, the use of force was not marked even though video footage clearly showed the staff person physically taking a youth to the ground. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance It is recommended that DJJ take the following steps to move toward substantial compliance. Add to the incident report forms a place for staff to enter the graduated interventions used, if attempted. Train staff on how to complete the form correctly and thoroughly. Require supervisors to ensure that staff complete the forms co...
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team and the DOJ reviewed and provided input on the draft Use of Physical Force and Mechanical Restraint policies. Findings & Analysis Significant progress has been made. The Use of Force and Mechanical Restraint policies have been drafted, and DJJ, the monitoring team, and the DOJ are collaboratively finalizing the policy. While the work exceeds the timeline, the complicated nature of the policies necessitates back-and-forth discussions to ensure sound policy development. DJJ has been proactive and timely in responding to questions, reviewing input, and editing the policy. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance It is recommended that DJJ take the following steps to move toward substantial compliance. DJJ, the monitoring team, and the DOJ should continue to work collaboratively on the revised policies without delay. Once finalized, expedite the approval of the policies and make them effective upon approval, but no less than 30 days after approval. DJJ should also consider the following recommended steps due to the importance of these policies to the settlement agreement. Staff training on the new policies and procedures should include scenarios, a question-and-answer segment, and be competency- based, with staff required to complete and pass a test or quiz. Draft policy 310, Mechanical Restraints Draft policy 315, Use of Physical Force January 12-13 and March 6-8, 2023, monitoring site visits 52 Data provided on use of force and restraints for April 2022—January 2023 46. IMPLEMENT REVISED POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Within 18 months [October 2023] of the effective date, DJJ will implement the revised use of force policies and procedures.
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed use of force data, incident reports, and the number of investigations for excessive or unnecessary use of force. Findings & Analysis All security staff must complete Safe Crisis Management training to learn approved techniques for conducting a physical intervention with a youth. As of September 8, 2023, 78.3 percent of staff completed the training. The department currently does not have a policy that restricts untrained staff from working directly with youth but attempts to place these staff in non- direct supervision roles until training is completed. From May 2022 to September 2023, there were a total of 2,393 incidents reported at BRRC. Of these, 169 (6.9%) involved use of force. This data does not indicate whether trained or untrained staff were involved in the use of force. Due to the lack of documentation and absent a policy that restricts untrained staff from working directly with youth, this provision is rated as non-compliance. This provision will be reevaluated during the next monitoring period to determine compliance. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance It is recommended that DJJ take the following steps to move toward substantial compliance. Continue to ensure all staff are scheduled for and complete SCM training before working directly with youths and require staff to be trained annually thereafter. o Do not permit any staff who are not SCM-trained to work directly with youth. In instances where untrained staff are scheduled to work, they should be paired with SCM-trained staff. Only SCM-trained staff should be allowed to use restraint and physical force on youths consistent with policies. Prohibit untrained staff from using physical force or restraint. Whenever physical force is used, determine whether its use complies with policies and procedures and whether staff who used force were trained and used the approved techniques. Take the appropriate disciplinary action when untrained staff used force or trained staff used unapproved techniques. DJJ should also consider the following recommended steps due to the importance of these policies to the settlement agreement. In instances where untrained staff are scheduled to work, they should be paired with SCM-trained staff. Only SCM-trained staff should be allowed to use restraint and physical force on youth consistent with policies. Regularly review with staff previous incidents for training purposes to identify any missed opportunities in which ...
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed use of force data, incident reports, and medical records, and interviewed staff, medical professionals, and youth. Findings & Analysis Following an instance of the use of force or restraint, BRRC staff are required to have the youth evaluated by a qualified medical professional or transported to a medical emergency facility unless the youth refuses a medical evaluation. Incident reports sometimes indicate whether a youth was referred to medical following the use of force, but this information is not required. Interviews with staff, youth, and medical professionals indicate that this procedure is followed most of the time, but not always. Medical professionals interviewed stated that correctional staff incorrectly believe that if a youth refuses medical evaluation, the youth is not required to be seen by a medical professional. The proper procedure is that the youth must refuse medical evaluation in the presence of the medical professional and sign a statement to that effect. Medical staff said they could not determine how often youth refuse an evaluation improperly since they are only aware of and document the youth they treat. In late June, BRRC gave medical staff access to incident reports and began alerting them of incidents via a Teams chat feature to improve notification. Even with these alerts, medical staff may not always know that a youth needs a medical evaluation. Staff shared that occasionally a youth may divulge their injury happened more than a day ago, indicating they were not seen promptly following the incident. During the June monitoring visit, one youth interviewed complained of pain following an incident involving the use of force several days prior and still had not been seen by medical staff. The monitoring team alerted BRRC administration about the youth, and a notification was sent to medical to see the youth. However, the youth was not seen due to a no-movement order on campus and no coverage for the nurse to leave the infirmary. Three other youths in isolation in Xxxxxx also complained about not being seen by medical after an incident. Security and medical staff interviewed indicated that it was rare that a person involved in the use of force or restraint would be involved in transporting the youth to medical care. In the rare instances that it would occur, it was due primarily to a lack of other staff being available. Xxxxx interviewed confirmed this assessment. The lack of documentation to con...
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed use of force data, incident reports, and medical records, and interviewed staff, medical professionals, and youth. Findings & Analysis The medical staff’s practice is to interview the youth outside of the hearing of other staff or youth to ensure that the youth feels safe to share information and to ensure the youth’s privacy is protected. This practice is difficult to follow if a youth is seen in a living unit rather than the infirmary. Staff indicated they would document their concerns and complete an incident report if they ever had any concerns. During this monitoring period, no reports were filed. The absence of any report was curious because the youth interviewed shared complaints about injuries related to the use of force. It was difficult to determine if their complaints were exaggerated to the monitoring team, not shared with medical staff, or shared but not followed up on by the medical staff. Even though medical staff have access to incident reports, the reports would not have been filed within the time frame youth must be seen for a medical evaluation. The medical staff must rely on their training and professional judgment to determine whether inappropriate force or restraint was used. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance It is recommended that DJJ take the following steps to move toward substantial compliance. Implement a process to ensure that medical staff are adhering to the policy. Take appropriate disciplinary action if staff did not follow policies and procedures. DJJ should also consider the following recommended steps. DJJ should incorporate these required elements into its quality assurance system. Policy 310, Mechanical Restraints Policy 315, Use of Physical Force 72 Interviews and a review of incident reports and medical records during the June 28-30 and September 7-9, 2023, monitoring site visits
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed investigation data and tracking documents and interviewed staff. Findings & Analysis From April to September 2023, 234 investigations were conducted on youth- on-youth physical harm, with 19 completed within ten business days, and another 17 completed within ten additional business days. During this same period, 84 investigations were conducted into the use of force, with four completed within 10 business days and another five completed within ten additional business days. There were no incidents referred to investigations for the improper use of isolation. Data were limited on the number of investigations completed within another ten business days. Investigations only began tracking that information in July. Youth-on-Youth Use of Force Month Number <10 day Extra 10 days Number <10 days Extra 10 days May 82 0 - 45 1 - June 1 1 - 7 1 - July 25 0 0 4 0 1 August 53 8 8 6 1 2 September 23 9 9 2 1 2 TOTALS 234 19 17 84 4 5 Interviews with investigation staff indicated that very few investigations can be completed within the required timeframe due to staff vacancies and the complexity of investigations. Upon receipt of a case, investigators depend on others to provide the necessary documents and information to conduct a thorough investigation. They also work to schedule youth and staff interviews, which can be challenging due to staff schedules. A review of investigation assignments indicated that most investigators receive more than 30 new cases to investigate each month, adding to their growing caseload. The monitoring team was shown an Investigations Case Log that demonstrates that investigators are collecting the required information, including video, if one exists, incident reports, youth’s grievance, if applicable, and witness statements. A spreadsheet is used to track this collection. A case management history report is also completed on investigations, that includes the interviews, videos and all actions in the investigation including a case closure statement. The monitoring team also reviewed Case Status Reports, which include the date received, a determination made, justification for the determination, youth withdrawal of the complaint, action pending, and date closed. Additionally, an Investigations Case Log was reviewed which tracks case opened date, assigned investigators, parties involved and time frame to complete the investigation including requests for extensions. During the September site visit, investigatio...
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed investigation documents and video and interviewed staff. Findings & Analysis The department’s surveillance system automatically retains video for a minimum of 30 days. If the video is bookmarked, it is retained indefinitely and copied to another off-campus system for 7+ years of storage. Bookmarked video stays on the system and is regularly exported into a Sharepoint file to free up storage space. Staff can access and pull case files and stored video if an event reporting system number is provided. DJJ has reported the ability to retain videos for multiple rating periods. The monitoring team verified this ability through case reviews with the DJJ IT staff and an off-campus camera surveillance investigative officer.
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed the Camera Surveillance Project: Camera Coverage Report submitted by DJJ to the DOJ and the SME on July 13, 2022. Emails exchanged between DJJ and the DOJ were also reviewed. Findings & Analysis The monitoring team reviewed the report and found that DJJ was not able to provide a timeline given that they cannot predict when supply chain issues will be resolved. The Director of Settlement Compliance estimated that installation would be completed in 6-12 months. In response to a request to prioritize camera installation, DJJ emailed the DOJ on September 12, 2022, with the following installation priority list. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance When timeframes are known, DJJ should provide the DOJ and the SME of more exact timeframes, so they may offer any additional suggested revisions before the DOJ gives final approval. DJJ should also consider how they plan to address and prioritize the areas of concerns identified by the monitoring team in item 33.
Description of Monitoring. Process The monitoring team reviewed the Camera Surveillance Project: Camera Coverage Report submitted by DJJ to the DOJ and the SME on July 13, 2022. Emails exchanged between DJJ and the DOJ were also reviewed. Findings & Analysis The monitoring team and DOJ reviewed the report and provided timely feedback. The monitoring team found that DJJ was not able to provide a timeline given that they cannot predict when supply chain issues will be resolved. The Director of Settlement Compliance estimated that installation would be completed in 6-12 months. In response to a request to prioritize camera installation, DJJ emailed the DOJ on September 12, 2022, with the following installation priority list. Recommendations to Achieve Compliance When timeframes are known, DJJ should provide the DOJ and the SME of more exact timeframes, so they may offer any additional suggested revisions before the DOJ gives final approval. DJJ should also consider how they plan to address and prioritize the areas of concerns identified by the monitoring team in item 33.
