Protection from Abuse. 6.6.6 +Open Bosworth Drive Centre for carers and older people including the provision of culturally sensitive services form people from Black and Minority Ethnic Communities
Protection from Abuse. The State shall take all reasonable measures to assure that youth are protected from violence and other physical or sexual abuse by staff and other youth. Status Xxxxxx School Substantial Compliance (as of June 30, 2008) Cheltenham Youth Facility Substantial Compliance (as of June 30, 2008) Discussion During the term of this Agreement, both facilities developed a solid infrastructure that includes the key elements known to promote youth and staff safety. These include: ⬝ Procedures to attract and retain qualified staff to allow for appropriate staff‐ youth ratios; ⬝ An incident reporting process and system of review by senior managers; ⬝ A curriculum for safe crisis intervention that emphasizes de‐escalation and uses physical and mechanical restraints only as a last resort; ⬝ A system for investigating and responding to allegations of staff abuse and misconduct; ⬝ A behavior management program that sets clear expectations for behavior and provides a system of incentives and consequences that are meaningful to youth; ⬝ Strong limits on the use of isolation as a response to misconduct; and ⬝ Structured programming that minimizes youth’s idle time. As will be discussed in the following sections, DJS has implemented policies, procedures and practices relevant to each key area. Some of these practices were implemented smoothly (e.g., the Office of Investigations and Advocacy investigations), while others required more heroic efforts (e.g., many staff continue to be required to work double shifts in order to meet prescribed staff‐ youth ratios). In all cases, the commitment of line staff, supervisors, and administrators resulted in significant enhancements to the way youth are treated and the conditions under which they are confined. The State has yet to achieve substantial compliance on only one provision of the protection‐from‐harm section of this Agreement: Classification. As discussed in detail in III.B.xvii, the State developed and attempted to validate a classification system during the second year of this Agreement. This system suffered from a variety of problems (confusing terminology and inaccessible data) and thus in April 2008, the DJS decided to create a new system that was better aligned with Maryland’s system. While the Monitor supports this decision and believes it will result in a classification system that is more fully integrated into the DJS’s overall mission, this change did not occur until late in the final monitoring period and thus the new...
