PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT ADULT PRISONS & JAILS

Transcription

1 PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT ADULT PRISONS & JAILS Name of facility: [Following information to be populated automatically from pre-audit questionnaire] Marion County Jail II Date report submitted: November 24, 2014 Auditor InformationBarbara Jo Denison Address: 3113 Clubhouse Drive, Edinburg, Texas denisobj@sbcglobal.net Telephonenumber: Date of facility visit: November 18 20, 2014 Facility Information Facility mailing address: (if different from above) Telephone number: 730 E. Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana The facility is: Military County Federal X Private for profit Municipal State Private not for profit Facility Type: X Jail Prison Title: Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Michelle Robinson-Pacheco Chief of Unit Management address: Michelle.robinsonpacheco@cca.com ext Agency Information Name of agency: Governing authority or parent agency: (if applicable) Physical address: Mailing address: (if different from above) Telephone number: Corrections Corporation of America NA 10 Burton Hills Blvd., Nashville, TN Agency Chief Executive Officer: Damon Hininger Title: President and Chief Executive Officer PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 1

2 address: Agency-Wide PREA Coordinator Name: Lisa Hollingsworth address: Telephone number: Title: Telephone number: Senior Director PREA Programs and Compliance AUDIT FINDINGS NARRATIVE: The PREA audit of the Marion County Jail II (MCJII) was conducted on November 18 November 20, 2014 by Barbara Jo Denison, Certified PREA Auditor. Prior to the audit, the facility provided the auditor with policies, procedures and facility documentation related to each standard for review. Ongoing communication was held with the Chief of Unit Management, who has the role of the PREA Manager at the facility, and the PREA Coordinator during this review period in preparation for the on-site visit. The evening prior to the audit, the auditor was supplied with a list of inmates sorted by housing unit and a list of inmates with special designations, as well as a list of facility staff. From these lists inmates and staff were randomly selected to be interviewed during the audit. On the first day of the audit an entrance meeting was held with the following people in attendance: Jeff Conway, Warden; Lakichia Wilson, Chief of Security; Michelle Pacheco, Chief of Unit Management; Lisa Hollingsworth, Senior Director PREA Programs and Compliance; Jennifer Berry-Buchanan, Quality Assurance Manager; Scott VanZee, Investigator; Ryan Schnarr, Health Services Administrator; Dr. Janet McEwan, Psychologist; Christopher Pestow, Learning and Development Manager; ViclyNarmi, Human Resources Manager; Todd Spurling, Shift Supervisor; Dustin Rowlett, Shift Supervisor; Lucy Bryant, Clinical Supervisor; Cynequa Underwood, Unit Manager; Richard Pfifer, Unit Manager; and, Jamey Davis, Unit Manager. Following the entrance meeting a tour of the facility was held from 8:20 a.m. 11:30 a.m.the following people accompanied the auditor on the tour: Jeffrey Conway, Warden; Michelle Pacheco, Programs and Compliance; Jennifer Berry-Buchanan; Cynequa Underwood, Unit Manager; and, Richard Pfifer, Unit Manager. All housing units and all areas where inmates program, work and are allowed access to were toured. While touring, 36 random inmates and 22 random staff were informally interviewed and questioned about their knowledge of PREA. A total of 29 staff was formally interviewed in the course of the audit. This number includes one volunteer and one contract employee. This number also includes correctional officers chosen from both shifts and included a combination of line staff and supervisors. The Agency Head Designee, CCA Executive Vice President and Chief Corrections Officer, was not in attendance during the audit, but he was interviewed by Rodney Bivens, Certified PREA Auditor on 7/7/14 and notes from that interview were shared with the auditor prior to the on-site visit.there is no SAFE or SANE staff at the facility; they are available by contract at the local hospital. Staff interviewed was well versed in their responsibilities in reporting sexual abuse and suspected sexual abuse. When questioned about evidence preservation, staff responses reflected agency policies and standard requirements. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 2

3 A total of 23 inmates were formally interviewed, one selected from each housing unit. Included in this number were two inmates who self-disclosed being gay at intake and those identified from intake screening to be potentially vulnerable and possible predators. There were no inmates with hearing loss, low visual acuity or limited English housed at the facility at this time and transgender and intersex inmates are not housed at MCJII. In the past twelve months there were four inmate-on-inmate allegations of sexual harassment, all determined to be unsubstantiated. There were five inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse allegations and one staff-on-inmate sexual abuse allegation. Two of the inmate-on-inmate allegations were unfounded and three were unsubstantiated. The one staff-on-inmate allegation was determined to be unsubstantiated. Administrative investigative files of all allegations of abuse and harassment were reviewed with the Chief of Unit Management and the Investigator. In all cases the proper procedures were followed in the handling of the allegations with proper notifications of the outcome of their allegations provided to the inmates if they were still housed at the facility at the conclusion of the investigation. There were four allegations received that were alleged to have occurred at other facilities. Proper procedures and notifications in the handling of these allegations were reviewed. At the conclusion of the on-site audit an exit meeting was held to discuss the audit findings. The following people were in attendance: Jeff Conway, Warden; Michelle Pacheco, Chief of Unit Management; Lakichia Wilson, Chief of Security; Lisa Hollingsworth, Senior Director PREA Programs and Compliance; Jennifer Berry-Buchanan, Quality Assurance Manager; Cynequa Underwood, Unit Manager; Jamey Davis, Unit Manager; Scott VanZee, Investigator; Ryan Schnaar, Health Services Administrator; Lucy Bryant, Clinical Supervisor; and, Vicky Narmi, Human Resources Manager. Melody Turner, CCA Managing Director, Division 3, joined the meeting via telephone. DESCRIPTION OF FACILITY CHARACTERISTICS: Marion County Jail II (MCJII), Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), has the distinction of being converted from the Cole Motors Building constructed in 1917 to produce the Cole motor cars and Cole carriages. The facility is located 0.5 miles east of the circle in downtown Indianapolis. MCJJII began is operation in 1977, being the first facility managed by CCA, a private corrections company, in the state of Indianapolis. CCA designed and operates this 1030 bed facility that is on the national historic registry, which means certain changes cannot take place because of this being a historic landmark. The facility, a four-story building, houses pre-sentenced inmates from the Marion County Sheriff s Department. MCJII operates under the Unit Management concept in which inmates are housed in manageable groups that allow staff to have easy access to address inmate s problems and concerns in dorm type living units. Security staff as well as Unit Management staff works well together. Level one, the entrance of the facility, houses the administrative offices, intake area, special management cells, food service, laundry, medical area and two recreation areas. Staff and inmates are moved from floor to floor via elevators. Stairways are accessible for emergency procedures and employee access. The facility has two vehicle entrances; one for the intake and release and one for the warehouse and pedestrian traffic. The living areas of inmates are on levels two, three and four which consists of the following: dorms, two units with 85 cells, 45 segregation beds, totaling 22 housing units, plus two beds available in the medical unit. Floors two and three contain ten housing units and the fourth floor contains two dorms with individual cells surrounding the open dormitory area. There are two recreation areas available. The design of the facility is unique considering it was the original automobile manufacturing facility. The fourth floor was created by dropping prefabricated modular cells PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 3

4 set five feet of the exterior walls to make individual cells. Each cell contains a bunk with a desk or writing surface. The showers, sinks and toilets are located in the open dorm. The mission of MCJII is to provide for and maintain a commitment to excellence for the community, customers and company by providing professionalism, experience, teamwork and motivation. At MCJII we shall accomplish this mission by aligning our practices with Corrections Corporation of America s core values to achieve excellence in corrections. SUMMARY OF AUDIT FINDINGS: Number of standards exceeded: 4 Number of standards met: 35 Number of standards not met: 0 Non-applicable: Zero tolerance of sexual abuse and sexual harassment; PREA coordinator Exceeds Standard (substantially exceedsrequirement of standard) Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) policy 14-2 is a written plan mandating zero tolerance towards all forms of sexual abuse and sexual harassment which outlines the agency s approach to preventing, detecting and responding to such conduct. On page 2 of the policy the responsibilities of the PREA Coordinator and Chief of Unit Management can be found. In interview with the PREA Coordinator and the Chief of Unit Management, both indicated that they have sufficient time and authority to coordinate the facility s efforts to comply with the PREA standards Contracting with other entities for the confinement of inmates Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for X Not Applicable Corrections Corporation of America is a private provider and does not contract with other agencies for the confinement of inmates; therefore this standard is not applicable Supervision and Monitoring X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 4

5 Based on policy , page 9, sections D & E, the agency has developed, documented and made its best efforts to comply on a regular basis with a staffing plan that provides for adequate levels of staffing and uses video monitoring to protect inmates against sexual abuse. The Chief of Security is responsible for reviewing the PREA Staffing Plan, in conjunction with the daily shift roster, and notifies the Chief of Unit Management of any deviations to the plan who in turn notifies the PREA Coordinator. The staffing plan is reviewed annually by the Chief of Unit Management and forwarded to the PREA Coordinator and Warden for review.the last staffing plan assessment was completed on 9/2/14. There have been no incidences where the staffing plan has not been complied within the past twelve months, as confirmed by interview with the Warden. In review of page 9, section E, there is a policy in place and a practice of unannounced rounds being conducted and documented in the log book and shift supervisors reports. Documentation reviewed showed unannounced rounds being documented in each building on both shifts. This practice was confirmed by interview of inmates, correctional staff and supervisors who all reported numerous rounds being conducted on a daily basis Youthful Inmates Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for X Not Applicable MCJII is an adult male facility and does not house youthful inmates; therefore this standard is not applicable Limits to Cross- Gender Viewing and Searches There have been no incidences of cross-gender strip searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches. Policy , pages 15 & 16, section K, outlines inmate searches including searches of transgender and intersex inmates. All staff receives this training through Pre- Service and annually in In-Service training. Unit staff is required to document all cross-gender searches if they were to occur. The facility has policies and procedures in place that enable inmates to shower, perform bodily functions and change clothing without non-medical staff of the opposite gender viewing their buttocks or genitalia. Females announce themselves when they enter the housing units and reminders of this practice are posted on the entry doors of all housing units. Inmates interviewed confirmed that this practice is being adhered to and indicated that they feel they PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 5

6 have privacy when female staff is in their housing unit. The PELCO camera monitors were reviewed and showed that if female staff were to review these monitors, camera placement would allow for privacy of the inmates during showering, toileting and dressing Inmates with Disabilities and Inmates who are Limited English Proficient The agency takes appropriate steps to ensure that inmates with disabilities and inmates that are limited English proficient have an opportunity to participate and benefit from all aspects of the agency s efforts to prevent, detect and respond to sexual abuse and harassment. Policy , page 14, section I, was used to verify compliance to this standard. PREA posters, the Inmate Handbook and any other written materials are provided in both English and Spanish. The Language Line is utilized to convey verbal information to inmates who are limited English proficient. The agency prohibits the use of inmate interpreters, inmate readers or other types of inmate assistants. A Spanish version of the PREA video shown to all inmates during the orientation process has recently been obtained. Provisions for inmates who are deaf or are visually impaired will be made to provide them with information in a manner they can understand Hiring and Promotion Decisions In review of policy , pages 5 & 6, section B, the agency does not hire or promote anyone who may have contact with inmates, and does not enlist the services of any contractor who may have contact with inmates, who has engaged in sexual abuse in a prison, jail, lockup, community confinement facility, juvenile facility, or other institution, has been convicted of engaging or attempting to engage in sexual activity in the community facilitated by force, overt or implied threats of force, or coercion, or if the victim did not consent or was unable to consent or refuse; or has been civilly or administratively adjudicated to have engaged in the activity described above. The agency considers any incidents of sexual harassment in determining whether to hire or promote anyone or to enlist the services of any contractor, whether they may have contact with inmates or not. In interview with the Human Resources Manager and review of random employee files, criminal background checks for all applicants, including contractors and volunteers, are performed through the Marion County Sheriff s Department who provides the Human Resources Manager an notification of the applicant passing or failing the background check. Annual criminal background checks are performed on all current employees, contractors and volunteers. The Sheriff s Department does not provide documentation to the facility of the annual background checks. The Human Resources Manager stated that it is assumed that the employee, contractor or volunteer has passed the background check unless she is notified otherwise. The PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 6

7 auditor requested that the Sheriff s office be contacted to provide some proof of this annual background check process. The Warden followed up on this request and provided an he received from the Director of Human Resources from the Marion County Sheriff s Office confirming this practice. In the future, the Marion County Sheriff s Human Resource Department will provide to MCJII annual confirmation including employee, contractor and volunteer names of background checks performed Upgrades to Facilities and Technology Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for X Not Applicable Policy , page 30, section V, states that when installing or updating a video monitoring system, electronic surveillance system, or other monitoring technology, the agency shall consider how such technology may enhance the agency s ability to protect inmates from sexual abuse. Currently MCJII has 192 cameras and DVR s with the capability of retaining data for 30 days. This standard was found to be not applicable since there have not been any new monitoring technology installed and the facility has not acquired a new facility or any expansion to the existing facility since August 20, Evidence Protocol and Forensic Medical Examinations According to policy , pages 23 & 24, section O-4 and policy , page 2, section A-I & ii, the facility follows a uniform evidence protocol that maximizes the potential for usable physical evidence for administrative and criminal prosecutions. The facility Investigator is responsible for conducting administrative investigations and the Marion County Sheriff s Department is responsible for conducting criminal sexual abuse investigations. Victims of sexual abuse would have access to forensic medical examinations. An MOU with Eskenazi Health provides SAFE and SANE examinations without any financial cost to the inmate. An MOU with the Indiana Coalition against Domestic Violence (INCADV) provides victim advocacy services. The facility Psychologist is the facility s Victims Services Coordinator and is available to provide victims of sexual abuse support services as well as provide information for access of agencies in the community that can offer emotional support and counseling upon their release from custody. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 7

8 Policies to Ensure Referrals of Allegations for Investigations Policy , page 22, section O and policy 5.1, page 7, section d, outline the agency s policy and procedure for investigating and documenting incidents of sexual abuse. All allegations of sexual abuse are reported to the Marion County Sheriff s Office Internal Affairs department. The agency s policy regarding referral of allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment for criminal investigation are available on the CCA website Employee Training X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for the relevant review period CCA employees receive training on CCA s zero tolerance policy for sexual abuse and sexual harassment at pre-service and annually. Employees sign an acknowledgement form that they have received and understood the training they received. Random reviews of employee files showed this documentation is maintained by the facility. The PREA in-service training curriculum was reviewed and verified that the training provided to employees is very comprehensive and meets all elements of this standard. Additionally, between trainings the facility has quarterly staff recall meetings, shift briefings and weekly unit staff meetings where the policy is reviewed. In interview with staff, they were able to confirm receiving this training and knew their responsibilities for preventing and responding to allegation of sexual abuse. PREA posters and other pertinent PREA information is prominently displayed in staff common areas throughout the facility Volunteer and Contractor Training Policy , page 8, section C-2, outlines the training requirements for volunteers and contractors. The objectives of the training ensures that volunteers and contractors are notified of the agency s zero-tolerance policy regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment and are informed on how to report such incidents. The agency maintains documentation confirming that volunteers and contractors understand the training they have received. This form is filed in the volunteer s file that is maintained by the Chaplain who is the designated Volunteer PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 8

9 Coordinator. On interview with a volunteer, he confirmed that he received and understood the training. In the past 12 month period a total of 163 volunteers have received this training. The Food Service Manager, contracted through Aramark, was interviewed and he confirmed receiving PREA training and understood his responsibilities under the agency s sexual abuse and sexual harassment policies. In review of his employee file, he acknowledged by his signature that he received and understood the training he received Inmate Education X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for Policy , page 13 & 14, section I-1 & 2 and policy were used to verify compliance to this standard. All incoming inmates receive an Inmate Handbook during the booking process which contains PREA information. The information outlines methods to report sexual abuse with listings of sexual abuse hotlines including telephone numbers. During the orientation process, inmates watch a PREA video and receive information entitled What Constitutes Sexual Misconduct/Sexual Harassment and Consequences of Participating in Such Activities and Facility Plan and Program for Prevention, Intervention and Remediation of Sexual Misconduct. They are also made aware of other information available to them in the Law Library. All information presented is provided in both English and Spanish and to inmates who have low vision or hearing or with limited reading skills in a manner they can understand. Documentation is maintained of inmate participation in these education sessions. Formal and informal interviews with inmates indicated that they have received this training and have an understanding of the training they received. PREA topics are discussed frequently at Town Hall Meetings facilitated by the Unit Management Team. Educational posters regarding sexual abuse and sexual harassment prevention were prominently displayed throughout the facility in both Spanish and English Specialized Training: Investigations X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for Based on policy , page 7, section C-1-b, the facility s Investigator receives specialized training in addition to the general education provided to all employees. The PowerPoint presentation of special training for investigators was reviewed and found to cover all requirements of the training as outlined in section (b) of this standard. The agency maintains documentation that the Investigator has received this training. Upon interview of the Investigator, he confirmed receiving this specialized training and was knowledgeable of his responsibilities in conducting sexual abuse investigations. He also shared that he received training offered by the Indiana DOC Internal Affairs Department and NCI as well. In review of the facility s investigative files, the Investigator exceeds in his detail and thoroughness of his investigations and documentation of such. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 9

10 Specialized training: Medical and mental health care X Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for The agency ensures that all medical and mental health staff has training on how to detect and assess signs of sexual abuse and harassment, how to preserve physical evidence, how to respond effectively and professionally to victims of sexual abuse and sexual harassment and how to report allegations of sexual abuse and harassment. The facility maintains documentation that all medical and mental health practitioners have received this training. In interview with the Health Services Administrator, the Clinical Supervisor and the Psychologist all acknowledged receiving this specialized training and knew their responsibilities as outlined in policy , page 7, section C-1-b-ii. The facility medical staff does not conduct forensic examinations. SAFE and SANE exams are conducted at the Eskenazi Health Screening for Risk of Victimization and Abusiveness Based on policy , page 12, section H-1 & 2, the agency policy requires facilities to screen upon admission for risk of sexual abuse victimization or sexual abusiveness toward other inmates. Agency form 14-2B, Sexual Abuse Screening Form, reviewed prior to the on-site visit indicated that all criteria to assess inmates for risk of sexual victimization were included on the form with the exception of the screener s perception of whether the inmate appeared to be gender non-conforming. Facilities have recently received direction from the PREA Coordinator that until the 14-2B form is revised to include this information, staff responsible for completing this form is instructed to note their perception on the form. Inmates may not be disciplined for refusing to answer any questions or for not disclosing complete information. An inmate s risk level is reassessed 30 days after intake or when any additional, relevant information is received by the facility since the intake screening. Intake records are filed and secured and only designated staff is allowed access to them. The initial screening is completed as part of the booking process and 30-day reassessments are the responsibility of the Grievance Coordinator Use of Screening Information PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 10

11 The agency uses the information from the risk screening form to make housing, bed, work, education and program assignments with the goal of separating inmates at high risk of being sexually victimized from inmates with those at high risk of being sexually abusive. On interview with the Chief of Unit Management, she explained how the facility utilizes information from the 14-2b form. Guidelines on housing and program assignments and for the management of transgender and intersex inmates are outlined in policy , pages 13 & 14, section J. The agency does not place lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or intersex inmates in dedicated facilities, units or wings solely on the basis of such identification. On interview with two inmates who self-disclosed upon intake that they were gay, reported they have not been placed in any special housing unit because of their sexual orientation Protective Custody Based on policy , page 15; section J, inmates at high risk for sexual victimization shall not be placed in protective custody unless an assessment of all available alternatives has been made and it is determined there is no available alternative means of separation from likely abusers. Inmates shall be assigned to protective custody only until an alternative means of separation from likely abusers is arranged, for no longer than 30 days. If separation continues past 30 days, every 30 days the unit will conduct a review to determine if there is a continuing need for separation of the inmate from the general population. There have been no incidents of inmates who were screened at risk of sexual victimization were placed in involuntary segregated housing in the past 12 months. On interview with the Warden and correctional staff who supervise inmates in restrictive housing, compliance to this standard was verified Inmate Reporting Policy ,page 16, section L-1, page 17, section L-2, and page 18, section L-3, outline the procedures on inmate reporting. The agency provides multiple ways for inmates to privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment and retaliation by other inmates or staff for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Inmates are made aware of methods of reporting through the Inmate Handbook, pamphlets provided to them and continuously through posters and stenciling on the walls as well as ongoing education at Town Hall Meetings. The agency s policy mandates that staff accept all reports of sexual assault and sexual harassment PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 11

12 made verbally, in writing, anonymously and from third parties. Staff and inmate interviews verified that they are aware that they can report verbally, in writing or through a report of a third party. Staff also verified that they have access to private reporting. Corrections Corporation of America does not detain individuals solely for civil immigration purposes Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Meets Standard (substantial compliance; complies in all material ways with the standard for X Not Applicable The Marion County Jail II does not have an administrative process to address inmate grievances regarding sexual abuse. All PREA allegations are processed through the investigative process Inmate Access to Outside Confidential Support Services As stated in policy , page 10, section F, inmates are provided with access to outside victim advocates for emotional support services related to sexual abuse. The Marion County Jail I has a memorandum of understanding with the Indiana Coalition against Domestic Violence (ICADV) that was signed by both parties on 9/5/14, which extends to the inmates at Marion County Jail I as well as the inmates of Marion County Jail II. Up until 6/14 the Indiana Coalition against Sexual Abuse (INCASA) provided this service. From 6/14 until the MOU with ICADV came into effect, calls were received by the Accreditation Manager for the Marion County Sheriff Department. Contact was made with ICADV and the Accreditation Manager for the Marion County Sheriff Department by telephone prior to the on-site visit to MCJII. In conversations with them and with the Chief of Unit Management, there were a total of 14 calls in the past 12 months which included three to INCASA and 11 to ICADV. A process is in place for notification of these calls to the Chief of Unit Management immediately. Inmates interviewed were aware that they could dial 33# on the telephone, that there was no charge for the call, that their call could remain anonymous and that ICADV is available to offer emotional support. Staff interviewed was aware they could privately report sexual abuse and sexual harassment of inmates by calling the Ethics Hotline. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 12

13 Third- Party Reporting Based on policy , page 18, section L-4, the agency has a method to receive third party reports of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Family members or other individuals may report verbally or in writing any time they have knowledge or suspect an inmate has been sexually abused, sexually harassed or requires protection. Inmates, when interviewed, were aware of this method of reporting Staff and Agency Reporting Duties Policy , pages 17 and 18, section L-2, was reviewed to verify compliance to this standard. The policy requires that all staff are to report immediately any knowledge or information regarding an incident of sexual abuse of sexual harassment. Any retaliation or suspected retaliation against staff or inmates must also be immediately reported. In the past 12 months there have been no reports of retaliation against staff or inmates. The facility reports all allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, including third party and anonymous reports, to the facility Investigator. Random interviews with staff revealed that staff is very aware of their responsibilities to report incidents of sexual abuse or harassment and know not to reveal any information about a sexual abuse incident to anyone other than to the extent necessary. Marion County Jail II houses adult male inmates, all of whom according to their classified level of care, are not considered to be vulnerable adults under the State Vulnerable Persons Statute Agency Protection Duties When the agency learns that an inmate is subject to a substantial risk of imminent sexual abuse, it takes immediate action to protect the inmate. Policy , page 1, paragraph 2, outlines the agency s procedures related to the agency s efforts to protect inmates at risk for sexual abuse or sexual harassment. Inmates are put on a Visibility List and are housed in visible areas of their housing unit. Weekly Special Needs Meetings ensure their placement continues to be appropriate for their needs. In interview with the Warden, there have been no PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 13

14 incidents in the past 12 months where it was necessary for the agency to take any action in regards to an inmate being in substantial risk of sexual abuse and he was aware of the actions to be taken if this were to occur. Correctional staff interviewed was also aware of their responsibilities if they felt an inmate was at risk for sexual abuse Reporting to Other Confinement Facilities Policy , section M-3, pages 19 & 20, requires when a sexual abuse allegation that an inmate was sexually abused while confined to another facility, the Warden of the facility that received the allegation shall immediately notify the facility head or appropriate office of the facility where the alleged abuse took place as soon as possible, but no later than 72 hours after receiving the allegation. During the past year there have been reports of six allegations that an inmate was abused while confined at another facility. The inmates were evaluated by a medical staff person and information was provided to the facility where the inmate alleged the abuse to have occurred. There were no reports of allegations of sexual abuse received from other facilities that were alleged to have occurred at MCJII Staff First Responder Duties Policy , pages 18 & 19, section M-1 & 2-a, outlines the procedures for first responders to an allegation of sexual abuse whether that person is a security or non-security staff member. Random interviews with security and non-security staff revealed that they knew the policy and practice to follow. They reported that they knew that the alleged victim and abuser must be separated, how to preserve the crime scene and evidence. There have been no allegations in the past 12 months that required collection of physical evidence Coordinated Response Policy , pages 18 & 19, section M-1-3 as well as policy 13-79, were used to verify that there is a plan to coordinate actions taken in response to an incident of sexual abuse. Interviews with specialized staff confirmed that they are knowledgeable of the plan and the PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 14

15 necessary actions to be taken. A Sexual Abuse Response Team (SART) is established at the facility which includes the Chief of Unit Management and a medical, security and mental health representatives and the Victim Services Coordinator. All members of the SART know their role in the response to sexual abuse incidents Preservation of ability to protect inmates from contact with abusers Policy , page 26, section R-2-d, was used to verify compliance to this standard. Employees are subject to disciplinary sanctions up to termination for violating CCA s policies on sexual abuse and sexual harassment. When the Agency Head was interviewed he reported that 7% of CCA facilities are unionized and 93% are not. There are no restrictions to keep the agency from not disciplining employees up to and including termination Agency protection against retaliation The agency has policies in place to ensure that there is no retaliation against any inmate or staff member who report sexual abuse or sexual harassment. Policy , page 11, section G-3, details provisions for 30/60/90-day monitoring of staff and inmates. Monitoring will continue beyond 90 days if warranted. There have been no incidents requiring monitoring of retaliation in the past 12 months.the Chief of Unit Management, Unit Managers, HR Manager, Learning and Development Manager and the Clinical Supervisor are designated as the staff responsible for monitoring for retaliation. When interviewed they were able to explain their role in preventing retaliation and what measures they would take to protect inmates and staff from retaliation Post- Allegation Protective Custody The agency prohibits inmates who have alleged sexual abuse to be placed in involuntary segregated housing. If segregated housing was used, the same provisions as outlined in policy PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 15

16 10-1.4, page 11, section G-3 would apply. Interview with the Warden and segregation staff revealed that involuntary segregation has not been used for this purpose Criminal and Administrative Agency Investigations The agency and facility have policies governing administrative and criminal investigations of sexual abuse. The Marion County Sheriff s Office investigates all criminal offenses including sexual abuse investigations. Policy , page 22, section O, states procedures for administrative and criminal investigations. The facility Investigator conducts investigations immediately when notified of an allegation of abuse and notifies the Sheriff s office of all allegations. The Sheriff s office conducts criminal investigations pursuant to the requirements of this standard. There were no sexual abuse allegations referred for prosecution in the past year. The Investigator when interviewed was well versed in his responsibility of handing administrative investigations as required by this standard Evidentiary Standard for Administrative Investigations According to policy , page 24, section O-5, the agency shall impose no standard higher than the preponderance of evidence in determining whether allegations of sexual abuse or sexual harassment are substantiated. When the Investigator was asked what standard of evidence was used in determining if an allegation is substantiated, he confirmed the agency policy Reporting to Inmate Policy , page 24 & 25, section Q,was used to verify compliance to this standard. The policy indicates that the intent of the standard requirements if the allegation proves to be substantiated, unsubstantiated or unfounded providing proper notification to the inmateas per this standard. Based on interview with the Warden and thechief of Unit Management, this process is in place and required notifications are well documented. In review of files of allegations reported in the past 12 months, notifications were made to inmates if they were still at the facility at the conclusion of the investigation and notifications were well documented with the inmates signing that he received notification. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 16

17 Disciplinary sanctions for staff Staff shall be subject to disciplinary sanctions up to and including termination for violating agency sexual abuse policy as outlined in policy , page 26, section R-2. In the past 12 months there have been nodisciplinary actions or terminations of staff due to violation of the agency s sexual abuse and sexual harassment policy. If they were to occur, the agency would actively pursue termination or criminal prosecution of staff, contractors and volunteers who engage in sexual misconduct with inmates Corrective action for contractors and volunteers As stated in policy , page 26, section R-3, volunteers and contractors will be prohibited from contact with inmates and will be reported to the law enforcement agency if they violate the agency s sexual abuse and sexual harassment policy. In interview with the Warden, there have been no incidences of sexual abuse or sexual harassment by contractors or volunteers. If it were to occur, appropriate remedial actions would be taken Disciplinary sanctions for inmates Policy , page 25, section R, was used to verify compliance to this standard. Inmates will face disciplinary sanctions through the disciplinary process if they violate the agency s zerotolerance policy which prohibits inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. Inmates who engage in sexual misconduct with staff are disciplined if it is found that the staff member did not consent to such contact. In the past 12 months there have been no substantiated cases of inmate-on-inmate sexual abuse. In interview with Psychologist, counseling would be offered to the offending inmate. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 17

18 Medical and mental health screenings; history of sexual abuse Upon intake, any inmate reporting any prior victimization or any inmate who previously perpetrated sexual abuse is seen by mental health staff. The staff responsible for intake screening, the Psychologist and the Health Services Administrator that were interviewed verified this process was in place. Medical staff is present in the booking area for initial medical screenings and immediate notification to mental health staff is made if warranted by intake screening. Informed consent is obtained from inmate before reporting about prior sexual victimization that did not occur in an institutional setting. Policy , page 10, section E-2-a and page 18, section L-2-e provides for immediate evaluation by mental health staff of inmates who report sexual assault and a physical exam will be performed in all cases of sexual assault Access to emergency medical and mental health services Policy , page 12, section G-3-d, policy , pages 3 & 4 and policy , page 2, section A-1 & 3, page 7, section 1-c & d and page 8, section 2-c, mandate that inmates who are victims of sexual abuse have immediate access to medical and mental health services and crisis intervention services. Security staff escorts the alleged victim to the medical department immediately for a physical examination. Interview with the Health Services Administrator confirmed this practice and that the requirements of this standard are adhered to. In the past 12 months there have been no substantiated sexual abuse cases requiring emergency medical and mental health services Ongoing medical and mental health care for sexual abuse victims and abusers Policy , page 12, section H-1, policy 13.70, page 3 & 4, section 1 & 2, and interview with the Health Services Administrator were used to verify compliance to this standard. The facility offers medical and mental health evaluation and treatment to all inmates who have been victimized by sexual abuse. Victims will be offered prophylactic treatment and follow-up for sexually transmitted diseases, counseling and testing and are referred to the mental health staff for crisis intervention as necessary. Services are provided at no cost to the inmate. There have PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 18

19 been no substantiated cases of sexual abuse in the past 12 monthly so therefore, no mental health evaluations have been offered to inmate victims Sexual abuse incident reviews Policy , pages 21 & 22, section IV and on interview the Warden and Chief of Unit Management who are all members of the Incident Review Team, the facility is required to conduct a sexual abuse incident review for every sexual abuse investigation. Additional members of the Incident Review Team include upper level facility management, the facility SART, line supervisors, the Investigator and the medical and mental health practitioners. In review of secondary documentation, all requirements of (d) are considered in the review and recommendation for improvement is made. All investigation of sexual abuse in the past 12 months was followed by an incident review. To date there have been no founded sexual abuse cases to review Data Collection Based on policy , page 27, section T-1 & 2, information on allegations of sexual abuse is electronically recorded by each facility. The PREA Coordinator obtains this information from each facility and annually this information is aggregated. Upon request or no later than June 30 th, the agency provides this information for the previous calendar year to DOJ Data Review for Corrective Action Based on policy , pages 27 & 28, section T-3, and on interview with the PREA Coordinator, the agency reviews all of the data collected from all its facilities and aggregates that data annually to assess and improve the effectiveness of its sexual abuse program and practices. The PREA Coordinator prepares an annual report that provides some general comments with plans to enhance this information in future reports. Information that needs to be redacted is not included in this annual report that she forwards to the Chief Corrections Officer for approval. This information is available to the public on the CCA website. PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 19

20 Data Storage, Publication, and Destruction According to policy , page 27, section T-2-C, the agency ensures that the data collected is securely retained. According to the agency s retention schedule, the entire PREA packet including aggregated sexual abuse data is retained for 10 years. AUDITOR CERTIFICATION: The auditor certifies that the contents of the report are accurate to the best of his/her knowledge and no conflict of interest exists with respect to his or her ability to conduct an audit of the agency under review. Barbara Jo Denison Auditor Signature November 24, 2014 Date PREA AUDIT: AUDITOR S SUMMARY REPORT 20