Exceeds – the facility substantially exceeds the requirements of the Standards. Where an auditor determines that a facility exceeds the requirements of a Standard, the auditor must clearly and specifically explain how the facility meets and then substantially exceeds the requirements of the Standard, and the evidence must justify and support the finding (see, for example, the PREA Auditor Handbook at p. 66).
The PREA Standards establish an audit process that is designed to assess compliance not only through written policies and procedures but also whether such policies and procedures are reflected in the knowledge and day-to-day practices of staff at all levels. Therefore, an agency must be compliant not only in policy but must also demonstrate institutionalization of the Standards in its day-to-day practices.
The PRC receives many reports of sexual abuse and harassment from individuals every month. Please note: The PRC is unable to provide advocacy services, investigate reports of sexual abuse or sexual harassment, or provide legal advice or representation.
“Youth correctional agencies have both a legal and moral obligation to prevent sexual violence in our facilities. That is why it is critical to implement and promote policy, procedure, practice, training, and awareness for both staff and youth.”
—John Gomez, Director, Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections
“I have never had a minute of doubt about the importance of the PREA legislation and the need for these standards, and I wanted in on the ground floor of their implementation in community corrections. In my view, compliance with PREA is a moral obligation, not just a legal one.”
—Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House
Alvis House, a nonprofit human services agency in Ohio, has been at the forefront of residential community corrections agencies planning for PREA implementation. In 2007, Denise Robinson, president and CEO of Alvis House and then the immediate past president of the International Community Corrections Association, testified before the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission on the duty of community corrections agencies to protect their clients from sexual abuse. Under Robinson’s leadership, Alvis House has implemented numerous policies and procedures aimed at protecting clients from sexual abuse and fully embraced the recently released PREA standards. Starting with a strong zero-tolerance policy toward all forms of sexual abuse, facility directors and staff work to ensure all aspects of the agency’s sexual abuse prevention and response efforts create a culture of zero tolerance. These efforts include:
Comprehensive staff training and client education;
Use of intake screening information to determine room assignments and develop individualized plans for clients;
Multiple channels for clients to report abuse;
A two-pronged approach to sexual assault response, using clinical client assistance teams (CATs) and administrative sexual assault response teams (SARTs); and
Physical plant vulnerability assessments and targeted use of video-monitoring technology.
As Alvis House works to comply with the US Department of Justice’s PREA standards, leadership will continue to assess operations, plan for change, and implement policies and procedures. Leaders are currently researching staffing and hiring practices, planning for ways to implement more frequent background checks, and changing employee verification procedures.
Facts About Alvis House and Timeline of PREA Events
Alvis House has two divisions: one serving individuals and families involved in the criminal justice system and one that provides services to individuals with developmental disabilities.
Operates a total of 23 locations that serve more than 7,000 people a year.
No secure, locked-down facilities.
More than 300 staff and more than 460 residential community corrections beds.
Nine residential facilities located throughout Ohio.
Programs use a research-based, integrated treatment approach.
Typical length of stay in Alvis House residential community corrections programs is 90–120 days for clients without specialized mental health needs or developmental disabilities.
Keeping PREA in Perspective
At Alvis House, client safety has always been a priority, and leadership and staff approach PREA as one more way of ensuring a safe, healthy culture. Like many in corrections who have embraced PREA, Alvis House leaders employ current best practices in community corrections to help combat sexual abuse. For example, Alvis House uses gender-responsive classification and treatment tools, motivational interviewing techniques, and individualized case management practices to run safe facilities. By leveraging Alvis House’s existing policies and practices to help prevent sexual abuse and improve response when it does happen, leaders have established a nimble system that prioritizes staff training and clear policies and procedures to protect the safety and well-being of clients.
As Robinson explains, “PREA just formalizes and establishes uniform standards to: prevent sexual abuse; provide avenues for reporting sexual abuse; establish support systems for victims; investigate and respond to allegations of sexual abuse; and train staff, clients, and vendors in how to prevent, recognize signs of sexual abuse, and report.”
By taking this straightforward approach of working with what they have, rather than creating entirely new structures and systems, Alvis House has been able to assess its policies and operations according to the requirements in the PREA standards, plan for changes, and implement those changes in stages.
Alvis House’s PREA Efforts
This section highlights some, but not all, of the efforts Alvis House has made to embrace PREA. These useful and, at times, innovative practices may be helpful to other community corrections agencies as they consider how to comply with PREA.
Alvis House leadership counts its employee training structure and process as one of the most effective tools the agency has for preventing and responding to sexual abuse. All new employees attend training during orientation week that covers:
The agency’s zero-tolerance policy on sexual abuse/assault/harassment toward clients and staff;
Specific procedures for documenting and reporting allegations of client or employee sexual misconduct; and
The agency’s Code of Ethics, which explicitly prohibits staff forming personal relationships with former clients for the first two years after clients complete the program.
Additionally, residential program staff are required to complete in-service training as follows:
Staff must complete a minimum 40 hours of annual in-service training, which includes training on sexual abuse prevention and response. This helps ensure that residential staff stay current on all mandatory and critical processes and procedures and also reinforces the agency’s commitment to protecting its clients’ physical, emotional, and mental health.
Alvis House has implemented weekly “Back to Basics” training in mandatory staff meetings. The “Back to Basics” training takes the form of dialogue and discussion on different PREA-related topics and allows staff and treatment teams to explore different client issues, needs, and possible solutions on an ongoing basis.
Alvis House leaders credit this training with helping to keep staff “at the ready” when it comes to sexual abuse, given how infrequently incidents occur.
Client Education
Clients receive a comprehensive information packet upon admission to Alvis House. This packet covers sexual abuse prevention and intervention and affirms the client’s right to be safe from sexual abuse as well as the client’s right to confidentiality and privacy. It also directs clients on how to seek medical help, explains the investigative process, lists counseling programs for victims of sexual abuse, and lists who to contact if a client is sexually abused. After learning about these policies at intake, clients have the opportunity to discuss them in depth with their case managers or in house meetings, which take place every other week.
Since the late 1990s, clients have completed a health care screening during their initial intake into Alvis House. The current screening questionnaire has evolved over time to include questions about gender, sexual orientation, and prior sexual victimization. Once completed, treatment teams—comprising the facility director, clinicians, parole and probation officers, case managers, family members (if the client chooses), and any community providers working with the clients—use the results to develop individualized treatment plans for each client. These individualized treatment plans include room assignments, programs, trauma response, and mental health care. While the health screening questionnaire helps staff consider potential risk factors for sexual vulnerability or aggression, Alvis House is also in the process of developing a specific screening instrument for risk of sexual abuse.
Reporting
Alvis House has made a concerted effort to ensure clients have multiple ways to report sexual abuse. During client orientation, staff let clients know they can report verbally to any staff member. Alvis House has a hotline to report sexual abuse, and clients can also call 9-1-1 directly to report. Additionally, the client handbook, which all clients receive, outlines the grievance procedure, which clients can use to report abuse. If a client reports an incident of sexual abuse through the grievance system, the facility manager immediately reports it to the PREA coordinator, human resources, and/or the vice president of programs. The complaint is then transferred out of the grievance system, and the CAT, SART, and law enforcement are notified.
Another particularly innovative reporting mechanism currently under development at Alvis House is an online form for reporting sexual abuse/harassment. The form, currently in draft, eventually will be available publicly on Alvis House’s website and accessible to clients and third parties who might want to report sexual abuse on a client’s behalf. The form includes fields for basic information about an incident, and the user will receive an automatic response upon submitting the form with the PREA coordinator’s contact information.
Finally, Alvis House administers satisfaction surveys to clients twice during their stay—once during the middle of their stay and again upon release. The survey gives clients an opportunity to report anonymously any abuse, mistreatment, or complaints they have. Survey results are sent to the director of quality assurance who aggregates the data and presents it to the vice president of operations, associate vice president of communications, and president. They review the data and take any necessary action.
Client Assistance Teams and Sexual Assault Response Teams
When the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission issued its recommended PREA standards in 2009, Alvis House determined its Client Assistance Teams (CATs), comprising clinicians and designed to prevent and respond to suicides and homicides, were the most qualified bodies to respond to client victims of sexual abuse, as well. When a report of sexual abuse is made, the facility manager (or manager on call, if after business hours) contacts a designated CAT member, reports to the PREA coordinator, and notifies law enforcement. The CAT member immediately makes direct contact with the victim, evaluates his or her needs, and informs him or her of the options and resources available for treatment and healing. The CAT member also accompanies the victim to the hospital if a forensic medical exam is indicated.
The CAT member reports his or her assessment of the incident and the victim’s needs to the PREA coordinator, who convenes an administrative sexual assault response team (SART). The SART, which evolved out of a quality assurance committee, includes the vice president of clinical services (a licensed psychologist), vice president of operations (PREA coordinator), vice president of agency programs (residential facilities), director of accreditation, program directors (residential facilities), quality assurance/staff development coordinator, volunteer coordinator, and the associate vice president of communications. The SART reviews the entire incident to make sure agency policies and procedures were followed and to determine what went well and what improvements should be made for future cases. The SART discusses the details of the case and reviews the CAT’s assessment to make sure the victim is safe and receiving appropriate treatment. It also looks at whether criminal investigators were able to substantiate the incident. If policy or protocol changes are required as a result of these reviews, the SART has the authority to make changes. Recommended changes are drafted and presented to the agency president for consideration.
Video-Monitoring Technology
When Alvis House began conducting physical plant vulnerability assessments of its residential facilities in 2006, it found a number of unmonitored, potentially vulnerable areas. Leadership worked with facility directors to relocate existing cameras and widen the angle of view to minimize blind spots, but also chose to invest significant resources in purchasing additional cameras for residential facilities. Alvis House also installed and upgraded DVR systems, which has enhanced security, accountability, and transparency by:
Increasing recorded video capacity from two weeks to 30 days; and
Providing facility directors with remote access to facilities 24 hours a day.
Alvis House has also used cameras to assist local policing efforts to curb illegal drug activity around some of its residential facilities. Recognizing that some facilities are located in communities with high drug-related activity, the agency placed cameras outside those facilities. Because Alvis House recognizes the connection between drug use and risk of victimization, particularly for its female clients, it views its partnership with law enforcement as part of the broader efforts to prevent sexual abuse.
Q&A with Denise Robinson, President and CEO of Alvis House
Q. From your PREA work to date, what advice can you share with residential community corrections practitioners who are just beginning to review the standards and grapple with compliance?
A. The first thing I would say is: Don’t panic. Many of the best practices that have been implemented throughout community corrections—such as gender-responsive classification and treatment, motivational interviewing, and case management—have all contributed to effective prevention and response to sexual misconduct, even though they were not instituted in direct response to PREA. So you are already further along than you think you are.
Agencies should do a self-audit of their current policies and procedures compared to the PREA standards. When they do, they will realize that many of their existing policies and procedures can be enhanced, and they don’t need to reinvent the wheel. I don’t know of any organization that does not have a basic policy against sexual harassment. This can serve as the baseline for assessing what it would require to comply with the PREA standards, and they can go from there. The likely challenges will involve communicating client rights and options upon entry to your program, and being clear that this is a serious issue without appearing to encourage frivolous, unfounded claims against other clients or staff.
My other piece of advice is don’t create a PREA bureaucracy; the focus should be on establishing a system that flows quickly and keeps the safety and well-being of clients at the forefront of all agency policies and procedures.
Q. Which of the PREA standards should a community corrections agency tackle first?
A. Before an agency tackles any standards, its leadership needs to make a commitment to the importance of becoming PREA compliant, and leadership needs to be vocal about this support. There should be no question in the agency about leadership’s high level of commitment to client care and meeting the PREA standards. Then, leaders will need to review staff and appoint a PREA coordinator. The best fit for this position is likely someone with human resources experience, because those individuals are generally well-versed in how to handle sexual harassment, discrimination, and related issues in the workplace. Next, an agency should conduct an assessment of its current policies compared to the PREA standards. When the assessment is done, an agency will have its “to-do” list to meet the PREA standards.
Q. As you continue to work toward compliance with the PREA standards, what challenges do you anticipate facing? How do you think you will overcome those challenges?
A. Right now, there is a lot of information and interest in becoming PREA compliant. We are talking about it a great deal at the agency and have revised some staff training materials, client care procedures, and added reporting mechanisms specific to PREA. However, our history tells us sexual assault within our programs is very rare. One challenge going forward will be to maintain a level of readiness in the absence of events.
Another challenge not specific to PREA is money. There are costs to implementing some of the standards. For example, PREA requires criminal background checks at a higher frequency than we had been doing in the past, and there are costs that go along with conducting additional background checks. We have overcome that challenge by being proactive and working ahead to ensure we build those costs appropriately into future budgets. That also helps us to look at different ways to meet the standard as efficiently as possible. Specifically with background checks, we have committed to purchasing new technology, which has a high up-front cost but will save us money over the long term.
We have also addressed monetary concerns by carefully looking at what we already have in place and how it can be adapted to meet PREA standards at little to no cost.
Alvis House Resources
Additional Resources
Preventing and Responding to Corrections-Based Sexual Abuse: A Guide for Community Corrections Professionals by Carrie E. Abner, Jane Browning, and John Clark
“Youth correctional agencies have both a legal and moral obligation to prevent sexual violence in our facilities. That is why it is critical to implement and promote policy, procedure, practice, training, and awareness for both staff and youth.”
—John Gomez, Director, Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections
With the recent release of the final PREA standards by the US Department of Justice (DOJ), correctional agencies are working hard to come into compliance. The Colorado Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Corrections (DYC) is poised to embrace these standards, building on a strong framework created in 2007 that allows DYC to adapt to new challenges as they arise.
In 2007, DYC organized a committee to review the Prison Rape Elimination Act, assess agency operations, and develop a process for sexual abuse prevention and education. Working with The Moss Group and the National Institute of Corrections, and using resources from the Washington College of Law’s Project on Addressing Prison Rape, the PREA committee’s early efforts focused on training staff, developing educational materials for youth, and creating an assessment tool for screening youth for risk of sexual victimization and/or aggression. Since that time, DYC has refined and implemented a number of policies and procedures aimed at keeping youth and staff safe from sexual abuse:
As DYC prepares to implement DOJ’s PREA standards, leadership will ground their efforts in the established framework of assessing operations, planning for change, and implementing policies and procedures. DYC has already assembled a short-term PREA assessment team and has committed to integrating PREA into all aspects of the agency’s culture and operations.
Facts about DYC’s State-Operated Facilities and Timeline of PREA Events
Keeping PREA in Perspective
DYC’s leadership team believes that facility culture impacts all aspects of a facility, including sexual abuse. DYC therefore grounds all of its decisions, including its approach to PREA, in the division’s Key Strategies and Core Values. As Director Gomez explains, “the strategies are how we do our work. The values are how we expect our staff to treat youth, families, and each other.”
To illustrate how strategies work in concert with PREA, DYC’s strategy to “provide the right services at the right time” coincides with the PREA requirement to provide victims with timely access to medical and mental health care. Another example is DYC’s strategy to “ensure safe environments,” which lines up with the standards’ overall goal to ensure sexual safety. One way DYC does this is through its Sexually Aggressive Behavior/Vulnerability to Victimization (SAB/VV) Assessment, which is designed to ensure safe placement of youth and heighten staff awareness of risk. Likewise, DYC conducts annual physical plant vulnerability assessments, which reveal risk areas and allow for planning to mitigate the risk, such as mirrors, windows, or removal of walls. In addition to annual assessments, PREA incidents trigger assessment of the area where the incident occurred—an administrator and select staff immediately assess the area to determine what steps must be taken to prevent future incidents.
The division’s core values are designed to build a culture that can support PREA, but go above and beyond PREA’s requirements. For example, staff who act with integrity will create an environment in which residents feel safe to report perceived risks of victimization or actual incidents of sexual abuse. Such staff do not support a code of silence, but instead report staff misconduct. Similarly, staff who regularly treat all youth with respect will be more inclined and equipped to respond to victims of sexual abuse in a compassionate, victim-centered way, rather than a distrustful, victim-blaming manner.
DYC’s PREA Efforts
The sections that follow highlight some, but not all, of the efforts DYC has made to embrace PREA. These useful and, at times, innovative practices may be helpful to other agencies as they consider how to embrace PREA.
Sexual Contact Prevention Policy
DYC’s Sexual Contact Prevention Policy sets out comprehensive procedures to identify, monitor, counsel, and track juveniles who may have a “propensity to perpetrate sexual abuse or who may be vulnerable to sexual victimization.” The policy also requires that DYC employees, contractors, volunteers, and individuals providing services at the facility be trained to recognize abuse and take appropriate action. Finally, the policy requires that juveniles receive orientation and education about sexual abuse and the reporting mechanisms available.
Sexually Aggressive Behavior/Vulnerability to Victimization Instrument
In 2007, DYC instituted their Sexually Aggressive Behavior/Vulnerability to Victimization (SAB/VV) Overall Risk Assessment Instrument. In developing the instrument, DYC referred to screening instruments developed in Florida, Ohio, and New Zealand. DYC staff administer the instrument within two hours of intake on all new arrivals, whether detained or committed. DYC also uses the tool to reassess juveniles deemed a potential/documented sexual victim or sexual aggressor; convicted of a major rule violation for nonconsensual sexual contact or abusive sexual contact; or who have disclosed being a victim of nonconsensual sexual contact or abusive sexual contact. In 2012 DYC revised their instrument to include the ability for staff to use researched collateral information for more accurate assessments. In addition, the instrument scoring was changed to provide more concrete, consistent scoring outcomes. Finally, in 2012 DYC developed a guide to accompany the instrument. The guide provides interpretation of questions, scoring requirements, and a guide for consistent approaches to overriding results.
While not validated, the SAB/VV enables DYC to assess the needs of juveniles on an ongoing and consistent basis, allowing staff to make informed decisions about juveniles’ housing placements within the facility. In addition, the instrument provides classification of risk, which is used for monitoring groups within programming. Finally, the instrument is one of many tools used to establish direction and provide services based on identified needs.
Staff Training
DYC provides a comprehensive training program to prevent sexual assaults and misconduct through initial and ongoing training. The division utilizes a three-pronged approach to training staff. All new personnel complete a three-week training designed to teach skills in the areas of policy, procedure, PREA, staff safety, and programming expectations. Within the pre-service academy, staff not only receive PREA-related expectations, but are trained in components of de-escalation, working with difficult youth, and safe programming. Upon completion of pre-service training, all staff receive an on-the-job period for training on facility-specific operational procedures. From a PREA perspective, they are taught how to administer and interpret instruments and how to develop a milieu culture that promotes zero tolerance for sexual activity. Finally, each staff receives annual training in the arena of PREA. Annual training is designed to review all aspects of PREA standards, utilization of instruments, milieu management, and a healthy zero-tolerance culture.
PREA Workgroup
After release of the final PREA standards in May 2012, the DYC leadership team established a short-term assessment workgroup—similar to the teams assembled in 2007 and 2009—to assess the standards, determine the extent of DYC’s compliance, and recommend necessary improvements to ensure full compliance. The workgroup’s term is expected to last three months and will involve members from the leadership team, quality assurance, regional staff, research, behavioral health and medical services, educational services, a Department of Human Services’ human resources representative, a representative from contracted facilities, and representatives from state-operated facilities. During its tenure, the workgroup will undertake a multi-dimensional assessment of the DYC organization and facilities. The workgroup will use the results of this assessment to develop a comprehensive work plan to guide DYC’s efforts to bring them into full compliance.
In 2008, DYC began surveying youth about sexual safety in individual facilities. In 2009, DYC began administering a formalized, statewide survey to both detained and committed youth regarding sexual contact. The survey, adapted from the National Survey of Youth in Custody (NSYC) by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), asks detained youth about their sexual contacts at their current facility over the previous three months and committed youth about their experiences over the previous six months. DYC administers the survey multiple times a year. Since its launch, the survey has been administered eight times. DYC uses the data primarily to help guide prevention efforts within the facilities.
DYC considers this survey process an effective tool for measuring how well the culture of its facilities reflects policies and procedures prohibiting sexual abuse. For example, DYC policy requires that staff distribute educational brochures about sexual abuse to youth, and the survey asks youth whether they received this information. If a number of youth answer “no,” facility leaders know to talk to staff and determine when and where the breakdown occurred. Similarly, while the survey is designed for data collection only, if youth report sexual contacts occurring in specific areas or at certain times of day, leaders are alerted to problem spots they need to address. If, for instance, youth report sexual contacts occurring during school hours, leaders will talk to teachers and assess whether classroom configurations need to be altered.
Q&A with Dave Maynard, Director of Facility Operations, North Central Facilities
Q. From your PREA work to date, what advice do you have to share with those who are just beginning to review the standards and grapple with compliance?
A. At DYC, we have been committed to working toward compliance with the PREA standards since the early days of PREA. Along the way, there have been changes to both the DYC and the proposed PREA standards, but our commitment to keep juveniles in our custody safe remains strong. Our advice for facilities just beginning to grapple with compliance is:
Q. What initial steps do you recommend an agency take that will show early results of PREA compliance?
A. DYC recommends that agencies develop formal plans to assess, communicate, and implement changes. It is important that agencies do not assume they are in compliance with a standard—you have to verify policies, procedures, and practices. Assessments should determine the consistency between policy, procedure, and practice. Agencies’ communication also has a big impact. A strategy for communication that includes social marketing should speak not just to the standards and reason for compliance, but to the importance of prevention both for youth safety and organizational success. For implementation, agencies should develop a strategic plan that identifies immediate and long-term organizational changes. Implement those changes that are immediate and/or easy to change first. This approach will show early progress and success. Including affected staff in the planning process also generates investment in and sustainability of the changes.
Q. As you continue to work toward compliance with the PREA standards, what challenges do you anticipate facing? How do you think you will overcome those challenges?
A. While not unique to DYC, adequate funding is an ongoing challenge. DYC is committed to PREA but must make do with limited funds to dedicate to these efforts. Annually, the State of Colorado allocates PREA-specific funds from its general fund to pay for myriad resources including training materials (CDs, posters, brochures, etc.), as well as physical plant improvements such as windows in doors and mirrors. The funds are minimal, with only about $8,000 total per year for all DYC facilities to share, requiring strategic planning to maximize the impact of the funds. DYC also utilizes internal fiscal resources based on identified need, but these resources are also shared with non-PREA-specific physical plant and operational needs.
Although DYC has been working to comply with PREA for several years, the organization still faces challenges to comply with one standard in particular: 115.313 – Supervision and Monitoring, which requires specific staffing ratios.
DYC does not mandate specific staffing ratios; rather, DYC operates using critical post staffing—posts that must be staffed 24 hours a day and seven days a week. DYC calculates its overall staffing needs using this methodology and bases its annual budget on these staffing calculations. Under any scenario, staffing analysis is a complex determination that must account for, among other items, an agency’s population count, characteristics, operations, service delivery, programs, and physical plant. PREA’s mandated staffing ratio will require DYC to revisit its methodology for determining staffing levels, and may result in an increased number of staff requested. The PREA workgroup will review current staffing levels and determine a plan for coming into compliance by the 2017 deadline.
DYC Resources:
Additional Resources
Training resources from American University’s Project on Addressing Prison Rape
“I have never had a minute of doubt about the importance of the PREA legislation and the need for these standards, and I wanted in on the ground floor of their implementation in community corrections. In my view, compliance with PREA is a moral obligation, not just a legal one.”
—Denise Robinson, President and CEO, Alvis House
“The big thing is: It is possible... We named it PREA, but when you look at it, it’s what all prisons should be doing for safety and security.”
—Garry Russell, PREA and Intelligence Coordinator
The Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) began planning for PREA and drafting an action plan to address sexual assault in 2005. Since that time, ODOC has worked with the National Institute of Corrections and other technical assistance providers to create comprehensive and robust sexual assault prevention and response policies and procedures. ODOC’s efforts include:
ODOC PREA and Intelligence Coordinator Garry Russell credits ODOC’s institutional SARTs as the core of its PREA efforts. See the Q&A with Garry Russell below to read more about his thoughts on PREA and ODOC.
Facts about ODOC & Timeline of PREA Events (See map)
From Planning to Implementation
A strong strategic planning process is an important part of implementing a new initiative. Over the last seven years, the Oregon Department of Corrections (ODOC) has engaged in a comprehensive planning process to comply with the requirements of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Consistent with the strategic planning approach, ODOC's effort began with the selection of a committee to assess current practices. The group went on to develop new policies and procedures and implement many of them successfully. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the group has plans to assess the impact of those measures and revise them as needed.
When Max Williams became the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections in 2004, he made PREA compliance a priority. To achieve this goal, he appointed a respected, high-level staff member to manage ODOC's PREA efforts and established a policy group of assistant directors to assess current practices and draft a PREA action plan, the precursor to ODOC's current policy. The action plan functioned as a framework for ODOC officials to incorporate new procedures and resources. As part of this strategic planning process, the policy group sought out training and funding opportunities. With the help of the National Institute of Corrections and Just Detention International, the ODOC changed its procedures for screening inmates for risk of sexual victimization or aggression, trained staff and educated inmates about PREA, began responding to sexual assaults in a victim-centered, coordinated manner, and developed a database to track information about sexual assaults and the inmates involved in those incidents. These efforts continue today under the current director, Colette Peters. Some highlights are below.
ODOC’s PREA Efforts
ODOC's PREA policy details the agency's sexual assault prevention and response activities, including screening, staff training and inmate education, sexual assault response teams (SARTs), and data collection.
Screening
In 2009, ODOC worked closely with JDI to revise its intake procedures and screening tool. Prior to 2009, the only inmates screened for risk of sexual victimization or aggression were those referred to ODOC's Behavioral Health Services. This procedure excluded a wide range of potentially vulnerable or aggressive inmates. To address this, the PREA Coordinator worked with JDI to ensure that a trained intake counselor screens every inmate upon intake. ODOC also revised its screening tool. ODOC and JDI drew from the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission's draft standards to develop the list of risk factors in the screening tool.
Staff Training and Inmate Education
ODOC began training staff about PREA in 2005. All staff watched NIC-developed videos about PREA during their annual in-service training. Over time, the director’s policy group and the PREA Coordinator worked with ODOC’s Professional Development Unit to develop and implement a training curriculum for new employee orientation and annual training. A similar effort evolved to ensure that inmates understood how to avoid situations that could lead to sexual assault, how to report sexual assault safely, and how to obtain help if victimized. Upon admission to ODOC, all inmates receive this information in the inmate handbook and watch a video presentation covering the same issues. Additionally, each ODOC prison displays PREA posters and publishes an article twice a year in its inmate newsletter about ODOC’s efforts to eliminate prison rape.
Sexual Assault Response Teams
ODOC’s SARTs are “the core of the [PREA] program,” according to the agency’s PREA Coordinator. Widely viewed as a community best practice for responding to sexual assault, SARTs are multidisciplinary teams that coordinate their actions in response to a sexual assault. The goal is to support victims of sexual assault and hold perpetrators accountable. In the community, SARTs typically consist of health care providers, law enforcement representatives, advocates, mental health professionals, and prosecutors. In prisons, the membership may vary. ODOC’s institutional SARTs consist of an institutional investigator, administrator, classification staff member, security staff member, mental health professional, and a health care provider. Each SART meets monthly to discuss and track inmates who have been classified as potentially vulnerable or aggressive, review cases and outcomes, and identify areas in need of improvement. The PREA Coordinator also holds a monthly teleconference with representatives from each institutional SART to review cases, activities, and discuss any training needs. ODOC’s SARTs have enabled ODOC to better manage inmates classified as potentially vulnerable or aggressive, develop a 24-hour response protocol, track cases from the time of report to completion of the investigation, review every sexual assault case, and develop recommendations from case reviews to improve response. They have also improved overall management by providing a forum for facilities to share information, discuss challenges, and create solutions.
Data
With assistance from a BJA grant, ODOC developed a comprehensive database that enables staff to track potentially vulnerable or aggressive inmates as well as individual cases of sexual assault. (See sample facility watchlist). One function of the database enables staff to ensure that vulnerable and aggressive inmates are not housed together. Every night at 9:00 p.m., the database automatically flags when the two designators (inmates identified as either at risk for victimization or aggression) appear in the same cell. If the system finds an aggressive and vulnerable inmate paired together, it alerts every ODOC SART member in the state to trigger an immediate response. Additionally, the database helps ODOC report PREA-related statistics to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Q&A with ODOC’s PREA Coordinator, Garry Russell
Q. Why is PREA “good corrections”?
A. I think there was a lot of fear at first about what PREA meant. However, when we started dissecting it, we saw that we were already doing a lot of the standards in some fashion. For example, we were already assessing and classifying inmates for safety and security reasons. We all know it’s important to find the right bed for the right inmate. Now we just consider sexual vulnerability and risk for aggression when we assess and classify. Many of PREA’s requirements can and should be integrated into the systems you already have in place.
Q. How does agency leadership contribute to the success or failure of PREA compliance?
A. Any successful program needs high-level support. Programs that staff know are important to the agency leadership get a broader level of support, and staff work to find ways to make the program work.
Q. How important is collaboration—both internal and external—to developing and implementing policies and procedures to address prison rape?
A. This business is all about relationships—both internal and external. You need to reach out to others to be successful with PREA, and especially in these economic times, it just makes good sense to collaborate with others. The end result is a much more effective set of prevention and response efforts than any one agency could undertake alone.
“We didn’t do this overnight. It took a lot of planning, a lot of time, and the support and help from top levels of leadership . . . but incremental changes are possible and should be acknowledged.”
—Sheriff Beth Arthur, Arlington County Sheriff's Office
“It is important to me that the citizens of Arlington County know that if anyone gets incarcerated at our Detention Facility that I have done everything I reasonably can to prevent a sexual misconduct incident from happening on my watch.”
—Major David Kidwell, Arlington County Sheriff's Office
The Arlington County Sheriff’s Office (ACSO) began sexual assault prevention efforts in 1998. From these early beginnings, ACSO has created a homegrown strategy to integrate PREA into its day-to-day operations. Building on strong community relationships, ACSO’s PREA efforts include:
ACSO has developed comprehensive prevention and response efforts and has trained staff and educated inmates about PREA, made the most from their relationships with local and federal community partners, and implemented technology that will aid in prevention and response efforts. See the Q&A below with ACSO Sheriff Beth Arthur, who shares her additional thoughts on getting ready for PREA.
Facts about the Detention Facility and Timeline of PREA Events
From Planning to Implementation
Leadership of the Arlington County Detention Facility has engaged in two major planning efforts to prevent and respond to sexual assault, each providing a distinct model of how to prepare for PREA. The first was reactive; the second was a more preventive approach.
In 1998, ACSO underwent an organizational transformation in response to an incident of staff sexual misconduct involving inappropriate staff behavior with female inmates. After a complaint by an inmate and assistance from the ACLU National Prison Project, ACSO revised staff training, policies, and inmate educational materials and emerged better prepared to prevent and respond to future incidents of sexual misconduct. The Moss Group helped ACSO create a staff training program on sexual misconduct. In addition, ACSO Command Staff revised the jail’s inmate handbook and developed its inmate sexual assault policy, the staff Code of Ethics and Conduct, and educational materials for inmates, including the inmate brochures Reporting Sexual Misconduct and Inmate Orientation Brochure (containing a section on sexual assault), which are distributed at intake. This work became one of the early examples of ASCO’s positive steps to combat staff and volunteer sexual misconduct.
The next major push came in response to the release of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission’s proposed standards in 2009. When those standards were released, Sheriff Beth Arthur tasked her command staff at the detention facility, headed by Major David Kidwell, to review all of the jail’s policies and procedures in light of the draft standards. Major Kidwell and his staff made recommendations for changes to the physical plant, including installation of monitoring technology, discussed below, and installation of an inmate phone recording system. The team also recommended changes to policies, procedures, screening, training, investigations, and relationships with other agencies. Because of the cultural change in ACSO over time, the organization was primed to recognize PREA as a priority for safety and security. As Major David Kidwell put it, PREA should be “on everyone’s plate” to run a safe facility, including intake staff, medical and mental health staff, housing officers, supervisors, civilian caseworkers, and volunteers.
ACSO’s PREA Efforts
ACSO’s inmate sexual misconduct policy identifies the prevention of rape, sexual assault, and sexual misconduct as a “top priority” for the agency. Over the last ten years, ACSO has worked hard to train staff and educate inmates about PREA, making the most from their relationships with local and federal community partners, and prioritizing the use of technology that can aid in prevention and response efforts. Highlights of these efforts are below.
Staff Training and Inmate Education
ACSO began training staff about sexual misconduct in the aftermath of the 1998 incident. To improve ACSO’s future efforts to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct, then-Sheriff Tom Faust created a policy mandating annual training, and ACSO developed its first inmate sexual misconduct policy and educational materials, including its Code of Ethics and Conduct. The training program addresses a range of topics related to sexual misconduct, including professionalism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault. The annual program consists of four hours of instruction on the prevention, identification, reporting, and handling of sexual misconduct, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including common indicators of misconduct. A live instructor, supplemented by videos, teaches staff about PREA and guides role-playing activities. To encourage staff participation, ACSO created a staff contest to encourage timely viewing of NIC’s training video and taking the online PREA test.
Inmate education begins at intake. The intake case worker addresses PREA during initial intake, including information about the Sheriff’s Office Tip Line, a hotline inmates can use to report PREA incidents in confidence, among other things. The hotline provides an alternative avenue for reporting incidents that inmates may not feel comfortable reporting to a housing officer. Although the hotline was created to address Security Threat Groups, staff inform inmates that it can be used to report PREA incidents anonymously. Additional education occurs during orientation.
Since the NIC video Speaking Up: Discussing Prison Sexual Assault became available in 2010, the ACSO has set up quarterly screenings for all inmates in each of the Detention Facility’s 12 housing units. After these screenings, ASCO began to receive increased reports of incidents that occurred in other jurisdictions’ correctional facilities. ACSO staff notified the staff at these other facilities about the reports to enable investigation and response by the relevant agencies. This openness to reporting is essential because of the high turnover and short length of stay of the jail population, which could otherwise result in underreporting of sexual assault incidents.
Community Partnerships
A key aspect of ACSO’s approach to PREA readiness has been to build on existing community relationships and forge new ones. Although the jail does not have a sexual assault response team (SART) on site, the facility makes use of its strong relationship with the Arlington County Police Department, which is called in to investigate reports of sexual assault. In 2010, ACSO implemented a policy to take advantage of the already existing agreement between the Arlington County Police and the Fairfax County Rape Unit to perform sexual assault forensic medical examinations. The agreement allows ACSO to have inmates examined by a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) even though the Rape Unit is in a different jurisdiction. This unit employs trained staff to collect evidence and conduct interviews and examinations.
In addition, ACSO reviews incidents with a multi-disciplinary and inter-agency team including ACSO, the police department if applicable, medical and mental health staff, and internal affairs. These reviews take place 30 days after an incident and annually to determine whether policies, practices, or procedures should be revised.
Technology
Soon after the release of the proposed National Prison Rape Elimination Commission’s standards in 2009, Sheriff Arthur quickly prioritized the use of monitoring technology as a strategy to prevent sexual assault in the Detention Facility. ACSO staff identified blind spots and created a plan to eliminate them using cameras, initially adding 30 cameras to the existing 95. Sheriff Arthur describes the choice to expend precious resources on cameras as an easy decision because it was “the right thing to do.”
A computer system also enables two deputies to monitor live footage from a total of 125 cameras that have been strategically placed throughout the facility with an additional 160 cameras being installed to enhance security and supervision in inmate housing areas and program centers. The system stores digital files for 90 days. In the event of an allegation of misconduct of any kind, including sexual assault, ACSO can access these files for investigation into the allegation. This project was funded through the U.S. Department of Justice State Criminal Alien Assistance Program.
An additional tool that ACSO uses is scan cards for entry and exit points. Printouts of access activities can serve as evidence that may be relevant to sexual assault investigations, such as logs of staff entrance and exit times in secured areas. While data from scan cards cannot confirm a person’s presence or absence from a particular area, it can provide valuable and relevant information for sexual assault investigations.
Initially, staff resisted these changes. However, after ACSO used recorded footage to resolve an inmate’s allegation of inappropriate touching by another inmate, line staff and command staff rallied around the technology. They recognized that the monitoring would be helpful to investigate any report of sexual assault, and in some cases to exonerate staff wrongly accused of misconduct.
Other technology includes databases that enable ACSO to track potential victims or predators and to provide early warnings of potentially problematic staff. The Law Enforcement Records Management System (RMS)—a countywide data management system—maintains inmate data. ACSO expanded use of one of the system’s features, the jail hazard (JHAZ) indicator, to track inmates who are potential victims or predators. ACSO previously used the JHAZ indicator primarily to flag suicidal inmates; increasingly, ACSO uses the indicator for PREA-related tracking. In 2011, ACSO purchased and implemented another database, IAPro, which collects and charts data related to internal affairs investigations. The database functions as an early warning system, signaling to facility administrators when intervention with staff or inmates may be necessary to prevent more serious harm.
For jurisdictions interested in expanding their use of technology, ACSO advises that there are opportunities to serve as a testing site for technology companies, receiving cutting edge technology and services at low or no cost to the agency. As an added benefit, such companies may promote the product by highlighting the site. Even with this assistance, however, many facilities will not have the resources to provide complete coverage with monitoring technology. The lasting fiscal crisis has impacted the budgets of public safety agencies, leaving less money for core functions. Nevertheless, implementing a video monitoring system like ACSO’s is a worthwhile goal because it can serve as an objective mechanism for preventing, detecting, and responding to sexual abuse.
Q&A with Arlington County's Sherriff, Beth Arthur
Q. Why is PREA 'good corrections'?
A. It’s very simple to me and I share this with the many tour groups that come through our facility on a weekly basis: Most of the people who come through our system are good people who make poor judgments—and then there are people who really need to be locked up. If one of my family members or friends made a poor judgment that landed him or her behind bars, I would want that loved one to be safe and treated with the same care and professionalism we provide to each and every person committed to the Arlington County Detention Facility. PREA provides the standard and level of professionalism we need to strive for so that we can reassure newly committed inmates, who are already facing extremely stressful circumstances, that they don’t have to fear sexual abuse.
Q. How does agency leadership contribute to the success or failure of PREA compliance?
A. It is by far the most important component to the success of PREA. Strong leadership is crucial for successfully changing the culture. Without it, you will fail. My suggestion to everyone is to embrace it … PREA is not going away. We embraced it much like we did suicide prevention and use of force policies and procedures, and it became routine for us. We have come a long way in corrections, and we made the shift with strong leadership and commitment to core values that empower staff to develop good character and integrity.
Q. How important is collaboration—both internal and external—to developing and implementing policies and procedures to address prison rape?
A. We are fortunate and very appreciative that we had partnerships with national experts and community agencies early on to help us build a successful program. It meant everything to us to know there were people outside our agency helping and that we were not alone in our quest to prevent sexual abuse. With the recent release of the PREA regulations, it’s important to do something now with what you have. While we were fortunate to receive assistance from the National Institute of Corrections, you can accomplish a great deal by working with other community agencies—like police departments, local hospitals, or other corrections agencies—to access resources and information. Professional organizations, too, have a lot of useful information. You can use all of these resources to make sure that your policies, procedures, and practices comply with the PREA regulations. Collaboration is so important that we made it part of our mission statement. We are committed to “partnering” to make the criminal justice system work.
Resources from Arlington County
Staff Emergency Procedures pocket guide
Inmate Sexual Misconduct/Sexual Assault Procedure 5-229 (Mar. 1, 2011)
“We didn’t do this overnight. It took a lot of planning, a lot of time, and the support and help from top levels of leadership . . . but incremental changes are possible and should be acknowledged.”
—Sheriff Beth Arthur, Arlington County Sheriff's Office
“The big thing is: It is possible... We named it PREA, but when you look at it, it’s what all prisons should be doing for safety and security.”
—Garry Russell, PREA and Intelligence Coordinator
