The Yolo County grand jury conducted an investigation of the county’s contract with the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement after receiving complaints about the health and well-being of unaccompanied alien children placed at Juvenile Detention Facility, operated by the county Probation Department.
Since 2008, the county has had a multimillion-dollar contract with ORR in which the JDF provides beds for up to 24 refugee minors who arrived in the United States without a parent and who have either been adjudicated of a crime or are considered a danger to themselves or others. The youths are housed there until they can either be reunited with family, placed in foster care or returned to their countries of origin.
As of May, there were nine ORR youths being housed at the juvenile hall, located near the county jail in Woodland, in addition to seven local youths. The facility has been the subject of recent discussions before the Yolo County Board of Supervisors regarding its possible repurposing due to its steadily declining occupancy.
So far, supervisors have agreed to relocate the adult jail’s booking facility to the JDF building during the ongoing jail expansion project, with further talks about the facility’s future set for an Aug. 13 workshop.
“Unaccompanied alien children are assessed by the ORR and placed in facilities based on legal requirements and child welfare best practices in order to provide a safe and least-restrictive setting,” grand jury members wrote in a news release accompanying its report. “Placement could be a shelter facility, foster care, group home, staff-secure or secure care facility, residential treatment facility, or other special needs facility.
“The JDF is one of only two secure care facilities in the United States. The other is in Virginia. They house ORR youths who are assessed by the ORR for primarily being a danger to themselves or others, or who have been charged with a criminal offense,” the statement says. “The JDF has found many of the unaccompanied alien children inaccurately assessed by ORR, and has released youth or transferred them to a less severe facility, whenever appropriate.”
Through interviews with Probation Department employees, contractors, educators and immigration attorneys, as well as document reviews and tours of the JDF, the grand jury made the following findings:
* Viewpoints given by the JDF staff and contractors differ from those advocating for the youths. This makes it difficult for an investigating body to discern the truth about complex issues such as the quality of education, including the availability of age-appropriate Spanish language reading material, the sufficiency of mental health services, lack of privacy, and environmental conditions at the JDF.
* The public lacks access to Probation Department policy and procedures though the Yolo County website. Access to these documents is necessary for families and advocates to ensure proper treatment of detained youths. It also denies the public opportunity to offer suggestions for improvement that might otherwise only come from paid consultants or during costly litigation.
* Notices of Placement in a Restrictive Setting given to ORR youth are inadequately completed by the JDF staff. The notices often lack information about reasons for the placement at the JDF and the necessary steps youth must take for gaining release thus causing unnecessary anxiety in the youth.
* The reasons ORR gives for referring youths for placement at the JDF are sometimes inappropriate.
* The constant presence of pepper spray in pods is inherently in conflict with the statutory mandate for creating a “home-like” environment for youth at the JDF.
* Many youths held at the JDF lack criminal histories or gang affiliation, yet the JDF houses them with youth held for criminal offenses.
* Because procedures do not mandate a behavioral therapist in the pods, an expert is not present to proactively quell problems before they clearly need de-escalation.
* Because procedures do not mandate behavioral therapist attendance during review of use-of-force incidents, officers may not receive timely expert advice, if at all.
* Because of the use of pepper spray, limited times outside, and lack of phone privacy, the JDF failed to meet legal mandates to “not be operated as a jail, prison, or penal institution and shall be operated in all respects to model a home-like environment.”
* There has been a pattern of successful lawsuits against the ORR citing violations at the JDF of the Flores Settlement, which requires that minors in immigration custody be housed in facilities that meet certain standards, including state standards for housing and care of dependent children.
* Because youths are making calls from phones in an open space and because they are recorded, youths are unable to make private phone calls, in violation of the Flores Settlement.
* The JDF recently added a videoconferencing system to allow youths to communicate with family and others. However, the right to use the system is not in the Youth Handbook or the current policies and procedures manual and thus access to the system can be denied indiscriminately.
* The ORR program, administered in Yolo County by the JDF, presents financial benefits, yet also presents risks to the county, including potential litigation for violations of the Flores Settlement.
* Outside recreational time was minimal and could be augmented through the existing incentive program. Additional outside time can be obtained by holding certain classes outside, such as meditation or group therapy.
* There is a consensus that uncertainty about length of detainment and post-detainment placement creates anxiety in the youths.
* Youths lack access to therapists who are independent of ORR and thus are unable to speak freely about problems and obtain counsel without fear that the information will be used by ORR against them.
* The JDF is focusing more on high ratios of detention officers to youths, instead of hiring clinicians appropriate for assisting traumatized youths.
* Traumatized youths are continuously exposed to art that may trigger bad memories and result in anxiety.
The grand jury also made the following recommendations:
* By Oct. 1, Notices of Placement should include explanations of the status of their immigration cases, what must be done to be released from the JDF, and the steps youths must take to be stepped down to another facility or released.
* By Jan. 1, the JDF should convene an independent interdisciplinary task force composed of educational experts to determine how to improve educational opportunities at the JDF including: how to provide culturally competent education, concrete strategies for addressing the wide range of education levels, and providing age appropriate reading material in the youths’ primary languages.
* By Oct. 1, the JDF should allow youths who are not charged with criminal offenses to make private and unrecorded phone calls.
* By Jan. 1, the JDF should update both its Youth Handbook and policies and procedures manual to state that youths have the right to communicate with family and others through an internet-based videoconferencing system.
* By Oct. 1, the JDF should conduct activities outside whenever possible to allow youths more outdoor time and outside recreational time should be added to existing incentive programs.
* By Jan. 1, the Board of Supervisors should study the possibility of limiting or eliminating the use of pepper spray in the JDF as have other states and the county of Los Angeles.
• By Jan. 1, an independent behavioral therapist trained in de-escalating potentially violent outbursts should be stationed in pods during waking hours to help resolve situations before use of force appears necessary and thus reduce stress and injuries to both staff and youths.
• By Jan. 1, the JDF should provide youth with therapists independent of ORR to enable youth to speak freely about their problems and obtain counsel without fear that normal teenage emotional problems are criminalized and used as justification for continued confinement.
• By Oct. 1, the JDF should provide youths with a means for anonymously submitting complaints independent of detention officers, including by computer.
• By Jan. 1, the JDF should enact procedures to mandate attendance of behavioral therapists during post use-of-force incidents to allow feedback at a critical time when they could coach detention officers on potentially better methods to de-escalate such situations.
• By Jan. 1, the Board of Supervisors should convene an independent interdisciplinary group to ensure youths’ privacy and to improve environmental conditions at the JDF.
• By Jan. 1, the Probation Department should consider posting its policy and procedures manual and the JDF’s Youth Handbook on the Yolo County website. The county should thereafter keep updated versions on the website, and provide a means for the public to freely offer suggestions for improvement.
• By January 1, 2020, Yolo County should provide a procedure that allows non-ORR related health workers access to youths for mental health treatment, which allows youths to freely discuss their problems without fear that their medical condition is criminalized.
• By January 1, 2020, Yolo County should allow access to ORR youths by its medical advisory committee, the Yolo County Health Council, to ensure youth are being properly treated.
• Because few local and ORR youths are being detained in the JDF, and one pod is empty, it should be considered for use as the transitional adult facility proposed by the probation department to enable continued funding of the JDF by the ORR.
Yolo County Chief Probation Officer Dan Fruchtenicht responds:
We appreciate the opportunity grand jury reports offer to further review, analyze and refine county programs and services.
Concerning this year’s report, we appreciate the grand jury’s thorough investigation and comprehensive report, including the acknowledgment of Yolo County’s efforts to strengthen the operation, program and services provided to youth at the Juvenile Detention Facility.
The report captures many of the challenges of securely housing and caring for unaccompanied alien children placed in the Juvenile Detention Facility by ORR when they have determined these youth to be a danger to themselves or others, or in some cases, have been charged with having committed a criminal offense.
Of note, the report highlights that viewpoints of the program vary between those responsible for the care of youth placed by ORR and those who advocate for youth, thus making it difficult to fully evaluate and understand the work of Yolo County.
We look forward to responding to the findings and recommendations in the report in an effort to further clarify and/or provide context related to ORR’s program, the role we play in the care of ORR’s placements, how we carry out our responsibilities and oversight of the program.
July 11, 2019
Davis Enterprise
By Enterprise staff
No comments:
Post a Comment