commonwealth of virginia

Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security
AUgust 13, 2018
 

Virginia Department of
Juvenile Justice Report of
Findings
Shenandoah Valley
Juvenile Center

 Table of contents

Executive Summary
Background
Role of the Department of Juvenile Justice
Secretary of Public Safety and Homeland Security and Department of Juvenile Justice Inquiry
The Findings

Department of Juvenile Justice Report
Introduction
Review Process
Findings
Conclusion and Recommendations
Recommendations for SVJC
Recommendation for Virginia Board of Juvenile Justice

Memo From Child Protective Services (CPS)

Page 1

 Executive summary

background
In fall 2017, three migrant children detained by the federal government’s Office of
Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center (SVJC) filed a federal
class action lawsuit alleging abuse by the guards at SVJC. In early 2018, out of concern for the
safety of the residents, Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) certification team
reviewed prior certification documents and visited SVJC to monitor and observe conditions in
the facility. The certification team did not find any immediate concerns regarding the health
and safety of the residents.
On June 21, 2018, a story was published reporting the alleged abuse contained in the
lawsuit. The Governor takes these allegations very seriously and, recognizing the severity of
the information contained in the lawsuit, directed Secretary Brian J. Moran to initiate an
inquiry. The Secretary immediately contacted the director of Department of Juvenile Justice
and the Governor’s Chief of Staff to identify a plan of action and commenced the
investigation.
Findings and the process of the investigation are contained below.

role of the department of juvenile justice
Pursuant to regulations issued by the State Board of Juvenile Justice, DJJ has oversight
but not operational responsibility for locally operated juvenile detention centers. According to
6VAC35-20-36.1, whenever the DJJ becomes aware of a health, welfare, or safety violation in a
locally operated detention center, the Department shall take immediate action to correct the
violation, if not already done by the program or facility.1 The actions include reporting the
situation to child protective services (CPS), the Virginia State Police, or the local law
enforcement agency as applicable. Additionally, 6VAC35-20-37 provides for the DJJ Director
to take immediate administrative actions when evidence is found of health, welfare, or safety
violations to include but not limited to:
 The immediate removal of juveniles from the program. The immediate removal by DJJ
would be limited to court involved youth who are in local or state custody. The Director
would notify ORR of the action and ORR is responsible for any removal of youth in
federal custody.
 Placing the facility on probationary certification status.

                                                            
1

Virginia regulation, 6VAC35-101-95, requires the juvenile detention center staff to report all known criminal activity by
residents or staff to the facility administrator. The facility administrator shall notify the appropriate persons or agencies to
include law enforcement, child protective services and DJJ, if applicable and appropriate, of suspected criminal violations
by residents or staff. The law enforcement agency and CPS would determine necessary action. 

Page 2

  Issuing a preliminary order to suspend the certification of the detention center when
conditions or practices exist in the facility that pose an immediate and substantial threat
to the health, welfare, or safety of the residents.
After DJJ’s thorough investigation, it did make referrals to local child protective services,
but based on their investigation, determined that no further action was necessary. See
Department of Juvenile Justice Report.
The SVJC is an independent juvenile detention facility for youth managed by the
Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center Commission. SVJC staff are not state employees.
Furthermore, DJJ does not have any official relationship or jurisdiction over the ORR, nor the
federally supervised youth at SVJC. The ORR is a federal program under the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that works with unaccompanied minors
while their immigration cases are pending.
Unaccompanied minors are immigrant youth under the age of 18 who have no parent or
legal guardian in the United States. Unaccompanied minors are placed at SVJC when ORR
has determined that a less secure placement would not be appropriate. The DJJ has no
contractual relationship with ORR, nor auditing or monitoring authority or responsibility over
the federal youth housed at SVJC. The federal youth program is audited and overseen solely
by ORR. Pursuant to a cooperative agreement that SVJC entered with ORR and HHS, ORR
monitors SVJC for compliance with their requirements through announced and unannounced
monitoring visits. These are not the youth who have been subject to the recent family
separation policies of the Trump administration.

secretary of public safety and homeland
security and department of juvenile justice
inquiry
On the evening of June 21, 2018, upon the Governor’s directive, Secretary Moran and
DJJ Director, Andrew Block, met with the SVJC Superintendent and toured the facility,
including visiting the units housing the youth in ORR custody.
On June 21, 2018, with permission and conditions set by ORR, the DJJ certification and
quality assurance teams conducted interviews with SVJC staff and all federal residents at
SVJC at that time. According to the SVJC, none of the youth originally named as plaintiffs in
the October ’17 lawsuit were still present at SVJC during the visits and interviews.
Additionally, a protective order had been entered in March 2018 that prohibits SVJC and
ORR from disclosing the identities of any of the plaintiffs in the litigation. The following day,
the Secretary participated in a call with DJJ detailing the results of their interviews at the
facility. The team, with the addition of DJJ investigators who are sworn law-enforcement
officers, returned to SVJC on June 25 to continue their interviews and review the files of
federal residents.

Page 3

 On June 22, 2018, Secretary Moran communicated with Virginia’s Congressional
delegation and other government leaders, including all members of the Virginia General
Assembly. He provided them with a fact-sheet and other details relevant to the investigation
and the facility’s relationship with the Commonwealth.
On June 27, 2018, Secretary Moran and Governor’s Office staff completed a conference
call with Scott Lloyd, Director of ORR, and Laura Trueman, Principal Deputy Director of the
Office of Intergovernmental and External Affairs at HHS, regarding standard overview of
facilities in Virginia and other background and operational information.

the findings
On June 28, the DJJ submitted a preliminary report and Child Protective Services (CPS)
provided an update to their investigation to Secretary Moran. The conclusions of their
investigations indicate that there were no life, health, or safety concerns for the residents at
SVJC.
As of July 3, CPS completed its investigation into the allegations of abuse and found that
there was no evidence of abuse or neglect (see accompanying DJJ and CPS reports).

Page 4

 Department of Juvenile Justice Report

introduction
On June 21, 2018, Governor Ralph Northam requested Brian J. Moran, Secretary of
Public Safety and Homeland Security, and the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) to
conduct an inquiry into the allegations contained in a lawsuit regarding the safety of federal
residents housed at the Shenandoah Valley Juvenile Center (SVJC). At the time of the
inquiry there were 22 residents placed by the Office of Refugee and Resettlement (ORR) at
the facility. As reported by the residents, one resident has been there since September 30,
2016, and the other 21 residents were admitted between November 12, 2017, and June 12,
2018. According to the SVJC, the residents who were named plaintiffs in the October ’17
lawsuit were no longer in the facility at the time of the interviews.
While the DJJ team found SVJC in compliance with applicable regulations and
certification standards, they did identify areas where SVJC could improve programming for
the youth in the custody of ORR. Accordingly, this memo includes both a description of the
investigative process and findings, as well as a set of recommendations for SVJC.
The memo also includes a recommendation that DJJ will forward to the Board of the
Virginia Department of Juvenile Justice: to amend current certification standards so that DJJ
can better track the youth who are housed in local detention centers but in the legal custody of
a different agency.

review process
Following the Governor’s directive, a DJJ team of certification and quality assurance staff
visited SVJC on June 21, 2018, and June 25, 2018. It is also worth noting that subsequent to
the initial filing of the lawsuit in October of 2017, DJJ staff monitored ongoing conditions at
SVJC. Specifically, DJJ certification staff conducted a modified certification visit to SVJC to
monitor and observe conditions in the facility in March of 2018, and also reviewed prior
certification documents to determine if any problems similar to those alleged in the lawsuit
had been flagged. Neither the review of prior reports, nor the visit in March identified any
immediate concerns about the life, health, and safety of the residents in the facility.
During the June 21 visit, DJJ staff interviewed all of the federal residents at SVJC. The
team was not able to substantiate the conditions described in the lawsuit concerning the
operations of SVJC or the mistreatment of residents. After obtaining permission from ORR,
the team returned on June 25 and reviewed case files, medical files, room confinement forms,
and other documentation to assess compliance with regulations relating to the quality of care.
For the case review process and interviews, ORR placed the following restrictions:
 Case files are federal property and cannot be duplicated or copied;
 Audit team could not keep written notes of information in case files; and
 A SVJC staff member had to be present for all interviews.

Page 5

 findings
During interviews, three residents reported that they had experienced abusive behavior
by staff. A further review of documentation revealed that two of these complaints were
reported by the facility to Child Protective Services (CPS). CPS determined that these
complaints did not meet the legal definition of abuse and neglect. Upon further consideration,
CPS reopened the two cases and was on-site for a further review to include interviews with all
of the federal residents. The third report was an initial complaint that occurred during the
interview process and was reported to CPS by DJJ staff.
SVJC uses room confinement as part of its behavior management system to ensure the
safety and security of residents, staff, and the facility. During interviews with the federal
residents, and supported by room confinement records in the case files, there were no
instances where residents were confined more than 24 hours. With the exception of one 23hour confinement, confinements lasted approximately 4 hours. Pursuant to the case file
records, in each instance of confinement, visual inspections of the residents by staff were
made at least once every 30 minutes.
The facility uses approved restraints pursuant to the Regulations Governing Juvenile
Secure Detention Centers, 6VAC35-101-1130. Review of training records indicated that all
staff are trained in the use of restraints through a behavioral management system titled
“Handle With Care.”2 Per regulation, mechanical restraints shall not be used as punishment;
however, they are used for the protection of resident and staff. The regulation requires that
SVJC train staff in the use of mechanical restraints including but not limited to the restraint
chair and mesh spit guards. The restraint chair is used for out-of-control residents who cannot
be safely restrained by less intrusive methods. While in the chair, a mesh spit guard can be
placed on the resident’s head to prevent spitting or biting. No residents interviewed had
knowledge of the use of the restraint chair. In two instances reviewed, staff were disciplined
for using an unapproved physical restraint technique that did not follow “Handle with Care”
guidelines. Neither of these restraints related to the use of the restraint chair.
Interviews with staff and residents revealed due process is not well understood and this
lack of understanding appears to be related to language barriers. A review of resident files
showed disciplinary reports where federal residents acknowledge by noting and signing their
right to appeal or not to appeal disciplinary action.
A review of files documented that medical concerns are responded to immediately.
However, there was one incident wherein one resident did not receive medication as
prescribed because the medication ran out. The resident missed one day of medication.
Regarding nutrition, residents stated they receive three meals a day and one evening
snack. A review of resident files indicated special diets are documented and prepared for
residents as required.

                                                            
2

See, “Behavioral Management System, Inc.”, Mark Chapman, 1984. 

Page 6

 Interviews revealed that residents generally understood the grievance process and how to
get issues resolved. Documentation in the files indicated the same.
Two DJJ investigators accompanied the team on June 25 and were tasked with identifying
any gang activity. The investigators toured four housing units and observed three gang
identifiers relating to MS-13. Two were drawings of the devil horn hand sign used by
MS-13 and one was a "MS-13" etched in the window of one of the resident's doors. A fourth
gang identifier was an 18th Street symbol scratched into the door of a resident’s room.
Overall, the housing units were very clean and free from graffiti. When identified by ORR
prior to placement at SVJC, the file records indicated that SVJC received the notification of
potential gang involvement upon admission.

child protective services follow-up
Based on the referrals from DJJ staff, Child Protective Services (CPS) staff from
Shenandoah Valley Social Services conducted follow-up investigations, including individual
interviews with a staff member who had allegedly engaged in abusive behavior.
Following these investigations, CPS found no abuse or neglect had taken place.

conclusion and recommendations
On June 21, 2018, a DJJ team consisting of five members from the Certification Unit and
the Quality Assurance Unit visited SVJC.3 On June 25, 2018, an eight member team from the
Certification Unit, the Quality Assurance Unit, and the Investigative Unit also visited SVJC.4
CPS staff from Shenandoah Valley also conducted follow-up visits.
During this investigation DJJ staff found no life, health, or safety violations for youth in
ORR’s custody who have been placed at SVJC. Likewise, CPS, in their investigation, did not
find evidence to support allegations of abuse or neglect. The team did find that the SVJC is a
well-run facility that attempts to treat its staff and residents with respect and dignity.
While DJJ staff did not find sufficient evidence to support the conditions described in the
lawsuit, the DJJ staff nevertheless identified areas where SVJC could strengthen its
programming for this uniquely challenging group of youth—young people who have been
frequently exposed to high levels of trauma, who are separated from their families, and who
confront numerous language and cultural barriers, among others, to succeeding in SVJC and
upon their release.
In addition, DJJ identified a gap in its certification authority over local detention centers
which is that, without permission from the custodian agency (in this case ORR), DJJ does not
have access to the records of youth, nor the youth themselves, who are in the custody of ORR

                                                            
3

On June 21 2018, the team members included Shelia Palmer (team leader), Clarice Booker, Mark Lewis, Andrea
McMahon, and Leah Nielsen.
4

On June 25, 2018, the team members included Shelia Palmer (team leader), Clarice Booker, Mark Lewis, Andrea
McMahon, Deidre Davis, Nina Joyner, Dennis Sullivan, and John Rohde.

Page 7

 or other third parties. Accordingly, in this memo DJJ has also included a recommendation that
it intends to propose at the next DJJ Board meeting.
Finally, while DJJ staff found nothing to indicate their misuse or abuse at SVJC, given the
concerns raised by the allegations in the lawsuit about physical restraints more generally, and
the fact that the Board of DJJ is charged with regulating their use, DJJ will inform and educate
the Board about their use in Virginia in order that the Board may properly consider the
current regulations and whether any changes might be necessary.

recommendations for svjc
recommendation 1
SVJC should provide staff with training and professional development in the areas of
positive youth development, cognitive behavioral interventions and trauma informed care.
It would benefit SVJC to invest in training for the administrative, management and line
staff in the areas of positive youth development, cognitive behavioral interventions and
trauma informed care. SVJC operational tenets are geared more toward a correctional
philosophy and environment than a therapeutic model. SVJC currently operates a Community
Placement Program for DJJ that incorporates the tenets of DJJ’s community treatment model.
The Missouri Youth Services Institute (MYSI) has trained all staff in the CPP in the
principles of a therapeutic environment. As the youth placed by ORR are typically long term
residents and similar to DJJ youth in that they have significant exposure to trauma, it would be
of value for SVJC to adopt a similar community treatment model framework into the units
housing the federal residents. Consistent staff and interactions with residents can diminish
aggressive behaviors. If ORR were willing to collaborate with DJJ in this effort, it would
promote a consistent philosophical approach within SVJC.

recommendation 2
SVJC should increase the staff’s understanding of and sensitivity toward the unique
cultural backgrounds of the youth in the federal program, expand the culturally relevant
programming for these youth, and increase the number of bilingual staff.
Culturally competent practices are crucial for ensuring effective services and treatment
delivery to the Latino population at SVJC. SVJC staff need increased awareness of cultural
factors that influence the federal residents’ behavior and thinking patterns. A lack of social
and emotional support networks impact stress and anxiety for the Latino youth and frequently
is displayed as aggressive and negative behaviors. SVJC should reach out to and collaborate
with local Latino serving agencies for assistance in the development of culturally relevant
training and resources, and for assistance with recruitment of bilingual staff. Additional
bilingual line staff and mental health counselors that understand the variations in the Spanish
language within different Latino cultures would assist in addressing miscommunication and
misunderstandings by the federal residents.

Page 8

 recommendation 3
SVJC should strengthen the procedures for the use of mechanical restraints and re-train
staff on the use of physical and mechanical restraints.
Although SVJC’s procedures for mechanical restraints meet certification regulations, the
procedure could be clearer and specific to the use of mechanical restraints. The use of a
restraint chair and spit guards, as well as when and how it is used, should be better defined.
DJJ suggests re-training all staff on the use of all restraints both physical and mechanical to
include enhanced training on de-escalation techniques (see Recommendation 4).

recommendation 4
SVJC should provide ongoing training in the effective use of de-escalation techniques for
all staff at SVJC.
SVJC staff require additional training on effective de-escalation practices. De-escalation
techniques can prevent disruptive behavior, reduce the need for physical or mechanical
restraints, and enhance the safety of the resident and staff. As many de-escalation techniques
require effective communication this recommendation is linked to the need for additional
bilingual staff.

recommendation 5
SVJC should explore design and furniture modifications to create a setting more
conducive to working with a population that has high rates of trauma.
SVJC was designed and constructed as a secure juvenile detention center meant to
provide short-term confinement for pre-adjudicated youth. At the forefront, it must provide a
safe and secure environment for residents and staff and protect the public safety. The physical
design of the facility is based on a more traditional correctional setting. Housing units and
individual rooms are designed for direct supervision of residents and monitoring by staff
inside and outside of the housing areas. As SVJC is not able, without considerable cost, to
change the physical design of the housing units or rooms, it should explore other options with
regard to furniture styles, arrangement of furniture and paint colors that could help modify
the environment and make it more developmentally appropriate and trauma responsive.

Page 9

 recommendation for virginia board of
juvenile justice
recommendation 1
The Board of Juvenile Justice should promulgate an amendment to the regulations
governing local juvenile detention centers to require that any time such a center enters into a
contract with a third-party to house youth in the custody of the third-party, the contract must
allow for DJJ staff to have the same access to the youth and their records as DJJ has to all
other youth in that facility.

Recommendation 2
DJJ will inform and educate the Board about the use of mechanical restraints in juvenile
correctional centers and locally operated juvenile detention centers in Virginia in order that
the Board may properly consider the current regulations regarding the use of mechanical
restraints and whether any changes might be necessary.

Page 10

 memo from child protective services (cps)
On 06/22/2018, the Shenandoah Valley Department of Social Services (SVDSS) began
receiving numerous calls regarding allegations of abuse/neglect, which had been outlined in
media reports released on 06/21/2018, as referenced within the executive summary of the DJJ
report preceding this appendix. Specific to the calls received were allegations of
abuse/neglect by guards against unaccompanied migrant children being detained at the
SVJDC. These reports alleged the migrant children to having been “beaten and handcuffed”
while also being “tied to chairs with bags placed over their heads”. Additional allegations
referenced these minors as being left “nude and shivering within their concrete cells”. While
none of these current reports identified any specific alleged abuser(s)/neglector(s), two
previous reports had alleged physical abuse by one facility guard in the attempt to restrain two
migrant children. As both of these previous reports had been determined invalid of meeting
the requirements for a CPS response, it was suggested this decision be reconsidered.
Therefore, on 06/22/2018, the SVDSS initiated an investigation into all allegations received.
The SVDSS began the process of interviewing all migrant children on 06/25/2018. This
included eighteen children, again, all migrant children housed at the SVJDC. Interviews
continued on 06/27/2018 and 06/28/2018 to include both migrant children and a number of
administrative and supervisory staff. A final interview with the alleged abuser took place on
07/03/2018.
The interview process with all children included the CPS investigator employed by the
SVDSS, the use of an interpreter retained by the SVDSS in addition to oversight by the CPS
Regional Consultant with the Virginia Department of Social Services. Interviews with
administrative and supervisory staff in addition to the alleged abuser involved the CPS
investigator and the CPS regional consultant. The investigative process also included a full
tour of the juvenile facility in addition to the review of hard record files for each migrant child.
Also reviewed was video footage relating specifically to one of the allegations of physical
abuse. Video footage relating to the second allegation of physical abuse was no longer
accessible.
In conclusion of the CPS investigation, no information was obtained to implicate any
additional alleged abuser(s)/neglector(s). Furthermore, the information obtained through
child interviews found no evidence to support the allegations of any mistreatment or neglect.
This was further evidenced by a complete tour of the SVJDC and visual
inspection/demonstration of the restraint and protective equipment utilized by the facility,
which, according to the DJJ, does meet certification regulations. Finally, a face-to-face
interview with the alleged abuser and a review of the available video footage specific to the
allegations of physical abuse found no preponderance of evidence to support a CPS finding.
Verbal notification of these preliminary findings being in support of an unfounded CPS
disposition was provided to the alleged abuser and the SVJDC on 07/03/2018. The final
report documenting all evidence obtained and including all required, written notifications will
be completed by 08/03/2018.

Page 11