DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

STATE OF CONNECTICUT
OFFICE OF THE CHILD ADVOCATE

INCARCERATED/DETAINED YOUTH - AN EXAMINATION OF CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT

January, 2019

Office of the Child Advocate
18-20 Trinity Street
Hartford, CT 06106
www.ct.gov/oca

1

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. 4
METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 5
CRITICAL ISSUES IMPACTING
INCARCERATED/DETAINED YOUTH .................................................................................... 7
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION .............................................................................................. 8
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE HOUSING ................................................. 9
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT ........................................................................................................ 14
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ....................................................................................................... 14
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING .............................................................................................. 16
ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 17
Case Study: Nathan ............................................................................................................................................... 18
COURT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION:
HARTFORD AND BRIDGEPORT DETENTION CENTERS ................................................. 21
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION ............................................................................................ 22
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE HOUSING ............................................... 24
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT ........................................................................................................ 28
Case Study: Tiffany ................................................................................................................................................ 29
Case Study: Edgar .................................................................................................................................................. 31
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ...................................................................................................... 32
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING .............................................................................................. 34
ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 38
FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................................. 38
CT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION:
MANSON YOUTH INSTITUTION FOR BOYS AND YORK
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR GIRLS ........................................................................ 41
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION ............................................................................................ 43
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE HOUSING ............................................... 45
Case Study: Terrance .............................................................................................................................................. 50
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT ....................................................................................................... 58
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ....................................................................................................... 62
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING .............................................................................................. 66
ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 66
FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................................. 69
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES:
CT JUVENILE TRAINING SCHOOL ........................................................................................ 73
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION ............................................................................................ 73
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE HOUSING ............................................... 76
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT ........................................................................................................ 77
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING ....................................................................................................... 78
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING .............................................................................................. 79
ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................... 80
FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................................. 81
OCA RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................... 82

2

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

INTRODUCTION
The Office of the Child Advocate (OCA) is an independent state oversight agency directed by law to
investigate and report on the efficacy of child-serving systems, investigate unexplained and unexpected
child fatalities or critical incidents involving a child, review complaints of persons concerning the
actions of any state or municipal agency providing services to children, and periodically review the
facilities and procedures of any and all institutions or residences, public or private, where a juvenile
has been placed by any agency or department.1 The OCA was created in 1995 in response to the death
of an infant involved with the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”).
In July, 2015, the OCA published an investigative report regarding conditions of confinement within
two state-run juvenile correctional facilities, (i) the Connecticut Juvenile Training School for boys and
the (ii) Pueblo Unit for girls – both facilities operated by DCF. The OCA’s investigation came in
response to several complaints regarding the conditions for youth within those two programs. OCA’s
report, published after an 18 month long investigation, included an extensive review of facility
documents and video-tapes, and detailed findings regarding youths’ suicidal behavior, facilities’
restraint and seclusion practices, and deficient handling of allegations of abuse and neglect of youth
within the facilities.
Subsequent to the publication of the OCA report, Governor Dannel Malloy announced his intention
to permanently close the Connecticut Juvenile Training School by July 2018. The state’s Juvenile
Justice Policy and Oversight Committee (“JJPOC”), created pursuant to Public Act 14-217, continues
its efforts to support youth rehabilitation and ongoing improvement of public safety outcomes, with
attention to diversion of low-risk youth, and delivery of a continuum of services and interventions for
children with more complex needs. A critical component of the JJPOC’s work is to ensure provision
of appropriate rehabilitative services to the highest risk youth in need of treatment in secure programs.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13l(12) requires the OCA to report to the legislature regarding conditions of
confinement for youth detained or incarcerated in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems. 2
Accordingly, this report provides information regarding key issues affecting such youth, including: (1)
suicidal behavior and suicide prevention; (2) use of force (restraint) and physical isolation (seclusion)
of youth; (3) availability and utilization of clinical and rehabilitative programming; (4) access to
educational programming for youth; (5) access to family visits and family therapy/engagement; and
(6) child abuse/neglect reporting and prevention, in the following state-run juvenile and adult
correctional facilities:



Juvenile Detention Facilities (Bridgeport/Hartford) — Operated by the Judicial Branch’s
Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”);
Department of Correction Adult Correctional Facilities that House Minors — Manson
Youth Institution (MYI) (boys) and York Correctional Institution (YCI) (girls);

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.
Section 46a-13l(12) provides that the Child Advocate shall “[p]repare an in-depth report on conditions of confinement,
including, but not limited to, compliance with section 46a-152, regarding children twenty years of age or younger who are
held in secure detention or correctional confinement in any facility operated by a state agency. Such report shall be
submitted, in accordance with the provisions of section 11-4a, to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly
having cognizance of matters relating to children not later than March 1, 2017, and every two years thereafter.”
1
2

3

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.



Connecticut Juvenile Training School (“CJTS”) — Operated by the Department of
Children and Families State-Run Juvenile Correctional Facility (Locked) for Boys
Through April 2018 — Now Closed.3

The period under review (“PUR”) was July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, unless otherwise noted.
The OCA shared a draft of this Report with of the state agencies identified herein, including Court
Support Services Division of the Judicial Branch, the Department of Correction and the Department
of Children and Families. All agencies were given the opportunity to share with OCA any comments
or concerns regarding the draft findings and recommendations.
Efforts have been made to incorporate or reference relevant feedback in the final report. Both CSSD
and DOC leadership have affirmed their commitment to ongoing assessment of internal policies and
practices necessary to ensure safety and well-being of youth in custody. This includes critical
examination of data collection and review structures to ensure facility adherence to agency policies
and reliable data reporting. As the state’s lead agency for child protection and children’s mental health,
the Department of Children and Families has acknowledged their ongoing commitment to ensure the
safety and well-being of youth served and willingness to partner, despite removal of responsibility for
adjudicated youth from their statutory responsibilities and the closure of CT Juvenile Training School.
Given the scope of review, this Report addresses each of the six key issues, with relevant findings,
by agency. The Report concludes with a series of issue specific recommendations for consideration
by agency leadership and state policy makers.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OCA’s review of conditions for youth incarcerated in state-run facilities confirms that children/youth
of color remain disproportionately confined and incarcerated in Connecticut’s state-run facilities, and
that the deeper youth go into the correctional system, the less likely they are to receive any
developmentally appropriate programming and supports necessary to help youth change their
behavior and successfully discharge back to their communities without committing new offenses.4

Despite its closure in May 2018, the analysis of CJTS remains in this Report as it offers relevant comparative information
regarding the management and treatment of incarcerated youth.
4
Connecticut correctional facility admission data continues to show that incarcerated youth are disproportionately
African American/Black and Hispanic. Research shows the disproportionate minority contact in the justice system is
both a national and a local problem: Racial and ethnic minorities are often disproportionately represented in the juvenile
justice system. The observed disproportionality cannot be fully explained by differences in delinquent behavior across
racial and ethnic groups. Disparities were found in system processing of minority youth, even when controlling for social
and legal background variables at various points of juvenile justice systems across the country. A 2017 report by,
commissioned by, found that disparities in system process of minority youth in Connecticut continues to affect rates of
detention and incarceration for children of color. Addressing racial inequities in the juvenile and criminal justice system
must be an urgent and core priority for all stakeholders. Source: Spectrum Associates Market Research, “An Assessment
of Disproportionate Minority Contact in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System,” (Nov. 17, 2017), submitted to the
Office of Policy and Management, available on the web at:
https://www.ct.gov/opm/lib/opm/cjppd/cjjjyd/jjydpublications/ct_2017_dmc_assessment_study_final_report.pdf
3

4

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Children/youth, particularly boys with the most complex needs, who are incarcerated in the adult
criminal justice system, are the most likely to lose meaningful access to education, rehabilitative
services, visits with family, even the ability to purchase hygiene products or extra food, if they are
deemed a risk to the general youth prison population. These boys, the children/youth who often need
the most help--are counterintuitively the most likely to go without help in the adult prison system.
They are the most likely to be placed in repeated or prolonged physical and social isolation while
incarcerated—a practice that research consistently shows has devastating impact for youth, increasing
their risk of mental health deterioration and suicide.
OCA also found that while some policies regarding provision of care and treatment to incarcerated
youth in the juvenile justice system are developmentally appropriate and progressive, attention to
facility operations and compliance with agency/s policies remains an urgent priority for further review
by stakeholders and agency leaders. OCA recognizes the comprehensive reform work that state
agencies are engaged in to support better outcomes for juveniles and their communities, with
continued success in diverting lower-risk youth to community based services and away from
detrimental engagement with the criminal justice system. The OCA is encouraged by the DOC’s recent
discussions with the Vera Institute of Justice to review its policies, procedures, and practices for
detained youth.
However, OCA also found that throughout the child-serving juvenile and adult correctional system,
substantial work remains to support better outcomes for the highest-risk youth. A determination must
be made by policy makers and agency leaders as to the supports that incarcerated youth require, the
work that needs to be done with them and their loved ones,
and how such work can be most effectively accomplished “Adult-style prisons that emphasize
in the context of the facilities that confine youth and the confinement and control are devoid of
communities they come from and will return to.. The state’s the essentials required for healthy
development---engaged
reform work must also include development of a adolescent
adults
focused
on
their development, a
transparent framework for ensuring the provision of
peer
group
that
models prosocial
effective rehabilitative programming for incarcerated
youth. Finally, the state needs to consider whether behavior, opportunities for academic
success, and activities that contribute to
conditions can even be created for youth in adult facilities developing decision-making and critical
that will promote effective rehabilitation and public safety thinking skills. At the same time, these
goals.
facilities provide too many of the
OCA found that, with regard to incarcerated youth, there
are few, and in some cases, no universal standards in
Connecticut law or agency practices regarding a) the
provision of mental health services; b) the use of isolation
or force; c) strategies to prevent or respond to youth
suicidal/self-harming behavior; d) provision of educational
services; e) family engagement and relationship building; or
even f) prevention and reporting of child abuse and neglect.
OCA finds that the lack of a standard, developmentally
informed approach for incarcerated youth and the lack of a
transparent framework for publishing information
regarding the efficacy of secure care is highly problematic
for the state’s twin goals for youth incarceration-5

elements that exacerbate the trauma that
most confined youth already experienced
and reinforce poor choices and impulsive
behavior. Maltreatment is endemic and
widespread.” McCarthy, Patrick, Vincent
Schiraldi, and Miriam Shark. The Future of
Youth Justice: A Community-Based
Alternative to the Youth Prison Model. New
Thinking in Community Corrections Bulletin.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice,
2016. NCJ 250142, available at
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/25
0142.pdf.

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

promoting youth rehabilitation and improving public safety, in part due to the lack of information
regarding what help youth actually receive while incarcerated and whether that help is adequate or
effective. The lack of uniform standards can also place youth and facility staff at risk of harm, and
may result, in some cases, in violations of state and federal law and deeply concerning conditions of
confinement, particularly for minors in the adult prison system.

METHODOLOGY
This investigation involved review of statistical and descriptive information provided by the
Department of Correction (“DOC”), the Department of Children and Families (“DCF”),5 and the
Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division (“CSSD”), including record reviews,
interviews, observations, and review of the literature. More specifically, the OCA undertook the
following to ensure an accurate understanding of conditions of confinement for youth in Connecticut
facilities:









Multiple meetings and correspondence with representatives from CSSD, DOC, and DCF
to discuss issues and information developed in conjunction with this report.
Review of child-specific education, mental health, and custodial records from CSSD,
DOC, and DCF.
Site visits to facilities run by CSSD, DOC, and DCF.
Review of youth surveys for incarcerated youth.
Meetings with incarcerated youth.
Examination of applicable state and federal statutes and regulations governing the use of
restraint and seclusion for minors, and the provision of education and mental health
services to children in state custody.
Review of federal reports, technical assistance guides, research and literature regarding
conditions of confinement for incarcerated youth, and best/promising practices for youth
confined in juvenile and adult correctional facilities.
Review of facility policies, procedures, and data regarding the conditions of confinement
outlined in this report from CSSD, DOC, and DCF:
Suicidal Behavior and Suicide Prevention
o A copy of the agency’s/facility’s suicide prevention policy, guidelines, protocols, and any
audits that have been conducted in the last year (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017).
o Number of youth confined within the facility or facilities who have had suicidal behaviors
in the past year (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017), broken down by type of behavior
(or safety monitoring).
Use of Force and Isolation-Restraint, Seclusion and Restrictive Housing
o Facility policies regarding use of restraint and seclusion/room confinement/cell
confinement.

The OCA has electronic access to DCF case files and reports, which allows the OCA to meet its statutory responsibilities,
and for purposes of this report, provided a more precise lens into CJTS than the other facilities reviewed in this Report.
5

6

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

o Description of how data is kept and reviewed by agency personnel regarding use of
restraint and seclusion/room confinement/cell confinement.
o Description of any programs, trainings, and interventions to address use of restraint
and seclusion/room confinement/cell confinement.
o Facilities’ training schedule regarding restraint/use of force and seclusion,
information regarding whether all staff are trained, and how often trainings occur.
o Physical restraint data for a 6 month period (January 1st, 2017 - June 30th, 2017),
including the number of children or percentage of the youth population who
experienced physical restraint.
o Mechanical restraint data for a 6-month period (January 1st, 2017 - June 30th, 2017),
including number of children or percentage of youth population who experienced
mechanical restraint. Data on mechanical restraint utilization as it applies to
children who are restrained within the facility due to an incident, and mechanical
restraints used inside and outside the facility for transport.
o Chemical restraint policies and utilization data for the 6 month period (January 1st,
2107- June 30, 2107)
o Seclusion/room confinement/cell confinement/ data facility-wide for 6 months
(January 1st, 2017 - June 30th, 2017), including number of children or percentage
of youth population who experienced such confinement and the average and range
of duration for utilization of seclusion/room confinement/cell confinement.
Access to Mental Health Treatment
o Description of all clinical/mental health services that are currently available to
confined/detained youth.
o Description of utilization of such services by confined/detained youth between
January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017.
o Clinician to client ratio; hours clinicians are available, and weekly schedule,
including weekends.
o Processes by which the facility identifies and evaluates youth’s need for clinical
services.
Access to Educational Programming
o Description of current educational services offered, including policies and
protocols for the identification of students with special education needs;
availability of special education and related services, including transition services;
hours of services available.
o Attendance histories for students served between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017,
including instances of suspension, duration of suspension, removal from school
programming, or instances where children are not permitted to attend school for
safety reasons.
Abuse/Neglect and Mandated Reporting
o Policies and training for staff regarding compliance with state laws governing
mandated reporting of abuse and neglect.
Family Contact/Family Engagement
o Facility’s policies regarding family visitation; including visitation hours and other
opportunities for visitation.
7

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

o Number/percentage of youth who have had family visits, frequency of visits, and
total number in the past 6 months per youth. (January 1st, 2017-June 30th 2017)
o Availability of family therapy and the number/percentage of youth who have had
family therapy sessions, the frequency of the therapy, and total number in 6
months per youth (January 1st, 2017-June 30th, 2017)

CRITICAL ISSUES IMPACTING INCARCERATED/DETAINED YOUTH
There are a number of critical issues that impact youth who are incarcerated/detained, including, but
not limited to: (1) suicidal behavior and suicide prevention; (2) use of force (restraint) and physical
isolation (seclusion) of youth; (3) availability and utilization of clinical and rehabilitative programming;
(4) access to educational programming for youth; (5) child abuse/neglect reporting and prevention
and (6) access to family visits and family therapy/engagement, in the state-run juvenile and adult
correctional facilities that were part of OCA’s review. 6
Incarcerated youth are “emerging adults” who are at an important stage of their emotional and
intellectual development. Science confirms that the adolescent brain is not fully developed until far
into the twenties, and that the last features of the brain to develop are those that control judgment,
decision-making and proper understanding of the consequences of actions. “Emerging adults have
the highest recidivism rates of any age group, again both nationally and in Connecticut. Yet this is also
an age of opportunity – a time when arrest rates begin to decline and when the life trajectory of young
people can be influenced for the better.”7 Researchers agree that these “emerging adults” are at a
critical development period. “Emerging adults,” a term first coined in 2000 by psychologist and author
Jeffrey Arnett at Clark University, is a term that has become increasingly adopted in the criminal justice
arena. The term invokes a critical developmental period: the transition from a child who is dependent
on parents or guardians for supervision and guidance (as well as emotional and financial support) into
a fully mature, independent adult who engages as a productive and healthy member of society.8 The
issues examined in this report have a profound effect on the life of the incarcerated youth, and the
lack of clear guidelines and adherence to national standards compounds the difficult time served by
these youth and contributes to the lack of recovery for such youth.
A. SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION
According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(“OJJDP”):
These issues disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minorities in the justice system and is both a national and a local
problem. The observed disproportionality cannot be fully explained by differences in delinquent behavior across racial and
ethnic groups. Disparities were found in system processing of minority youth, even when controlling for social and legal
background variables at various points of juvenile justice systems across the country. A 2017 report found that disparities
in system process of minority youth in Connecticut continues to affect rates of detention and incarceration for children
of color. Addressing racial inequities in the juvenile and criminal justice system must be an urgent and core priority for all
stakeholders. Available at: Spectrum Associates Market Research, “An Assessment of Disproportionate Minority Contact
in Connecticut’s Juvenile Justice System,” (Nov. 17, 2017), submitted to the Office of Policy and Management, available
on the web.
6

Harvard Kennedy School, Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, Report, Public Safety and Emerging Adults
in Connecticut: Providing Effective and Developmentally Appropriate Responses for Youth Under Age 21, By Lael Chester
and Vincent Schiraldi (December 28, 2016).
8
Id.
7

8

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Suicide is the leading cause of death among youth in confinement. A study of youth in
detention found one in ten had thought about killing themselves in the previous 6 months.
Fewer than half of the youth with recent suicidal thoughts had told anyone about them.
Rates are likely even higher among youth who are deeper in the system. Suicidal ideation is
higher in post-adjudication youth than in pre-adjudication youth, with some studies
showing that suicidal ideation for post-adjudication youth in secure facilities was 51% (past
year) and 58% (life time).
When working with youth who have the risk factors below, line staff should be alert to the
possibility of suicidal thoughts or behavior: (i) previous suicidal behavior; (ii) mental Health
disorders; (iii) substance use disorders; (iv) aggressive or violent behavior; (v) family factors
(e.g., suicide, mental illness, substance use among parents or caregivers; parental absence;
lack of support; abuse or neglect; family conflict or domestic violence); (vi) poor social skills
or few friends; (vii) stressful life events (e.g., legal or discipline problems; incarceration;
isolation from peers in a facility; lengthy time in a room or cell; prolonged stay in a juvenile
justice facility); (viii) childhood abuse or neglect; and (ix) exposure to someone else’s
suicide.
Because most incarcerated youth often have three, four, or even all of the listed suicide risk
factors, in addition to the stress of being detained or incarcerated, and restricted access to
their typical self-injurious coping skills (cigarettes, alcohol, other drugs, fighting, running
away) and any positive influences (family, educators, intimacy, community) – all youth in
custody should be viewed as at risk for killing themselves. The majority of youth who
have died by suicide in juvenile justice facilities were not on any type of suicide precautions
at the time of his/her death.
Facility suicide hazards include: low number of staff per youth requiring supervision; overreliance on isolating juveniles; easily reached protrusions or projections in rooms; access to
psychotropic medication; unit or cottage layout and routine and predictable monitoring.9
Research shows that youth who are deeper in the justice system have higher prevalence rates of suicidal
ideation and behavior. “Youth sampled during stays in post-disposition secure facilities appear to have
the highest prevalence rates of suicidal ideation and attempts.” Girls have higher prevalence rates than
boys.10
The risk of suicide for incarcerated/detained youth is a national problem. “On an average day
[nationwide], approximately 61,000 youth are in custody in detention centers (OJJDP, 2013).
[Researchers] estimate that as many as 22,000 detainees have considered suicide, 17,900 have
attempted suicide at least once, and 5,200 have made a recent attempt.” Juvenile justice professionals
and researchers must collaborate to increase the safety and improve the mental health of delinquent

National Institute of Corrections and OJJDP: The Desktop Guide to Quality Practice for Working with Youth in Confinement
(2014), (hereinafter OJJDP/NIC Guide) available on the web:
https://info.nicic.gov/dtg/sites/info.nicic.gov.dtg/files/DesktopGuide.pdf.
10
Teplin, L., Stokes, M., et al., Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the Literature, Jour.
Correct. Health Care (July 2015).
9

9

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

youth. The competent and comprehensive assessment of suicide risk and timely interventions will
prevent untimely deaths.” 11
B. USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING
Rehabilitation for incarcerated youth needs to be a priority. Treatment programs should include access
to substance abuse and mental health, support for other risk indicators like social isolation, and efforts
to reduce seclusion and restrictive housing need to be a priority.
Solitary Confinement/Physical Isolation of Incarcerated Youth
Youth experience symptoms of paranoia, anxiety and depression even after very short periods of
isolation. Confined youth who spend extended periods isolated are among the most likely to attempt
or actually commit suicide. The use of force and/or isolation can result in exacerbated behavioral
issues in youth who are incarcerated. Without appropriate interventions, force and/or isolation are
merely quick fixes to temporarily contain behavioral issues that are not really being managed or treated,
but rather ignored.
One of the first obstacles to changing the practice of placing youths in isolation is that there is no
nationally agreed on definition of isolation and no national publication of standardized, uniform, and
comparable isolation data. The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators (“CJCA”) focuses on
reducing the use of isolation with minors and defines isolation as: any time a youth is physically and/or
socially isolated for punishment or for administrative purposes.
A recent report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice acknowledges the conflicting terms
used to describe the separation of inmates from general population, though DOJ documents define
“administrative segregation” similarly to new Connecticut law as a practice “used to separate those
deemed to pose a significant threat to institutional security from the general population,” either due
to “patterns of disruptive behavior, security threat group identifications, or designation as high-risk
inmates.”12
The DOJ report notes that solitary confinement practices in adult correctional systems vary, “but a
defining feature of current solitary confinement practice is the isolation of inmates for 22-24 hours a
day in a small cell, with minimal contact with others, in areas of the facility designed for the purpose
of restricting inmates’ movement. Other distinct features of current solitary confinement practices
include reduced natural light; limited lighting; little to no access to programming, classes, reading, radio
and television as well as restrictions placed on visitation from friends and family.”13
Experts distinguish between solitary confinement and a temporary “time out,” which can be a
necessary and reasonable measure to defuse a dangerous situation where a youth is engaged in
behavior that is harmful to himself and others.
The OJJDP/NIC Guide author/s has recommended that “[g]iven the harm imposed and increased
potential for legal liability, facilities should strictly limit or eliminate altogether the use of isolation
Id.
Id. at 5.
13
Id.
11
12

10

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

practices.”14 Guidance commissioned by the Department of Justice provides that “decreasing, and
eventually eliminating, the isolation and restraint of youth housed in juvenile and adult facilities
typically requires:
1) Significant staff training;
2) Practical coaching on the units;
3) Accountability for staff behavior.” 15
In 2012, a task force appointed by the U.S. Attorney General concluded, “Nowhere is the damaging
impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than when it involves solitary
confinement. . . . Juveniles experience symptoms of paranoia, anxiety, and depression even after very
short periods of isolation. Confined youth who spend extended periods isolated are among the most
likely to attempt or actually commit suicide. One national study found that among the suicides in
juvenile facilities, half of the victims were in isolation at the time they took their own lives, and 62
percent of victims had a history of solitary confinement.” 16
Connecticut law does not provide a clear definition of solitary confinement. Across the country,
juvenile and criminal justice experts acknowledge the lack of consistency in defining the practice of
physically isolating incarcerated youth. Experts agree regarding the potentially significant harms
associated with physically and socially isolating any juvenile in an enclosed space or room other than
for the purpose of sleeping or as a temporary response to behavior that threatens immediate harm to
the youth or others.17 There have been national efforts to address physical isolation in correction
facilities and lean heavily toward elimination all such isolation.
Four different Connecticut statutes address the use of restraint and/or seclusion with, respectively, 1)
persons at risk (youth in DCF facilities); 2) students; 3) youth in CSSD detention facilities; and 4)
individuals incarcerated by the DOC. Those statutes unique to the particular facility will be discussed
within those facility sections.
National Standards Regarding Physical Isolation in Correctional Facilities
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”)
The National Commission on Correctional Health Care (“NCCHC”) issued a 2016 Position Statement
on Solitary Confinement. NCCHC defines solitary confinement as the housing of an adult or juvenile

OJJDP/NIC Guide, supra N. 9, Ch. 5, Umpierre, M., “Rights and Responsibilities of Youth, Facilities, and Staff,” pg.
13.
15
Id., Ch. 11, Boesky, L., “Mental Health,” pg. 44.
16
National Commission on Correctional Health Care, 2016 Position Statement on Solitary Confinement (Isolation).
17
Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators Toolkit: Reducing the Use of Isolation (Mar. 2015), available on the
web
at:
http://
cjca.net/
attachments/
article/751/
CJCA%20Toolkit%20
Reducing%20the%20Use%20of%20Isolation.pdf; See also National Institute of Justice, Frost., N. and Monteiro, C.,
“Administrative Segregation in U.S. Prisons,” (March 2016), pg. 3-4, available on the web at:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249749.pdf (“Within correctional contexts, the terms used to describe segregation
policies and practices vary greatly across jurisdictions. Although they represent conceptually distinct practices, it is difficult
to separate the literature on disciplinary segregation from the literature on administrative segregation because researches
have tended to study solitary confinement without carefully distinguishing the various types of segregated restrictive
housing units.”)
14

11

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

with minimal meaningful contact with others and with access to few or no programs.18 The NCCHC,
like other national organizations, acknowledges that terminology varies by jurisdiction, and that
solitary confinement may be referred to by a number of terms, including isolation; administrative,
protective, or disciplinary segregation; security housing; and restrictive housing units. 19 The NCCHC
notes that solitary confinement is used for a variety of reasons, including discipline and safety
concerns, leading to the use of restrictive housing for known or suspected gang members.20
Citing national and internal organizations’21 concern regarding the harms created by use of solitary
confinement for any individual, the NCCHC 2016 Position Statement contends that “prolonged
(greater than 15 consecutive days) solitary confinement is cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment,
and harmful to an individual’s health;” and that “Juveniles, mentally ill individuals, and pregnant
women should be excluded from solitary confinement of any duration.” The NCCHC further states
that “[h]ealth staff must not be involved in determining whether adults or juveniles are physically or
psychologically able to be placed in isolation.”

NCCHC Policy Statement on Solitary Confinement in Correctional Facilities, available on the web at:
https://www.ncchc.org/solitary-confinement.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
The American Psychiatric Organization, the World Health Organization, the United Nations.
18

12

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.
Juvenile Detention
Alternatives Initiative
Standards for Room
Confinement
The
Juvenile
Detention
Alternatives Initiative (“JDAI”),
established by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation to promulgate
standards in support of improved
conditions of confinement in
juvenile
detention
centers
provides the following with
respect to the use of physical and
social isolation of juveniles:
1. Isolation should never
be used other than for
brief periods to prevent
immediate risk of
physical harm;
2. Isolation can never be
used for longer than 4
hours;
3. Isolation can only be
used if staff provide
continuous one-on-one
crisis intervention and
observation;
Any youth who cannot be calmed
within 4 hours must be
transferred for mental health
evaluation and intervention.

Performance-Based
Standards for Juvenile
Correctional
Facilities
(“PBS”)
“PBS standards are clear:
isolating or confining a
youth to his/her room
should be used only to
protect the youth from
harming himself or others
and if used, should be brief
and supervised. Any time a
youth is alone for 15 minutes
or more is a reportable PBS
event and is documented;”
and “isolation . . . should not
be used as punishment.”

American
Correctional
Association, PerformanceBased
Standards
for
Juvenile
Correctional
Facilities
“In the very rare event that
room confinement lasts for
longer than 24 hours, the
American Correctional
Association standards require
a review every 24 hours by a
facility administrator or
designee who was not
involved in the incident; and
that room confinement for
any offense should not
exceed 3-5 days.”

Dr. Robert Kinscherff, a mental health program consultant hired
by DCF in 2014-15 to assist with review of programming and
conditions of confinement at CJTS, observed that “in a traumainformed model, the need to use restraint or seclusion is viewed
as a clear intervention failure and so considerable effort is given
following the episode to assess the process leading to restraint and
seclusion with the individual and the staff involved.”22
Lindsay Hayes, an expert in juvenile suicide prevention in
correctional facilities, cautions, “[a]lthough room confinement
remains a staple in most juvenile facilities, it is a sanction that can
have deadly consequences…. more than 50 percent of all youths’
suicides in juvenile facilities occurred while young people were
isolated alone in their rooms and more than 60 percent of young
people who committed suicide in custody had a history of being
held in isolation.”23

There are no standard definitions of restraint or seclusion
contained in Connecticut law that apply to youth served by all
agencies. For example, the state law that prohibits use of prone/face-down restraint of students due
to concerns over airway restriction and chest compression is not applicable to incarcerated youth.
Both prone and chemical restraints are utilized with youth in DOC custody.

Kinscherff, R., “Strategic Review of CJTS/Pueblo Girls Unit Program, Policies and Practices,” (“Kinscherff Report”), (2015), pg.
17-18, available on the web at:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/kiddata/od/08.12%20Forum%20%20Final%20Report%20on%20CJTS%20and%20Pue
blo%20by%20Dr%20Kinscherff.pdf.
23
Lindsay M. Hayes, Juvenile Suicide in Confinement: A National Study. 2004.
22

13

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Use of Chemical Agents on Incarcerated/Detained Youth
A recent article from the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange24 indicates that as of 2018 there were
only six (6) states that allowed juvenile correctional officers to carry pepper spray.25 Thirty-five (35)
states have banned pepper spray in juvenile facilities.26
A fact sheet regarding the use of chemical agents on juveniles authored by the Center for Children’s
Law and Policy (“CCLP”)27 in 2012 recommends a prohibition on the use of chemical agents on
children due to potential health risks and the potential for misuse by staff. The CCLP cites research
published in the British Medical Journal which noted the ill effects of chemical agents in confined
spaces and areas with poor ventilation.28 The CCLP identified several states that have taken action to
prohibit chemical agent use on juveniles.29
OCA sought additional information from physicians at Yale School of Medicine regarding the impact
of chemical agents such as pepper spray on minors. OCA was provided with research literature
indicating that pepper spray and other irritants have been associated with various health risks and
complications such as pulmonary edema and asthma.30 According to literature provided to OCA by a
physician at Yale, pepper spray and similar irritants, when inhaled, produce “a sensation of chest
constriction with dyspnea, gagging and burning of the respiratory tract.”31 The effects of tear agents
are generally considered transient and may dissipate quickly once removed from the source, but
sensitivity to irritants is “individual and age-dependent.”32
According to the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators:
[Pepper spray’s] use has been shunned by juvenile correctional agencies because of the
harm it causes to youth and the negative impact on staff-youth relationships, the key to
successful juvenile rehabilitative programming. Very few states authorize its use [in juvenile
The Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (JJIE) is a publication covering juvenile justice and related issues nationally.
The JJIE is based at Kennesaw State University. https://jjie.org/
25
Almasi, Aya, California Corrections Board Approves Limits to Pepper Spray, No Change to Staff Ratios, Feb. 14, 2018, JJIE, article
available on the web at https://jjie.org/2018/02/14/california-corrections-board-approves-limits-to-pepper-spray-nochange-to-staff-ratios/, article cites California, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Texas as permitting use
of chemical agents on minors in juvenile justice facilities.
26
Id.
27
Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Chemical Agents in Juvenile Facilities, (May 2012), available on the web at:
http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fact-Sheet-Chemical-Agents-Final-5-14-12.pdf.
28
Id. citing Pierre-Nicholas Carron & Bertrand Yersin, Management of the Effects of Exposure to Tear Gas, 338 BRITISH
MED. J. 1554, 1556 (2009).
29
Id. referencing, among others, 1) The Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice barred chemical agents in its facilities in 2007;
2) The Florida state legislature, in 2006, required the Department of Juvenile Justice to adopt policies that “prohibit the
use of aerosol or chemical agents;” 3) New Jersey, in 2005, amended its administrative code to clarify that the use of
chemical agents is not allowed in juvenile detention facilities; 4) New Hampshire, in 2010, passed a statute prohibiting the
“intentional release of noxious, toxic, caustic, or otherwise unpleasant substances near a child for the purpose of
controlling or modifying the behavior of or punishing the child” in a range of settings, including schools, group homes,
shelters, detention centers, and commitment facilities.”
30
Upper airway problems may include laryngeal edema and stridor. Significant eye injuries may also occur, including
corneal epithelial injury and kerato-conjunctivitis. Research literature provided via correspondence from Carl Baum, M.D.,
FAAP, FACMT, Professor of Pediatrics and of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine to the OCA, on file with
OCA.
31
Id. citing article on Toxed.com.
32
Id.
24

14

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

correctional programs] and in the states that allow its use in policy, most prohibit the use
except as a last resort and with many conditions and few facilities put it into practice.33
Connecticut law contains no statutory prohibition on the use of chemical agents on minors,
even those with respiratory conditions.
C. ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
A high percentage of incarcerated/detained youth may present with signs and symptoms of mental
health disorders, including symptoms of extensive trauma exposure. A significant percentage of youth
incarcerated in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems have experienced trauma and have
associated behavioral health and mental health treatment needs.34 National research estimates that a
significant percentage of such children are suffering from symptoms of trauma exposure—personal
and community violence, abuse and neglect, and extreme deprivation. Researchers have found that
many justice-involved youth enter confinement with histories of significant depression, anxiety and
suicidality.35
D. ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
Federal law provides that any state agency involved in the provision of special education and related
services to students in correctional facilities must ensure the provision of a Free Appropriate Public
Education (FAPE), even if other agencies share that responsibility. Connecticut law provides that
education in the detention centers is the responsibility of the local school district. Bridgeport Public
Schools provides educational services to the Bridgeport detention center, and Hartford Public Schools
contracts with a community-based provider to deliver education services in the Hartford detention
center. As discussed later in this Report, OCA found that local school districts responsible for
educating children/youth in detention facilities incorrectly reported that no children/youth were
suspended from detention school programs — data shows that children are subject to removals from
school.
United States Departments of Education and Justice - Joint Guidance for Meeting
Educational Needs of Incarcerated Youth
In December 2014, the United States Departments of Education and Justice published joint guidance
for State Education Agencies and State Attorneys General on meeting the educational needs of
incarcerated children/youth.36 This guidance stated that providing high quality correctional37
education to children/youth “is one of the most powerful—and cost-effective—levers we have to
33Pepper

Spray in Juvenile Facilities, CJCA, available on the web at: http://cjca.net/attachments/article/172/
CJCA.Issue.Brief.OCSpray.pdf.
34 OJJDP, “Meeting the Educational Needs of System-Involved Youth,” (Dec. 2014), available on the web at:
https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/commitment120814.pdf at 2-3 citing the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on
American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending Violence so Children Can Thrive, November
2014.
35
Teplin, L., Stokes, M., et al., Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the Literature, Jour.
Correct. Health Care (July 2015)
36
https://www.ojjdp.gov/programs/letter120814.pdf
37
The U.S. Departments of Education and Justice’s Dear Colleague letter to states provided no definition of correctional
facility but indicated that its reference therein referred to “juvenile justice facilities, detention facilities, jails, and prisons
where students with disabilities are, or may be confined.” Letter at 1, N. 1.
15

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

ensure that youth are successful once released and are able to avoid future contact with the justice
system.”38 The guidance recommended that facilities also ensure provision of post-secondary
correctional education, noting that such services can be supported by Federal Pell Grants, as a measure
to reduce recidivism.39
The Guidance included a Dear Colleague letter to states, which emphasized that “[a]bsent a specific
exception, all [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] protections apply to students with
disabilities in correctional facilities.”40 The guidance noted that “students with disabilities represent a
large portion of students in correctional facilities” and it “appears that not all students with disabilities
are receiving the special education and related services to which they are entitled.”41 The guidance
referred to numerous challenges such as “overcrowding, frequent transfers …, lack of teachers,
inability to address gaps in students’ education, and lack of collaboration with the [local school
district]” as contributing to the problem.42
The Dear Colleague letter included the following recommendations:












Every agency at any level of government that is involved in the provision of special
education and related services to students in correctional facilities must ensure the
provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), even if other agencies share
that responsibility.
States must have interagency agreements or other methods for ensuring interagency
coordination so that it is clear which agency or agencies are responsible for providing or
paying for services necessary to ensure FAPE for students with disabilities in correctional
facilities.
States and their public agencies must have child-find policies and procedures in place to
identify, locate, and evaluate students who in correctional facilities who may have a
disability under the IDEA and need special education and related services. This
responsibility includes students who have never been identified as having a disability prior
to their incarceration.
Students suspected of having a disability who need special education and related services
must be evaluated, subject to applicable parental consent requirements, in a timely
manner, even if the student will not be in the facility long enough to complete the
evaluation.
When a student with an IEP transfers to a correctional facility, the responsible public
agency must provide the student with FAPE through services that are comparable to
those described in these student’s IEP until that agency either adopts the previous
agency’s IEP or develops and implements a new IEP for the student.
The IDEA requirements related to least restrictive environment (LRE) apply to the
education of students with disabilities in correctional facilities. IEP teams or placement
teams must make individualized placement decisions and may not routinely place all

Id. pg. 1
Id. pg. 2.
40
Id. pg 1.
41
Id. pg. 2, citing evidence suggesting that “proper identification of students with disabilities, and the quality of education
services offered to students in these settings is often inadequate.”
42
Id.
38
39

16

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.





incarcerated students with disabilities in classes that include only students with disabilities,
even if this means creating placement options or using other arrangements, to the
maximum extent appropriate to the student’s needs.
Public agencies must comply with all applicable IDEA secondary transition requirements
to facilitate eligible students’ movement from secondary education in the correctional
facility to appropriate post-school activities.
IDEA due process protections apply to students in correctional facilities and to their
parents.
Any exclusion from the classroom is particularly harmful for students with disabilities in
correctional facilities. In general, even in the presence of disciplinary concerns, because
correctional facilities are run by public entities, their obligation to ensure that special
education and related services are provided to eligible students with disabilities continues.

A student with a disability in a correctional facility who violates a code of student conduct is entitled
to the protections in the IDEA discipline procedures that must be afforded to all students with
disabilities. These protections apply regardless of whether a student who violates a code of student
conduct is subject to discipline in the facility or removed to restricted settings, such as confinement
to the student’s cell or “lock down” units.
In any event, a removal from the current educational placement that results in a denial of educational
services for more than 10 consecutive school days, or a series of removals that constitute a pattern
that total more than 10 school days in a school year is a change in placement, which, in turn, requires
a manifestation determination under the IDEA. Such a change in placement requires the public agency
to a) provide services to the student to enable the student to continue to participate in the general
education curriculum and to progress toward meeting the goals in the student’s IEP; and (b) conduct,
as appropriate, a functional behavioral assessment and provide behavioral intervention services and
modifications that are designed to address the behavioral violation so that it does not recur.
E. ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING
The law provides that among others, a mandated reporter is “any person paid to care for a child in
any public or private facility, child care center, group child care home or family child care home
licensed by the state,” “any employee of the Department of Children and Families,” any “mental health
professional,” “physician,” “psychologist,” “nurse,” “school employee,” or a juvenile or adult
probation officer. Most, but not all employees/contractors in youth-serving facilities are mandated
reporters.
State law provides that certain individuals, due to the nature of their profession and interaction with
minors, are mandated to report to DCF or law enforcement when they have “reasonable cause to
suspect or believe that any child under the age of eighteen years (a) has been abused or neglected…,
(b) has had non-accidental physical injury, or injury which is at variance with the history given of such
injury… or (c) is placed at imminent risk of serious harm.”43 The law requires that suspicion must be
reported to DCF or local law enforcement within 12 hours, and a written follow up report must be
submitted within forty-eight hours.44 Any person who fails to make a report as required by law “shall
43
44

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-101c.
17

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

be guilty of a class A misdemeanor,” or a felony if the violation of law is deemed “willful or intentional
or due to gross negligence.”
There is no state law that requires youth-serving agencies to publish information regarding concerns
of abuse or neglect or associated corrective actions and no agency routinely reports such information.
F. ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT /FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”)
survey of families whose children are or have been in the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems
reveals wide-spread frustration and despair over families’ concern that they are not a meaningful part
of the legal and treatment decisions that affect their children’s lives, and that they are treated by
professionals in a way that made them feel “ashamed and guilty.” According to listening sessions
conducted by the OJJDP in 2011, families often feel disconnected from the judicial and legal decisionmaking process.45 The framework for visitation and family engagement with incarcerated youth varies
by agency. Many incarcerated youth do not receive visits. Many youth do not receive family therapy,
though most youth are released to a family member.
Families reported that they lacked information to help their children, and that they were treated by
professionals in a way that made them feel “ashamed and guilty.”46 The OJJDP followed publication
of its listening sessions with a policy statement regarding the need to actively engage system-involved
youth and their families in planning and decision-making that affects their lives through the
development of juvenile justice practices and policies, but also through direct involvement in the
development of each child’s treatment program while incarcerated.47 According to the OJJDP’s
survey:







86% of family members reported they would like to “be more involved in their child’s
treatment while he or she is confined in a correctional facility or not her residential
placement.”
75% of family members surveyed reported that they faced “serious impediments to visit
their children in placement, including lack of transportation options, living a great
distance from the facility, cost, limited visiting hours, restrictive visiting rules, or losing
visitation rights because their child was being disciplined.”
55% of family members reported that it “was difficult or impossible to contact staff to
ask how their child was doing or to receive information about their child’s progress or
safety.”
Only 32% of families reported “discussing release plans with juvenile justice system
personnel prior to their child’s release.”
100% of parents of children incarcerated in adult facilities stated that children should be
removed from adult jails and prisons. “Participants reported that inmates and prison
guards victimized their children and parents lost all of their parental rights to affect
decisions about their children once they entered the system.” Family members reported

OJJDP Family Listening Sessions, July 2013, found on the web: https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/241379.pdf.
Id.
47
https://www.ojjdp.gov/policyguidance/Youth-Family-Engagement/.
45
46

18

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

concerns that adult prisons do not offer adequate health care or educational opportunities
for children.
OJJDP also noted that families face many challenges to successful engagement with their children and
participation in their child’s treatment plan while incarcerated, such as a lack of institutional policies
that are culturally or linguistically competent, visitation barriers, and difficulty obtaining information
about their incarcerated child’s status.
OJJDP guidance cites research supporting the need for family involvement to help incarcerated youth
achieve better outcomes. The OJJDP-commissioned report by the National Research Council entitled
“Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach,” found that healthy adult relationships,
either with a parent or another adult, are an important and “protective buffer” for children.48
CASE STUDY - NATHAN49
Nathan, an African-American teenager from one of Connecticut’s urban communities, was 16 when he was
incarcerated at MYI on multiple felony charges.50 A review of Nathan’s story shows time after time that when
he needed or asked for help, he didn’t get it or didn’t get enough. Throughout his young life, Nathan’s family
was the subject of more than 16 reports to DCF alleging abuse and neglect of Nathan and other children in the
family home.51 Nathan first became involved with Juvenile Probation when he was 8 years old and he was the
subject of a Family with Service Needs Petition for “truancy.” By age 10, Nathan was placed on juvenile
probation after a charge for Breach of Peace for fighting.
By the time Nathan was 14 years old, he had been incarcerated in juvenile detention five times, with the 5th
admission lasting for more than 100 days — 90 days more than the average length of confinement for youth
detention. While in detention, Nathan presented with signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and he reported
being afraid of his peers. Nathan is a special education student with multiple clinical diagnoses, including
Borderline Intellectual Functioning, Conduct Disorder, ADHD, and enuresis (involuntary urination, especially
by children at night). In juvenile detention, Nathan struggled with behavioral control, suicidal ideation, peer
and staff relationships, and frequent refusal to engage in school. He was placed in room confinement or
physically restrained on multiple occasions.
Detention management attempted a variety of interventions for Nathan, including advising staff about
necessary precautions in addressing his behavior, instructing staff on how best to talk to Nathan, and learning
National Research Council, Bonnie, R., Johnson, R., et al, “Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach,” Committee
on Assessing Juvenile Justice Reform, Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and
Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
49
Pseudonyms are used for all youth referenced in this Report.
50
Robbery in the First Degree, Larceny in the Sixth Degree, Home Invasion and carrying a Dangerous Weapon (a BB
gun).
51
Reports were made to DCF in 2002 (2); 2006; 2007; 2009; 2010 (3); 2011; 2012; 2013; 2014; 2016; 2017; 2018 (2). When
Nathan was a baby, DCF substantiated neglect given concerns about how the children were being cared for in the home.
When Nathan was 6, DCF received a report that the children’s living conditions were poor and they were not attending
school, but the allegations were unsubstantiated and the case closed because DCF could not locate the family. When he
was 8, Nathan told an adult at school that his mother ties up his 6 year old sibling and puts tape over the 6 year old’s and
a baby sibling’s mouth as punishment and to keep the baby from crying. The children’s mother denied what Nathan was
trying to tell adults at school, and authorities did not substantiate the case. Reports of suspected abuse and neglect
continued for the next several years about Nathan and his siblings, including reports of physical abuse, substance abuse,
lack of housing, medical and education neglect, all without sustained intervention and help for Nathan. There were
significant untreated mental health issues with Nathan’s family.
48

19

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.
how to verbally prompt Nathan so he could understand facility expectations. Various safety measures were
taken for Nathan, and he was placed on multiple mental health precautions due to his statements about wanting
to harm himself, his repeated behavior of tying items around his neck, and his hoarding a sharp object to selfinjure. After more than 3 months in detention, Nathan was discharged to the Connecticut Juvenile Training
School (CJTS) – a secure juvenile correctional program for boys run by DCF. Nathan was adjudicated a Serious
Juvenile Offender and committed as a delinquent to DCF custody.
The CJTS admission notes for Nathan documented his difficulties in detention, and that he had been placed
on
suicide
watch
several
times
for
threatening
to
hurt
himself
or
others.
Nathan initially struggled at CJTS as well, and he experienced restraint and seclusion and sanctions on multiple
occasions. Nathan did have a period of time at CJTS where clinical notes indicated that he began to settle in
and engage more in counseling. However, he struggled again towards the end of his stay when there was no
clear discharge plan.
After 11 months at CJTS, Nathan was discharged to his father’s home. Nathan’s father, like his mother, had
previously been placed by DCF on the state’s Central Registry of child abusers due to DCF’s finding of a
“pattern of substantiated [maltreatment].” While Nathan was incarcerated at CJTS, his father participated in
only three family therapy sessions and he did not show up for the final two. During this time Nathan had a
hard time at CJTS as his anxiety around discharge and his fears that he would not be successful in the
community grew. Nathan heard through peer connections at CJTS that he might be targeted by peers in the
community, and on several occasions he asked staff if he could remain incarcerated and not go home.
Nathan was ultimately discharged to his father’s custody with DCF Parole Supervision and referrals for two
community-based services.52 Nathan did not participate actively in either service. Nathan quickly struggled in
the community, left his father’s home, and lived briefly with other relatives. His records show he gravitated
towards neighborhoods where he smoked marijuana, was at risk of escalating criminal behavior and of being
targeted and harmed by peers and adults. He did not initially attend school upon discharge, due to what his
record characterized as “issues with enrollment.”
Within 3 months of discharge from CJTS, Nathan was arrested again and this time he was transferred to the
adult prison system, incarcerated at the Department of Corrections’ Manson Youth Institution (MYI). Since
being incarcerated, Nathan has continued to struggle with behavioral control, suicidal ideation, and aggression,
and he has experienced multiple sanctions, including physical isolation for days at a time.
Due to fights with peers and other violations of facility directives, Nathan has been placed multiple times in
restrictive housing at MYI, on a sanction status called “Confined to Quarters (CTQ),” consisting of 23.5 hours
per day of isolated cell confinement and no access to school or rehabilitative programming.53 Nathan
accumulated over 70 days in CTQ isolation over 9 months. Despite Nathan’s history of substantial mental
health issues and current needs, a review of his record over a two month period where he was placed in isolation
on multiple occasions indicates that Nathan was primarily seen only for brief mental status checks and not for
individual therapy sessions or other clinical programming. Nathan remains incarcerated; he is 17 years old.
One night while on CTQ Nathan was seen standing on the cell’s bed with a sheet in his hand, threatening to
kill himself. He was admitted to the facility infirmary where an assessment note documented his agitation,
Multidimensional Family Therapy-Re-entry/Family Treatment (MDFT-RAFT) and Fostering Responsibility, Education
& Employment (FREE). The MDFT-RAFT program assists high-risk youth, ages 9-18, transitioning back to their
communities following a period of incarceration or placement. The program includes targeted approaches for adolescents
with a history of substance abuse and other behavioral issues. FREE programming includes an array of services to support
the adolescent’s growth in all areas of functioning: life skills and well-being, social, educational, vocational preparation,
and employment.
53
A youth may receive and complete worksheets on his own while in CTQ, but youth are not provided educational services.
52

20

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.
anxiety, and depression, but Nathan was ultimately deemed stable enough to return to isolation the following
day. A cell-side mental status check the next day documented that Nathan expressed apathy about being isolated
and about his own behavior. Mental health check-ins continued to be done with Nathan while he was in
restrictive housing, but were always conducted at his “cell door.”
In meetings attended by OCA staff, it was clear that Nathan is poorly regarded by correctional staff, who view
him as predatory and manipulative. Nathan has expressed willingness to connect with clinical professionals, but
struggles with untreated mental health issues that prevent him from making those meaningful connections.
Nathan has had limited programming while at MYI (OCA’s review found a poor programming utilization rate
for many boys at the facility), and according to staff the lack of participation is due in large part to his disciplinary
history,54 highlighting a fundamental concern in correctional facilities, where youth with untreated mental health
issues who exhibit angry or aggressive behaviors are afforded the least access to therapeutic interventions to
help reduce those behaviors and allow the youth to better engage in rehabilitative programs while incarcerated.
Like many other boys at MYI, Nathan has not had any family visits while incarcerated. Yet without a positive
relationship with a caring adult, intensive rehabilitative programming, staff support, pro-social opportunities
and access to education, Nathan, and other boys like him, cannot and will not develop the tools they need to
re-integrate successfully into the community.
Nathan’s trajectory is not representative of all youth served by the juvenile justice system, which successfully
serves or diverts many children from incarceration to community and family-based programs. However, many
children who move from juvenile detention into the adult prison system at a young age have stories like
Nathan’s — lengthy histories of abuse/neglect, poverty, exposure to violence, fractured or inadequate
education, several years of unmet and unrecognized needs, and ultimately escalating externalizing behaviors
that place themselves and others at substantial risk. As Connecticut continues to reform its juvenile and adult
criminal justice systems with an appropriate emphasis on prevention, diversion, and reduced reliance on
incarceration of children with lower-risk profiles, it will be imperative to better serve children like Nathan, and
ensure that the systems responsible for rehabilitating them have the philosophy, resources, and tools to provide
the help he and others so desperately need.

COURT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION
HARTFORD AND BRIDGEPORT DETENTION CENTERS
Connecticut juvenile courts have jurisdiction over children alleged to have committed crimes while
under age 18. A child who is arrested for a delinquent act may be sent to and kept in one of the state’s
two juvenile detention centers — secure holding facilities – per judicial order if the following statutory
criteria are met: there is probable cause to believe the child committed the delinquent act; no less
restrictive alternative is available; and a) the child poses a risk to public safety if released prior to the
court hearing; b) there is a need to hold the child to ensure his or her appearance in court; or c) there
is a need to hold the child for another jurisdiction.55 A formal risk assessment is administered in
detention to help determine the ongoing need to hold the child until a dispositional hearing is held. In
addition, the child may not be held for more than seven (7) days without a detention review hearing
to determine whether the grounds for detention are still met.56

Many youth at MYI are un-sentenced. Facility policies historically permitted un-sentenced youth to participate in
programming.
55
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-133.
56
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-133(j) provides that: “In the case of any child held in detention, the order to detain such child
shall be for a period that does not exceed seven days or until the dispositional hearing is held, whichever is shorter, unless,
54

21

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Historically, detention facilities held children only while the child was awaiting trial, i.e. prior to
adjudication for the delinquent act. If the child was adjudicated delinquent, the child could be
committed to the custody of the Department of Children and Families (DCF) to be housed or
confined in a DCF-licensed facility for 18 months (or possibly up to four years for serious juvenile
offenses)57 and provided with rehabilitation services.58 Pursuant to Public Act 17-2, as of July 1, 2018,
no child could be committed to DCF as a result of a delinquency adjudication. Jurisdiction to house
and serve delinquent youth was transferred via the Public Act to CSSD. The scope and spectrum of
support services for delinquent youth in the custody of CSSD was still being finalized during the
development of this Report, but such services will include community-based and congregate care
(group) programs (locked, staff-secure, and unlocked).
CSSD’s secure detention programs are located in Bridgeport and Hartford. CSSD contracts with
private providers for medical and mental health services. Bridgeport’s bed capacity is 84. Hartford’s
bed capacity is 88. The average daily population for fiscal year 2016-2017 was 26 youth for Bridgeport
and 22 for Hartford. The average length of stay in Hartford was 10.8 days (range of 0 – 61); the average
length of stay in Bridgeport was 11.3 days (range 0-114).




During the PUR (July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017) there were 1384 detention
admissions/885 unique youth in the two state detention facilities, and the average length
of confinement was between 10 and 11 days.
For fiscal year 2017 the ages of youth admitted are as follows: 1 youth 10 years old and
under; 12 youth between 11-12years old; 82 youth 13 years old; 147 youth 14 years old;
317 youth 15 years old; 395 youth 16 years old; 401 youth 17 years old and 36 youth 18
years and older.
Unique Juveniles Admitted to Detention by Race and Ethnicity for FY 2017
Black
378
Black/African American
378
Hispanic/Latino
293
American Indian/Alaskan Native
1
Black/African American
67
Unknown
51
White
174
Other
2
American Indian/Alaskan Native
2
White
166
White
166
Grand Total
839

following a detention review hearing, such order is renewed for a period that does not exceed seven days or until the
dispositional hearing is held, whichever is shorter.”
57
State law designates numerous felonies as Serious Juvenile Offenses (“SJO”). Certain offenses may lead the juvenile to
be transferred to the adult criminal court. Other offenses may still be adjudicated in the juvenile court. Historically,
juveniles adjudicated as SJOs in juvenile court were subject to DCF commitment for up to four years.
58
A child may also be placed by the Court on probation, subject to conditions of probation, or the Court may order other
non-custodial dispositional options. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-140(b).
22

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.



Discharge data – During the PUR there were 705 discharges home; 61 discharges to CJTS; 130
to DCF care; 99 discharges to community-based congregate care; 78 discharges to the DOC
(74 to MYI and 4 to YCI); 243 youth were transferred between CSSD facilities; 16 transfers to
the Albert J. Solnit Psychiatric Center — a campus of in-patient and sub-acute beds operated
by DCF. 59

A. SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION
CSSD provided the OCA with requested data as well as their policies, procedures, and audits for the PUR of
July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017.
Bridgeport Detention Admissions: During the PUR there were 751 Detention Admissions. Of the 751
admissions, there were 491 unique individuals detained (403 boys and 88 girls).
Hartford Detention Admissions: During the PUR there were 633 Detention Admissions. Of the 633
admissions, there were 394 unique individuals served (320 boys and 74 girls).
CSSD provided the following information in response to OCA’s inquiry into incidences of suicidal behavior
and self-harm during the PUR:
Mental Health Monitoring and Suicide Prevention in the Detention Facilities
The detention centers’ suicide prevention policy in effect for fiscal year 2016-2017 outlines three types
of distinct monitoring stages:
1. Mental Health Monitoring: A stage used for a juvenile who presents with risk factors
for suicide, but who is not considered actively or potentially suicidal.60 During this stage,
a staff member monitors the safety and well-being of the juvenile on a random staggered
schedule of observation,61 in which observations are no more than 4 minutes62 apart when
the juvenile is in his or her room and 15 minutes apart when the juvenile is outside the
room. During the PUR there were 910 incidents of youth placed on Mental Health
Monitoring. (See chart below for a breakdown of incidents/individual youth.)
2. Suicide Watch: A stage in CSSD’s monitoring of a juvenile who is potentially suicidal
and/or presents with factors that result in increased risk for self-injurious or suicidal
Transferred to Solnit on suspended detention order and “released” upon return to court.
Type of behavior that lead to Mental Health Monitoring Status in Juvenile Detention: Juveniles with a history of psychiatric
hospitalization, mental health treatment/diagnosis, and/or psychotropic medication; Juveniles with a history of a family member
who has attempted/completed suicide; Juveniles with a history of significant trauma or loss; Juveniles with a history of one incident
in which they engaged in self-injurious behavior, but only if the incident occurred more than 30 days ago and no medical care of
psychiatric hospitalization resulted from the behavior; Juveniles who refuse to or are unable to participate during the intake process
such that they fail to appropriately answer questions or complete screening instruments needed to assess their current level of safety;
Juveniles with a history of homicidal ideation; Any other reason to cause staff concern not related to suicidal or self-injurious
ideation or intent.
61
National Commission on Correctional Health Care standards emphasize the need for staggered, unpredictable monitoring of atrisk youth in confinement, writing that “precise 15 minute observation periods are not in compliance with NCCHC standards.”
https://www.ncchc.org/spotlight-on-the-standards-26-1.
62
Four minute watches are recommended by juvenile correctional suicide prevention experts who explain that “brain damage from
strangulation caused by a suicide attempt can occur within 4 minutes and death often within 5 to 6 minutes.” Hayes, L., Guide to
Developing and Revising Suicide Prevention Protocols within Jails and Prisons, pg. 5, National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (2011).
59
60

23

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

behavior.63 During this stage, a staff member monitors the safety and well-being of the
juvenile on a random, staggered schedule of observation in which observations are no
more than 4 minutes apart when [youth is] in their room and 15 minutes when outside
the room. Unlike Mental Health Monitoring, on this heightened status, if the juvenile is
placed in a room alone for disciplinary reasons unrelated to suicidal behavior, Constant
Observation is required until the juvenile leaves the room or the disciplinary action has
expired. During the PUR there were 668 incidents of youth placed on Suicide Watch
Status in the detention facilities.
3. Constant Observation: A stage in the monitoring of an actively suicidal juvenile in
which there is direct visual observation of a juvenile’s safety and behavior on a continuous
and uninterrupted basis.64 This observation is conducted from within an arm’s length of
the juvenile. This observation must be performed without electronic devices, and a staff
member must maintain a clear and unobstructed view of the juvenile at all times. There
were 41 occurrences of Constant Observation of actively suicidal youth during the PUR
in the detention facilities.
Number of Monitoring Precautions
July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 by Detention Facility
Facility
Bridgeport
Hartford

Unique Juveniles
Occurrences
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

Mental Health Monitoring
362 (307 M/55 F)
536 (462 M/74 F)
231 (183 M/ 48 F)
374 (321 M/ 53 F)

Suicide Watch
215 (146 M/69 F)
339 (228 M/111F)
190 (121 M/69 F)
329 (220 M/ 109 F)

Constant Observation
7 (2 M/5 F)
8 (3 M/ 5 F)
17 (7 M/ 10 F)
33 (13 M/ 20 F)

All Precautions***

Suicidal Behaviors**65
Facility

Unique Juveniles

Percent*

Unique Juveniles

Percent*

Bridgeport

215 (155 M/ 60 F)

44%

473 (393 M/ 80 F)

96% (80% M)

Hartford

191 (140 M/ 51 F)

49%

366 (301 M/ 65 F)

93% ( 76% M)

Type of behavior leading to Suicide Watch Status in Juvenile Detention: Juveniles who score at risk on the Suicidal Ideation
Questionnaire; Juveniles who score Caution or Warning on the MAYSI-2 Suicide Ideation Scale; Parent, guardian, or other report
of juvenile suicide risk; Juveniles with a history of suicide ideation or attempt; Juveniles who have engaged in self-injurious behavior
in the past 30 days or report a history of two or more incidents of self-injury or one incident that resulted in the need for medical
care or psychiatric hospitalization; Any statements made or observations noted during the intake process or to the transporting
officer, indicating that the juvenile is a potential suicide risk; Any other reason causing staff concern related to potentially suicidal
behavior.
64
Type of behavior leading to Constant Observation Status in Juvenile Detention: Juveniles who are currently making verbal threats
of suicide with or without a plan; Juveniles verbalizing current homicidal ideation; Juveniles who are actively engaging in selfinjurious and/or suicidal behavior.
65
*Percentage based on total unique juveniles served during time frame. A juvenile may be counted in more than one category
during a detention stay.
**The “Suicidal Behaviors” includes juveniles on Suicide Watch or Constant Observation due to potential or active suicidal
behaviors while in detention.
***The “All Precautions” includes all three of the precautions (Mental Health Monitoring, Suicide Watch, and Constant
Observation) to provide the number of juveniles presenting with any risk for suicide.
63

24

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Screening
CSSD reported a policy revision, effective September 1, 2017, which requires administration of the
Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) to all youth admitted to detention, an evidencesupported tool that includes a series of questions used to prevent suicide. The C-SSRS is administered
by multiple clinical and non-clinical staff at multiple checkpoints throughout the screening process.
Prior to September 1, 2017, the Suicide Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) was utilized.
Quality Assurance for Suicide Prevention
CSSD ensures that the medical/mental health provisions of the agency’s suicide screening policy are
monitored on a quarterly basis utilizing an audit tool agreed upon by CSSD and outside auditors. The
audit tool examines actual occurrences of juveniles identified as a suicide risk or in need of enhanced
monitoring and evaluates CSSD staff’s adherence to agency policies related to monitoring and
communication. CSSD also participates in an annual physical plant inspection. CSSD provided OCA
with the results of the most recent audits conducted during the PUR which audit demonstrated that
staff were substantially in compliance with agency practices. A Response to Suicide Prevention Plan
is required within thirty days by each facility upon receipt of the physical plant Audit. The Plan is a
response to the recommendations in the report as to how the facility will ensure the safety of juveniles.
The physical plant inspection reports are reviewed by all levels of Juvenile Detention staff so they are
aware of the inherent risks in the facility.
B. USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION- RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
As previously discussed, there is a general prohibition on the use of solitary confinement (undefined)
in detention facilities, and there is no state law addressing use of force or restraint. CSSD policy
directives govern the use of room confinement, and physical and mechanical restraint in detention
centers.
Physical Intervention (Emergency) is defined in CSSD policy as the application of approved
techniques by a trained staff member to physically hold a juvenile who is out of control or harming
themselves.
Chemical Restraint CSSD policy does not permit the use of chemical agents with juveniles.
Safe Crisis Management is defined as an approved physical intervention technique utilized by
hazardous duty employees.
Mechanical Restraint is defined in CSSD policy as “any CSSD issued restraining device (metal or
nylon handcuffs, belly chains, and/or leg irons).” Use of leg irons depends on whether the youth is
deemed an escape risk. Use of belly chains is only permitted when the youth has a pending Class A
felony charge.
Physical Isolation/Restricted to Room is defined in CSSD policy as “an intervention that involves
the temporary placement of a juvenile in the juvenile’s room as part of Progressive Facility Reintegration with the exception of school, meals, medical care, visits, phone calls, showers and one (1)
hour of large muscle exercise daily.” CSSD policies permit the use of room restriction as a disciplinary
25

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

response and as an emergency intervention for youth who become an “imminent threat to the safety
and security of the facility.”
CSSD revised its Positive Behavior Motivation Program Policy in 2017 to shorten the maximum
number of hours of room restriction allowed. The maximum restriction of 24 hours for significant
behavior violations (assault, destruction of property) was shortened to of 12 hours. Minor violations
now result in a maximum of 4 hours of room restriction.
Documentation. CSSD requires that an incident report be generated to explain the incident and
progressive discipline must be attempted prior to the use of room restriction. There must also be
documentation of a follow-up assessment of the youth, with three levels of administrative approval
regarding proper use of room restriction, which includes supervisory review of the incident report and
any videotape that may be relevant to the incident. Youth are permitted to come out of the room for
school, meals, medical care, visits, showers, and exercise. Monthly meetings held by the facility
superintendents incorporate review of a variety of performance measures, including the use of
discipline and room restriction.
Reducing Reliance on Isolation. CSSD has reported recent work with the nationally-focused
Center for Children’s Law and Policy (CCLP) on a Stop Solitary for Kids initiative, part of a campaign to
end solitary confinement of youth in juvenile and adult facilities. The CCLP piloted a Room
Confinement Assessment Tool (RCAT) at the Hartford and Bridgeport Detention Centers to assist
in further decreasing reliance on room confinement in the facilities.
Training. CSSD staff are trained in the Safe Crisis Management66 curriculum at the time of hiring
and all staff must pass the SCM “skill-out” after pre-service training and annually thereafter.
Number of Physical Interventions
for the 6 month period between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017 by Detention Facility
Facility
Bridgeport
Hartford

Physical Interventions
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

23 (21 M/ 2 F)
42 ( 40 M/ 2 F)
27 ( 26 M/ 1 F)
37 (36 M/ 1 F)

Percentage of Juveniles
who had a Physical
Intervention
9%
14%

Mechanical Restraint of Minors. CSSD reported to OCA that “there were no mechanical restraints due
to an ‘incident’ during the time frame,” but that “all juveniles are mechanically restrained during transport.”

Safe Crisis Management is a curriculum designed to teach correctional facility staff members how to prevent and respond
to crises. According to its website, “Safe Crisis Management® “SCM” is a comprehensive training program focused on
preventing and managing crisis events, and improving safety in agencies and schools. Safe Crisis Management has a traumasensitive approach with emphasis on building positive relationships with individuals. Our program is designed to assist
staff with responding to the needs of all individuals and particularly with the needs of the most challenging.” Training
information found on the web at: http://www.jkmtraining.com/.
66

26

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

According to CSSD, detention staff recommends the type, if any, of mechanical restraints for purposes of
going to court, and the judge accepts the recommendation or overrides it in accordance with the Use of
Mechanical Restraints in the Juvenile Courtroom policy. Per CSSD, there were 57 occurrences of juveniles
wearing mechanical restraints in court from January 1, 2017 to June 30, 2017. Per CSSD data, ninety-six
percent (96%) of juveniles who appeared in court did not have any mechanical restraints.
PHYSICAL ISOLATION OF MINORS CONFINED IN CSSD FACILITIES (Restricted to Room
data for the 6 month period between January 1, 2017 and June 30, 2017 by Detention Facility)
Facility
Bridgeport
Hartford

Percentage of juveniles
Restricted to Room

Restricted to Room
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

39 (32 M/ 7 F)
93 (80 M/ 13 F)
36 (35 M/ 1F)
75 ( 74 M/ 1 F)

15%
19%

*Percentage is based on total unique juveniles served during the time frame.
Range of Hours of Restriction to Room
by Number of Occurrences and Detention Facility
Room Restriction
(Hours)
1-2
3-5
6+

Bridgeport

Hartford

62 (51 M/ 11 F)
16 (16M/ 0 F)
15 (13 M/ 2)

57 (55 M/2 F)
15 (all M)
3 (all M)

Bridgeport Detention: The average length of time Juveniles are restricted to room is 3.41 hours.
Hartford Detention: The average length of time Juveniles are restricted to room is 2.40 hours.

Number of Unique Juveniles
Restricted to Room

Average Number of
Hours

Number of Juveniles

CSSD shared the following data that depicts a significant decline over the past 5 years in the number of
juveniles placed on room restriction, as well as the length of time spent on room restriction further
decreased since revisions to policy and procedure were made in January, 2017.

600
400
200
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Average Length of Time Juveniles
Spent
Restricted to Room (hours)
15
10
5
0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

OCA Review of Selected Detained Youth Records
OCA examined the complete detention records of a small sample (6) of youth housed in detention
facilities to review practices and documentation regarding room-confinement, restraint and
27

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

documentation regarding mental health service delivery. An additional sampling of records, (12) were
reviewed during site visits for information regarding programming, treatment and access to education.
The 6 youth records selected for complete review were those of youth known to OCA to have
extensive behavioral health needs. OCA found that CSSD policies regarding documentation of
incidents involving restraint and seclusion and required incident review were followed and
documentation appeared complete.
OCA’s record review revealed the potential for room confinement/physical isolation of juveniles who
are designated as a Security Risk by the agency, or identified as needing to have an Individual
Program Plan (IPP). According to CSSD policy:
Security Risk Group (“SRG”): A specifically designated group of juveniles possessing common
characteristics, which serve to distinguish them from other juveniles or groups of juveniles, and which,
as a discrete entity, pose a threat to the safety of staff, the Detention Center, other juveniles, or the
community.
OCA learned that CSSD policy provides that a youth designated as SRG may be placed in a unit or
appropriate location in the facility “in accordance with the juvenile’s Individual Program Plan (see
below).” The policy requires room searches three times per week, in-room checks every 15 minutes,
and “living breathing flesh” must be observed during cell checks. Youth on SRG do not attend school
but are provided packets of work while confined. Youth on SRG are not permitted to engage in
activities with other youth and they are allowed large muscle “recreation” for one hour per day in a
“controlled area.”
An Individual Program Plan (IPP) is a “document developed by a CSSD multi-disciplinary team to
address specific juvenile behaviors and re-integrate the juvenile into the detention population.”67 The
IPP will include the number of restricted movement/confinement days, the location of the juvenile
during the IPP, what programming/education the youth will have, and what the restorative justice
plan will be. Progression with the IPP is “based on compliance.” The youth will be permitted to rejoin
the general population at the completion of the IPP.
OCA’s youth-specific record review found that youth can have an IPP or be on IPP status without
also being on designated SRG status. Both having an IPP and/or being designated SRG result in
marked limitation of movement and access to programming. In follow-up of this discovery, OCA
requested additional data from CSSD about the number of youth who had been placed on SRG status
or who had an IPP during a recent 24-month period. CSSD reported that only one (1) youth had
been placed on SRG during that time period and they were unable to provide data on youth assigned
an IPP, as that information was not tracked in CMIS. OCA’s review of the 6 records revealed an
additional youth in CSSD custody during this period that had been designated SRG, leading to
concerns regarding the documentation and reporting of SRG status.
OCA’s case review highlighted the challenges that youth experience when in detention for prolonged
periods. These youth are also more likely to be placed on different levels of mental health monitoring
and restricted status.

67

CSSD policy Section 8.307.
28

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

OCA could not determine
how many youth were isolated
or subjected to restricted
environment/movement due
to SRG designation or IPP
status given the lack of
available data regarding youth
with IPPs.
health treatment needs.

OCA finds that while documentation in individual youth’s
detention records reflected adherence to agency policies
regarding emergency interventions, OCA did not see
substantial documentation regarding what interventions,
therapeutic or behavioral, were implemented to assist youth
who were more frequently restrained or confined to their
rooms. A youth may have a special needs plan developed, but
the records reviewed did not consistently reflect
development of a clinical treatment plan, despite the fact that
several of the youth had significantly longer stays in
detention, more frequent admissions, and extensive mental

C. ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
CSSD’s health care continuum within the juvenile detention centers includes a contracted pharmacy,
regionalized dental and oral surgeon services, a pediatrician, psychiatrist, psychiatric APRN, and
licensed clinical social workers. The juvenile detention centers provide, through contract, the following
services to detained youth:








Licensed clinical assessment and evaluation;
Crisis intervention and mental status assessment;
Access to care/sick call request support;
Evidence-based substance use intervention - MI/CBT;
Psychiatric evaluation and psychotropic medication management;
Emergency evaluation and Physician Emergency Certificate (PEC) authorization;
Referral to higher level of care/inpatient services such as an emergency department or
direct admission to Yale New Haven Hospital.

29

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Data is collected on the aforementioned services through Performance Based Measures (PBM)
reporting, an Electronic Medical Record, and clinical logs documented by mental health staff.
Screening and Evaluation in the Detention Centers
CSSD reported that all children are assessed at intake by a qualified mental health professional. During
this mental health intake
CASE STUDY - - Tiffany
process, children are provided
a DSM 5 diagnosis and a plan Tiffany is an example of a youth who experienced several admissions to
of care is developed where detention and was subject to various levels of monitoring.
appropriate. The Plan of Care
Tiffany was substantiated as a victim of child abuse and sexual assault. As a
includes but is not limited to:
child committed to DCF, she experienced multiple disruptions in placement













from foster homes, residential settings and inpatient settings. She was clinically
assessed over the years to have reactive attachment disorder, complex trauma
Special Needs Plan
and persistent depression.
which identifies
mental health
Tiffany was admitted to detention on 3 separate occasions in 2016 and 2017,
concerns and facility
the first 2016 admission she was detained for 34 days, the subsequent admission
accommodations
was for 3 days and her last admission was for 91 days. Tiffany’s initial admission
to detention in 2016 stemmed from an incident in a therapeutic residential
necessary to address
program resulting in multiple charges (Assault 3rd Degree, Disorderly Conduct
the concerns;
and Interfering with Officer/resisting). She was subsequently hospitalized at
Referral to Psychiatric
Solnit for over a year and was then returned to detention for 3 days from Solnit
APRN or Psychiatrist
after being charged with assaulting a peer at the hospital. She returned to Solnit
and was readmitted again to detention on charges related to assault on a hospital
for psychiatric
staff.
consultation and
medication
Review of Tiffany’s detention records revealed that while detained, she was
management, if
frequently very emotionally dysregulated, aggressive towards peers and staff,
clinically indicated;
and experiencing suicidal ideation and self-injurious behaviors. Tiffany was
subject to multiple physical restraints and frequent room confinement. Her
Placement of child on
unsafe behaviors resulted in multiple trips to the ED and ultimately the lengthy
appropriate mental
in-patient admission at Solnit.
health precaution
status;
Tiffany was placed on an Individual Program Plan (“IPP”) on at least 3 separate
occasions. During this time, she was restricted from participating in school and
Schedule of follow-up
any therapeutic group activities for multiple days at a time. While on restriction,
mental health sessions
Tiffany did have regular check-ins with her counselor and mental health staff,
with children, which
but her detention support plan was not a comprehensive treatment plan
vary in accordance
designed to address her unmet needs and complex trauma history.
with clinical acuity
In reviewing
Kate’s observation);
detention record, OCA had additional questions and
(daily if placed on suicide watch
or constant
concerns about IPPs and whether they achieved the goal of assisting youth
Referral to higher level of care
(Emergency
Department
to
presenting
with challenging
behaviorororDirect
serve asAdmission
a behavior management
tool
Inpatient Unit) by mental health
staff,
if
clinically
indicated;
with no meaningful therapeutic value.
Additional referrals to health care specialists outside of detention, as clinically
appropriate;
Daily interdisciplinary team meetings with facility staff, and weekly special needs
meetings;
Weekly psychiatric team meetings with mental health and medical staff.

Mental health consultants are available on site in the detention centers Monday- Friday: 8:30am - 7:00
pm and Saturday and Sunday: 9:00 am -5:00 pm. Hours may vary if clinically indicated or if an
30

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

emergency arises. Remote consultation from a licensed qualified mental health professional is
available 24/7.
Utilization of Mental Health Services by Detained Youth for the 6 month period between January 1,
2017 and June 30, 2017
As stated above, CSSD reports that every youth is seen by medical and mental health staff during his/her
admission to detention. Some newly admitted youth may go directly to court in the morning before being
seen. If they return, they are seen as soon as possible. There are some youth who are subsequently released in
under 24 hours and may not be seen.
Hartford PBM Data
Type
Initial MHC68
Initial MD69
Follow Ups70
ED
Type
Initial MHC
Initial MD
Follow Ups
ED
Type
Initial MHC
Initial MD
Follow Ups
ED71

January
34
21
68
0
Feb
32
26
45
0
March
33
27
50
1

Bridgeport PBM Data
April
45
27
107
0
May
36
24
77
0
June
33
39
109
0

January
34
21
68
0
Feb
38
19
70
0
March
64
34
134
0

April
49
28
127
0
May
51
24
87
0
June
51
16
87
0

Initial MHC - This refers to all Mental Health Consultant Initial Intakes and Re-Admission Intakes completed on every juvenile
entering a JRS/Detention Facility.
69
Initial MD - This is defined as all Psychiatrist and Psychiatric APRN Initial Intakes and Re-Admission Intakes completed on
every juvenile entering a JRS/Detention Facility.
70
Follow Ups - This includes any mental health related follow up session or consultation provided by a Qualified Mental Health
Provider (Mental Health Consultant, Psychiatrist, or Psychiatric APRN). Examples of follow up sessions are: precaution
management, non-acute/routine, MI/CBT, sick call request, behavior motivation follow up, medication management, and postprecaution removal.
71
ED - This refers to a higher level of care referral to an Emergency Department or Hospital Unit via Direct Admission specifically
for Mental Health Reason(s).
68

31

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

In response to OCA’s inquiry of CSSD regarding youth referred from detention to the Emergency
Department for mental health concerns, CSSD initially responded that 1 youth had been referred during the
6 month period (January 2017-June 30, 2017). Subsequent record review revealed several additional youth
who were transported for acute mental health issues for the PUR (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017).
CASE STUDY – EDGAR
Edgar age 17, was admitted for the 6th time to Hartford detention in August 2016. He remained in custody this
particular admission until November 2016, significantly longer than the average length of confinement. Edgar’s social
history is significant for a lengthy history of abuse and neglect and exposure to domestic violence and sexual abuse in
his home. He had previously been placed in foster care.
In 2016 he was living with his mother and siblings. Edgar is a special education student. Edgar’s 2016 detention record
indicates that he struggled during his confinement, frequently acting out toward staff and others. Detention staff were
concerned about Edgar’s mental health. They noted his “bizarre” behaviors and flat affect and observed that Edgar
at times mumbled to himself and seemed paranoid. He often seemed agitated and minimally engaged with others. As
his paranoia increased, he became more assaultive and unsafe toward staff and peers, although he spoke so softly he
was often asked to repeat himself to be understood.
After several weeks in detention, there was a note in Edgar’s record that a clinical consultation should take place with
Solnit Psychiatric Center due to staffs’ concerns about his presentation. Clinical notes suggest that this consultation
did not take place as it was not approved by the court.
Pursuant to CSSD policy, Edgar should have been placed on a Special Needs Plan due to his paranoia and
hypervigilance. However, the Special Needs Plan was not found in Edgar’s detention record. During this admission,
Edgar was restrained on several occasions due to assaultive behavior with peers and staff. On at least two occasions,
he was placed on 48 hours of room confinement, during which time he was not permitted to participate in school
(although his record indicates that he did some school work while on room confinement). The record indicates that
mental health staff did brief check in’s with him during this confinement. Edgar was also placed on SRG status due
to his aggressive behaviors towards others. While on SRG status for multiple days, he was removed from the
population and was not participating in school or programming.
Throughout his stay in detention, Edgar continued to struggle with engagement and peer conflicts. He was eventually
discharged for his first and only admission to CJTS in November 2116 where he remained until April 2018. Shortly
after discharge from CJTS, he was rearrested on additional juvenile delinquency charges. He is currently psychiatrically
hospitalized for “competency restoration”.
There are many youth like Edgar who are trapped in a cycle of delinquency and justice-involvement, in no small part
due to a profound history of deprivation, child abuse and neglect, fractured service delivery, and resulting multi-focal
treatment needs. Our system as a whole needs to improve its ability to 1) identify children like Edgar earlier and 2)
assess and treat them within the context of community and family relationships.

As stated elsewhere in this report, CSSD detention facilities are intended as short-term custodial
settings. A challenge for CSSD is how best to meet the needs of youth who present with complex
mental health treatment needs while in custody and whose length of stay will likely significantly exceed
the average stay of a youth in custody or who will likely return to detention multiple times.
OCA found it difficult to determine youth participation in rehabilitative programming through review
of records. Clinical notes and youth meetings with counselors were documented in the Case
Management Information System (CMIS). CSSD was unable to provide utilization data on
rehabilitative programming within the detention centers. They reported that data on group
programming is a new function that is being programmed into CMIS.
32

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

D. ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
CSSD reported that dedicated education space is provided in each detention center, and all
juveniles are made available to participate in the education program in a timely manner. CSSD
ensures that comprehensive education programs and related services are provided by qualified
education agencies in compliance with federal and state requirements regarding assessments,
curriculum, and attendance.
Consistent with C.G.S. § 10-253, the local education agency (LEA) for the location of a detention
center has been responsible for the provision of education in the center. It should be noted that
CREC was the education provider at Hartford Detention during FY 2016-2017. CREC notified
Hartford Public Schools that it could no longer sustain a program at the facility for FY 2017-2018
given the low number of juveniles. Hartford Public Schools has contracted with DOMUS to provide
education in the facility. DOMUS began providing education on September 5, 2017.
Bridgeport Public Schools has continued as the education provider at the Bridgeport Detention
Center. CSSD reported to OCA that during this PUR (FY 2016-2017) that they communicated several
program concerns to the Bridgeport Board of Education and Bridgeport Public Schools has instituted
several program improvements for FY 2017-2018 (e.g., increased administrative oversight, oversight
by a special education administrator, child-find procedures, weekly social worker, and an additional
half-time teacher).
CSSD additionally reported that both detention facilities have implemented the Positive Behavior
Intervention and Support (PBIS) framework through which academic and behavioral outcomes are
improved by making positive behavior more desired and rewarding.
CSSD considers disciplinary issues to be school-related if they occur Monday through Friday, between
the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., between September and May. “School-related discipline” only
describes discipline wherein the youth is removed from school. Juvenile detention staff are
responsible for the safety and security of the youth at all times. Detention staff are currently
responsible for removing youth from school due to behavior problems. CSSD administration shared
with OCA that they are currently reviewing the role of the Juvenile Detention Officer, as it relates to
school and school-related discipline, to determine if the educational staff should instead be in charge
of removing children from school for behavioral issues.
Any discipline that lasts 90 minutes or more is considered an out-of-school suspension as a matter of
state law. Any child who is suspended is provided work to do in a space outside the classroom (either
in a designated space on the education wing or on the child’s housing unit). CSSD provided:
Duration of Out of School Suspension by Occurrences and Unique Juveniles
(September 1, 2016 – May 31, 2017)
Facility
Bridgeport

1.5-3.33 Hours 3.35-5 Hours
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

21
31

8
9
33

5.01-8.33
Hours
25
36

8.35
Hours+
4
5

Total
Juveniles
58
81

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Hartford

Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

14
17

6
6

5
7

3
3

28
33

All juveniles attended school during the time period. Below is a chart that shows the percentage of
juveniles suspended out of school compared to all juveniles.
Facility
Bridgeport
Hartford

Unique Juveniles with
Out of School Suspension
58
28

% of Total Population
12%
7%

OCA review of attendance/discipline data from CREC/DOMUS, and Bridgeport Public
Schools Bridgeport Public Schools (BPS) reported to OCA that “there were no instances of
suspension, removal from school programming, or instances where youth were not permitted to
attend school due to safety reasons.” BPS also provided OCA with a memo outlining procedures to
be followed at the Detention Center regarding identification of youth who are eligible or potentially
eligible for special education services. The memo outlines the details of BPS’ child-find procedures,
including the referral and testing process, and notes that a PPT must be scheduled within 2 weeks.
Data from CSSD regarding attendance and discipline conflicted with data provided by BPS, although
this discrepancy may be due to the fact that detention staff are responsible for monitoring youth
behavior in school and conducting classroom removals when deemed necessary. However, it is
important for BPS officials to document any school removal to ensure accurate attendance
information. As stated above, CSSD indicated that it is re-evaluating this practice going forward.
For Hartford Detention, CREC reported to OCA that it had no attendance data and that any relevant
attendance and discipline data would be discoverable from each individual student’s school district. 72
CREC, like BPS, stated that it did not suspend students from school. The new provider, DOMUS,
reported that from September 2017 (beyond the original PUR for OCA’s report), the total
unduplicated number of students served was 211. DOMUS also reported that it does not suspend
students. Hartford’s corporation counsel reported to OCA that many students in the Hartford
Detention Center are already identified as receiving special education services prior to arriving in
detention and the students’ IEPs are requested from sending districts. When necessary, a referral for
special education evaluation is made, although the attorney noted that the detention center typically
does not have students long enough to complete the full referral process. Sending districts are
therefore notified if the detention center has begun the referral process or if it is believed that a referral
for special education evaluation is necessary based on screening protocol.
OCA Review of Youth –Specific Records
Detention records reviewed by the OCA revealed that youth exhibiting disruptive or dysregulated
behaviors are initially removed from school by detention staff for shorter periods with a progressive
increase in time removed from the classroom based on the youth’s continued presentation and
behavior. OCA did find that youth who are sanctioned with “room confinement” are generally
Hartford’s corporation counsel reported to OCA that as CREC was no longer providing services to the detention center
the city’s contract with the vendor which provided the electronic reporting system was terminated and all information was
forwarded to the school districts as part of the students’ files.
72

34

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

permitted to attend a school so long as they are not engaged in unsafe behaviors, with some exceptions
for certain youth on longer-term confinement (Edgar, for example, did not attend school when he
was placed on 48 hours of room confinement). Detention records did not include educational
information or educational case plans. OCA did not make a separate request for any full educational
records for detained youth for the purpose of this review.
During the course of this review, CSSD administrators reported to OCA that “Every effort is made
to have all juveniles safely attend the education program daily. Juveniles designated as a security risk
and who display aggressive/unsafe behavior will be provided alternative educational programming by
the education provider. This work can be completed on the housing unit or in another area of the
facility deemed appropriate.”
As previously described, designation of SRG results in marked limitation on youth’s movement and
access to group programming. OCA’s review of the records of the 2 youths found to be on SRG/IPP
status revealed that they did not attend school while on restricted status, but that work packets were
provided to the youth on the unit. One to one tutoring was not provided.73
E. ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING IN DETENTION CENTERS

All juvenile detention officers, supervisory, management
official and professionals staff at detention facilities are
mandated reporters.
CSSD initially reported to OCA that all agency
contractors are required to report abuse or neglect, but
upon further discussion CSSD administrators stated that
the contracted Ombudsman was not expected to
function as a mandated reporter, but noted that at “any
time the Ombudsman can request that detention staff
submit a [report of suspected abuse or neglect] to DCF.”

DCF records indicate that there were
12 reports of suspected abuse or
neglect of minors confined in the
Hartford and Bridgeport Juvenile
Detention Centers between January
1, 2015 and December, 2017 that
were accepted by DCF for
investigation. DCF substantiated 1
of 12 of these reports as constituting
abuse or neglect.

The 12 reports made between 2015
and 2017 contained various allegations of abuse or neglect including sexual abuse of girls detained in
the facilities; physical abuse of children through inappropriate use of force, and physical neglect of
children.
Reports were made to DCF by various individuals: mental health professionals, law enforcement,
detention management, and detention/probation staff members. There were no reports of suspected
child abuse/neglect to DCF from the CSSD-contracted youth ombudsman.
In 2017 there were 4 reports to DCF alleging wrongful sexual exploitation/abuse of incarcerated girls
by detention employees. One of these reports was substantiated by DCF.


73

February, 2017 Hartford Detention. Report made by DCF staff member regarding
allegation of sexual abuse by unknown detention staff. The report was investigated by
DCF and unsubstantiated.

The lack of tutoring was confirmed by CSSD administrators in correspondence with the OCA.
35

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.






March, 2017 Bridgeport Detention. Report made by facility superintendent regarding
suspected sexual exploitation of a girl by Juvenile Detention Officer. Multiple children
were interviewed but all denied sexual exploitation or knowledge thereof. The allegations
were not substantiated, but DCF identified concerns regarding the detention officer’s
misuse of CSSD computers for personal or other inappropriate purposes. The Judicial
Branch terminated the employee.
August, 2017 Hartford Detention. Report made by mental health professional alleging
possible sexual abuse of female detainee by a Juvenile Detention Officer. Allegations were
investigated by DCF and found unsubstantiated.
August, 2017 Hartford Detention. Report made by law enforcement regarding alleged
sexual abuse of an incarcerated girl by a detention officer. Allegations were substantiated
and the perpetrator was criminally charged for sexual assault.

On November 16, 2017, the DCF Commissioner sent a letter and accompanying memorandum to the
Chief Court Administrator of the Connecticut Judicial Branch, copied to the Office of the Child
Advocate, outlining concerns about what the Commissioner characterized as a “prevailing culture”74
in the detention centers “that has led to the widespread assumption by female residents that Detention
Center staff are willing to have inappropriate contact with them,” and concern that the Judicial Branch
facilities are “unsafe and unhealthy for many of the juvenile residents.” The accompanying
memorandum included an outline of DCF’s “Program Concerns” identified by DCF during recent
investigations, including the following:75
1.
2.
3.
4.

The failure by CSSD to correct staff behavior adequately.
The failure by CSSD staff to report suspected child abuse or neglect timely.
The failure by CSSD staff to respond appropriately to an escaping juvenile.
A CSSD staff member’s permitting two children to access Facebook on the staff
member’s personal phone.
5. A CSSD detention staff member’s inappropriately accessing the confidential records of
children, including those who had left the facility.
6. The failure of staff to submit adequate documentation of certain incidents.
7. The failure of certain detention staff to exhibit appropriate boundaries with respect to
children.
The Chief Court Administrator responded to the DCF Commissioner.76 An informational public
hearing was convened by the Connecticut General Assembly’s Children’s Committee on January 25,
2018, to discuss the substantiation of sexual abuse by a juvenile detention officer, the concerns
outlined by the DCF Commissioner, and to hear from state agency officials, including the Office of
the Child Advocate.
As part of OCA’s ongoing review, OCA reviewed the following sources of information:

Letter from DCF Commissioner J. Katz to Hon. Patrick Carroll, Chief Court Administrator, Court Support Services
Division, dated Nov. 16, 2017, on file with OCA.
75
In 2015 and 2016 there were 6 DCF investigations into allegations of abuse and neglect in the detention facilities. There
were no substantiations and 1 program concern documented during that time frame. The program concerns outlined
above were identified and documented by DCF between September and November 2017.
76
Letter from Hon.Patrick Carroll, Chief Court Administrator to DCF Commissioner J. Katz dated…. On file with OCA
74

36

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.








DCF’s memorandum of concerns.
All records identified in DCF’s memo, as well as child-specific case records and videotaped footage of certain incidents involving children in the detention centers.
Multiple reports from the CSSD-contracted Ombudsman and the multiple youth surveys
about conditions of confinement in the detention centers.
All documents from CSSD that pertained to corrective actions the agency has been taking
to address concerns identified by DCF, and recommendations from the CSSD
operational consultant, CSSD administration, and community stakeholders.
OCA met with the CSSD consultant and reviewed the draft report and
recommendations.77 The consultant report regarding detention center operations was
finalized in November 2017.
OCA sought feedback from the Public Defender’s Office regarding any concerns juvenile
public defenders may have regarding conditions of confinement or abuse and neglect of
their clients in the detention centers.

In summary, the CSSD operations consultant found CSSD policies to be current, consistent with
national best practices, and regularly reviewed and revised. He further found that certain concerns
identified by DCF or CSSD were the result of “staff misconduct” and not “policy deficits.” His report
focused on changes that could be made to ensure staff compliance with agency expectations through
improved supervision protocols, increased managerial and administrative oversight, and additional
staff training. Recommendations included:
1. Strengthening supervisory and managerial capacity and responsibilities through realignment of job responsibilities and elimination of certain job classifications;
2. Increasing staffing, including hiring more female Juvenile Detention Officers and
ensuring qualified women are well represented in the ranks of supervisors and
administrators;
3. Increasing responsibilities for facility administration regarding inspection of milieu and
compliance of staff with agency policies;
4. Improving certain aspects of the physical environment of the Bridgeport Detention
Center;
5. Considering changes to the behavior management protocols by “reimagining” the policies
to better reflect needs of older children, who are more likely to be detained today than
ten years ago.
6. Ensuring regular training of detention center staff on ethical rules and the importance of
establishing clear boundaries between incarcerated children and detention staff.
OCA notes that CSSD took several steps to respond to concerns of staff misconduct in 2017,
including bringing in an operations expert to conduct a comprehensive review of facility operations,
contracting with outside experts to address gender-specific reforms, and

CSSD contracted with Leo Arnone (former Commissioner of the Department of Correction, DCF Juvenile Justice
Administrator and CSSD Administrator) in August 2017 to review detention center operations and make
recommendations to Judicial Branch leadership regarding any necessary changes and reforms.
77

37

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

OCA’s review of the CSSD-contracted Ombudsman reports and youth surveys, which are not
administered in the presence of detention staff, revealed generally favorable responses to safety and
security questions. The most negative responses from youth were about their lack of contact with
probation officers while in
An August, 2018, report in the Hartford Courant outlined staff
detention, and in some cases
concerns regarding injuries in the Bridgeport detention facility,
about lack of access to outside
reportedly a symptom of understaffing and increased reliance on the
exercise, as well as concerns
detention facilities in the wake of the CJTS closure and pending
about difficulty sleeping.
development of community-based secure/staff-secure programs. The
Judicial Branch responded to the concerns by outlining its efforts to
bring in additional staff and decrease use of overtime, and continue its
work to ensure an adequate continuum of treatment facilities and
services for justice-involved youth transferred to the Branch’s
jurisdiction. No statistical information was published regarding the
trend line in youth/staff injuries or the nature of the injuries incurred.

OCA’s information request
from the Public Defender’s
Office likewise did not reveal
systemic concerns regarding
abuse or neglect of clients in
the detention facilities. OCA’s
discussion with child/juvenile-justice advocates did raise issues regarding the adequacy of
programming, particularly second-shift and weekend programming for detained children.
Federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)78 audits conducted by a certified DOJ auditor in
November, 2017, were completed with no corrective action recommended for the detention centers.
CSSD reported to OCA that it has taken or is in the midst of taking the following steps:
1. Increasing the number of required facility tours to be conducted by the center
superintendent, deputy superintendent and shift supervisors.
2. Re-aligning facility supervision responsibilities through creation of a management level
position to oversee each working shift in the detention centers.
3. Adding central office staff (August 2018) to assist with oversight of operations in the
detention centers.
4. Adding approximately 100 juvenile detention center staff between Spring 2018 and
December 2018 (involving a combination of recalled staff, new hires and per diem staff).
5. Updating “Ethics and Boundaries” training and including such training as part of the 2018
forty-hour, in-service training week for all juvenile detention staff and 4 hours of such
training to be required annually.
Requesting gender-responsive consultation from the Council on Juvenile Correctional Administrators
and the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University as part of CSSD’s Youth in
Custody Practice Model. After receiving expert recommendations to improve outcomes for girls,
including a recommendation to remove female youth from the detention centers, CSSD submitted an
application to the Vera Institute for their Initiative to End Girls’ Incarceration, and is working on
entering into a Memorandum of Agreement for technical assistance around participation in Vera’s
learning network. CSSD also convened a girls’ stakeholder group, which met in May 2018, and will
meet again in October 2018.
PREA was passed in 2003 to “provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and
local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations and funding to protect individuals from prison
rape.” National PREA Resource Center (https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/about/prison-rape-elimination-act-prea),
citing Prison Rape Elimination Act, 2003.
78

38

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

F. ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
OCA received the following information from CSSD regarding family visits (January 1, 2017-June 30, 2017):
Number of Family Visits between January 1, 2017 - June 30, 2017 by Detention Facility
Facility
Bridgeport
Hartford

Number of Family Visits
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences
Unique Juveniles
Occurrences

Percentage of Juveniles
with Family Visits

90
273
72
259

36%
38%

Frequency of Family Visits by Number of Juveniles and Detention Facility
Frequency of Visits
Bridgeport
Hartford
1-5
73
60
6-10
16
8
11-15
1
2
16+
0
2
Availability of Family Therapy in Detention
CSSD responded that the Juvenile Detention Centers are short-term, pre-adjudicatory facilities and do not
offer family therapy. A Classification and Program Officer (CPO) is the child’s case manager while in
detention. The CPO’s role is to ensure a continuity of care, provide discharge planning, communicate with
the child’s Probation Officer, and engage with the family through weekly family contact in accordance with
procedures outlined in the Discharge Planning Policy.

OCA FINDINGS: CSSD DETENTION FACILITIES
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION:
1. CSSD policy and practice recognizes the potential risk of self-harm for all youth admitted to
detention.
2. During the PUR, CSSD reported 688 incidents of youth placed on suicide watch status, and
41 occurrences where constant observation was needed to support actively suicidal youth.
3. OCA’s record review revealed multiple occurrences of youth being placed on Constant
Observation, on different occasions throughout their stay in Detention, for self-injury, suicidal
ideation and restricted statuses.

39

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION-RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING:
4. CSSD facilities reported that, on average, 11.5 percent of incarcerated youth were physically
restrained during the PUR. CSSD protocols direct the mechanical restraint of all youth during
transport.
5. While CSSD policy directs sparing use of cell/room confinement, in the small sample record
review done by OCA, several examples of physical isolation for behavior management were
found.
6. OCA’s review of a sampling of youth-specific records revealed instances where CSSD utilized
detention’s most restrictive levels where youth can be isolated from the population for
multiple days at a time, with no access to group programming or school.
7. CSSD was unable to provide data regarding how many youth were placed on restricted status
during the PUR.
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:
8. OCA’s review of youth-specific records found that CSSD is challenged in meeting the
treatment/support requirements for youth who present with profound mental health
treatment needs while in custody and whose length of stay significantly exceeds the average
stay of a youth in pre-trial custody.
9. CSSD was not able to provide OCA with utilization data regarding rehabilitative/group
programming. The absence of this data made it difficult to determine what type of pro-social
and rehabilitative programming is occurring outside of school time. CSSD has since added
this to their data management system and has shared that it should be able to report on this
in the future.
10. Record review did show that youth receive check-ins from clinical staff while placed on either
a restricted status or some level of mental health monitoring, however, regular individualized
therapy is not a component of ongoing service delivery.
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING:
11. Connecticut law provides that education in the detention centers is the responsibility of the
local school district. Bridgeport Public Schools provides educational services to the Bridgeport
detention center, and Hartford Public Schools contracts with a community-based provider to
deliver education services in the Hartford detention center.
12. OCA examined attendance and discipline information from CSSD and the two responsible
local school districts and found that neither school district was able to provide reliable data
regarding incarcerated youth’s attendance and instances of school removal. CSSD, however,
did keep data on school removals, which showed that just under 10 % of confined youth were
subject to a school suspension while in detention.
40

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

13. OCA’s record review identified youth who were placed on restricted status who were not
allowed to attend school programming. CSSD reported that youth may be provided school
work to complete on the unit, but individualized instruction was not provided.
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING
14.

Over a 36 month period, there were 12 reports to DCF of suspected abuse or neglect of
children in juvenile detention facilities. DCF substantiated 1 of these reports and made a
finding of sexual abuse. Over a 3 month period in late 2017, DCF identified numerous
program concerns that it concluded contributed to unsafe conditions for youth in
detention, including staff failure to follow agency policies, and staff failure to timely report
suspected abuse or neglect of children.79

15. The Judicial Branch invited consultant Leo Arnone, a former executive administrator for
DOC, DCF, and CSSD, to conduct a review of agency policies and conditions in the
detention centers. Mr. Arnone’s report, published in November 2017, concluded that
agency policies are progressive and comprehensive, but he recommended action steps to
improve quality assurance in the facilities and ensure facility and staff compliance with
agency expectations. The Judicial Branch adopted Mr. Arnone’s recommendations and has
committed to a series of quality improvement activities, including an increase in staffing,
shifting of managerial assignment/responsibilities, enhanced staff training, and
consultation with national experts on juvenile justice reform and gender-responsive
programming.
16. The CSSD ombudsman has been an agency contractor and has not functioned as a
mandated reporter. The ombudsman did not make any reports of suspected abuse or
neglect to DCF during the 36 month period reviewed by OCA. CSSD informed OCA
that it would seek to amend the ombudsman contract to require that ombudsperson/s will
be required to report suspected child abuse/neglect to the Department of Children and
Families Careline going forward.

ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
17. CSSD provides visitation hours on evening weekdays and during the day and evening on
weekends, with opportunities for additional accommodations as needed. The detention
centers offer twice monthly family events to encourage engagement. Data shows that just
over 1/3 of children in detention received a family visit while incarcerated. Detention does

During this time frame, the Connecticut General Assembly passed a new budget law transferring DCF’s juvenile justice
responsibilities to CSSD.
79

41

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

not offer family therapy due to the historically short-term, pre-adjudicatory nature of the
facilities.
18. OCA record review revealed that detention staff appropriately made attempts to contact
youths’ guardians throughout their stay to address various issues in detention.
AGENCY RESPONSE: CSSD
In response to OCA findings related to access to mental health screening and treatment, CSSD
leadership reported confidence in its screening and short-term assessment policies and practices,
emphasizing that pretrial detention, typically short-term, has significant limitations regarding mental
health treatment and has not been considered a treatment environment. In response to the recent
shift in statutory responsibilities for adjudicated youth, CSSD is currently engaged in efforts to
modify its policies and programming to effectively meet the needs of a significantly more complex
population of youth who will experience longer detainment. CSSD has added staffing to its
detention centers and enhanced training and supervision to meet the needs of youth in their care. In
addition, CSSD has developed several family engagement videos that are posted on its websites and
available to be shown to parents during visitation. CSSD has also indicated that it expects data
reporting discrepancies to be reduced with modifications to its data management system in 2019

CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
*MANSON YOUTH INSTITUTION FOR BOYS
*YORK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION FOR GIRLS
Youth who are charged with commission of Class A felonies, such as murder, sexual assault,
kidnapping, arson, home invasion, and certain Class B felonies such as assault in the 1st degree and
burglary in the 1st degree, are automatically transferred to the adult criminal court, so long as the
offense was allegedly committed after the youth turned fifteen.80 Some B felonies, all C, D and
unclassified felonies are subject to discretionary transfer rules that allow prosecutors to file a transfer
motion if there is probably cause to believe the crime charged actually occurred and the best interests
of the child and the public will not be served by keeping the case in the juvenile court.81
121 youth were transferred to the adult criminal court in fiscal year 2017.82 Youth who are transferred
to the adult criminal court may be incarcerated at a facility run by the DOC both before trial and after
conviction.
A Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”) and the
National Institute of Correction (“NIC”) technical assistance guide (hereinafter “the OJJDP/NIC
Guide”) discusses the significant risks youth face when incarcerated in adult prisons, including “much
higher risks of sexual and physical assault, suicide, and mental health problems.”83 Specifically, the
author/s express concern that youth in adult prison are more likely to be assaulted, more likely to
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-127.
Id.
82
Court Operations, Judicial Branch.
83
OJJDP/NIC Guide, supra N. 2, Deitch, M. “Historical Perspective,” Chapter 1, pg. 16.
80
81

42

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

commit suicide, and less likely to have access to programming, services, and family support than youth
in the juvenile system.84 The OJJDP/NIC Guide author/s cautions that generally speaking, across the
country, there are “no monitoring systems for ensuring safe and healthy conditions of confinement
for youth being held in adult facilities.”85
All individuals admitted to the DOC undergo mental health screening and are assigned a mental health
score, which determines mental health services during the period of incarceration. During the PUR of
July 1, 2016 - June 30, 2017, all inmate medical and mental health services were provided by UConn
Correctional Managed Health Care.86
Manson Youth Institution
The Manson Youth Institution (“MYI”) is a level 4 high-security facility which houses male offenders
ranging in age from 15 to 21 in ten separate buildings. Pursuant to federal law requirements which
mandate juvenile offenders be housed separately from adult offenders (age 18 and up), MYI houses
juveniles in two separate housing units, I and J. These two units are separate from the rest of the
compound which houses, in total, over 500 youthful and young adult offenders. The DOC describes
MYI as a “high security, adult correctional institution. MYI is a celled facility. The use of cells to
confine offenders is a long-standing practice in high security, adult correctional institutions, as is the
use of mechanical restraints, chemical agent and gang management strategies.” What is noticeably
absent from that description is that youth are housed in antiquated cells that fail to meet current
accreditation standards and are equipped with a bed, small sink, and stainless steel toilet bowl.
There are approximately 55 youth under age 18 incarcerated at MYI at any given time over the last
year. Fifteen year olds (referred to as Juvenile Offenders) must be separated from 16 and 17 year olds
(referred to as Youthful Offenders) for the purpose of sleeping. About half of all incarcerated youth
are awaiting trial.
Youth attend school with the rest of the population and may have contact with young adults in other
supervised settings, but not in the housing units. MYI does not have a facility-wide cafeteria or dining
hall, so all meals are served in the housing units.
Because certain minors confined at MYI are also in the custody of DCF, there is an interagency liaison
(a DCF employee) who maintains an office at the prison. It is the role of the DCF liaison to assist
with planning for DCF-committed youth.
Upon commencing this review, OCA’s information requests were made to the DOC Commissioner’s
office and copied to facility wardens. DOC central office deferred to the facility wardens for facility
specific data, including education, and policy/practice information, and to CMHC facility
administration for information regarding mental health services.
OJJDP/NIC Guide, supra, N. 2, Clark, P., Ch. 2 “Types of Facilities,” pg. 6, citing a study by Malcolm Young and Jenni
Gainesborough for the Sentencing Project, entitled, Prosecuting Juveniles in Adult Court: An Assessment of Trends and
Consequences, (Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2000).
84

85

Id., pg. 7.

UConn Health assumed responsibility for all global medical, mental health, pharmacy, and dental service provision from
the Connecticut Department of Correction in November 1997. As of July 1, 2018, Correctional Managed Health Care, a
division of UConn Health, has been dissolved. UConn Health still provides care to inmates who come to their campus
but no longer provides care in the prisons. Source https://health.uconn.edu/correctional.
86

43

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Facility administration reported that 104 youth
were admitted to MYI during the PUR July 1,
2016-June 30, 2017:




A point in time examination of 53 youth
incarcerated at MYI during the PUR revealed:




14- 15 year olds
40 -16 year olds
50- 17 year olds.

6 White youth
6 Hispanic youth
41 African American/Black youth

33 Youth were discharged from MYI between January 1 and June 30, 2017 to the following
communities:
(7 Hartford) (5 Bridgeport) (4 Naugatuck) (3 New Haven) (2 Meriden) (2 Danbury) (2 New York)
(2 Hamden) and 1 each to: (West Hartford) (Brookfield) (Monroe) (West Haven) (Trumbull)
(Stamford) and (Vernon).
10 youth were readmitted to MYI during this same time.
York Correctional Institution
The York Correctional Institution (“YCI”) is a high-security facility and serves as the state's only
correctional institution for female offenders of any age. It serves all superior courts in Connecticut
and manages all pretrial and sentenced female offenders, whatever the security level. The population
of female juvenile/youthful offenders has decreased significantly over the years. Female youth, like
their male counterparts at MYI, are housed separately from the adult population.
6 female youth offenders were admitted to YCI during the PUR:
 2 African American/Black youth
 4 Hispanic youth
2 youth discharged from YCI during the PUR: One youth discharged before trial to her mother’s
home and the other youth released, per YCI, “is listed as homeless.”
A. SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION
Research shows that youth who are deeper in the justice system have higher prevalence rates of suicidal ideation and
behavior. “Youth sampled during stays in post-disposition secure facilities appear to have the highest prevalence rates of
suicidal ideation and attempts.” Girls have higher prevalence rates than boys.
Teplin, L., Stokes, M., et al., Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Youth in the Juvenile Justice System: A Review of the Literature, Jour.
Correct. Health Care (July 2015).

Screening at the DOC
DOC Suicide Prevention Policy provides that the facility “shall actively identify and monitor inmates
who may be at risk of self-harm. Each facility shall establish procedures for suicide prevention and
intervention.” Policy also provides that each direct contact employee shall receive training in suicide
prevention and related topics. Newly hired staff with direct inmate contact shall complete one (1) full
day of suicide prevention training prior to being assigned to a facility. Agency policies were developed
in consultation with UConn Correctional Managed Health Care (CMHC).
44

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

DOC/CMHC policy requires all youth admissions to MYI and YCI will be screened utilizing the
Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument (MAYSI-2),87 and the HR517 (Suicide Risk Assessment).
Youth may be placed on “Mental Health Observation Status” if they are determined to be potentially
suicidal, and such youth are to be “safely monitored.”
Suicidal Behavior at YCI
Administrators from YCI reported that there were 2 incidents of youth engaging in self-harming
behavior at York.
Youth No. 1: Superficial cutting along with passive suicidal ideation, approximately
1x/month or less, beginning in November 2016. Youth #1 was assessed by mental health
weekly and required one short term in-patient admission to the facility’s Mental Health Unit.
Youth No. 2: 1 instance of suicidal ideation without intent or self-injury, and one short-term
in-patient admission to the facility’s Mental Health Unit.
Suicidal Behavior at MYI
MYI reported that there were 0 incidents of suicidal or self-harming behaviors by youth 88 incarcerated
during the PUR.
DOC MYI facility administration reported 104 youth admissions during the PUR and, further, “all
juveniles are priority intakes.” OCA was directed to CMHC with questions related to mental health
assessment and intervention. Mental health specific data was provided by the MYI CMHC Supervising
Psychologist.
CMHC reported 66 new youth intakes, 87 youth suicide risk assessments, 45 mental health infirmary
contacts and 23 mental health infirmary admissions during the PUR. It is notable that there were many
fewer mental health screens and suicide risk assessments than reported youth admissions during the
PUR. 16/23 youth admitted to the infirmary were admitted upon admission to the facility. Infirmary
admissions length of stay ranged 1-26 days for close observation for the following reasons:









First time incarceration with a high bond;
Feeling hopeless;
Poor institutional adjustment;
Skipping meals;
Increased paranoia;
Readmission to facility;
Threatening self-harm;
Multiple undisclosed suicide attempts reported as accidents in the Emergency Room.

The MAYSI-2 is a brief behavioral health screening tool designed especially for juvenile justice programs and facilities.
It identifies youths 12 through 17 years old who may have important, pressing behavioral health needs. It is a self-report
inventory of 52 questions. Information about the MAYSI can be found on the web at:
http://www.nysap.us/MAYSI2.html.
88 In correspondence and discussion with DOC facility administrators and staff from UConn Correctional Managed Health
Care, OCA sought information regarding both suicidal ideation/behavior and “any acts of self-injury,” whether of a
suicidal or non-suicidal nature.
87

45

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

CMHC reported to OCA that there were 0 suicidal behaviors and 0 self-injurious behaviors during
the PUR. CMHC defined “[s]elf-harming behavior is non-suicidal self-injury in which the individual
has intentionally inflicted damage to the surface of his or her body that it likely to induce bleeding,
bruising or pain (e.g., cutting, burning, hitting, rubbing), with the expectation that the injury will lead
to only minor or moderate physical harm. (i.e. there is no suicidal intent).”89
CMHC reported that a request for a “crisis contact” can come from a variety of sources and is triaged
for emergency of need, risk assessment, and prevention of adverse incident. CMHC was unable to
provide the relevant policies associated with these crisis contact procedures, reporting “[a]ll former
UConn Health Correctional Managed Health Care Policy and procedures are under review post agency
merger.”90 OCA was informed that during the PUR, 5 Crisis Contacts were made, however CMHC
was unable to provide any additional information regarding the nature or outcomes of the crisis
contacts.
CMHC reported to OCA throughout the course of this review that certain data was challenging to
retrieve (records prior to 2017 were not stored at the facility).91
All youth whose records were examined by OCA presented with multiple mental health risk factors
for suicide or self-harming behavior, including histories of mental health diagnoses and significant
treatment needs, poor adjustment to the facility, histories of abuse or neglect, and poor coping and
adaptive skills.
Quality Assurance for Suicide Prevention and Response at MYI
DOC facility administrators provided agency policies regarding suicide prevention. Administrators did
not provide information regarding quality assurance measures used to evaluate the efficacy of these
suicide prevention policies, the safety of the physical plant, or the adherence of staff to suicide
prevention protocols and communication requirements.
B. USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
There are no standard definitions of restraint or seclusion contained in Connecticut law that apply to
youth served by all agencies. For example, the state law that prohibits use of prone/face-down restraint
of students due to concerns over airway restriction and chest compression is not applicable to
incarcerated youth. Both prone and chemical restraint are utilized with youth in DOC custody.

E-mail correspondence with MYI psychologist, on file with OCA.
Email correspondence with MYI psychologist, on file with OCA.
91
Id.
89

90

46

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

New State Law Prohibition on Administrative Segregation
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-96b, entitled Restricted Housing Status for Inmates. Employee Training and Wellness, prohibits
the use of “administrative segregation” for incarcerated youth in the custody of the DOC. The statute
defines “administrative segregation status” as the “practice of placing an inmate on restrictive housing status
following a determination that such inmate can no longer be safely managed within the general inmate
population of the correctional facility.” This new law constitutes the only state statutory prohibition on the
use of physical isolation of minors in the DOC. There are no state statutes governing the use of force on
minors in the DOC, and the use of planned or unplanned force is governed solely by DOC directives.

Youth Incarcerated in the Custody of DOC
DOC initially reported 0 incidents of restraint or seclusion for the PUR. OCA subsequently submitted
a request for data regarding DOC use of force (physical, mechanical and chemical) and the frequency
and nature of disciplinary measures such as restrictive housing, both brief and longer term, as a
disciplinary sanction or security measure.92 OCA also requested information regarding how the use of
restrictive housing affects a youth’s access to educational, clinical, and rehabilitative programming.93
As noted above, the state statute regarding restraint or seclusion of a “person at risk,” specifically
exempts the DOC from exclusions on use of restraint and seclusion, although Public Act 16-186
requires the DOC to report to the legislature the number of restraints and seclusions using the
definitions contained in the “person at risk” statute.94 The DOC’s practices regarding the use of

OCA requested more recent information regarding 1) youth placed on “Restrictive Housing Status since January 1, 2018,
and the length of each restriction; 2) educational logs for each youth including hours of daily educational instruction and
location of instruction; 3) disciplinary reports for each youth since admission to MYI; 4) Mental Health assessments and
evaluations at the time of youths’ placement into Restrictive Housing and any assessment/evaluation while in Restrictive
Housing, including Mental Health scores; and 5) Documentation of regular clinical treatment for youth in Restrictive
Housing.
93
Specifically, OCA supplemented its original data request by asking the DOC for the following information—
1. The number and names of youth placed on Security Risk Group (SRG) status both during the PUR and again
between 1/1/2018 and the present??
2. The number and names of youth and number of incidents of youth being placed on Extended Confined to
Quarters Status (CTQ) from 1/1/2018 through 6/1/2018.
3. Documentation related to the provision of mental health screens, evaluations and treatment for youth prior to,
during and after placement on restricted housing status (either CTQ or SRG).
4. Documentation regarding the provision of educational services to youth on restricted housing status, including
attendance records, work samples, logs of service hours provided, and youths’ Individual Education Plans (IEPs)
where applicable.
5. Documentation regarding access to visits, phone calls, rehabilitative services, and recreation time for youth on
SRG and Extended CTQ status.
6. Documentation regarding creation and utilization of Behavior Plans for youth on Extended CTQ or SRG status.
7. Policies and protocols regarding the designation of youth for restricted housing status .
94
Public Act 16-186 requires that beginning October 1, 2017 and annual thereafter, the DOC “shall compile records
regarding the frequency and use of physical restraint and seclusion, as defined in [the person at risk statute] on children
and youth twenty years of age or younger who are in the custody of the commissioner at the John R. Manson Youth
Institution, Cheshire, and shall submit a report summarizing such records … to the joint standing committee of the
General Assembly having cognizance of matters relating to children. Such report shall address the prior year and shall
indicate, at a minimum, the frequency that (1) physical restraint was used as (A) an emergency intervention, and (B) a
nonemergency intervention, and (2) restricted housing or other types of administration segregation or seclusion were used
at such facility.” Full text of Public Act 16-186 can be found on the web at
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2016/ACT/PA/2016PA-00186-R00SB-00075-PA.htm.
92

47

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

isolation within the facility are controlled, in part, by the recent state law prohibiting the use of
administrative segregation for incarcerated youth.
Restraint or staff use of force is governed by DOC Directives. DOC responses to OCA requests for
information stated that all staff are trained in use of force protocols. Copies or reference to specific
curricula were not provided.95
Mechanical Restraint -- DOC Directives define restraint as “any mechanical device used to control
the movement of an inmate’s body and/or limbs, including but not limited to flex cuffs, soft restraints,
hard metal handcuffs, a black box, Chubb cuffs, leg irons, belly chains, a security (tether) chain or a
convex shield.”96
Physical Restraint/Use of Force -- DOC Directives define “physical force,” as “physical contact
or contact through use of an armory item/canine initiated by a staff member in response to a noncompliant inmate for the purposes of establishing, maintaining or restoring control, order, safety
and/or security. Routine use of physical contact shall not be considered physical force, including the
routine use of restraints.”
DOC report to the legislature in 2017 regarding the use of restraint and isolation on youth and young
adults categorizes the use of force as routine or non-routine:
Non-routine Emergency Restraint —“MYI staff respond to emergency calls for assistance
involving inmate(s) who are assaultive, actively combative, or posing an imminent threat to the
safety/security of themselves, others, or state property.”
Routine/Non-emergency Restraint — For inmates on restrictive status, “restraints are used during
transportation for visits, court appearances, showers, etc. for the safety of offenders and staff on a
temporary, as needed basis.”
DOC Directive 6.5 provides that






“the amount of force used shall be reasonable and appropriate to the circumstances based on
the situation, the information in the possession of correctional personnel at the time, and the
information reasonably available under the circumstances.”97
Staff are required to use a video camera prior to any planned use of physical force.98
Staff are required to attempt and document verbal intervention prior to a planned use of force.
Staff are required to consult with a health services staff member prior to a planned use of
force.
When the inmate is secure, staff shall, whenever practical, utilize treatment staff, prior to a
planned use of force.

No documentation was provided regarding compliance with training requirements.
DOC Directive, Number 6.5
97
Id.
98
Id.
95
96

48

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

DOC Directive 6.5 further defines “chemical agent” as either a Category I device, which is a “hand
held aerosol dispenser;” or a Category II device, which refers to “all methods of administration other
than hand held aerosol devices.”99 Chemical agents may be used as a restraint during a planned or
unplanned use of force.
Use of Force (Physical, Mechanical and Chemical)
on Youth at MYI and YCI
OCA’s initial information request sought data regarding
MYI’s use of physical, mechanical and chemical restraint
involving youth ages 15-17 from January 1, 2017 through
June 30, 2017. The response from the facility provided on
August 1, 2017 stated that there were 27 instances of
Restraint/Use of Force during the PUR. That initial
response did not clarify whether the use of force was
physical or mechanical. The information provided was
incomplete, with at least two months’ worth of missing
data.100
OCA obtained Restraint Tracking Forms and Monthly Unit
Statistics for the same 6 month time frame and found the
following:




There is no statutory or agency
restriction on the use of prone (facedown) restraint of youth in DOC
custody (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-150).
State law does not permit the use of
prone restraint on minor students, and
DCF and CSSD facilities do not permit
the use of prone restraint on minors due
to concerns regarding chest and airway
compression. A U.S. Department of
Education resource guide on the use of
restraint and seclusion states that prone
restraints “should never be used [on
youth] because they can cause serious
injury or death…. Any restraint or
seclusion
technique
should
be
consistent with known medical or other
special needs of a child.”
Source: U.S. Department of Education,

18 incidents of Non-Routine Mechanical Restraint Restraint and Seclusion: Resource Document
Utilization and 53 instances of Routine Mechanical (2012).
Restraint. These data points, gathered from incident
sheets and interviews with facility administration, are not specific to individuals – if multiple
youth are involved in a fight, for example, the use of force is documented as “1.”
An additional 6 month period reviewed by OCA (January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018)
revealed 138 total instances: 20 incidents of Non-Routine Mechanical Restraint Utilization and
118 instances of Routine Mechanical Restraint.

MYI administrators provided OCA with data regarding both routine and non-routine use of force,
but multiple data submissions from the facility were discrepant and OCA found the data regarding
use of force to be unreliable — DOC facility administrators acknowledged discrepancies in data
collection and reporting and committed to addressing this problem going forward.
Facility staff were not able to provide consistent explanations of what constituted routine versus nonroutine use of force despite the report from the DOC to the legislature in 2017 describing use of force
at MYI in those terms. Staff and administrators acknowledged that different people may document
use of force differently both within the facility and throughout the agency.
OCA additionally found that reports of use of force for significant behavioral incidents did not match
up with the number of youth placed in restrictive housing as a sanction for incidents. For example,
while facility reports often documented only 1 or 2 Use of Force incidents per month (and the DOC
Id.
As OCA sought to clarify data points with MYI facility staff, OCA was told that staff report all incidents of “Use of
Force” in the facility’s monthly unit statistics report.
99

100

49

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

report to the legislature reported 0 incidents in some months), there were typically many more youth
placed on restrictive housing (CTQ) status for the same time period.
Reported numbers regarding routine use of force do not match the number of youth or actual
utilizations of mechanical restraint, suggesting again that staff track use of mechanical restraint
inconsistently.
Chemical Agent Use at MYI
As referenced above, DOC Directive 6.5 permits the use of chemical agents on youth and adults, and
certain personnel are identified to carry such agents on their person. The Directive requires that prior
to the use of chemical agents, “the inmate’s health record shall be reviewed by a qualified health
services staff member to determine whether the use of chemical agents on the inmate is medically
contraindicated.”101
According to the Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators-[Pepper spray’s] use has been shunned by juvenile
correctional agencies because of the harm it causes to
youth and the negative impact on staff-youth
relationships, the key to successful juvenile rehabilitative
programming. Very few states authorize its use [in
juvenile correctional programs] and in the states that
allow its use in policy, most prohibit the use except as a
last resort and with many conditions and few facilities put
it into practice.102
A recent article from the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange103 indicates that as of 2018 there were
only 6 states that allowed juvenile correctional officers to carry pepper spray.104 35 states have banned
pepper spray in juvenile facilities.105
A fact sheet regarding the use of chemical agents on juveniles authored by the Center for Children’s
Law and Policy106 in 2012 recommends a prohibition on the use of chemical agents on children due
to potential health risks and the potential for misuse by staff. The CCLP cites research published in
the British Medical Journal which noted the ill effects of chemical agents in confined spaces and areas

DOC Directive 6.5. The Directive also provides that the outcome of the health consultation shall be documented on
a medical incident report and in the inmate’s health record.
102
Pepper Spray in Juvenile Facilities, CJCA, available at http://cjca.net/attachments/article/172/
CJCA.Issue.Brief.OCSpray.pdf.
103 The Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (JJIE) is a publication covering juvenile justice and related issues nationally.
The JJIE is based at Kennesaw State University. https://jjie.org/
104 Almasi, Aya, California Corrections Board Approves Limits to Pepper Spray, No Change to Staff Ratios, Feb. 14, 2018, JJIE, article
found on the web at https://jjie.org/2018/02/14/california-corrections-board-approves-limits-to-pepper-spray-nochange-to-staff-ratios/, article cites California, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Texas as permitting use
of chemical agents on minors in juvenile justice facilities.
105 Id.
106 Center for Children’s Law and Policy, Chemical Agents in Juvenile Facilities, (May 2012), found on the web:
http://www.cclp.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Fact-Sheet-Chemical-Agents-Final-5-14-12.pdf.
101

50

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

with poor ventilation.107 The CCLP identified several states that have taken action to prohibit chemical
agent use on juveniles.108
OCA sought additional information from doctors at Yale School of Medicine regarding the impact of
chemical agents such as pepper spray on minors. OCA was provided with research literature indicating
that pepper spray and other irritants have been associated with various health risks and complications
such as pulmonary edema and asthma.109 According to literature provided to OCA by a physician at
Yale, pepper spray and similar irritants, when inhaled, produce “a sensation of chest constriction with
dyspnea, gagging and burning of the respiratory tract.”110 The effects of tear agents are generally
considered transient and may dissipate quickly once removed from the source, but sensitivity to
irritants is “individual and age-dependent.”111
Chemical Agent Utilization Data--MYI
MYI reported 6 utilizations of chemical agents during the 6 month period January 1, 2017-June 30,
2017. However, OCA found additional use of chemical agents beyond what was reported. It also
appears that chemical agent use, like use of force, is tracked per incident and not per individual use.112
OCA sought additional data from MYI regarding chemical agent use through July 1, 2018. The data
contained discrepancies in the facility’s reports of chemical agent use.





In May, 2018, MYI reported a total of 2 utilizations of a chemical agent as part of a “nonroutine” use of force incident.
OCA reviewed back-to-back incidents from May 30, 2018, and May 31, 2018, involving 5
youth (fighting) and 1 youth (assault). A chemical agent was used during this incident and 3 of
the youth were reported to need decontamination from the chemical agent, and the facts of
the incidents would not be considered non-routine under the agency’s own definition.
2 of the youth involved in the reviewed incidents have documented histories of Asthma –
rendering the use of chemical agent even more concerning.

After reviewing this particular incident highlighted above, OCA notified DOC leadership of concerns
regarding the use of chemical agent and in-cell restraint of a minor, as well as concerns with inadequate
Id. citing Pierre-Nicholas Carron & Bertrand Yersin, Management of the Effects of Exposure to Tear Gas, 338
BRITISH MED. J. 1554, 1556 (2009).
108 Id. referencing, among others, 1) The Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice barred chemical agents in its facilities in 2007;
2) The Florida state legislature, in 2006, required the Department of Juvenile Justice to adopt policies that “prohibit the
use of aerosol or chemical agents;” 3) New Jersey, in 2005, amended its administrative code to clarify that the use of
chemical agents is not allowed in juvenile detention facilities; 4) New Hampshire, in 2010, passed a statute prohibiting the
“intentional release of noxious, toxic, caustic, or otherwise unpleasant substances near a child for the purpose of
controlling or modifying the behavior of or punishing the child” in a range of settings, including schools, group homes,
shelters, detention centers, and commitment facilities.”
109 Upper airway problems may include laryngeal edema and stridor. And significant eye injuries may occur, including
corneal epithelial injury and kerato-conjunctivitis. Research literature provided via correspondence from Carl Baum, M.D.,
FAAP, FACMT, Professor of Pediatrics and of Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine to the OCA, on file with
OCA.
110 Id. citing article on Toxed.com.
111 Id.
112 For example, in May 2018 a fight amongst 5 youth resulted in use of force, including chemical agent use, on 4 of the
youth. This incident was recorded as 1 use of force with chemical agent.
107

51

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

medical assessment and follow-up. Additionally, OCA (pursuant to responsibilities as mandated
reporters) filed corresponding complaints with DCF and the Department of Public Health. OCA’s
complaint to DCF also shared concerns regarding the youth’s prolonged isolation on the restrictive
housing unit.113
CASE STUDY – TERRANCE
In one incident from May, 2018, a youth was restrained by
several officers after refusing to return to his cell. He was
sprayed with chemical agent twice and ultimately restrained in
the prone (face-down) position. During the course of being
restrained by officers, the youth swung at staff, striking a staff
member. Following the prone restraint and use of chemical
agent the youth could be heard on video tape repeatedly stating
that he could not breathe and that he had asthma. The youth’s
medical record, reviewed by OCA, confirmed a diagnosis of
asthma and that he was prescribed an inhaler. DOC staff could
be seen on the tape moving the youth briefly to the shower to
wash his face off. The video depicts the youth salivating and
continuing to state that he was having trouble breathing and
needed an inhaler. Both nursing and clinical staff were present
during the incident, standing behind custody staff, and waiting
for the youth to be stripped, changed, and prepared for in-cell
restraint. At no time during the incident or its aftermath does
it appear the youth’s vital signs were checked and there is no
record that the youth was provided with an inhaler. The initial
medical incident report states that “no complaints [were]
reported by inmate; no marks or injuries noted.” On video the
youth could be heard telling the mental health clinician that he
was afraid he was going to die.

OCA pursued additional information from
MYI regarding specific youth and their
medical conditions, and if youth with known
respiratory conditions had been subjected to
chemical agent utilization. The DOC
reported that at least 7 youth diagnosed with
Asthma had been subjected to chemical
agent spray within the last year. OCA further
learned that during the 18 month (January 1,
2017 - July 1, 2018) 39% of the youth
population at MYI who had experienced cell
restriction had been subjected to a chemical
agent.

Use of Force and Isolation at YCI
None of the 6 girls at YCI during the PUR
were reported to have experienced restraint,
seclusion (Confined to Quarters Status) or
chemical agent spray. Girls at YCI are not
confined to cells. Over the past few years,
the DOC has used “cottages,” to house
minor girls. The cottages are a separate
structure from the main facility and are located near the visiting area. There are two usable cottages
that consist of an entranceway, a bedroom, a washer and dryer and a common area. A youth may be
housed with another youth. The youth cannot leave the cottage or engage in any movement on the
facility grounds without escort from staff. Girls are not mechanically restrained for escort.
As recently as August 2018, 1 youth at YCI was charged
with an assault on a DOC staff member and placed on
Confined to Quarters status for fourteen (14) days. YCI
administrators reported to OCA that the youth did not
receive educational services on three (3) school days; but
did receive an hour of education in the cottage on 2 days
and was able to be escorted to school for 5 hours of
education for the remainder of the CTQ status.

Though girls are not confined to cells,
concerns about physical and social
isolation still arise given the low census
and site-sound restrictions on youth’s
movement required by federal law. At
times there may be only 1 or 2 juveniles
at York and therefore social interaction
may be minimal.

DCF’s Special Investigations Unit report did not address the use of prolonged isolation on the restrictive housing unit
and the report did not substantiate a finding of abuse or neglect. The SIU identified program concerns regarding the lack
of thorough medical assessment and response to the youth, finding that nursing staff “did not assess [youth] for the distress
he expressed.” OCA met with DCF’s Special investigations Unit in August 2018 to further discuss these concerns. OCA
recommended that DCF consider following up directly with DOC leadership regarding the deleterious impact, from a
child welfare perspective, of certain policies regarding the use of force, chemical agent utilization, and the prolonged
isolation of minors.
113

52

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

The CTQ practice at YCI differs from MYI, as the youth on CTQ at MYI are not allowed to attend
school and at most are passed a school work packet underneath their cell door.
MYI – Isolation Used in Response to Youth Behavior
Temporary Isolation – 23.5 hours per day
The MYI Housing Plan (Housing Plan) provides for the utilization of Confined to Quarters (“CTQ”)
status as a disciplinary response to inmates who engage in behavioral incidents such as fighting,
threatening, possessing contraband, assault, and disobedience. Youth and staff often refer to CTQ
Extended (defined below) as “the box.” The Housing Plan states that CTQ shall be an “alternative to
the use of Segregation with the youth population,” and CTQ “will confine a youth to his cell for
disciplinary reasons or for their own protection.”
CTQ encompasses four phases: Low; Moderate; High; and Extended. On Low CTQ facility policy
provides that a youth remain in the facility uniform, retain personal property, attend school and
services, but not attend general population recreation or work. Youth on High or Extended CTQ are
moved to a “designated CTQ out cell,” placed into a jumpsuit, and not allowed to retain property.
Youth on Extended CTQ are not allowed to attend the school facility or rehabilitative programs. OCA
found that no youth on CTQ Extended was provided with educational tutoring or other direct
instruction.
Maximum sanctions on High or Extended CTQ status are permitted for up to 5 days with discretion
for “Extenuating Circumstances.” OCA found that several youth were placed on CTQ Extended for
longer than 5 days (see data below).
The Housing Plan provides that a Behavior Plan may be created for youth who develop a “disciplinary
history,” and to facilitate a “step-down” to the general population.114 A Behavior Plan should outline
the youth’s behavior and identify what he needs to do “to get back on track.” OCA found that no
behavior plans were created for boys on CTQ during the PUR.115
OCA’s review of youth-specific records regarding disciplinary reports and accompanying
CTQ-Extended Sanctions revealed the following:
From January 1, 2017 through July 1, 2017, there were 74 incidents of youth placed on CTQ
Extended (“the box”), hereinafter “CTQ.”
a. There were a total of 41 youth placed on at least one instance of CTQ. (Facility census of
15-17 year olds was comparable to the same 6 month period in 2018).
b. Range of CTQ confinement was 1 day to 15 days.
c. 18/41 youth were placed on CTQ on at least 2 occasions.
OCA’s investigation found the following conditions of confinement for youth on CTQ.
MYI Housing Plan provides that the Behavior Identification Plan “shall be implemented within a team setting and will
be used to intervene on negative behavior and develop strategies to assist the inmate with improving his behavior.”
115 Staff reported to OCA that behavior plans had not been developed “for years,” and that the facility lacked resources
for developing individualized plans and interventions.
114

53

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.








Extensive Isolation – Youth on CTQ were placed in cell-confinement in MYI’s restrictive
housing unit for juveniles for 23.5 hours per day.
No School – Youth were not provided educational tutoring or access to school.116
Mechanically Restrained When Out-of-Cell – Youth were permitted out of their cells for
30 minutes each day, during which time they were handcuffed and permitted to make a phone
call and/or shower.117
No Social Interaction – Youth were not permitted to socially interact with other youth.
Eat Alone – Youth ate in their cells.
No Behavior Plans/Supports – Youth were not provided with individual behavior plans to
support transition from CTQ to the general youth population. Staff reported to OCA that
while such plans might be a good idea, they had not been done in years due to limited
resources.

OCA continued to examine utilization of CTQ during 2018 and found an increase in sanctions over
a 6 month period.
From January 1, 2018 through July 1, 2018,118 there were 96 incidents of youth placed on CTQ
Extended.
a. There were a total of 56 youth placed on at least one instance of CTQ.
b. The range of CTQ confinement was 3 days to 30 days.
c. 24/56 youth were placed on CTQ on at least 2 occasions, with a range of 2 to 6 separate
instances of CTQ confinement each.
d. Youth on CTQ were permitted out of cell for half an hour per day (handcuffed), were not
provided with tutoring/school, were not provided behavior plans, and were not allowed
access to rehabilitative programming.
Months-Long Isolation for Certain Youth at MYI – Security Risk Group (SRG) Status
DOC Directive 6.14 provides that SRG is a
OCA finds that SRG, which consists of “placing an
months-long program of restrictive housing
inmate on restrictive housing status following a
for “inmates, designated by the
determination that such inmate can no longer be
Commissioner,
possessing
common
safely managed within the general inmate
characteristics, which serve to distinguish
population of the correctional facility,” meets the
them from other inmates or groups of
state statutory definition of administrative
inmates and which as a discrete entity,
segregation, and therefore is not permitted by
jeopardizes the safety of the public, staff or
Connecticut law.
other inmate(s) and/or the security and
order of the facility.”119

A youth may be provided academic work sheets. Youth may accept or refuse this work.
The youth are handcuffed during escort to and from the shower but not handcuffed in the shower.
118 This time period is different that the PUR for other data points as OCA initially was told that cell confinement was not
used at all, and therefore data regarding these issues were developed as OCA’s review continued.
119 DOC Directive § 6.14
116
117

54

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Directive 6.14 describes SRG as a “method, by which inmates designated as SRG Members, after
successful completion of a structured 5 phase program, may be reintegrated into General
Population.”120
At MYI the SRG program and its five phases is used as a gang intervention curriculum and a
methodology for ensuring the safety of staff and other inmates in general population by separating
out inmates who are considered to be particularly threatening or assaultive. The typical method by
which a youth at MYI is designated as SRG status is through his active affiliation, detected or declared,
as a gang member. Depending on the nature of the youth’s affiliation and based, in part, on whether
the youth is determined to have engaged in assaultive or threatening behavior in confinement as a
result of that affiliation, the youth may be designated to the SRG program beginning on either Phase
1 (the most restrictive) or a less restrictive Phase.
Youth placed on SRG status Phase 1, which continues for at least four months,121 are confined to an
SRG cell on the restrictive housing unit for juveniles, the same unit that youth on CTQ are confined.
During SRG Phase 1, the youth is kept in restraints for all out-of-cell movement,122 including phone
calls and movement to and from showers and the phone. In-cell programming, which consists of work
sheets specific to the SRG program, begins during Month 2 if the youth is free of disciplinary reports.
The youth is permitted 1 hour of out of cell time a day, handcuffed, and this time must include phone
calls, bathing, and movement. There is no access to recreation equipment, and typically no access to
fresh air. Youth eat in their cells and are not permitted to engage with other youth, though youth have
been observed shouting to each other from their cells.
Pursuant to DOC policy, because youth on SRG status spend most of each day in their cells, they
must be directly observed by correction staff “not less frequently than every 15 minutes,” and “living
breathing flesh shall be observed.”123
Pursuant to DOC policy, SRG Phase 2 lasts a minimum of 3 months, during which time a boy may
engage in group programming once he is incident free and completes all in cell programming
(minimum of 30 days on Phase 2). During OCA’s review however, no youth on SRG 1 or SRG 3 was
permitted to participate in group programming available to others. There were no youth on SRG 2
during OCA’s site visits to the facility.
Progression through the SRG phases is based on the youth’s behavior and compliance with SRG
expectations. If the SRG program is not completed prior to the youth’s discharge and the youth reoffends and is returned to the DOC custody the youth or now young adult will return to SRG
segregation automatically. If the youth is over 18, he will be transferred to an adult facility to serve out
the full SRG level of confinement.
DOC administration shared their belief that SRG completers show a marked decrease in gang related
activity but was not able to provide OCA with supporting research or departmental outcome data.

Id.
SRG Manual for MYI.
122 Youth on SRG 2 and 3 are also only allowed 1 hour of out-of-cell time on the unit, but they do not have to be in
restraints during this hour.
123 Id.
120
121

55

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

OCA Review of Conditions for Youth on SRG Status
OCA reviewed data regarding the use of SRG, examining youth-specific records, incident reports,
education and treatment logs, and other information relevant to the use of restrictive housing for
youth, the reasons for the youth’s SRG designation, and the impact of SRG designation on youths’
access to educational and rehabilitative programming. OCA also conducted numerous site visits to
the SRG/CTQ unit and interviewed youth and staff. OCA found the following:









Number of Youth on SRG – There were 14 youth placed on SRG status during OCA’s
review (through July 1, 2018), which is just under 10 % of youth admitted to MYI during the
timeframe reviewed.
Youth Placed on SRG due to Gang Affiliation/Behavior – Youth were generally placed
on SRG status due to information, detected or declared, that the youth were/are gangaffiliated. Sometimes the youth in question also engaged in assaultive behavior prior to SRG
placement that DOC staff determined was the direct result of gang affiliation.
SRG is Months of Restrictive Housing – The range of SRG confinement (for youth who
completed SRG) was 5 months to 15 months. Certain youth turned 18 while on SRG status.
No Behavior Plans for SRG Youth – Similar to youth on CTQ, no youth on SRG had an
individual behavior plan.
Limited Education Services for SRG Youth – How education was delivered to youth on
different phases of SRG varied during the course of OCA’s review, but youth received a
maximum of 1 - 2 hours of education services per day, typically one-on-one. 124
o Youth on SRG could refuse to leave their cell for education, and there is no
documented intervention for persistent school refusal.
o Youth on SRG Phase 3 were permitted to be escorted to the school building and were
permitted 1:1 tutoring with a teacher at that location, typically from 8:45 a.m. to 10:30
a.m.125 These youth, like those on SRG Phase 1, were then returned to their cells for
the remainder of the day, with 1 hour permitted for out of cell time, to be used for
phone calls (3 calls per week are permitted) or hygiene.
IEPs/Special Education Plans Changed for Youth on SRG – Youth-specific education
records reviewed by OCA indicated that the education plans (IEPs) for youth on SRG were
changed to reflect a marked reduction of educational hours126 “due to a bona fide safety,
security and compelling penological interest.”

Education administrators stated that tutoring was provided to two SRG Phase 1 youth (2018 data) from 12:30 to 3:30
but acknowledged that due to behavior issues, the youth split that time. Youth and staff interviews, as well as observation
by OCA staff, confirmed that a teacher, when available, comes onto the SRG unit at 1 p.m. and typically leaves prior to 3
p.m. OCA was initially told by administration that youth on SRG received 4 hours per day of education, but records,
along with staff and youth interviews, did not verify this level of service delivery. OCA was also told by correctional staff
that unit entry-exit logs documenting the times the teacher came to the restrictive housing unit were not a reliable source
to confirm service delivery.
125 Per youth and staff interview. Logs provided by the school do not provide documentation of hours provided, only
what the duration of a.m. or p.m. slots are for education generally. Thus educational administrators stated that the SRG
Phase 3 youth are provided education from 8 a.m. to 11 a.m. but interviews with staff and youth indicate the youth left
the SRG unit at 8:45 and returned at approximately 10:30.
126 The IEP for one youth designated SRG Phase 3 called for 3 hours per day of educational services. This recommendation
constituted a reduction in the provision of education services. However OCA found that this youth did not receive even
this level of service. The IEP for another youth designated SRG 1 was changed to reflect reduced hours of 1 hour per day
of general education services and 15 minutes per day of special education services. The education plan of a third youth
124

56

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.







Youth on SRG Meet Definition of “Chronically Absent” from School Services and OCA
Found Data Discrepancies – OCA examined MYI’s attendance data for various youth on
SRG status during 2018, and found a range of documented attendance rates — 50% to 73%,
with absences for “Custody,” “Sick,” “Teacher absence,” and simply “Absent.” OCA
developed concerns about the reliability of the facility’s attendance data given significant
disparities contained in the records, and staff’s assertion that unit entry-exit logs are not
reliable.127
No Rehabilitation Programming – No youth on SRG phases 1 through 3 were permitted
to attend rehabilitative programming available to youth in general population: e.g., substance
abuse treatment, anger management, life skills, or domestic violence programming.
Few or no Visits – Youth on SRG status during the PUR received few or no visits from
family or other resources.
Clinical Intervention is Not Built into the SRG system – Youth may ask for clinical
support, but structured access to clinical contacts is generally dependent on the youth’s preexisting Mental Health Score or a direct request from the youth.128 Facility administrators told
OCA that clinical staff tour the SRG/CTQ unit every day, and if a youth needs he is offered
the opportunity to ask for it. As stated elsewhere in this report, during OCA site visits and
video reviews, clinical staff were observed coming to the unit and walking by individual closed
cells and looking through the window at youth. During interviews, youth told OCA that
clinical staff “keep it moving,” and that if youth are sleeping they may not know that clinical
staff has been there. One youth (identified with a Mental Health Score of 3) stated that his
assigned clinician greets him personally during these checks. OCA’s review of documentation
in youth’s records did not typically include documentation of mental health contacts
conducted during the “check-in rounds” unless the youth was classified as a Mental Health 3
or 4.

Interviews with Youth on SRG
Youth confirmed that the SRG system requires them to spend most of each day in their cells. They
stated that they have little access to school time and no access to rehabilitative programming. Certain
youth acknowledged that they sometimes refused to go to tutoring but also claimed that they were
sometimes identified as refusing when they were really available for school but not let out of cell or
when no teacher would come to them.
No youth interviewed by OCA reported receiving visits during SRG status; one youth told OCA that
he didn’t know when visits were. The same youth reported that he felt he was “going crazy” on SRG,
and that he resorted to “talking to himself,” because he was not allowed to talk to anyone else. He
reported that he was given the SRG curriculum packets to work on independently and that he handed
them in and got them back with little interaction. Another youth reported to OCA that he would not
allow himself to think about his level of confinement because he could not bear it. Certain youth on

who was designated SRG Phase 3 was also changed to reflect provision of 3 hours per day of education services (as
opposed to 5), though as stated above interviews with youth and staff as well as OCA observations do not reflect that any
youth on SRG was receiving even this level of education service on a daily basis.
127 Example: one youth on CTQ Extended for 17 school days was marked as present in school during this time period,
though the youth did not attend school and was not provided educational services on the restrictive housing unit.
128 See following Section of this Report - Access to Mental Health Treatment.
57

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

CTQ Extended or SRG Status were observed by OCA and MYI staff not to be showering or
addressing basic hygiene needs on a regular basis.
Interviews with Staff/Administration Regarding Restrictive Housing for Youth
OCA discussed the use of SRG and CTQ extended with facility administration and agency leadership
on multiple occasions. While acknowledging the priority and importance of ensuring a safe and secure
environment for all staff and youth, OCA conveyed significant concerns regarding utilization of longterm isolation as a behavior/population management tool. Specifically, OCA expressed concerns that
1) state law does not permit the use of restrictive housing for minors in the wake of a 2017 law limiting
the use of administrative segregation; 2) youth on SRG lack access to rehabilitative programming and
individual behavior plans; and 3) prolonged cell confinement is harmful to youth’s development and
mental health.
Facility administrators and staff stated that they do not agree with
MYI administrators
OCA’s finding that either SRG or CTQ constitute solitary
acknowledged
that correction
confinement because they do not include prolonged sensory
staff are not trained in an
deprivation. Administrators and senior staff at MYI stated that
adolescent custody or
CTQ and SRG are needed as security and population management
treatment model, and staff
measures for adolescent offenders, and that youth who wind up in
receive no training on how to
restrictive housing are there because they pose a substantial
address adolescent behavior
security threat to staff and the general population of youth. Staff
and diffuse crises with
stated that youth are, in general, more difficult to supervise, and
adolescents using
developmentally appropriate
that there are typically more fights among youth, and that
measures.
sometimes youth “don’t even know why they are fighting.” Staff
cautioned that they would not be able to conduct any
programming in the facility if staff and youth could not be kept safe, and that restrictive housing is a
way to control the environment so that other youth can be safe and attend programming. Staff
acknowledged that there are resource limitations and that there are not as many programs for youth
as staff would like, and that there are inadequate resources to conduct individual behavior planning
for high-need youth.
Staff stated that the ultimate goal of SRG is for each youth to renounce any gang affiliations, but
acknowledged that the program does not typically achieve that goal. The collateral goal is one of
deterrence, i.e. for youth to learn from the prolonged period of deprivation that they want to avoid
behaviors that would return then restrictive housing status. Administrators and staff did not feel that
the prolonged use of cell confinement or lack of access to peer interaction and programming had a
negative impact on youth’s development or mental health. Staff reiterated that the restrictive measures
are designed to be punitive and uncomfortable for youth, but not so punitive as to be harmful. One
MYI official stated that he wanted “to see what [youth x] is like after 30 days” in CTQ, expressing
some hope that the boy would improve his behavior and compliance with facility expectations. Staff
expressed willingness to review recommendations from national experts regarding alternative methods
of promoting adolescent rehabilitation without compromising staff and facility safety.
OCA also presented its concerns about reliance on CTQ and SRG to agency leaders who responded
that they would examine the restrictive housing practices further, including reviewing the practices
and penal discipline code with the Attorney General’s Office and consulting with juvenile and criminal
justice experts to consider alternative models for establishing facility security without resorting to
prolonged cell confinement of youth.
58

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Staff and youth safety in any correctional environment are of paramount importance. Acknowledging
this, OCA remains deeply concerned about the use of segregation for minors as a behavior
management tool given the resulting loss of access to critically needed programming and healthy social
interaction, and the deleterious impact of isolation on youths’ development and mental health. It is
OCA’s finding that all of the youth in CTQ and SRG are at risk for mental health deterioration and
are not receiving adequate services. Several of the youth placed on SRG have histories of disruptive,
threatening or assaultive behaviors and effective behavior management strategies and rehabilitative
programming are essential to assist them, reduce their negative behaviors, and decrease their risk of
recidivism. These youth need engagement, mentorship, and intensive clinical/rehabilitative
programming. An effective adolescent model will provide for an intensive level of service without
compromising youth or staff safety.
C. ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
Staffing at MYI
MYI administrators reported to OCA that the clinician-to-patient ratio for young adults in the facility
is 21:1 and 7:1 for youth in the facility. Among the units housing youth, clinicians’ on-site weekly
schedule is Monday-Friday, 5:00 pm to 12:00 am. Monday-Thursday, and includes:
 LCSW is available for group facilitation, individual counseling, urgent requests, and
Emergency Crisis Intervention services.
 Emergency Crisis Intervention Services are available to all youth and young adult inmates 24/7
and when the unit clinician is not available.
 DOC reported that none of the clinicians are assigned solely to the juvenile units and that 40%
of the juveniles are actively engaged in MH services (this characterization was not defined).
Mental Health Classification System in the DOC: Mental Health (MH) Scores 1 – 5.
After intake and mental health assessment, the DOC provides each youth with a “mental health score”
outlining the youth’s history and current need for treatment and intervention. Correctional Managed
Health Care (CMHC), in cooperation with the DOC, published a guide to mental health classification.







MH 1—youth has no history of prior mental health treatment nor current medical needs;
MH 2—youth has a history of prior mental health treatment but does not have any current
clinical needs;
MH 3—youth may or may not be prescribed medication by a psychiatrist or APRN; youth
will have a primary clinician who will see him/her typically bi-weekly unless a different
treatment frequency is clinically indicated;
MH 4—youth typically has more severe history of mental health treatment, prior
hospitalizations, suicide attempts or self-injury, and more frequent mood or psychotic
disorder. These individuals are seen weekly by their clinician and are most frequently on
prescribed psychotropic medication. If a youth with a designation of MH 4 is placed on
“Confined to Quarters” status, the youth is monitored twice a day for any potential changes
in mental status.
MH 5—youth is currently residing in the infirmary – a skilled nursing setting for mental health
monitoring – due to suicidal ideation, potential self-injury, substance detoxification and
withdrawal, psychosis, or risk of decompensation.
59

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Per DOC staff, upon intake each youth receives a mental health assessment, a mental health initial
evaluation, and a suicide risk assessment. Mental health scores are assigned and services are delivered
as indicated by the MH score. Per the DOC Finding- Most Youth Receive Little or No
administration, a comprehensive psychiatric history is Individual Clinical Treatment at MYI
obtained for all incarcerated youth, which includes
collateral contact with former treatment providers Despite the national data regarding the prevalence
and family. This information is also used to determine of mental health disorders among incarcerated
children and the number of boys at MYI with
the patient’s treatment needs.
Utilization of Mental Health Services for youth
(15 to 17 years old) at MYI—DOC Information
and OCA Review
OCA’s review of 53 youth confined at MYI in May,
2017, revealed the following mental health scores for
the juvenile population:
 MH 1: 12 youth
 MH 2: 17 youth
 MH 3: 20 youth
 MH 4: 4 youth
Based on OCA’s review of youth-specific records and
OCA staff’s participation in regular meetings
regarding case planning for incarcerated youth at
MYI, OCA finds that mental health evaluation is not
consistently comprehensive for youth, in part due to
variability regarding how information is shared and
transmitted to MYI from other custodial and
treatment settings.

current or historical mental health diagnoses,
based on the data reviewed by OCA, the majority
of incarcerated children were classified by the
DOC as either having no history of mental health
treatment or not presenting with any current
clinical needs. Only 2 boys confined at MYI in
May 2017, for whom Mental Health Scores were
provided to OCA, were identified as in need of
weekly mental health counseling.
OCA made an identical finding in 2016 as part of
a presentation to the state’s JJPOC. Of the 74 boys
incarcerated at MYI in July of 2016, more than half
were identified as not requiring individual clinical
treatment, although 71 presented with a current or
historical mental health diagnosis. Only 3 boys
were classified as requiring weekly contact with a
clinician. At the time of OCA’s 2016 review, DOC
administrators provided information that clinical
staffing in the facility is limited and that typically,
there were only two DOC clinical professionals
available, from 8 a.m. to midnight, for the entire
facility population of approximately 600
adolescents and young adults.

CMHC reported that 59 juveniles requested Mental Health contact during the PUR. CMHC was
unable to provide data regarding the total number of unique individuals seen, time lapse between
request and contact, and whether the youth’s mental health score changed post contact.
Group Programming—Access and Utilization
The DOC did not provide data regarding utilization of group programs during the PUR. OCA
reviewed the entire service utilization record for 50 youth confined at MYI during the PUR, including
a 24 month look back, which led to the following findings Unlock Your Thinking129— a brief, non-clinical, 4-session program.
Over a 24-month period, 21 youth participated.
 Voices— a non-clinical, 15-session program designed to use volunteer support to broaden
children’s understanding of and sensitivity to the impact of their offenses on others.
Over a 24-month period, 19 youth participated.

This group includes 4 sessions, which according to the program description, is aimed at “addressing the ingrained
pattern of criminal thinking.” TCU Institute of Behavioral Research, available on the web at:
https://ibr.tcu.edu/manuals/description-unlock-your-thinking-open-your-mind/
129

60

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.









New Direction--Addiction Services Program to meet the needs of sentenced and unsentenced children for short-term drug and alcohol education intervention.
Over a 24-month period, 13 youth participated.
Thresholds— a counseling system specifically designed for delivery by trained volunteers.
Over a 24-month period, 4 youth participated.
Life Skills—24-hour curriculum that discusses educational subject matter in nutrition and
better hygiene, managing money, and social-behavioral subjects.
Over a 24-month period, 16 youth participated.
Domestic Violence Intervention—designed for youth who have committed a domestic
violence offense. Successful completion of this program is a requirement for youth who
enter into the DOC’s community-based transitional supervision program for domestic
violence offenders.
Over a 24-month period, 2 youth participated.
Anger Management—10-week program designed for adolescents to learn anger management
and coping skills.
Over a 24-month period, 10 youth participated.
Tier 2 – an addiction services group for adolescents.
Over a 24-month period, 2 youth participated.
Individual youth participation in group programs at MYI-- number of programs
participated in by each youth from date of admission through July 1, 2018.

Programs Participation
0 Programs
1 Program
2 Programs
3 Programs
4 Programs
5 Programs

No. of Youth
13 Youth
11 Youth
13 Youth
6 Youth
7 Youth
3 Youth

Length of Confinement
17 months
20 months
19 months
20 months
27months
21 months

OCA found that more than half of the youths incarcerated at MYI during OCA’s review participated
in zero or 1 program, with an average period of confinement to date (July 1, 2018) of 18.6 months.
OCA made a similar finding during its 2016 review of youth incarcerated at MYI. Of the 74 youths
incarcerated there in July, 2016, just under half did not participate in group programming. Many of
these youth were un-sentenced and their range of confinement was 4 to 19 months. Reasons for
non-participation vary, but include refusal by the youth, disciplinary sanctions, availability of staff,
and lack of participation requirements.
Clinical Staffing at YCI
YCI administration reported to OCA that the facility has 1 clinician for every 14 – 28 clients. The
clinicians’ weekly schedule is Monday – Friday, 5:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. A Licensed Clinical Social
Worker is available Monday – Thursday to facilitate group programming, individual counseling, urgent
requests for clinical contact, and Emergency Crisis Intervention. Emergency intervention is reportedly
available to all youth and young adults, 24/7.

61

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Mental Health Scores/Access to Individual Clinical Therapy at YCI
YCI reported to OCA that staff conducts a MAYSI assessment/suicide screen as well as a mental
health initial evaluation upon intake for all incarcerated youth, and Mental Health Scores are assigned
and services delivered as indicated by the score. A comprehensive psychiatric history is obtained for
all youthful offenders.
OCA’s review found that all of the 6 females at YCI were, at some point during their confinement,
designated as a MH 3 or higher.130 All of the girls, regardless of score, received individual counseling
from a clinical social worker, one session every week or every two weeks.
Programming at YCI for Girls
YCI administration reported to OCA that “YCI shall ensure that adequate programming services are
offered to offenders ages 14131-17.” YCI administrators initially reported that youthful offenders
participate in all groups weekly, with a rate of 100% attendance. Closer review of the girls’ records by
OCA revealed that utilization of services was inconsistent and variable, and this data was discussed
with YCI administrators.
During the PUR, female youth participated in the following programs:
 Sisters Standing Strong: groups are peer led support groups that are offered in most of the
un-sentenced units. The focus of these groups is to provide support, to offer assistance in
coping with stress related to incarceration, and encourage positive change by other women
role models.
 Start Now: a 32 session group designed to cover a wide range of coping skills, including
relationships and emotions.
 Supportive Therapy: This group consisted of having the women do check ins, support on any
topic the women needed from issues at home or at YCI to conversations around substance
abuse and mental health issues. The importance of this group was for the women to be
supportive in positive ways and to teach and learn from each other.
 Book club: This group is based upon the inmates all reading a book from the library and
discussing as a group the book and it how it might relate to themselves, what lessons might
be taught from the book and how it might relate to the inmate and society.
 Mentoring;
 Seven Challenges.
 Good Intentions, Bad Choices
The frequency of participation varied by youth given admission dates and other factors, including their
clinical instability and staffing issues. Certain programs are not required until a youth is sentenced. All
six of the youth whose files were reviewed by OCA during the PUR were awaiting sentencing. All
female youth are now assigned a mentor while incarcerated. The mentor is chosen from the adult
population.
The youth at YCI receive programming both separately and with other youth who are over 18 years
old. Access to program participation is affected by the availability of staff to supervise the youth

130
131

Only 1 youth was initially given a Mental Health Score of 1, which was subsequently increased to a 3.
Only minors age 15 and above may be transferred to an adult correctional facility.
62

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

offenders due to federal regulation. YCI administrators reported that youth participate in at least one
group weekly, and can participate in more if staffing allows and groups are being conducted.
In reality, youth incarcerated at YCI experience significant isolation due to their small numbers and
these requirements for separation from the “adult” population.
DOC administration reported to OCA that they “strongly believe that mental health services and nonacademic programming at MYI and York meet the needs of the population.” 132
D. ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
Performance measures for USD I, and for MYI and YCI specifically, can be found on the State
Department of Education website.133 The USD 1 typically offers academic classes toward the General
Education Development (GED) CT State High School Diploma. In certain cases it is possible to
coordinate with a student’s local education agency (LEA) to assist in completing the necessary credits
or seat time in order to count toward a local high school diploma from the home school.
The following was provided to OCA by the USD 1 Superintendent:
When a student enters the facility, an individual intake interview is conducted. The school staff
member conducting the interview channels each student to the next step in the assessment
process. A student with English as a Second Language (ESL) is assessed by an ESL instructor.
If it’s determined that the student would best benefit from receiving instruction from an ESL
teacher, he is placed accordingly. If a student is an emerging reader, he is assessed by an
instructor who specializes in lower level learners. We use two standardized tests, the Test of
Adult Basic Education (TABE) and the Employability Competency System (ECS). The TABE
provides grade level equivalencies in reading, math, language and spelling. These scores help
determine a student’s strengths and the areas that need to be strengthened. The ECS test helps
determine a student’s employability strengths. Upon arrival in the individual classrooms,
teachers administer their own assessments to determine students’ aptitudes. Just this year, we
began administering the CMT test and CAPT Science.
If a student is identified as special education, he will receive triennial testing every 3 years.
Depending on where the student is in this three year period, he may be tested as part of the
PPT process while he is at MYI. The PPT team, in collaboration with a parent or guardian,
would determine which assessments would be best suited to determine if a student continues
to qualify for special education. Often, academic and cognitive testing is conducted. Behavior
rating scales are also often used.
Students under the age of 18 attend school for 5 hours a day, unless a specialized plan has
been developed.
A student under the age of 17 may participate in vocational education. Because students attend
a full day (5 hours), attendance in a vocational program would take the place of an academic

132

133

Letter to CA Eagan from DOC Commissioner Semple dated November 8, 2018, on file with OCA.
http://edsight.ct.gov/Output/School/HighSchool/3361115_201617.pdf.
63

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

area. Students are also able to explore vocational education to assess interest without being
enrolled in a specific vocational program.
MYI officials told OCA that “While MYI does have vocational opportunities, it is not routine practice
to have the juvenile offender population participate in vocational services. This may be done on an
individual basis based on an identified need or concern with a particular youth, but these opportunities
are mainly for the over 18 year old population at MYI.”
Attendance Concerns at MYI
USD I’s recent student performance report to the CSDE included data indicating that 37.9% of
students at MYI were “chronically absent” as that term is defined in state law, meaning they missed at
least 10% of the total number of days enrolled in the school year for any reason.
OCA reviewers found discrepancies between the data provided to OCA by DOC administrators
and data compiled by OCA from a review of youth-specific education records. OCA examined
education records for twenty-one (21) youth incarcerated at MYI during the PUR to review
attendance documentation for both morning and afternoon school sessions. OCA calculated the
number of missed sessions per youth along with the documented reasons for the missed sessions.
Youth in the sample group had a higher rate of absenteeism than what was reported to OCA. MYI
maintains attendance data for morning classes and afternoon classes. OCA examined the 21 youths’
records to determine at what rate each youth participated in a full day (5 hours maximum) of school.
OCA’s analysis found that on average, youth participated in a full day of school between 14 and
72% of the time.
OCA Findings Regarding Sampled Youth’s Rate of Full-day Participation in School
Youth 1
72 %

OCA broke down the portion of absenteeism that
Youth 2
67%
corresponded to the morning school session and the
Youth 3
65%
portion that corresponded to the afternoon session. For
Youth 4
64%
almost every youth, the percentage of missed class was
Youth 5
61%
higher in the afternoon session, with the majority of
Youth 6
58%
missed classes attributed to “teacher absence” or “classes
Youth 7
57%
not scheduled.”
Youth 8
57%
Youth 9
56%

Reasons for student absenteeism included: “teacher
Youth 10
56%
absence,” “absence (generic)”, “custody”, and “class not
Youth 11
56%
scheduled.” The reason for a generic “absence” or “custody”
Youth 12
51%
absence was often unclear, and the use of the code terms
Youth 13
50%
appeared inconsistently in students’ attendance records.
Youth 14
47%
While the facility utilizes scheduled and unscheduled lockYouth 15
46%
downs during the year as part of its security procedures, lockYouth 16
45%
downs did not account for the majority of missed
Youth 17
43%
educational days.
Youth 18
42%
Youth 19
40%
The Superintendent of Schools for U.S.D.-1 and the facility’s
Youth 20
36%
data analysis staff reported to OCA that U.S.D.-I had not
Youth 21
14%
been counting certain absences as reportable, including
64

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

missed classes for reasons such as: Teacher Absence (T) or Custody (C). OCA pointed out several
youth that MYI documented as having excellent attendance but that OCA’s review of the actual daily
record indicated this was not the case. USD-I administration stated that they would review and
improve their attendance record keeping. The facility reported to OCA that when a teacher is out or
leaves for any reason or a class is not scheduled the youth is not afforded education either for the full
day or a half of the day. MYI lost their substitute teachers in recent years. The data suggests that this
is one of the periodic reasons youth are not participating in school and remain on the unit.
MYI also reported to CSDE that it does not suspend any students.134 USD-I’s position is that when a
youth is removed from school for behavior reasons he is removed by facility custody staff and not by
the teacher. While OCA understands that this distinction is due to the nature of the facility, since MYI
custody staff are in charge of all movement, if a student is removed from the classroom and brought
back to the unit due to behaviors and risk factors demonstrated in the classroom, then the school
removal should be recorded as a suspension. USD-I administrators indicated that they were not going
to change their documentation practice, insisting that they do not suspend students.
OCA also finds that USD-I practices regarding school removal and documentation indicate that
school administrators have not been compliant with IDEA discipline procedures because some youth
have been repeatedly removed from class, sometimes for days a time, and there have been no IDEArequired meetings (such as a manifestation PPT) to address the school removals and how a youth’s
specialized needs, be they emotional or learning, may contribute to the youth’s behavior. USD-I
administrators reported that they had not conducted any manifestation determination meetings during
the PUR.
OCA was also concerned that not all potentially eligible youth were identified as qualifying for special
education and related services. USD I’s reports to CSDE indicate that as of October 1, 2016, 42.9%
of students enrolled at MYI’s school were identified as having disabilities. OCA notes that this
percentage is substantially lower than the percentage of youth at CJTS who were identified by USD-2
administrators as special education eligible during the last two school years,135 61% and 65%
respectively. OCA would not expect this rate to go down as youth move deeper into the criminal justice
system.
Youth-Specific Education Records at MYI
OCA reviewed ten (10) youths’ education records to learn more about the youths’ identified
disabilities, their relevant special education needs, and to understand each youth’s access to special
education services. OCA reviewed each youth’s education record (9 youth had an IEP, 1 youth had a
504 plan) from his previous school district as well as the records developed for the youth at MYI.
OCA found the following:
1. Several students’ documented access to special education hours dropped substantially after
admission to MYI and enrollment in USD I.
 Youth 1, who has an identified educational disability of “Multiple Disabilities,” received
33.75 hours per week of special education services in his prior program. This declined to
See also MYI School Profile and Performance Report for School Year 2016-17 filed by USD 1 officials and which can
be found on the CSDE website:
http://edsight.ct.gov/Output/School/HighSchool/3361115_201617.pdf.
135 https://portal.ct.gov/SDE/Performance/EdSight.
134

65

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

1.15 hours per week after admission to MYI. The youth received additional general
education service hours.
 Youth 2, who has an identified educational disability of “Emotional Disturbance,”
received 15.75 hours per week of special education services in his prior program. This
declined to 1 hour per week after admission to MYI, along with general education service
hours.
 Youth 3, who has an identified educational disability of “Emotional Disturbance,”
previously attended a specialized education program in the community, where he received
30 hours per week of special education services. This declined at MYI to 1.15 hours per
week of special education services and 1 hour per month of counseling supports. He also
received general education service hours.
2. For youth in the general population at MYI who were subsequently designated to the SRG
Unit, their IEPs were further changed to reflect additional cuts in education service hours.
3. Education records and evaluations reflect that all youth whose records were reviewed present
with extensive educational deficits and profound need for special education and related service
delivery. Evaluations reflected that these youth have needs across all academic and functional
domains, yet receive relatively few special education service hours and extremely limited
delivery of related services such as counseling and transition support. No youth whose IEP
was reviewed received speech and language support or occupational therapy, although such
services may be needed by students who have multi-disciplinary developmental disorders and
academic deficits. USD 1 administrators had previously reported to OCA that they do not
have access to speech and language pathologists or occupational therapists on staff but that
they have the capacity to contract out for such services when needed. When OCA inquired
further, USD 1administrators acknowledged that no student was receiving these services.
4. Relatively few students received vocational education during a 12-month period of review,
although many students are entitled to transition programming under IDEA. Between July 1,
2016, and June 30, 2017, MYI administrators reported that only 14 students under age 18
received any vocational education hours.
OCA concludes that the findings above are the result of a lack of resources and, to some extent,
facility population management protocols.
Education at YCI
The school at York Correctional is also part of the USD I. YCI officials reported the following to
OCA:
 YCI School typically offers academic classes toward the General Education Development
(GED) CT State High School Diploma. In certain cases it is possible to coordinate with a
student’s local education agency (LEA) to assist in completing the necessary credits or seat
time in order to count toward a local high school diploma from the home school. Generally
the USD I School Counselor or School Psychologist will make the contact with the LEA to
determine the feasibility of this process and then maintain contact until such time as the work
is complete.
 York School offers vocational classes. At the time of this request, these included Business
Education Technology, Culinary Arts, Cosmetology and Hospitality Operations Technology.
 Classes are held Monday through Friday from 8:30 am to 11:00 am and then from 11:45 a.m.
to 2:30 p.m.
66

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Youth attend school with the over 18 population at YCI. They are escorted to the school and efforts
are made to keep them in close proximity to the teacher, distanced from older students.
Student Attendance at YCI
YCI had 2 students under the age of 18 who began school on September 6, 2016. There have been
no suspensions or removals from school programming since that time.
During the time of enrollment through June 30, 2017, there were 168 days expected. One youth missed
17 days and the second missed 15 days for the following reasons: Court, Legal or Facility Security.
A third student, age 16, began school on May 10, 2017. From that time through June 30, 2017, there
were 30 school days scheduled. She missed 7 days due to Legal or Facility Security reasons.
A fourth girl was admitted to the facility on June 28, 2017, and began educational services in July.
E. ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING
OCA’s review of child welfare records revealed that there were no reports made regarding suspected
abuse or neglect of youth at MYI or YCI between 2015 and October 1, 2017, by any DOC or DCF
staff member.136
There is no independent ombudsman for youth incarcerated in adult facilities, and though DCF
maintains office space at MYI and YCI, DCF is present for the purpose of assisting with DCFcommitted youth treatment and discharge planning. The DCF liaison does not systemically meet with
incarcerated youth to identify or address concerns of maltreatment.
MYI facility administration reported to OCA that MYI follows an Administrative Directive (6.6) on
“Reporting of Incidents” and staff in the building who are mandated reporters are expected to
generate a DCF report, in addition to a DOC incident report, and make hotline referrals whenever
there is a report of suspected child abuse or neglect.137 DOC administrative directives do not include
specific reference to mandated reporting to DCF.
YCI administrators provided the same response as MYI.
F. ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
MYI
Non-contact visits for the General Population at MYI, approximately 500 individuals under the age
of 21, are offered during the week, Monday through Friday. 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., and weekends
from 6:45 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Contact visits are offered weekends, 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
For youth placed in Security Risk Group, non-contact visits are permitted Monday through Friday,
8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. and weekends, 4:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.

136
137

There are two reports made by the OCA during that time frame.
Correspondence with MYI administrator, dated Oct. 19, 2017, on file with OCA.
67

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Several years ago, MYI allowed only non-contact visits for the
entire population of young adults and youth. Non-contact visits
take place with Plexiglas separating the inmate and the visitor
while they talk on a phone. Unless there was a special
circumstance, no physical contact was allowed between a youth
and his parent, caregiver, family member, etc. Over the past
several years, the DOC has recognized the importance of
contact visits for youth and has changed policies to allow for
contact visits when they are earned.

While DOC administration has
worked over the years to change
policies at MYI so as to permit
youth to receive contact visits with
family, OCA has repeatedly found
that the majority of youth
incarcerated in the facility continue
to not have contact visits.

Currently, if a youth is not on any Special Administrative Status, he will automatically be allowed
contact visits upon admission to MYI. Youth who receive Class A disciplinary reports, such as assault,
creating a disturbance, destruction of property, fighting, flagrant disobedience, interfering with safety
and security, threats, etc. lose contact visits for 6 months. Youth who receive a Class B disciplinary
reports, such as bartering, causing a disruption, contraband, out of place, disobeying a direct order,
etc. lose contact visits for 2 months.
During OCA’s interviews with the youth, they reported that one of the
most meaningful things for them is the ability to have physical contact
with someone they care about. Some youth expressed that they would
rather not have family members come in to see them if they cannot have
contact with them because it is too difficult for the youth and family
members.

OCA looked at the history of visitation records (typically only a family member may visit) for 53 youth
who were confined at MYI at a point in time in July, 2017. OCA was provided data by MYI with the
number of visits the youth had received during the review period. Of the 53 boys whose visit records
were reviewed, 25/53 were admitted to MYI prior to 2017; 28/53 were admitted to MYI during 2017;
33/53 youth were sentenced as of July, 2017.
OCA found the following:





24/53 youth received no visits since their admission to MYI;
14/53 youth received 2 or fewer visits since their admission;
15/53 youth received more than 2 visits since their admission, with a range of 3 to 42 visits;
Only 13 of the 53 youth received “contact” visits—meaning that they could touch the family
member visiting them.

MYI reported that some youths weren’t allowed contact visits due to receiving a disciplinary ticket,
being designated as SRG, or being in High Security; while others had visitors at night when contact
visits are not allowed.
During the OCA’s 2016 review of conditions for youth at MYI, previously reported to the JJPOC,
OCA also found that the vast majority of incarcerated youth were not permitted contact visits.

68

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Family Contact and Family Engagement/MYI
MYI does not provide family therapy. The staff who work with the youth can sometimes assist them
with contacting a family member if the youth has no money to use the phone. This can be done with
the unit counselors twice a month or with the unit captain.
At times, the facility, clinical or educational staff may be able to facilitate contact with a family member
if the circumstances warrant such contact; but OCA finds that this is not common practice.
Additional MYI policies regarding visitation are excerpted below:
Courtesy Visit: Upon admission to the facility an immediate family member will be granted
one visit prior to the visitor application being processed and approved. A courtesy visitor shall
be authorized to visit for up to 14 days.
Regular Visits: Criteria and Authorization: An inmate who anticipates regular visits shall
submit the name and address of each potential visitor to the assigned counselor utilizing the
Visiting List. The applications and Inmate Visiting rules are mailed to the prospective visitor,
who shall complete and sign the application and mail it back to the facility.
Review: The Unit Administrator shall require verification of the visiting application
information and any other information deemed significant. A criminal history and warrant
query shall be conducted to verify criminal history information.
Current and Ex-offenders: A current or ex-offender who has been convicted of a crime shall
be precluded from routine placement on an inmate’s visiting list. However, they may request
permission to visit, in writing, through the unit administrator. The Unit Administrator will
review the request for: severity and nature of the offense; likelihood of ongoing criminal
behaviors and discharge or oversight from the criminal justice system.
A proposed visitor can appeal the denial of a request to be placed on a visiting list. MYI has made
efforts to approve visitors for incarcerated youth whenever possible. However, in OCA’s experience,
the facility procedures can be a barrier for some of the youth who may be overwhelmed and not
understand how the process works.
Youth access to the unit phone is also a complicated process at MYI. Youth are assigned a PIN
number within the first few days of incarceration. In order for them to use the phone, someone from
the outside must put money on their account.
YCI
Unlike boys and girls in juvenile facilities, youth in the DOC don’t have free access to the phone even
for calls to family members. Phone calls can only be made during recreation time. Recreation time is
also shower time and large muscle movement time. While the facility has tried to increase this time to
2 hours an evening, in the past it was only for 1 hour and many of the youth only had time to use the
shower and phone.
Family Therapy at YCI
According to facility administrators, family therapy is not routinely provided for youth at YCI.
However, all incarcerated female youth engage in weekly supportive counseling with the unit social
69

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

worker and some work with doctoral psychology students weekly as well. Of the 6 female youth who
were admitted between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017, 2 had family therapy sessions over the phone
on 2 occasions. During OCA’s review, another youth began family engagement with her father,
facilitated by the unit social worker.
Family Visitation/Contact at YCI
YCI has a large area where multiple youth can have contact visits with visitors and a small area that
allows for children to play and interact with mothers or family during visits.
Visiting hours are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 10:45 a.m., 1:00 p.m. to 2:15 p.m., and 6:15
p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Weekend hours are the same as weekdays but youth can only receive visits on one
weekend day.
Professional visits also occur in the visitation area, with separate rooms where inmates can meet with
their attorneys or other professionals from the outside the facility, when approved.
Unlike MYI, almost all of the visits at YCI are contact visits.
Data Regarding Visits with Youth Offenders at YCI
For the 6 youth who were admitted to YCI from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017:
 Youth 1 was there for 26 days and had no visits.
 Youth 2 was admitted 8/16 and had 29 visits through June 30, 2017.
 Youth 3 was admitted in 8/16 and had 60 visits through June 30, 2017.
 Youth 4 was there for 53 days with no visits.
 Youth 5 was there for 57 days with no visits.
 Youth 6 was there for 2 days with 1 visit.

OCA FINDINGS - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION: MYI AND YCI
Overall, OCA found the experiences of male youth at MYI and female youth at YCI to be very
different in all of the areas described above.
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION:
1. While many youth admitted to MYI have documented histories of suicidal ideation/behavior,
MYI reported to OCA that there were 0 incidents of suicidal or self-harming behaviors by
youth during the PUR.
2. Records reviewed by OCA revealed approximately two dozen youth admitted to the MYI
infirmary for mental health reasons during the PUR including paranoia, hopelessness, and
threatening to self-harm.
3. The DOC’s YCI reported 2 incidents of suicidal or self-harming behavior by two different
youth during the PUR (there were 6 girls confined at the facility during the PUR).
70

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

4. DOC’s facilities did not provide OCA with information regarding participation in an auditing
framework for assessing the quality or efficacy of suicide prevention/response protocols.
5. DOC data and UConn Correctional Managed Health Care data regarding the number of
youth admitted to MYI and who were subsequently screened for mental health and suicidality
do not match. While DOC acknowledged that there are discrepancies with its reporting, it
was unable to explain the reasons for those discrepancies.
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION-RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING:
6. MYI was not able to provide reliable data regarding use of restraint (physical, mechanical, or
chemical) or seclusion during the PUR. YCI reported that no girls experienced physical or
chemical restraint during the PUR. DOC has committed to improving their data collection.
7. MYI relies on months-long isolation, sometimes solitary, of minors as part of its Security Risk
Group protocols (SRG), where a determination has been made that a youth cannot be safely
managed alongside other youth due to the youth’s active gang affiliation. During the PUR,
youth on SRG status were confined in a Restrictive Housing Unit and were in their cells 21
to 22 hours per day with limited access to education, and no access to rehabilitative
programming. Youth on SRG may be handcuffed any time they are not in their cells,
including for escort to showers, during large muscle movement, and phone calls. While the
DOC asserted the effectiveness of its SRG program for reducing gang-related violence, the
agency did not provide OCA with supporting data.
8. OCA finds that the SRG program and its reliance on prolonged physical isolation of minors
constitutes “administrative segregation” and as such violates Conn. Gen. Stat. § 18-96b,
which statute strictly prohibits the administrative segregation of minors and which was
intended to prohibit solitary confinement of minors. The DOC disagrees with OCA’s
characterization of its SRG program as “solitary confinement” or “administrative
segregation,” terms often used interchangeably in correctional literature/research nationwide.
9. MYI utilizes routine cell confinement of youth in general population for administrative and
security purposes, with youth confined to their cells multiple hours per day in between meals
and programming.
10. MYI utilizes shorter term physical isolation (1 to 30 days per instance during the PUR) of
minors as a behavioral consequence. Cell confinement is nearly total (23.5 hours per day) and
youth on this status have no access to school or rehabilitative programming. All youth on
this status are handcuffed any time they are permitted to leave the cell for hygiene or
phone calls.
11. No youth in isolation (short term or long term) at MYI had an individualized behavior plan
to support return to the general population. OCA encountered multiple youth who while in
isolation presented as lethargic and depressed, some refusing to engage in basic hygiene
activities.

71

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

12. DOC policies permit use of chemical agents on youth. OCA found multiple examples of
youth with asthma diagnoses who were the subject of chemical agent restraint at MYI. Many
states have banned use of chemical agent on minors, and the U.S. Department of Justice has
warned that use of chemical spray on juveniles may violate their rights, including the use of
chemical agent on youth with respiratory conditions such as asthma.138 The DOC’s policy
requires a review of the youth’s medical and mental health history prior to the use of a
chemical agent. However, the DOC acknowledged that chemical agents are often used to
“quell spontaneous situations that threaten the safety and security of staff, inmates and the
public,” in which case it would be improbable that such medical review would take place
under those circumstances.
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:
13. DOC leadership states that it “strongly believes that mental health services and non-academic
programming at MYI and York meet the needs of the population.” However, the DOC
“assumed direct responsibility for inmate health care effective July 1, 2018” due, in part, to
mounting concerns expressed by the legislature, civil rights groups, and family and friends of
inmates about the poor quality of care provided to inmates, resulting in a legislative hearing
held in July of 2018. In a September 2018 audit of the DOC, the Auditors of Public Accounts
expressed its concern over the health care provided to inmates: “[v]agueness in contract
terms, a general absence of measurable performance standards, the absence of recognized
standards of care, and the lack of an effective quality control system, impair DOC’s capability
to ensure proper performance of service by UCHC/CMHC and expose the department to
the risk of liability for failure to provide quality care.” The OCA commends the DOC for
recognizing the deficiencies in its provision of health care services and committing to
improving this vital service delivery.
14. DOC facilities reported their policy is to screen all youth for mental health treatment needs
and suicidality upon admission.
15. DOC offers mental health treatment services in accordance with a youth’s assigned Mental
Health Score (1-5). Despite the national data regarding the prevalence of mental health
disorders among incarcerated youth and the number of boys at MYI with current or historical
mental health diagnoses, the majority of incarcerated boys were assessed by the DOC as
either having no history of mental health treatment or not presenting with any current clinical
needs. Only 4 boys confined at MYI in July, 2017, for whom Mental Health Scores were
provided to OCA, were identified as in need of weekly mental health counseling. DOC asserts
that it its services meet the needs of the population.
16. OCA examined rehabilitative program participation for 53 boys at MYI confined during the
PUR, examining each youth’s record of participation for not only the PUR, but the previous
24 months as well, beginning with most boys’ date of admission. OCA found that, with an
average period of confinement for the 53 youth of 18.6 months, more than half of the boys
participated in zero or one program while incarcerated.

138

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2010/12/15/la_county_juvenile_findlet.pdf
72

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

17. The DOC acknowledges its problem with data reporting and asserts that “[m]any of the
inmates who were reported as not participating in rehabilitative programming, in fact were
participating.” DOC stated it is going to remedy its data collection and reporting processes.
18. Girls at YCI were all designated a MH 3 or higher and all of the girls (6 during the PUR)
were offered individual counseling from a clinical social worker, one session every week or
every two weeks. Participation of girls in group programming varied considerably. All girls
are assigned a mentor while incarcerated. Due to the small number of girls, programming can
change depending on the population.
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING:
19. MYI’s U.S.D 1 is the school district run by DOC for youth in its facilities. MYI reports that
youth receive 5 hours of school programming a day. OCA found discrepancies in MYI’s
attendance and discipline data, including data reported to the State Department of Education,
and OCA’s review of the school attendance records for 21 youth at MYI revealed that most
youth missed a substantial amount of school during the school year. Documented reasons
offered for student absenteeism at MYI were variable and include “teacher absence,”
“absence (generic),” “custody,” and “class not scheduled.”
20. Similar to the school districts serving youth in detention, USD 1 reported no suspensions of
students from the MYI School, which is likely due to the fact that when a youth has a
behavioral incident in school, custody staff are called and facilitate the school removal.
However, any school removal for behavior is governed by state suspension laws. This review
revealed that the USD 1 staff are not following state and federal special education laws
regarding cumulative school removals. The DOC disagrees with OCA’s finding based on its
opinion that the school suspension statute “makes no sense in the context of the Department
of Correction,” and that “it is not school staff who is removing inmates from the school – it
is custody staff. The school is not effectuating or controlling the removals, or the length of
the removals. Special education laws regarding cumulative school removals, therefore, do not
apply.”
21. MYI has limited resources to provide comprehensive special education and related service
delivery to eligible youth, and few youth receive vocational programming. The DOC reports
14 of 109 students at MYI participated in vocational classes during the PUR.
22. OCA’s record review revealed that USD 1, revised the special education plans of youth
entering the facility to decrease the hours and services previously identified in their Individual
Education Plans (IEP).
23. Youth in Security Risk Group experienced the most dramatic limitation to access to
education. IEPs of youth in SRG were found to have been modified to reflect significant
reduction in education/special education services. Youth in shorter term isolation for
disciplinary reasons were found to not receive tutoring or go to school, but youth may have
received a packet of educational work sheets.

73

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

24. YCI reported 2 girls under the age of 18 began school on September 6, 2016. YCI reported
no suspensions or removals from programming. During the PUR, both girls were absent
approximately 10% for the following reasons: Court, Legal or Facility Security.
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING:
25. DOC correctional staff and facility administrators are not identified as mandated reporters in
state law. The only DOC staff members who are mandated to report suspected abuse or
neglect are those whose professional credentials identify them as such, e.g., a medical
professional, clinician, or teacher working in the facility. DOC reported to OCA that it had
made two reports to DCF during the PUR. OCA’s review of the DCF database revealed no
documented reports of suspected maltreatment made to the DCF Careline by anyone at
DOC/CMHC during the PUR.
26. DCF has an imbedded staff at DOC-no reports of suspected abuse or neglect were made by
the DCF staff on site in the prison.
27. There is no framework for training DOC employees at MYI or YCI on abuse/neglect
reporting.
28. There is no agency or independent ombudsman for youth incarcerated in DOC facilities.
FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT:
29. Almost half of boys incarcerated at MYI had no visits during the review period, and only 13
boys were permitted “contact” visits where they are allowed to touch a family member.
30. MYI does not offer family therapy.
31. MYI offers visitation hours to families in the evening throughout the week and during the
day and evening on weekends. Contact visits (where a boy and his family member can
physically touch) are only offered on weekends. For boys in Security Risk Group, non-contact
visitation is only offered on two one-hour sessions during the week, and most boys on SRG
had no visits during the PUR.
32. OCA’s examination of visitation records for a sample of 53 youth at MYI showed that 45%
of boys had no visits during their admission, and an additional 15% of youth had 2 or fewer
visits Only 13 of the 53 youth were permitted “contact” visits. Contact visit privileges are
suspended or terminated due to disciplinary tickets. Contact visits are also not allowed at
night. Boys reported to OCA that visits are one of the things that mean the most to them,
but that some would rather not have a family come to see them if they cannot have contact
with them because it is too difficult of an experience.
33. Youth are not permitted free phone calls at MYI, unlike youth in juvenile justice facilities.
74

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

34. Visitation resources differ at YCI as compared to MYI, and all youth are permitted contact
visits with family.
35. YCI does not routinely provide family therapy for female youth, but family therapy may be
facilitated by the unit social worker. During the PUR, two youth had family therapy sessions
over the phone on two occasions. All of the youth are entitled to contact visits. YCI has a
large general visitation area and a small area that permits children to interact with mothers or
family members during visits. OCA’s review of visitation data revealed that of the 6 girls
incarcerated during the PUR, 4 youth had 1 or no visits (with an average length of
confinement of 34 days at the time of review.) Two girls had more than two dozen visits, and
both girls had been confined for approximately 10 months.
AGENCY RESPONSE: DOC
Leadership of the Department of Correction has reported that it remains committed to working with
stakeholders seeking to improve outcomes and conditions of confinement for youth. Leadership
responded to OCA findings that agency policies and practices are consistent with best practice for
adult correctional programs and while they have made some effort to adapt practice for the state’s
youngest offenders, they believe youth would be better served outside of an adult correction
system. DOC further responded that these youngest offenders frequently present with the most
challenging behaviors and restrictive measures utilized are needed to ensure staff safety and facility
security. DOC does not agree with the OCA finding that its use of isolation for behavior management
constitutes solitary confinement. DOC acknowledged limited staffing resources and flexibility.
MYI’s physical plant is structurally incompatible with implementing age/developmentally appropriate
programming. DOC indicated that it intends to seek consultation with national experts with whom it
has been working to develop effective programs for incarcerated young adults.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES - CONNECTICUT
JUVENILE TRAINING SCHOOL
The Connecticut Juvenile Training School closed in April of 2018 and responsibility for youth
adjudicated were no longer committed to the custody of DCF, but to supervision of the Judicial
Branch effective July 1, 2018. In July of 2015, the OCA published a comprehensive investigative report
into the care and treatment of youth at CJTS.139 As OCA’s review was conducted while CJTS was still
operating, and for the value of comparing relevant conditions of confinement for youth across state
agencies, this report will still include pertinent information obtained regarding conditions for youth
confined at CJTS through 2017. Some of the information discussed in this report regarding CJTS is
briefer than information discussed regarding conditions for youth in CSSD detention facilities or
DOC prisons due to the winding down and eventual closure of CJTS during the development of this
report.

139

https://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf
https://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/investigative072215.pdf
75

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

During the PUR, CJTS administration reported that the facility had adopted a restorative philosophy
which they described as “a way of viewing justice that puts the emphasis on repairing harm caused by
conflict and crime. In this approach crime is understood as a violation of people and relationships
and a disruption of the peace of the community. It is not simply an offence against the state.
Restorative justice is collaborative and inclusive. It involves the participation of victims, offenders
and the community affected by the crime in finding solutions that seek to repair harm and promote
harmony”. (CJTS description on file with OCA) ?NEEDS FOOTNOTE
During the PUR (July 1, 2016 – June 30, 2017):


There were 113 admissions to CJTS (58 of which were re-admissions). The average expected
length of incarceration at CJTS was 6 months.



Discharges from CJTS: 109 youth were discharged from CJTS -- 27 were discharged to
congregate care; 79 youth were discharged home; and 3 youth were remanded to the DOC.140
A. SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR/SUICIDE PREVENTION

In response to the requests for information from the OCA, administrators from CJTS reported that
there were 0 incidents of suicidal or self-harming behaviors141 by youth during the 12 month
PUR.142
Given the number of youth confined in CSSD facilities during the PUR who were assessed as being
at risk of or actively engaging in suicidal behavior or ideation, OCA reviewed a sample of records143
related to youth confined at CJTS during the PUR, which sample indicated that there were multiple
youth who staff documented as having engaged in self-harming behavior, including with a stated intent
to die.
Notes below are drawn from CJTS facility records.


Youth One
7/6/16
Placed on Safety Watch after cutting left forearm while in the padded cell and smearing blood
on the walls.



Youth One
7/10/16
Youth has been highly dysregulated in his mood and behavior, including multiple episodes of
self-harming threats and behavior (e.g., scratching arms and tying shirts around his neck) and

140

Race admission data for 89 youth at CJTS from January 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 during a six month period of
review: 41 African American/Black; 32 Hispanic; 11 White/Caucasian; 1 Asian; the remaining 4 listed as Other.
141 OCA supplemented its original information request and sought data regarding any incident of self-harming/injurious
behavior during the PUR.
142 Correspondence between OCA and CJTS administrators clarified that administrators defined suicidal ideation as any
“statement of suicide with or without a plan.” In the same correspondence CJTS confirmed that no youth engaged in any
self-injurious behavior during the PUR (7/1/2016 through 6/30/2017).
143 OCA reviewed case records associated with youth that came to the attention of OCA as having potentially significant
unmet treatment needs.
76

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

has warranted multiple physical interventions and seclusions. These behaviors appear to be
subsequent to increased anxiety.


Youth Two
7/29/16
Youth was in room and had a nose bleed. Moderate amount of blood on bed, sheet, towel and
pillow. Youth said he tied his shirt around his neck and when he released it his nose bled.
Youth met with clinician after he wrapped his sweatshirt around his neck. He was crying and
repeatedly stated he couldn’t do this, he gives up. Reported strongly wanting to die due to
being in this facility and due to an assault in detention.



Youth Three 12/5/16
Youth placed on safety watch after making several vague suicidal statements and tying a sheet
around his neck. He was also able to access several metal pieces that he refused to give up,
and took back his shoelaces, threatening that he “wouldn’t be alive tomorrow.”



Youth Four
12/17/16
Resident placed in padded cell. Banging his head and wrapping his shirt around his neck. Was
able to calm down and was seen by nurse. Returned to the unit and placed on “No Access.”144

Screening at CJTS
CJTS administrators provided information regarding the facility’s methodology for screening youth
for suicide risk factors. The facility reported that since September 2015 the clinical department began
using the Suicide Assessment Five-Step Evaluation and Triage for screening purposes. In January 2017
the facility implemented the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale Lifetime Recent and Screen
version. All youth were reportedly screened for suicidal ideation and related risk and protective factors
as part of the admission assessment, and the results were reviewed and updated as part of the 14 day
assessment and 30 day clinical evaluation for youth subsequent to admission.

144

“No access” is a facility term for cell confinement/seclusion.
77

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

Monitoring of Youth at CJTS
CJTS reported that there were 37 youth assessed for their safety
during the PUR, with 15 youth placed on a safety watch as a result.
The facility safety watches include direct observation (initiated by
custody staff pending clinical assessment), 10 minute safety watch
(initiated through clinical assessment), 5 minute safety watch (also
initiated through clinical assessment) and 1:1 safety watch as the most
intensive monitoring for youth assessed at significant risk for suicide.
Per CJTS administrators, no youth voiced a plan or an intent to die.
Two of the youth made a suicidal gesture by placing an item around
their neck but quickly removed the item independently and denied
that their intent was to kill themselves.
CJTS reported that of the 15 youth placed on safety watch:
 9 youth were placed on a 10 minute general safety watch for
support.
 4 youth were placed on 1:1 status.
 3 out of the 15 youth were placed on more than one safety
watch during the time period.

Research has shown that
suicidal ideation is higher in
post-adjudication youth than
in pre-adjudication youth,
with some studies showing
that suicidal ideation for
post-adjudication youth in
secure facilities was 51%
(past year) and 58% (life
time).
Most studies have found that
girls have higher rates of
suicide attempts than boys.
Source: Teplin, L., Stokes,
M., et al., Suicidal Ideation and
Behavior in Youth in the Juvenile
Justice System: A Review of the
Literature, Jour. Correct.
Health Care (July 2015).

Quality Assurance for Suicide Prevention
CJTS provided OCA with their facility suicide assessment and prevention policy. The policy did not
specify quality assurance activities used to evaluate the efficacy of its suicide prevention policies, the
safety of the physical plant, or the adherence of its staff to suicide prevention protocols and
communication requirements.
OCA is aware that a March 2016 suicide prevention audit was commissioned by DCF and performed
by UConn Correctional Managed Health Care. This audit took place subsequent to the OCA’s 2015
investigative report, which was critical of treatment planning, crisis management, and suicide
prevention efforts at CJTS and Pueblo. The 2016 audit identified the need for numerous changes and
modifications to policy, programming and the structure of both secure facilities. The auditors made
19 programmatic recommendations and 71 recommendations for modifications to the CJTS facility.
Major recommendations included:
 Improvements to safety watch protocols, clinical follow-up, monitoring, and documentation.
 Development of a quality assurance and continuous quality improvement program for suicide
prevention.
 Modifications to ceiling vents and sprinklers where youth can attach or affix ligatures for selfstrangulation.
 Efforts to minimize and eliminate blind spots in facility cells.
 Modification of bathrooms to reduce opportunity for self-injury.
In May and June 2016, OCA and the Office of the Chief Public Defender’s Post-Conviction Unit
wrote to DCF administrators seeking information regarding necessary improvements to suicide
prevention protocols and facility practices for responding to high-risk youth. DCF responded with
details about its action steps to address various recommendations from the UConn auditors. In
78

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

December 2015, Governor Malloy announced the intended closure of CJTS and subsequent to that
announcement the number of youth confined at CJTS steadily declined, with the facility ending
admissions in January 2018. Per DCF administration, no further external suicide prevention audits
were conducted, anticipating closure.
B. USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION – RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND
RESTRICTIVE HOUSING
As previously stated, CJTS was governed by the state’s “person at risk” statute which prohibits any
non-emergency use of restraint or seclusion. OCA’s 2015 investigative report regarding conditions of
confinement at CJTS and the Pueblo girls’ secure facility found that both interventions were used
inappropriately and in a manner inconsistent with state law.
Restraint -- CJTS policy provides that restraint may only be used as a response to “emergency
situations and after all less restrictive strategies have been exhausted.”
Seclusion -- CJTS policy defines seclusion as “maintaining a resident in a room, whether alone or
with staff supervision, utilizing a door that is locked, except that the term does not include the placing
of a youth in a secure room for the purpose of sleeping.”
Mechanical restraint -- “may be used if there is a reasonable cause to believe that the resident may
inflict physical injury on himself or others and as a precaution against escape.”
Documentation and Review -- Facility policy also requires that staff use video cameras when
utilizing restraint during an incident, that clinical and medical staff assist in assessment of youth during
or after restraint incidents, that all staff participating in an emergency intervention submit required
documentation, and that staff receive a debriefing from supervisory personnel after incidents take
place.
N
Data
For purposes of this review, CJTS reported the following restraint data for the six-month PUR145:



164 physical restraints of youth for reasons such as fights with peers, peer conflict, milieu
disruption, school disruption, and property destruction.
34 mechanical restraints for “safety transportation.”

CJTS reported the following seclusion data for the PUR:



60 instances of seclusion for greater than 4 hours.
28 instances of seclusion for greater than 8 hours.

OCA Data Review- OCA reviewers examined the seclusion/room confinement data in the CJTS
CONDOIT system in conjunction with the individual case files of those youth who were identified
as being placed in seclusions/room confinement for the period January 1, 2017-June 30, 2107. The
145

OCA did not review youth specific data regarding restraint.
79

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

numbers reported by CJTS administration in response to the OCA’s review, which numbers are also
provided on a monthly basis to the CJTS Advisory Board were significantly lower than those recorded
in CONDOIT. The review found multiple incidents where youth were secluded, which were not
accurately documented or reported by CJTS administration.
For example, CJTS reported that during January 2017, there were 13 instances of youth placed in
seclusion/room confinement for greater than 4 hours; while OCA’s review of CONDOIT and
individual case files found over 25 instances of seclusion/room confinement greater than 4 hours.
During February 2017, CJTS reported 7 instances of youth being placed in seclusion for greater than
4 hours, and no incidents of seclusion that lasted longer than 8 hours. OCA’s review of CONDOIT
and individual case files found 9 instances of seclusion greater than 4 hours, and 3 instances of
seclusion greater than 8 hours.
CJTS administration was not able to explain these discrepancies.
CJTS policies regarding restraint and seclusion are entitled “Safe Crisis Intervention.” OCA’s review
of youth-specific records and DCF internal investigation documents reveal that the facility policies
regarding use of force were not consistently followed. Multiple internal investigations conducted by
DCF into allegations of suspected abuse or neglect of youth in the facility documented concerns about
the failure to follow facility/agency policy regarding the use of video recording of incidents and the
responsibility of management to adequately de-brief with staff after incidents of restraint.

C. ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
According to information provided by the CJTS administration to the OCA, the Clinical Department
maintained 24 hour coverage, (on site and on-call) 365 days per year. Hours were typically 8:30 a.m.
to 5 p.m. (information provided did not specify whether this was 5 days or 7 days per week). Clinical
staff offices are located within the housing units.
From January 1, 2017, to June 30, 2017, there were 6 active clinicians, including licensed clinical social
workers and licensed clinical psychologists. During this time there were an average of 50 boys confined
at CJTS per month. Accordingly, the average clinician-to-client ratio was 1 to 8.3.
Assessment/Evaluation
CJTS reported that the Clinical Department completed an integrated assessment for youth admitted
to CJTS to identify and evaluate each youth’s need for clinical services. The integrated assessment
included an interview of the youth by the primary clinician assigned to the case and a psychiatrist, a
review of records, and a parent interview. At the 30-day mark, the integrated assessment was presented
at a Plan of Service meeting with clinical recommendations.
Access to Treatment Services
CJTS reported that the Clinical Department offered a wide array of mental health services including
individual and family therapies, group therapies, assessment, treatment planning, crisis intervention,
80

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

psychiatric evaluation, and medication management. Core programming at CJTS included the
following:
Seven Challenges: An evidence-based substance abuse program provided to incarcerated
youth with substance abuse disorders. The program teaches decision making through seven
prescribed challenges during the treatment process
Power Source: An evidence-based, trauma-informed social and emotional learning program
offered to all incarcerated youth.
The Clinical Department contracted with community providers to offer services for problem
sexual behavior, intimate partner violence, domestic violence, and other specialized services.
CJTS administrators did not provide documentation or data regarding utilization or completion rates
for these services.
Utilization of mental health services at CJTS
CJTS provided OCA with a chart of all the boys who were incarcerated in the facility during the PUR.
CJTS reported that the average rate of clinical contact per youth was 1.3 contacts per day and
emphasized the significance of having clinical staff embedded in each housing-with opportunities for
informal (and possibly undocumented) interaction. Formal documented individual sessions by
clinicians were reported to be held minimally 1x/week. CJTS administration indicated that it defines
a “clinical contact” as “any face to face with the youth.”146
Given that the high rate of clinical contact reported by the facility did not coincide with information
previously reviewed by OCA, OCA again reviewed all documentation on clinical services provided to
a sample of 15 youth confined at CJTS during the PUR. The youth whose records were examined
were known to OCA as having extensive clinical and behavioral health treatment needs and would
therefore be likely to require frequent clinical contact and intervention. OCA examined all
documented individual clinical contacts including any face-to-face between each youth and his
clinician, any individual therapeutic sessions, and all participation in therapeutic group programming.
OCA’s review of youth-specific records found the following:
1. The average length of incarceration for the 15 youth was 6 months (ranging from 2 months to
11 months)
2. None of the records reflected at least daily clinical contact (face-to-face).
3. The frequency of documented clinical sessions per youth varied greatly. The average # of
individual session contacts per youth was 3.7 per month.
4. The range of individual clinical session contact per youth was 1 to 9 sessions per month.
5. Average # of group therapy contacts per youth was 3.9 sessions per month.
6. The range of group therapy utilization per youth was 0 to 13 sessions per month.
D. ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
CJTS administration provided educational information as follows:
146

Email from CJTS Superintendent to OCA staff, Sept 11, 2017, on file with OCA.
81

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

103 students were identified as being served by at CJTS during the 12 month PUR. As of October 1,
2016 the CJTS school district (USD-II, the district responsible for students at CJTS and the DCF-run
Albert J. Solnit Psychiatric Center) reported to the CSDE that it was serving 41 boys. 27/41 students
were identified as eligible for special education services.
CJTS did not provide attendance data generally, but it did provide the facility’s record of disciplinary
reports for the 103 students. USDII did not provide absenteeism data to the state in its school profile
and performance report for 2016-17, citing the need to suppress data to ensure student confidentiality.


40 of the students received at least one school suspension, including in-school and out-ofschool suspension.
 23 students received an in-school suspension.
 17 students received an out-of-school suspension.
 10 students received more than 1 school suspension.
 Over 70 % of the students were removed from class on one or more occasions.
CJTS did not provide OCA with information regarding its special education identification and referral
protocols.
E. ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING
Between January 1, 2015, and October 4, 2017, there were 45 accepted reports of suspected abuse or
neglect of children confined at CJTS. All of the reports were investigated internally by DCF’s Special
Investigations Unit (SIU). 7 of the 45 reports resulted in substantiated findings of child abuse or
neglect. Allegations contained in reports to DCF included physical and emotional neglect and physical
abuse.
Several investigations led DCF’s internal investigations unit to identify “program concerns” at its
facility, including deficiencies in the manner in which staff adhered (or failed to adhere) to the facility’s
policies and procedures for interacting with children. Identified program concerns documented on
multiple occasions by SIU include:
1. Failure to follow protocols for use of force.
2. Failure to document incidents adequately, including use of force and youths’ self-harming
behavior.
3. Failure to adhere to agency policy regarding the use of hand-held cameras to record incidents
and staff use of force.
4. Failure by management to de-brief with staff after incidents involving physical restraint.
All CJTS staff were trained on mandated reporter obligations. Reports were most often called into the
DCF Careline by facility managers, administrators, clinical staff, or the DCF Ombudsman. Reports
were also called in by the OCA and the Public Defender’s Office. Prior to and following release of
OCA’s investigative report in July, 2015, regarding conditions at CJTS, DCF instituted internal
changes to ensure proper acceptance of reports of suspected abuse and neglect of children
incarcerated at CJTS. Thereafter, the contents of investigative reports improved, with a more
comprehensive focus on facility policies and staff conduct.

82

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

OCA also finds that the role of the facility Ombudsman
is critical to ensuring that youth are heard regarding
conditions of confinement. The DCF Ombudsman
regularly shared information regarding youth grievances
with OCA and public defenders and periodically made
reports to the DCF Careline regarding concerns of abuse
and neglect.

An ombudsman can play an important
role in assessing and reporting concerns
that constitute 1) a possible violation of
law; 2) a possible violation of
facility/agency policy; or 3) an
action/incident inconsistent with best
practices.

F. ACCESS TO FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY THERAPY
CJTS administrators provided the following information:







Family therapy was available to all boys at CJTS. However, family therapy was dependent on
a number of key factors- a youth’s willingness to engage, his family’s willingness to engage, his
age (may be 18 years old), availability of family resources, dual commitment status with no
family resources, residence of the parents (may be out of state), etc.
Visiting hours are offered Saturday, Sunday and holidays from 11:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. In
addition, weekday visiting hours are offered on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday from 6:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
Total number of boys at CJTS during the PUR: 89
Family Sessions - 165 occasions for all incarcerated youth.147
Visitation data- On average, the frequency of family visits per youth per month was 1.8.
 68 boys (76%) had at least one family visit during the PUR.
 21 boys (24%) did not have a family visit during the PUR.

OCA broke down the visit information by youth.
 34/89 boys had 1 or 0 visits during the six-month PUR.
 31/89 youth averaged at least 1 visit per month during the PUR with a range of 6 visits in 6
months to over 20 visits in 6 months.
Number of Visits

Number of Youth

O visit
1 visit
2 visits
3 visits
4 visits
5 visits
6 visits
7 visits

21 youth
13 youth
8 youth
4 youth
6 youth
6 youth
6 youth
5 youth

CJTS administrators reported that clinicians attempt to speak to family members by telephone as well and they provided
data that there were 682 such calls during the PUR, which would average 1.5 calls to family per incarcerated youth each
month.
147

83

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

8 visits
9 visits
10+ visits
20+ visits

2 youth
3 youth
9 youth
6 youth

Given that CJTS was a longer-term secure facility with an emphasis on rehabilitation (rather than
custody prior to trial), OCA examined discharge outcomes for boys from CJTS during the PUR and
compared discharge data to family therapy data. OCA found that most of the boys discharged home
had few or no family therapy sessions prior to discharge.




46/89 boys incarcerated during the PUR were discharged home during that timeframe.
More than half of the 46 boys discharged home (26/46) had 1 or 0 family therapy sessions
during the PUR.
The majority of boys (38/46) had 3 or fewer sessions during the PUR.148

OCA FINDINGS - CJTS
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR/SUICIDE PREVENTION:
1. While many youth admitted to CJTS have documented histories of suicidal ideation/behavior,
CJTS reported to OCA that there were 0 incidents of suicidal or self-harming behaviors
by youth during the PUR. OCA’s review of youth-specific records however, revealed multiple
incidents of youth expressing suicidal thoughts or engaging in self-harming behavior.
2. During a previous review of conditions of confinement at CJTS from 2014 to 2015, OCA
found more than 4 dozen incidents of suicidal or self-harming behavior.149
3. CJTS did not provide OCA with information regarding participation in an auditing framework
for assessing the quality or efficacy of suicide prevention/response protocols.
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION-RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING:
1. OCA’s review found significant discrepancies in reported data regarding the use of restrictive
measures.
2. OCA’s review found multiple examples that CJTS staff used cell/room confinement (physical
isolation) as a disciplinary sanction.
This data refers to in-person family therapy sessions.
 13 youth had no family therapy.
 13 youth had 1 family therapy session.
 12 youth had 2 or 3 family therapy sessions.
 6 youth had 4-8 family therapy sessions.
 2 youth had 10 or more family therapy sessions
149 OCA Report: Investigative Facility Report Connecticut Juvenile Training School and Pueblo Unit, and Addendum,
available on the OCA website:
https://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/oca_investigative_cjts_pueblo_report_july_22_2015.pdf;
https://www.ct.gov/oca/lib/oca/ocaaddendumfinal_9_1_5.pdf
148

84

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

3. CJTS reported that between 30-40% of youth were subject to a restraint during the PUR.
ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT:
1. CJTS had an expected length of confinement of 6 months. Youth were screened for mental
health treatment needs and suicidality upon admission, and clinical staff developed treatment
plans and goals for all youth.
2. OCA’s review of youth specific records indicated that even youth with complex mental health
treatment needs received, on average, out-patient level of care (3.7 sessions per month),
utilization of individualized and group programming by youth varied considerably, and some
youth participated in few or no group programs during the review period.
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING:
1. CJTS’s school is run by U.S.D. 2, the school district administered by DCF for youth in DCFrun facilities. CJTS provided information that for the 103 students in the CJTS School during
the PUR, 40 students received at least one suspension, and 10% were suspended on multiple
occasions.
2. More than 60% of youth at CJTS were identified as eligible for/receiving special education
services.
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING:
1. All DCF employees at CJTS are mandated reporters and receive training regarding reporting
obligations.
2. Over a 34 month period (through 2018) there were 45 reports to DCF of suspected abuse or
neglect of children at CJTS. These reports, like any facility report of abuse or neglect, are
investigated by DCF’s internal Special Investigations Unit (SIU). 7 of the 45 reports were
substantiated by DCF as child abuse or neglect. Several investigations led SIU to identify
program concerns at CJTS, including staff failure to follow protocols for use of force, failure
to document incidents adequately or accurately, and failure by management to de-brief with
staff after incidents involving physical restraint.
3. The DCF/CJTS ombudsman is a DCF employee. The ombudsman has filed multiple reports
of suspected abuse or neglect to DCF during the last three years.
FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT:
1. Data review for 89 youth who were at CJTS during the PUR showed that 51% of those youth
were discharged home. More than half of the 46 boys discharged home (26/46) had 1 or 0,
in-person family therapy sessions during the PUR.
2. Data review showed that while 76% of all youth had at least one family visit during the PUR,
24% had no visits.

OCA RECOMMENDATIONS

85

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

There is a need for a greater transparency and accountability with regard to conditions for children
and youth in congregate care and confined/secure settings. While there is public information regarding
conditions and incidents of abuse and neglect in certain types of regulated programs serving vulnerable
populations (i.e. daycares and nursing homes), there is little to no published information regarding the
safety and quality of youth-serving programs, including group homes, residential treatment facilities,
juvenile or criminal justice facilities, whether such facilities are licensed by or run by the state. OCA
recommends that a framework be urgently developed for the collection and publication of critical
performance and outcome measures expected for secure and non-secure youth-serving facilities,
including measures related to concerns of abuse and neglect, program/licensing concerns, and
corrective actions.
SUICIDAL BEHAVIOR AND SUICIDE PREVENTION
1. Connecticut should standardize how suicidal and self-harming behavior is collected and
reported for youth in confinement.
2. Consistent with expert recommendations, all juvenile-serving correctional facilities should
have a “quality assurance process in place to monitor the components of a facility’s suicide
prevention program with immediate modification made when indicated.”150
3. All youth-serving facilities should undergo an annual audit of the facility’s physical
environment for suicide resistance.
4. Closed-door cell confinement should be limited for juveniles and prohibited for juveniles who
present with risk for potential or actual suicidal behavior. All room checks should be
conducted at staggered intervals.
5.
Staff must receive evidence-based training in identifying risk factors for suicide among the
juvenile population to ensure that vulnerable youth are identified, supported and monitored.
Threats of self-harm should never be dismissed as “attention seeking.” According to experts,
“there is no way to tell if youth are manipulating or truly want to die; ‘Manipulative’ individuals
have died by their own hands. Although frustrating and difficult to manage, youth who engage
in suicidal behavior solely to solicit attention, facilitate a transfer, or obtain coveted resources
can accidentally kill themselves.”151
6. Staff training should include information regarding the risk to youth created by any transition,
including transitions home.
7. Any instance of suicidal behavior should trigger a comprehensive case review with
participation from clinical and facility operations staff.
8. Suicide screening should be done not only at intake but on a continuous schedule for all
confined youth.
USE OF FORCE AND ISOLATION—RESTRAINT, SECLUSION AND RESTRICTIVE
HOUSING
1. Consistent with the recommendations from the Department of Justice, the American
Psychiatric Association, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, and other
professional organizations, Connecticut should ban solitary confinement of minors.
2. State law must be revised to clarify what constitutes impermissible solitary confinement, but
consistent with most national associations’ definitions, the state should ensure that it prohibits
150
151

OJJDP/NIC Guide, supra, N. 2, Ch. 11, Boesky, P., “Mental Health.”
Id. at 18.
86

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

3.

4.

5.
6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

isolation practices that confine children to their cells for the vast majority of a 24 hour period
without access to meaningful rehabilitative and education services, pro-social interaction and
other needed services and interventions.
Given the paramount importance of ensuring a safe and secure milieu for juvenile offenders
and the staff who work with them, the DOC and, where applicable, CSSD should work with
national experts to improve safety outcomes without relying on the physical and social
isolation of minors. The agencies should seek technical assistance, as needed, to support the
prevention of behavioral incidents that typically lead to harsher discipline or isolation measures
and an unsafe environment.
Connecticut correctional facilities should follow toolkits developed by the Council of Juvenile
Correctional Administrators (CJCA) to assist with reducing isolation of juveniles. CSSD is
using these tool kits now and working to reduce reliance on cell confinement as part of its
youth in custody practice model.
State law should prohibit the use of chemical agents on children/youth by all local and state
agencies.
State law should prohibit the use of prone restraints with minors across all state and local
agencies. State law currently bans prone restraints for students and most state agencies,
including DCF and DDS, have banned use of prone restraints due to concerns over airway
restriction and other negative physical effects. These critical considerations do not change
even if the youth’s service or custodial setting changes.
Similar to state laws that govern treatment and emergency intervention for youth with
disabilities or challenging behaviors, correctional facilities must be required to implement
behavior intervention plans for youth whose behavior interferes with the safety of others and
limits the youth’s participation in rehabilitation activities.
The state should standardize statutory definitions and policies regarding the use of force and
the use of punitive and restrictive measures for minors, regardless of correctional setting.
Today there are conflicting definitions of use of force or isolation applicable to incarcerated
youth, and statutes frequently provide no definition at all.
Professional agencies meeting with youth in correctional/secure settings should consider the
use of screening tools to assist with the discussion of certain conditions of confinement with
children. Custodial agencies should provide a mechanism for professional visitors to meet with
children on the units where they are confined.
All agencies must ensure that they can collect and produce accurate data regarding the
use of force and physical isolation on children. Each agency should have a reliable
continuous quality improvement plan that addresses the use of emergency and isolation
measures.

ACCESS TO MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT
1. All facilities must ensure they have accurate record-keeping and data collection processes
regarding youth’s access to and utilization of mental health and rehabilitative
programming.
2. All facilities should be required to report regarding youth/family utilization of clinical and
rehabilitative programming.
3. All youth facilities should have trauma-responsive rehabilitative, pro-social, and clinical
programming embedded into their daily schedule, seven days per week.

87

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

4. All youth facilities should be adequately resourced to ensure provision of 7-day per week
intensive pro-social, rehabilitative and clinical programming.
5. All facilities must ensure staff are trained in how to maintain a trauma-responsive milieu
and how to recognize signs of trauma in youth’s behavior.
ACCESS TO EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING
1. All facilities must have clear and specific frameworks for ensuring compliance with all
state and federal education laws regarding attendance, discipline, special education, and
record-keeping.
2. All facilities must be required to report regarding the provision of educational services to
incarcerated youth, including data regarding attendance, discipline, special education service
delivery (with information regarding availability and utilization of special education and
related services).
3. Facilities must ensure effective intake and discharge procedures for educational
programming purposes. No youth should be discharged without an educational plan which
includes a plan for immediate enrollment in an appropriate program.
4. The State Department of Education should provide guidance to school districts regarding
necessary practices to facilitate record-sharing, educational meeting participation, and
enrollment for justice-involved youth.
ABUSE/NEGLECT AND MANDATED REPORTING
1. State law should require that all facility staff working with children in confinement and all
staff under contract to work with children in confinement be mandated reporters of
suspected abuse and neglect.
2. All facilities for incarcerated youth should maintain an independent ombudsman to meet
regularly with children, tour the facility, address concerns with administration and outside
parties, and make reports of abuse or neglect where applicable. All ombudsmen/women
should be mandated reporters of suspected abuse or neglect.
3. All youth-serving facilities must pay close attention to strengthening their frameworks for
mandated reporting, not just of suspected abuse or neglect by third party caregivers but by
facility staff as well.
4. All employees must be trained to understand that it is not their role to evaluate or
investigate allegations of suspected child abuse or neglect, and that their only obligation is
to report a “reasonable suspicion.” Protocols, training and guidance for staff should
acknowledge that suspected abuse or neglect may often need to be reported internally and
externally. Agencies must emphasize compliance with legal requirements for reporting to
law enforcement and child welfare authorities, while ensuring clear internal reporting
protocols for suspected child abuse or neglect and other incidents of child maltreatment.
Policies should specify what staff behavior the facility will respond to internally and what
behaviors must be reported to authorities.152
5. Policies and training regarding staff-youth boundaries should recognize a balance between
“encouraging positive and appropriate interactions and discouraging inappropriate and
152

Preventing Child Sexual Abuse Within Youth-Serving Organizations, Getting Started on Policies and Procedures, Center for
Disease Control (2007) at 17, report available on the web at:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf.
88

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

6.
7.
8.

9.

10.
11.
12.

harmful interactions.”153 Not all physical/verbal expressions of support between staff and
a youth are inappropriate. A pat on the back or physical expressions of comfort or
consultation may be an appropriate response, depending on context, age of youth, and
environment.
Agencies should ensure human resource policies include specific disciplinary actions for
failure to comply with mandated reporting requirements.
Agencies should include continuous quality improvement plans for ensuring effective
strategies to prevent child maltreatment and encourage compliance with mandated
reporting obligations.
Sexual abuse prevention training should be required for all facility staff. Training regarding
abuse and neglect, including staff sexual abuse of children, must be data-driven, scenariobased and interactive. Recognizing concerns of staff sexual misconduct and responding
timely and effectively can be difficult due to what experts identify as the cognitive
dissonance barrier that affects staff perception or detection—meaning that most people
will disbelieve that anyone they know or work with would sexually mistreat a child.
However, statistics regarding sexual abuse of adolescents, self-reported in surveys, strongly
suggest that prevalence rates for adult/staff/teacher sexual misconduct with children are
much higher than what is reported and investigated. Effective training and preparation of
staff to understand the prevalence of such incidents and respond to concerns, even rumor
and innuendo, can assist with better prevention and response to concerns of staff sexual
misconduct. Agencies must have clear requirements for “reporting suspicious adult
behavior, and an effective complaint system including definitions, administrative
consultation protocols, investigations and criminal referral processes, parental notification
requirements, administrative resolution steps and immunity and retaliation
considerations.”154 Policies must emphasize that suspicion is enough, particularly because
most sexual abuse will happen when perpetrators believe they will be undetected and
reporters will often not be direct witnesses to sexual misconduct.
Staff training must include an understanding of trauma, its impact on youth behavior and
the need for gender-specific and responsive programming for incarcerated children, with
explicit attention to populations uniquely vulnerable to abuse and neglect, such as children
who are LGBTQ-I and those with disabilities.
Supervision and training for staff in youth-serving facilities must address policies regarding
use of technology, electronic communication, social media, and smart phones.
All facilities should have a clear framework for the use of video cameras and the review of
video footage to support a safe environment for children and staff and enhance quality
assurance activities.
All facilities should have a data-driven approach to risk management, including identifying
the most common factors in incidents of concern between children or between staff and
children/youth.

FAMILY CONTACT/FAMILY ENGAGEMENT

153

Id. at 9.

United States Department of Education, “Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools Technical Assistance
Center: Educator Sexual Misconduct, What School Staff Need to Know and Do”, Vol. 3 Issue 2 (2008), available on the
web at: https://rems.ed.gov/docs/HH_Vol3Issue2.pdf.
154

89

 DRAFT Investigative Report, Confidential Pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46a-13k et. seq.

All facilities should consider how to strengthen youth’s ties to their families and community
institutions while the youth is in secure care. The Department of Justice’s OJJDP Policy Guidance
includes numerous recommended “focus areas” for states and local communities, some excerpted
below with additional recommendations from OCA:
1. Facility staff should receive specific training in effective youth and family partnership and
engagement strategies.
2. Facilities should allow developmentally healthy and appropriate activities and recreation for
youth and family members during visitation to strengthen family bonds and minimize the
trauma of separation.
3. All youth-serving facilities should be required to permit contact visits with youth unless a
timely and specific risk assessment tool determines that the provision of a contact visit
creates a risk of imminent harm to the youth or others.
4. All youth-serving facilities must have strategies to support therapeutic family engagement as
either part of a treatment model, where applicable, or part of a discharge planning process.
5. All youth-serving facilities should be required to collect data and report regarding the
efficacy of its family engagement and visitation policies and practices.
6. Advisory group membership/s should include current and former system-involved youth
and their families.

90