Prison advocacy: Staff complicity in sexual violence

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be high risk.

Here we are addressing an issue of harassment and threats from other incarcerated persons, and staff refusal to respond to the endangerment even though they knew of the issues and even said they would take care of the problem, but did not. With the lack of response from staff, the subject felt she had no other choice but to negotiate protection with another incarcerated person, an agreement that often means trading sexual favors for protection from harm. In this case, even though they knew about the endangerment and directly or indirectly encouraged the actions taken by the subject, the staff then cited the subject with a disciplinary case for sexual misconduct.

In their response to this complaint on March 11, 2022, the PREA Ombudsman referred to the coerced sex for protection as “a consensual relationship,” a typical excuse used to cover up sexual violence and manipulate data reported under PREA requirements. In spite of their manipulation, the Office of the Inspector General did open an investigation, but it can take years for such investigations to be completed, and most are dismissed.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

Prison advocacy: Staff refusing protection

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

In this letter, we are advocating for someone based on somewhat limited information sent to us in their first letter. TPI often tries to get more information before filing a complaint, but in cases where the endangerment appears to be immediate, we will file with what we have. Our impression was that this issue warranted quick action.

Note that extortion is mentioned, and the person we were advocating for admits to paying extortion. This is common in prison. When staff refuse to respond or refuse to provide appropriate response, the fastest means of gaining some safety is to pay someone, generally with commissary or sex, for protection. This also causes additional problems because prison staff will often refuse to identify extortion as such, and are fairly likely to claim this is consensual trafficking and trading in contraband or consensual sex, and it can result in a disciplinary case for the person trying to avoid additional harm or violence.

Mentioned in this letter is the SCC, or Unit Classification Committee. The Unit Classification Committee (UCC) and the SCC are important review groups that make decisions about housing and transfers. In general, endangerment is investigated and the UCC determines what, if anything, is recommended to be done to address the endangerment. That recommendation is send to the SCC for final approval. The UCC can make weak arguments to claim to be acting in the best interest of the incarcerated person, even when they know that the argument they make will be refused by SCC. That appears to be the manipulation that occurred in this instance.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman office separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, which we are directly addressing in this letter, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

Prison advocacy: Sexual assault and retaliation, guards “protecting our own”

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be moderate risk.

The person we are advocating for in this letter, a trans woman, provided a detailed description of being assaulted by a ranking officer and guards after a disciplinary hearing. The Captain mentioned in this letter as an assailant has been reported to TPI an number of times as being disrespectful, unprofessional, and an instigator or perpetrator of violence against persons in TDCJ custody, particularly LGBTQ+ persons.

TDCJ staff have a saying: “we protect our own.” Although there may be descriptions of this statement that have more honorable justification, what this statement often means is that staff will cover up violence against incarcerated persons committed by other staff.

In responding to this report, TDCJ’s “independent” ombudsman simply parroted the statement from staff at the unit who claimed that the person “attempted to head butt an officer.” No attempt to verify the veracity of that statement was made, and no video or audio recordings were reviewed. It is common for staff to claim that there was some “attempt” to do do something as an excuse for violence, in this case being used to justify assaulting someone who was in hand restraints and could not defend themselves. Any use of force is generally considered improper against someone in hand restraints.

It may be worth noting that in the 2021 Texas legislative session, HB 1598 and SB 1980 proposed creating a new independent ombudsman separate from TDCJ as an oversight agency. TDCJ seems to have responded by creating their own “independent” ombudsman office, probably to make the argument that an actual independent agency is not needed because they already have a supposedly independent oversight group. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most of TPI’s responses from the “independent” ombudsman simply repeat the findings (and excuses) of staff at the units where the incidents occurred.

Prison terms: SOS, Security Observation Status

In late 2022, TPI began hearing about people being placed in CDO, which stands for Constant and Direct Observation, when filing a request for investigating endangerment.

CDO is also called “suicide watch,” and it is basically a single cell that a person may be placed in if they threaten self-harm, and a guard is supposed to be stationed outside the cell to continuously watch them. On placement in the cell, all or almost all clothing is removed and they are usually given a paper gown (see image below). The temperature in the cell is kept low, a kind of “cold torture” that is meant to achieve what TDCJ calls “behavior modification.” CDO housing also requires the involvement of mental health staff.

But our reports were that people were being placed here that had no indication of self-harm, and simply had reported endangerment. In early 2023, we learned that this is a new excuse for cold cell torture and apparently some sort of “behavior modification” (generally trying to influence people not to report endangerment) called Security Observation Status (SOS). We were told that SOS is the same as CDO in that “property, clothing, and items are allowed to be possessed but it is a status applied by unit administration staff instead of mental health staff.” Meaning guards can now place someone they want to harass into SOS without having to go through mental health staff.

It is not known when this new form of punishment for pursuing safety was put in place, but it appears to have been initiated in late 2022.

Sample recently sent to TPI of the paper used for gowns in CDO and SOS. The red pen behind the material is to show how thin it is. TDCJ claims the use of paper is to prevent use in hanging and other self harm, but this is a kind of reinforced material that is quite strong, and it has been used in suicides and suicide attempts.

Prison advocacy: Sexual assault and retaliation, guards “protecting our own”

TPI is posting advocacy letters we have written to provide examples of violence against persons in prison, primarily against trans and queer persons in Texas prisons. Personal identifying information has been removed for all incarcerated persons, and named staff or other persons causing harm is removed on a case by case basis.

Content warning: Some of these letters describe threats and incidents of violence that may be disturbing. We will note whether each letter is considered a low, moderate, or high risk for being disturbing. We consider this letter to be high risk.

The person in this letter has identified to TPI as a transgender woman. She has reported sexual assault by a guard, who then proceeded to harass her and threaten her if she reported the incident, and then to retaliate against her when she did report it. Other staff participated in what can only be described as an attempt to cover up the abuses by the guard. The issue is discussed in two complaints to the TDCJ PREA Ombudsman, submitted in January and February 2022. The first complaint was filed with information we had initially, and the second provided some additional information and subsequent violence against the trans woman survivor.

In response to the actions by the incarcerated trans woman and our complaints, eventually the guard who sexually assaulted her was terminated. However, the trans woman was told that she was lying and her story was unsubstantiated, which means they are claiming there is less than a 50% chance it happened. TDCJ claims about 97% of all allegations to be either unsubstantiated or unfounded (claiming they did not happen), and this is often accomplished by refusing to investigate appropriately, manipulating the narrative of the survivor, claiming sexual assault is “consensual,” or simply claiming the person is lying.