TPI is filing complaints about PREA (Prison Rape Elimination Act) auditor failures to provide proper audits. Under PREA § 115.401(o), auditors “shall attempt to communicate with community-based or victim advocates who may have insight into relevant conditions in the facility.” TPI has seldom been contacted concerning information we have about Texas prisons, and the National PREA Resource Center, which oversees the audit process, has failed to hold auditors accountable to this requirement. TPI has developed a simple auditor tool for auditors to see current information about any unit that we have in our system, so they do not have to even contact us. They are required to list if they tried to contact others about prison information and who they contacted. We are seeing many auditors list no contacts, or contacts that are perfunctory and likely provided no information.
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 low risk.
The following file is the TPI complaint against the auditor, with the TPI audit report generated at the time the complaint was filed. The audit report by the auditor, which we feel was inappropriately considered final an accepted as documenting “compliance” with the PREA standards, can be accessed here. Some noteworthy points include:
- The auditor admits to only contacting one outside advocate or agency, and provides no indication of what information or data was provided.
- The auditor makes note of several areas where the senior warden refused to implement changes that would reduce endangerment of trans persons and others in his custody.
- The auditor documented insufficient training as evidenced by practices at the unit, insufficient investigations, and a serious conflict of interest in outcome determinations related to investigations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse.
- The auditor showed serious misunderstanding of what TDCJ defines as “protective safekeeping,” and how that designation is used and applied. The misunderstanding also includes how the separate “safekeeping designation” is used, as well as how other types of separation occur when sexual harassment and sexual abuse is alleged. Without a clear understanding of these issues, compliance cannot be determined. This is in part a lack of auditor due diligence, but is also caused by intentional manipulation and confusion on TDCJ’s part.
- The auditor erases the existence of trans women at the unit, and thus fails to appropriately audit for cross-gender strip, body cavity, and pat searches and the required documentation for such cross-gender actions.