Category: PREA Issues

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. 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 falsely claims that Connally Unit houses only “males.”
• Multiple conflicts in data presented (unlikely claims of target population sizes; conflicting claims that target populations did not exist at the facility, and interviews with supposedly nonexistent members of these target populations; false claims about segregated housing; incomplete and conflicting data concerning investigations of sexual violence). See also notes about conflicting information concerning PREA §§ 115.64, 115.71, 115.72, and 115.73.
• The auditor failed to conduct the minimum number of targeted interviews required (20 required; 15 interviewed).
• PREA § 115.15: Based on TPI data, TPI experience with the procedures at Connally Unit, and the clear fact that the auditor did not properly audit this standard, Connally Unit cannot be assessed as meeting PREA § 115.15.
• PREA § 115.33: The auditor presents unexplained conflicting data concerning the evaluation of compliance with this standard. Due to these issues, it cannot be determined whether or not Connally Unit meets compliance with this standard.
• PREA § 115.43: The auditor fails to fully address issues of protective custody as used in TDCJ, and appears to manipulate the interpretation of this standard and Connally Unit compliance. The auditor also fails to identify that many people at Connally Unit—both at the time of the onsite audit and during the 12-month audit period—were in housing at the facility that constitutes PREA “protective custody.” Based on information provided in this audit, data that TPI has documented for Connally Unit, and the auditor’s failure to address the scope of PREA protective custody, TPI asserts that Connally Unit cannot be assessed as meeting compliance with the PREA § 115.43 standard.
• PREA § 115.51: TPI documentation indicates significant failures by Connally Unit staff to respond to reports of sexual violence or potential sexual violence. Based on this audit report, it cannot be determined whether or not Connally Unit meets this standard.
• PREA § 115.61: TPI provides several examples of Connally Unit staff failing to meet their reporting duties and disclosing protected information. Based on our information and the failure of the auditor to address such issues, Connally Unit cannot be found to meet compliance requirements for PREA § 115.61.
• PREA § 115.67: TPI has documented a number of issues concerning retaliation for reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment at Connally Unit, so the fact that the auditor claims there were none in 12 months is questionable. Due to these issues, Connally Unit cannot be found to meet compliance requirements for PREA § 115.67.
• PREA § 115.68: TPI documentation appears to contradict the auditor’s claims made in the evaluation of Connally Unit for compliance with this standard. Additionally, the auditor’s discussion does not address significant parts of compliance with PREA § 115.68. Based on these, Connally Unit cannot be found to meet compliance with this standard.
• PREA § 115.71: Conflicting information and the auditor’s own report of interviewee statements indicate Connally Unit may not be in compliance with this standard. Based on these issues, it cannot be determined whether or not Connally Unit meets the PREA § 115.71 standard.
• PREA § 115.72: Discussion of compliance with this standard by the auditor does not address significant indications that Connally Unit does not meet the PREA § 115.72 standard. Based on this, Connally Unit cannot be found to meet compliance with this standard.
• PREA § 115.78: TPI has evidence that the auditor’s statement in this discussion that there were no persons accused of falsely reporting sexual abuse at Connally Unit is false. I addition, the case we know about was overturned, indicating the discipline was pursued in violation of this standard. Based on this information, it cannot be determined that Connally Unit meets the PREA § 115.78 standard.

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. 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 facility is falsely described as housing males only, in spite of the auditor documenting persons of other genders at the unit.
• Audit entry 47: The auditor falsely states that 0 persons at the unit had been placed in segregated housing due to risk of sexual victimization.
• Audit entry 66: The auditor failed to conduct the minimum number of interviews with transgender and intersex persons, and failed to do appropriate due diligence to identify additional transgender and intersex persons at the facility.
• Audit entry 67: The auditor failed to conduct the minimum number of interviews with persons who reported sexual abuse in the facility. The person who was counted but who denied being a member of the target population should have been replaced by identifying one of the other at least five persons in this target population who were available.
• Audit entry 69: The auditor failed to conduct the minimum number of interviews with persons who had been placed in segregation due to risk of sexual violence, and failed to do due diligence to identify persons in this target population.
• PREA § 115.15: The auditor failed to appropriately audit the unit for cross-gender strip and body cavity searches. Compliance with this standard is not supported and cannot be determined based on what is provided in this report.
• PREA § 115.43: The auditor misrepresents how protective custody is provided in TDCJ, and fails to investigate TDCJ’s misrepresentation of “protective safekeeping” as the only housing that meets PREA “protective custody” requirements. Compliance with this standard is not supported and cannot be determined based on what is provided in this report, especially given the level of misinformation presented here.
• PREA § 115.72: The auditor does not present any supporting information that indicates the preponderance of evidence standard is used in administrative investigations, and in fact provides objective evidence that such a standard is likely not used. Compliance with this standard is not supported and cannot be determined based on what is provided in this report.

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. 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 failed to contact sufficient community-based organizations with significant information about the conditions at Telford Unit.
• The auditor falsified information readily available concerning persons in segregated housing at the time of the audit.
• The auditor failed to conduct the absolute minimum number of required interviews with incarcerated persons; failed to interview the minimum number of lesbian, gay, or bisexual persons; failed to interview the minimum number of persons who reported sexual abuse at the facility; failed to interview the minimum number of persons who disclosed prior sexual victimization; and falsified the audit report by claiming to have completed the minimum number of interviews with incarcerated persons.
• The auditor stated that 0 persons at the facility had every been placed in segregated housing for risk of sexual victimization when in fact that statement is false.
• The auditor failed to question inconceivably low rates of substantiation concerning allegations of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.
• PREA § 115.42: Statements by the auditor, as documented in this TPI report, indicate multiple deficiencies in the auditor’s assessment of this standard. Some statements by the auditor are plainly false, some misconstrue the meaning of provisions in this standard, and the auditor fails to adequately consider some of the housing conditions for transgender persons at Telford Unit.
• PREA § 115.43: As is exhaustively documented in this TPI report, the auditor completely fails to understand or correctly apply an evaluation of protective custody as it is used in the PREA standards. The evaluation of any TDCJ facility with such an inaccurate understanding of housing assignments should be considered a failure to appropriately perform the audit.
• PREA § 115.61: The auditor failed to identify and address failures to meet this standard, as discussed in this TPI report.
• PREA § 115.64: The auditor failed to address the auditor’s own statement that in only about one-third of the reports did first responders separate the survivor from their assailant. That statement indicates noncompliance. Based on the information provided by the auditor, Telford Unit cannot be assessed as meeting this standard.
• PREA § 115.67: The auditor failed to identify and address clear cases of staff retaliation that indicate Telford Unit cannot be found to meet this standard.
• PREA § 115.68: As with §§ 115.42 and 115.43, the failure of the auditor to adequately address protective custody as it is used in TDCJ and at Telford Unit means based on the information in the auditor’s report, Telford Unit cannot be assessed as meeting this standard.
• PREA § 115.72: The rates of substantiation presented by the auditor indicate Telford Unit is not using appropriate evidentiary standards, and thus cannot meet compliance with this standard.
• PREA § 115.82: As discussed in this TPI report, Telford Unit staff have interfered with access to emergency medical services, and there are indications staff have manipulated documentation to misrepresent the deficiency.

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. 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:

• PREA § 115.11: The fact that 0 allegations of sexual harassment and sexual abuse over a 12-month period were deemed by Stiles Unit administration to have a greater than 50% chance of occurring is in itself enough to show that instead of “zero tolerance” of sexual abuse and sexual harassment, Stiles Unit in fact has a very high tolerance of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. That the audit was finalized based on this amazingly unbelievable claim shows that the auditor and auditing oversight process is participating in the covering up of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.
• PREA § 115.13: It is generally accepted that TDCJ experiences significant staff shortages, and TPI has a significant number of reports indicating staff shortages during the 12 months prior to the audit. This indicates the audit was deficient in finding Stiles Unit fully compliant with requirements to be adequately staffed.
• PREA § 115.15: Due to the auditor misidentifying the unit as housing only “males,” the discussion and assessment of PREA § 115.15 is deficient.
• PREA § 115.31: TPI presents a number of examples showing training, particularly in areas of effective and professional communications with LGBTI persons, is remiss. With such obvious disregard for LGBTI persons, it should be clear that Stiles Unit has difficulty meeting this standard, and certainly does not “exceed” the standard, as the auditor claims.
• PREA § 115.42: The auditor’s discussion of this standard is confusing, indicates serious misunderstanding of classification within TDCJ and at Stiles Unit, and in some areas is just wrong (apparently confusing “separate housing,” presumably protective custody under PREA, with dedicated housing for LGBTI persons). Stiles Unit also fails to keep persons separated for risk of sexual abuse adequately separate. The multiple inaccuracies in the assessment of PREA § 115.42 indicate a serious deficiency in this report.
• PREA § 115.43: The extent of the misunderstanding of TDCJ housing classification with regard to PREA protective custody in this report indicates a serious deficiency in the audit findings, and it is hard to imagine how the auditor deemed the facility “meets every provision” of this standard.
• PREA § 115.68: Discussion of this standard involves many of the same issues noted under PREA §§ 115.42 and 115.43, indicating deficiency in meeting this standard as well.
• PREA §§ 115.71 and 115.72: The auditor accepted Stiles Unit’s claim that 100% of all sexual abuse and sexual harassment allegations at the facility during the 12 months prior to the audit had less than 50% or less chance of having occurred. Such a claim is simply unbelievable. The assessment that Stiles Unit meets this standard is simply false.

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. 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 reported that although there were almost 2,000 persons housed at the unit, not one person had reported sexual abuse at the unit in the 12 months preceding the audit. This indicates the unit may be transferring anyone who reports sexual abuse, a possible retaliatory issue, or that reports are being refused. The auditor does not indicate this issue was adequately questioned or investigated.
• The auditor ignored evidence of problems with general staff and investigation training to find the unit fully compliant with PREA training requirements.
• 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.

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. 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 falsely stated that no person housed at Estelle Unit had ever been placed in segregated housing, and failed to interview person who were housed in segregated housing as required by audit guidelines.
• The auditor failed to interview the minimum number of incarcerated lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons, as required by audit guidelines.
• The auditor erased the existence of trans and nonbinary persons at the unit by claiming only males were housed there at the time of the audit, which results in all assessments of cross-gender compliance were not appropriately considered.
• The auditor failed to properly identify and assess basic training problems that are in part reflected in the high number of complaints TPI receives about disrespectful and unprofessional interactions with transgender persons at Estelle Unit.
• The auditor documented failures in proper PREA screening practices but still claimed Estelle Unit was compliant with PREA requirements.
• The auditor documented clear problems providing PREA required separate showers for transgender persons, yet still assessed Estelle Unit as “fully compliant” with the requirements.
• Although the auditor did properly recognize that locking people in segregation after a report of sexual abuse or sexual harassment meets the PREA definition of protective custody and must follow protective custody standards for such lockups, 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.

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. 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 failed to conduct the number of interviews with incarcerated persons that are considered the “absolute minimum” for an audit.
• Not one out of 49 allegations of sexual abuse was considered substantiated, even though the required evidentiary standard is simply greater that 50% chance of having occurred.
• The auditor erased the existence of trans and nonbinary persons at the unit by claiming only males were housed there at the time of the audit, which results in all assessments of cross-gender compliance were not appropriately considered.
• The audit documented that not all persons reporting sexual assault are offered a forensic exam as required by PREA, but failed to list that as a deficiency.
• The auditor repeatedly misgendered trans persons, showing the auditor did not even meet PREA requirements for professional communications concerning trans and queer persons.
• 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.

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.

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 files are the TPI complaint against the auditor and the TPI audit report generated at the time the complaint was filed. The audit report by the auditor, which we feel was inappropriately accepted by the National PREA Resource center, can be accessed here. Some noteworthy points include:

• The auditor admits no effort was made to contact outside agencies.
• The auditor claims there were 0 LGBTQ persons at the unit during the audit, then claims to have interviewed three of the non-existent persons.
• The auditor claims there were at the facility 0 incarcerated persons who had reported sexual abuse in the facility and 0 who had disclosed prior sexual abuse during risk screening. TPI presented clear evidence that such a statement is likely false.
• The auditor also claimed that 0 persons had ever been placed in segregated housing for risk of sexual victimization at Clements Unit. This can only be true if TDCJ’s inaccurate and self-serving interpretation of the PREA phrase “involuntary protective custody” is wrongly accepted.
• The auditor claims that Clements Unit “does not conduct cross-gender searches or cross-gender visual body cavity searches except when performed by medical practitioners,” when in fact this is only true when accepts the erasure of all transgender identities.
• The auditor claims there were no reports of retaliation for reporting sexual violence in the past 12 months, contrary to TPI’s documentation of at least three reports made to us.