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.