Prison advocacy: PREA noncompliance at TDCJ Connally Unit

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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>