An Investigative Report on

The Texas Youth Commission
John Keel, CPA
State Auditor

March 16, 2007
Members of the Legislative Audit Committee
and
Members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission:
At your direction, the State Auditor’s Office has prepared this investigative report on operational and
financial information regarding the Texas Youth Commission (TYC).
The findings of our investigative work are grouped into the following
categories:
ƒ

Physical security and the grievance process at youth facilities.

ƒ

The TYC organizational structure and the allocation of TYC
resources.

ƒ

The workloads, qualifications, and training of TYC facility staff.

Background Information
The mission of the Texas Youth
Commission (TYC) includes protecting
the public and controlling the
commission of unlawful acts by youths
committed to TYC facilities by confining
them under conditions that ensure their
basic health care and emphasize their
positive development, accountability for
their conduct, and discipline training.
As of February 2007:

ƒ

ƒ

Survey responses provided by 3,279 youths in TYC and contract
facilities (the 3,279 youths represented 68.24 percent of all 4,805
youths in TYC and contract facilities).
Survey responses provided by 1,672 TYC employees (the 1,672
employees represented 34.49 percent of all 4,847 TYC
employees).

While our youth survey was anonymous, it is important to note that we
also informed the youths that they could voluntarily provide us with
information regarding allegations of abuse that we would turn over to
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Office of Inspector
General for further investigation. Upon receipt of this information, we
immediately referred 205 potential cases for further investigation (as
of March 15, 2007).

ƒ

TYC had 4,847 employees, 94
percent of whom worked outside of
the central office in Austin.

ƒ

TYC had 4,805 youths in 15 TYC
facilities, 9 TYC halfway houses,
and 15 contract facilities. The
facilities and halfway houses are
located mostly in small, rural towns
throughout Texas.

Based on headcount, TYC had an
average of 2,948 juvenile correctional
officers (60.82 percent of all 4,847 TYC
employees) and 350 case managers (7.22
percent of all 4,847 TYC employees) in
fiscal year 2006.
TYC’s appropriations for fiscal years
2006 and 2007 were $249 million and
$241.4 million, respectively.

Below is a summary of the findings identified in each of these areas.
Additional details are presented in the attachment to this letter.
TYC’s Physical Security and Grievance Processes Should Be Strengthened to Adequately Safeguard Youths

In some cases, TYC’s physical security and grievance processes have not safeguarded youths. Specifically:
ƒ

Physical security at youth facilities can be improved through separation of different categories of
youths and increased controls. We identified several facility structural and policy issues (for example,
SAO Report No. 07-022

Robert E. John son Bu ilding
1501 Nor th C on gre ss Aven ue
Au stin , Te xas 78701

P.O. Box 12067
Au stin , Te xas 78711-2067

Phone: (512) 936-9500
Fax : (512) 936-9400
Interne t: www.sao.state.tx .u s

Members of the Legislative Audit Committee
and
Members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission
March 16, 2007
Page 2
insufficient use of surveillance cameras, no maximum occupancy rates, and insufficient juvenile
correctional officer-to-youth ratios) that impair the physical safety of youths in facilities. The reported
conditions at the West Texas State School in particular are serious enough that this facility, which was
not originally designed to house TYC youths, should be evaluated for closure. See Chapter 1-A on page
1 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.
ƒ

TYC’s youth grievance process does not ensure that all grievances are received and investigated
appropriately and in a timely manner. There is no independent and centralized entity assigned to the
investigation of youth grievances. Although TYC’s policy is to resolve grievances within 15 working
days, on average it took 56.74 calendar days to resolve grievances in fiscal year 2006. Because
grievances are not resolved in a timely manner, youths may serve out their punishment (such as a
reduction in phase, removal of privileges, or extension of the length of their stay at a TYC facility)
before the grievance is resolved. The ability of juvenile correctional officers to effectively extend a
youth’s stay at a facility also creates the potential for abuse within the grievance process. In addition,
youths do not have unrestricted and anonymous access to the grievance process. See Chapter 1-B on
page 4 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.

TYC Should Identify the Functions Necessary to Accomplish Its Mission and Assign Resources to the Areas of
Highest Priority

TYC’s organizational structure, allocation of resources, and employee hiring and disciplinary practices
should be thoroughly re-evaluated to ensure that TYC can operate in the most effective manner possible.
Specifically:
ƒ

Processes for hiring and evaluating TYC employees should be standardized and strengthened.
TYC has significant weaknesses in its workforce management practices, including inadequate screening,
background checks, and employee performance evaluations. See Chapter 2-A on page 12 of the
attachment to this letter for additional details.

ƒ

TYC resources should be reallocated to the areas of highest priority. In fiscal year 2006, TYC spent
$292.8 million, with 56 percent of this amount going to salaries and wages. The central office has 280
positions with total annual salaries of $13,034,000. TYC should review the duties and responsibilities of
its central office staff to determine whether staff have been allocated to mission-critical duties. See
Chapter 2-B on page 14 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.

ƒ

TYC’s board members should have qualifications that will enable them to provide adequate
oversight of TYC operations. The Legislature should consider requiring TYC board members to
possess a range of backgrounds, including criminal justice and legal expertise. TYC board members also
should visit youth facilities periodically and hold board meetings at youth facilities. See Chapter 2-C on
page 16 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.

TYC Needs to Evaluate Resources at Youth Facilities

ƒ

TYC should establish a process to ensure that facility employees have the knowledge and
qualifications to adequately perform their jobs. About 94 percent of TYC’s employees are assigned
to its 24 youth facilities. Facility staff are given reading and writing exams after they have accepted
employment offers. This practice could increase the risk that staff may not have the skills necessary to

Members of the Legislative Audit Committee
and
Members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission
March 16, 2007
Page 3
carry out their duties. The minimum required age for juvenile correctional officers is 18, yet youths in
facilities can range from 10 up to 21 years of age; therefore, juvenile correctional officers can be
younger than the youths they are guarding. In interviews, staff also indicated that they were asked to
affirm that they attended training when, in fact, they had not. Finally, in their survey responses, some
youths expressed concerns that (1) they are not being taught because class instruction is independent
study and (2) staff behavior and use of profanities did not provide the youths with positive role models.
See Chapter 3-A on page 17 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.
ƒ

Employees most often cited poor working conditions as their reason for leaving TYC. Turnover
rates for juvenile correctional officers range from 112.6 percent for an Officer I to 16.4 percent for an
Officer VI. Turnover rates for case managers range from 55.1 percent for a Level I to 27.1 percent for a
Level II. Given its difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff, TYC needs to explore different staffing
strategies. For example, TYC currently hires very few part-time employees (it has only 35 part-time
employees, 8 of whom are juvenile correctional officers). However, part-time work could be an
attractive option for state, military, and other retirees. See Chapter 3-B on page 19 of the attachment to
this letter for additional details.

Youths Who Responded to Our Survey Have Serious Concerns About the Grievance Process

ƒ

Many youths said the grievance process is not effective. Fifty percent of the youths who responded to
our survey did not feel that TYC takes immediate action regarding safety and welfare issues, and 65
percent did not think that the grievance system works. Youths also expressed concerns regarding the
timeliness and consistency of decisions, as well as when they are informed of the outcome of their
grievance. Forty-three percent of youths indicated that they had first-hand knowledge of retaliation
against youths who filed grievances related to physical and sexual abuse. Some youths indicated that
they chose not to use the grievance process because they believe it does not work and their complaints
will not be fairly assessed. See Chapter 4-A on page 23 of the attachment to this letter for additional
details

ƒ

Youths said they do not always have an objective, trusted resource for their concerns. In survey
comments, youths cited many instances of retaliation taking place after a grievance was filed. Youths
perceive juvenile correctional officers as having too much authority over decisions that may result in
negative consequences to the youths; and youths believe the officers do not make objective decisions.
Additionally, only 23 percent of youths trust their juvenile correctional officers, and 47 percent trust the
grievance clerks at their facilities. See Chapter 4-A on page 23 of the attachment to this letter for
additional details.

TYC Employees Who Responded to Our Survey Have Serious Concerns About the TYC Work Environment and
Their Ability to Express Concerns to Management

ƒ

Only 27 percent of employees who responded to our survey agreed that they trust the board, and
only 28 percent agreed that they trusted executive management. Employees also indicated that they
fear they may experience retaliation if they raise significant issues, concerns, or complaints. Similarly,
many employees felt intimidated and did not believe TYC handles conflict in a tactful and professional
manner. See Chapter 5-A on page 29 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.

Members of the Legislative Audit Committee
and
Members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission
March 16, 2007
Page 4
ƒ

Employees felt that TYC is not creating a positive, cooperative work environment. Statements
related to employees’ work environment were among the lowest scoring on the survey. Forty-three
percent of the respondents did not agree that the culture was supportive and encouraging. Only 25
percent felt that they were included in the decision-making process, and 41 percent of the staff and 21
percent of managers did not feel that employees were treated with respect and dignity. According to
survey respondents, issues of fear and intimidation are present throughout TYC; however, for employees
working outside of the central office, these problems were more pronounced. See Chapter 5-A on page
29 of the attachment to this letter for additional details.

Summary of Key Recommendations

The Legislature should consider enacting laws to:
ƒ

Permit the appointment of a special prosecutor from the Office of the Attorney General staff if a chief
law enforcement officer of a county files a sworn affidavit stating that:
-

A case involving the physical or sexual abuse of a youth at a TYC facility was investigated by the
local law enforcement officer under the jurisdiction of the chief law enforcement officer;

-

The investigation has been presented to the local prosecutorial entity;

-

120 days have passed since the case was presented to the local prosecutorial entity; and

-

No action has been taken by the local prosecutorial entity.

ƒ

Create independence in the reporting and investigating process by removing TYC management from the
grievance reporting and investigation process and making the Office of the Inspector General
responsible for the entire process. The Inspector General should report directly to the TYC board.

ƒ

Establish an Office of Inspector General at TYC for the investigation of complaints of abuse at youth
facilities.

TYC should:
ƒ

Evaluate and assess all central office employees’ and organizational units’ roles and responsibilities in
the near future, with the following goals in mind:
-

-

Reassigning some staff resources from the central office to youth facilities. This could include:
•

Establishing on-site, certified sex offender counselor positions at TYC facilities.

•

Establishing on-site grievance officers at TYC facilities who report to the Office of Inspector
General.

Reallocating central office staff resources to the highest priority functions.

Members of the Legislative Audit Committee
and
Members of the Joint Select Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth Commission
March 16, 2007
Page 5
ƒ

Increase controls by establishing and enforcing juvenile correctional officer-to-youth ratios that provide
for a safe and effective environment.

We performed this investigative work in coordination with the Special Master appointed by the Governor,
law enforcement organizations, and other oversight authorities. This project was an investigation; therefore,
the information in this report was not subjected to all the tests and confirmations that would be performed in
an audit. However, the information in this report was subject to certain quality control procedures to help
ensure accuracy.
We appreciate the cooperation of TYC employees at the central office and all facilities we visited. If you
have any questions, please contact Lisa Collier, Audit Manager, or me at (512) 936-9500.
Sincerely,

John Keel, CPA
State Auditor
Attachment
cc:

The Honorable Rick Perry, Governor
The Honorable Greg Abbott, Attorney General
Members of the Senate Committee on Criminal Justice
Members of the House Committee on Corrections
The Honorable Ronnie Earle, Travis County District Attorney
Mr. Jay Kimbrough, Special Master
Mr. Ed Owens, Acting Executive Director, Texas Youth Commission

This document is not copyrighted. Readers may make additional copies of this report as needed. In
addition, most State Auditor’s Office reports may be downloaded from our Web site:
www.sao.state.tx.us.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, this document may also be requested in
alternative formats. To do so, contact our report request line at (512) 936-9880 (Voice), (512) 936-9400
(FAX), 1-800-RELAY-TX (TDD), or visit the Robert E. Johnson Building, 1501 North Congress Avenue, Suite
4.224, Austin, Texas 78701.
The State Auditor’s Office is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of
race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability in employment or in the provision of services,
programs, or activities.
To report waste, fraud, or abuse in state government call the SAO Hotline: 1-800-TX-AUDIT.

Attachment
Contents
Chapter 1

TYC’s Physical Security and Grievance Processes Should
Be Strengthened to Adequately Safeguard Youths ............... 1
Chapter 2

TYC Should Identify the Functions Necessary to
Accomplish Its Mission and Assign Resources to the Areas
of Highest Priority .................................................... 12
Chapter 3

TYC Needs to Evaluate Resources at Youth Facilities .......... 17
Chapter 4

Youth Survey Results ................................................. 23
Chapter 5

TYC Employee Survey Results ...................................... 29
Chapter 6

List of All Recommendations in This Report ..................... 41
Chapter 7

Rehabilitation Plan: Preliminary Issues the State
Auditor’s Office Presented to TYC’s Acting Executive
Director on March 12 2007, for Consideration in a
Rehabilitation Plan ................................................... 48

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology.............................. 55
Appendix 2

TYC Facilities at Which the State Auditor’s Office
Surveyed Youth ....................................................... 59

Chapter 1

TYC’s Physical Security and Grievance Processes Should Be
Strengthened to Adequately Safeguard Youths
Allegations and investigations of physical and sexual abuse by Texas Youth
Commission’s (TYC) employees indicate that physical security and grievance
processes should be strengthened to safeguard youths.
The Legislative Audit Committee (Committee) met in an emergency meeting
on March 2, 2007, and found that there was gross fiscal mismanagement at
TYC. The Committee recommended that the Governor appoint a conservator
for TYC pursuant to Texas Government Code, Chapter 2104. It also provided
the Governor the option of directing TYC to enter into a rehabilitation plan.
The Committee directed that the rehabilitation plan be completed with the
assistance of the State Auditor and delivered to the Committee within 15 days
or by March 16, 2007.

Chapter 1-A

Physical Security at Youth Facilities Can Be Improved Through
Separation of Different Categories of Youths and Increased
Controls
Survey comments from both facility employees and youths, as well as
observations at youth facilities, indicated that much can be done to make
facilities more secure. These improvements include making structural and
policy changes to physically separate different categories of youths. In
addition, more controls are needed to increase the likelihood that abuse of
youths can be prevented and detected. Below are some issues that were
identified at youth facilities.
Structural and Policy Weaknesses

ƒ

TYC has not defined a safe and effective juvenile correctional officer-toyouth ratio for the various dormitory configurations and program types.
Facilities also do not have an absolute maximum occupancy rates; instead,
a target capacity amount is set that is generally consistent with the number
of permanent physical beds.

ƒ

The juvenile correctional officer-to-youth ratio varies significantly at
individual facilities. For example, at one facility this ratio ranged from
1-to-8 to 1-to-25. In particular, the ratio can be very high on night shifts,
according to facility staff (see Chapter 3 for additional information).

ƒ

As many as 24 youths of various ages and levels of offenses sleep in the
same room.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 1

Additional Controls

ƒ

Some campus buildings and areas within buildings do not have electronic
monitoring devices.

ƒ

Surveillance camera videotapes are recorded over (and, therefore, erased),
some as soon as 3 days after events are recorded, although the period for
resolving a youth grievance is 15 working days.

ƒ

TYC does not have certified dog handlers and dogs assigned to every
youth facility to use for detecting drug contraband. It has 5 certified dog
handlers (and 1 vacancy) and 11 dogs. The dog handlers are assigned to a
facility on a regional base and serve the other facilities in their region.

The West Texas State School Should Be Evaluated for Closure

According to published accounts, at least one youth facility, the West Texas
State School, did not provide a safe environment for the youths in its care.
Reasons this youth facility’s continued use should be evaluated include:
ƒ

The facility was not originally built to house TYC youths. It was
originally part of a World War II army airfield, and the federal
government leased the site to the State in 1965 for the purpose of
establishing a co-ed children’s home. In 1986, the children’s home began
serving only delinquent boys and became the West Texas State School.

ƒ

The facility’s location is in an isolated geographic area, and it has limited
access to a job applicant pool and social and medical services. It is
located on Interstate 20 in Pyote, Texas (population 131), approximately
17 miles west of Monahans (population 6,821) and 50 miles west of
Odessa/Midland.

Recommendations

TYC should:
ƒ

Separate different categories of youths, including:
-

Separating youths by age.

-

Separating youths by severity of offense.

ƒ

Consider the addition of some single-cell dorms at facilities.

ƒ

Establish and enforce a limit on the number of youths who can be assigned
to an individual, open-bay dorm.

ƒ

Increase controls at youth facilities, including:
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 2

ƒ

-

Establishing and enforcing juvenile correctional officer-to-youth ratios
that provide for a safe and effective environment.

-

Conducting more frequent and random bed checks.

-

Enforcing maximum occupancy rates.

-

Requiring investigators to conduct unannounced visits.

-

Filling the vacant dog-handler position and evaluating current
resources to determine if additional positions are necessary to search
staff and visitors for drugs and other contraband.

-

Searching staff for drugs and contraband, including staff working on
night shifts, and considering random drug testing.

-

Increasing the number and placement of electronic monitoring devices
(surveillance cameras and audio recording devices).

-

Replacing some solid doors with glass doors to allow staff to monitor
youths more easily.

-

Maintaining surveillance data from monitoring devices for at least 15
working days or until grievances alleged to have occurred on a
particular day are resolved. TYC should consider using digital
equipment, which may be more cost-effective than the current
equipment in use.

-

Placing youths in close proximity to their homes or communities,
when possible.

-

Rotating juvenile correction officers’ dorm assignments every six
months so that they do not always work with the same personnel and
supervise the same youths.

Evaluate the West Texas State School for possible closure. Youths could
be transferred to other facilities over the next 12 to 24 months, in the event
that a decision is made to close the school.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 3

Chapter 1-B

TYC’s Youth Grievance Process Does Not Ensure that All
Grievances Are Received and Investigated Appropriately and in a
Timely Manner
TYC’s policies and procedures for the youth grievance process should be
strengthened, standardized, and enforced.
Issues identified regarding the grievance process include concerns about the
lack of an independent and centralized investigations entity, the timeliness of
the process, youths’ ability to access the process, limitations of TYC’s youth
care investigators to carry out their duties, and the effectiveness of grievance
process information systems.
Absence of an Independent and Centralized Investigative Entity

ƒ

Facility superintendents oversee the grievance process at youth facilities.
Personnel (such as the superintendents, principals, juvenile correctional
officers, case managers, and program administrators) at the facility also
have the authority to extend the length of a youth’s stay at a TYC facility.
Having the investigation of grievances performed by an independent entity
would preclude potential conflicts of interests.

ƒ

The local complaint coordinator is responsible for assigning youth
grievances for resolution. Individuals in this position report to the
superintendent, which could discourage the local complaint coordinator
from elevating the most serious grievances to the TYC central office.

ƒ

The senior juvenile correctional officer for a particular dorm is often the
same individual who is assigned to investigate and resolve grievances filed
by youths from that same dorm. Therefore, this individual is frequently in
the direct chain of command of the accused staff member and may not be
independent.

Timeliness of the Resolution of the Most Serious Youth Grievances
Alleged Mistreatment
Information System
The grievances that involve
the abuse, neglect, or
exploitation of youths--as
determined by local
facilities--are forwarded to
TYC central office, which
enters them into this
grievance system.

ƒ

The most serious youth grievances were not resolved in a timely manner.
TYC’s policy is to resolve grievances within 15 working days. However,
in practice, TYC often extends the time to resolve the most serious
grievances. Our review of the most serious grievances, which are entered
into TYC’s Alleged Mistreatment Information System, indicated that these
grievances were not resolved in a timely manner (see text box).
TYC sets a grievance resolution due date in the Alleged Mistreatment
Information System. The majority of the due dates range between 22 to
28 days from the date that a grievance is assigned to an investigator.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 4

ƒ

Between fiscal years 2003 and 2006, the percent of grievances that were
resolved after the TYC due date ranged from 78.91 percent to 94.50
percent. The average time to resolve a grievance ranged from 55.84
calendar days to 95.57 calendar days for this same period (see Table 1).
We did not calculate the number of hours spent resolving grievances, but
the amount of time spent on administering the grievance system generally
correlated with the number of grievances filed, according to a draft TYC
internal audit report. (The internal audit report was to be released on
March 6, 2007, but was not released as planned.)

Table 1

Grievance Analysis by Fiscal Year
Percent of
Grievances
Resolved
after the
TYC Due
Date

Number of
Grievances
Resolved
after the
TYC Due
Date

Average
Number of
Calendar
Days to
Resolve
Grievances

Percent of
Grievances
Resolved by
the TYC Due
Date

Number of
Grievances
Resolved by
the TYC Due
Date

2003

18.69%

271

81.31%

1,179

55.84

2004

21.09%

348

78.91%

1,302

64.64

2005

5.50%

94

94.50%

1,616

95.57

2006

11.06%

149

88.94%

1,198

56.74

6.05%

52

55.47%

477

51.06

13.03%

914

82.26%

5,772

67.98

Fiscal Year

2007

a

Totals
a

Data for fiscal year 2007 is for September 1, 2006 to March 9, 2007. The percentages for grievances
resolved by and after the TYC due date do not total 100 percent because 331 grievances were still open.
Source: TYC’s Alleged Mistreatment Information System.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 5

ƒ

TYC’s 15-working-day timeframe for a grievance to be resolved does not
begin until the grievance is assigned to an employee to review. Our
review of the time it took to assign grievances shows that, from fiscal year
2003 to fiscal year 2007, TYC assigned 6,092 grievances within 5
calendar days of receiving the allegation 86.82 percent of the time (see
Table 2 below). The following number of grievances were assigned after
5 calendar days:
-

650 grievances were assigned within 6 to 10 calendar days.

-

142 grievances were assigned within 11 to 15 calendar days.

-

133 grievances were assigned after 15 calendar days.

Table 2

Number of Calendar Days Between Grievance Filing and Grievance Assignment
Range of
Days to
Assign
Grievances

Fiscal
Year
2003

Fiscal
Year
2004

Fiscal
Year
2005

Fiscal
Year
2006

Fiscal
Year
a
2007

All Five
Fiscal
Years
Combined

0 to 5 days

89.24%

85.88%

87.02%

86.79%

84.19%

86.82%

6 to 10 days

7.93%

9.88%

8.42%

9.43%

11.74%

9.26%

11 to 15 days

1.17%

2.48%

2.05%

2.30%

2.09%

2.02%

Over 15 days

1.66%

1.76%

2.51%

1.48%

1.98%

1.90%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

Totals
a

Partial year.

Source: TYC’s Alleged Mistreatment Information System.

ƒ

In their survey responses, youths expressed concern that their grievances
were not resolved in a timely manner and usually were resolved later than
the 15 working days allowed by TYC policy. A large percentage of
grievances that youths file are to dispute punishments (such as loss of
privileges) for misconduct. It is time-consuming for TYC to investigate
these grievances through the current grievance system. Because
grievances are not resolved in a timely manner, youths may serve out their
punishment (such as a reduction in phase, removal of privileges, or
extension of the length of their stay at a TYC facility) before the grievance
is resolved.

Youths’ Access to the Grievance Process

ƒ

The ability of juvenile correctional officers to effectively extend a youth’s
stay at a facility by affecting the youth’s phase ratings creates the potential
for abuse within the grievance process. Numerous youths who responded
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 6

to our survey indicated they had been “burned” by their juvenile
correctional officers filing false incident reports. Many of the youth
grievances we observed were requests to have incident reports repealed.
Any juvenile correctional officer may issue an incident report (CCF-225)
to report a youth’s behavioral misconduct and rules violation. The
issuance of an incident report results in the loss of certain earned
privileges, a change in the youth’s phase rating, or demotion of the youth’s
phase rating. Phase ratings affect when a youth can be released from the
TYC system.
ƒ

Each facility is responsible for developing and pre-numbering its
grievance forms, and not all facilities perform reconciliations to ensure
that all of the forms are accounted for. As a result, TYC cannot be assured
that all grievances are logged into its grievance systems. The process for
filing grievances at facilities includes the following steps:
-

A youth grievance clerk is responsible for giving the youths assigned
to his or her dorm grievance forms upon their request.

-

Completed forms are collected from lockboxes by the local complaint
coordinator (several individuals at some facilities have keys to the
lockboxes).

-

Local officials (such as the complaint coordinator or superintendent)
are responsible for entering the grievances into TYC’s automated
Youth Complaint System.

-

Local officials also determine which grievances are the most serious
ones in order for the TYC central office to investigate them. (The
TYC central office also enters the most serious grievances into the
automated Alleged Mistreatment Information System.)

-

Review of this grievance process indicates that some grievances are
not entered into either the Youth Complaint System or the Alleged
Mistreatment Information System.

ƒ

At one facility reviewed, staff had difficulty locating all youth grievances.
In some months it appeared that no grievances had been logged, and they
could not provide assurance that all grievances were available for review.

ƒ

Youths do not have unrestricted and anonymous access to the grievance
process. At some facilities, youths must request permission from juvenile
correctional officers to request a grievance form. Additionally, according
to TYC policy, youth complaint clerks are selected by the supervising
juvenile correctional officer and voted on by youths in their dorm.
However, at one facility, youths indicated that the youth complaint clerk is
selected only by the supervising juvenile correctional officer and not voted
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 7

on by the youths. Finally, the process does not allow youths to file
grievances anonymously. These procedures could restrict youths’ access
to grievance forms or prevent youths from requesting forms due to lack of
anonymity and mistrust of staff.
ƒ

If local officials deem youths’ grievances to be frivolous or excessive,
youths at some facilities may be disciplined, according to facility policies.
While unnecessary grievances are not desirable, the assessment at the
local level could affect a youth’s decision to report legitimate grievances.
Disciplinary actions for the youths may include being placed on probation,
restriction or denial of privileges, and extension of the length of their stay
at TYC facilities.

ƒ

In site visits, we identified that facility staff can be assigned to investigate
grievances filed against themselves.

TYC’s Office of Youth Care Investigations

ƒ

Investigators lack standardized methods for conducting and documenting
monitoring visits to verify that (1) youths understand the grievance
process and (2) the local complaint coordinators are resolving grievances
appropriately and in a timely manner. Youth Care Investigators are
assigned by the TYC central office to investigate reports of abuse, neglect,
or exploitation by an employee, volunteer, or contractor in programs or
facilities under TYC jurisdiction. Youth Care Investigators also prepare
monthly reports based on their review of a sample of grievances filed and
resolved at TYC facilities.

ƒ

Potential conflicts of interest may exist because investigators may be
residents of the communities where the facilities are located, and their
immediate family members also may be employed at the facilities under
review.

ƒ

Facilities’ policies and procedures for youth grievances are generally
similar, but they may be implemented in an inconsistent manner statewide.

ƒ

Investigations can be hindered by the lack of or poor quality of
surveillance tapes or video at facilities, as noted in Chapter 1-A.

Information Systems

TYC’s automated grievance systems should have proper security
configuration and management to help ensure data integrity and compliance
with both state and federal laws. Information systems, especially those with
confidential data, should have controls that include:
ƒ

Separation of duties through assigned access authorizations.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 8

ƒ

The most restrictive set of rights/privileges needed by users for the
performance of specified tasks.

ƒ

Assignment of a unique identifier to each user.

ƒ

Modification or removal of users' access to systems when employment is
terminated or job responsibilities change.

Some issues we identified related to TYC’s automated grievance systems are:
ƒ

Some TYC computers have password protection weaknesses. TYC also
does not always perform Web filtering to prevent users from accessing
sexually oriented Web sites from their TYC computers. TYC does not
regularly monitor users’ computers to detect the storage of inappropriate
images.

ƒ

TYC’s two automated systems for grievances (the Youth Complaint
System and the Alleged Mistreatment Information System) cannot easily
generate information to monitor activities at facilities. As a result, TYC is
performing limited to no analysis of the grievance data that would enable
it to identify facilities and juvenile correctional officers with a higherthan-average number of grievances filed against them.

Recommendations

The Legislature should consider enacting laws to:
ƒ

ƒ

Permit the appointment of a special prosecutor from the Office of the
Attorney General staff if a chief law enforcement officer of a county files
a sworn affidavit stating that:
-

A case involving the physical or sexual abuse of a youth at a TYC
facility was investigated by the local law enforcement officer under
the jurisdiction of the chief law enforcement officer;

-

The investigation has been presented to the local prosecutorial entity;

-

120 days have passed since the case was presented to the local
prosecutorial entity; and

-

No action has been taken by the local prosecutorial entity.

Create independence in the reporting and investigating process by
removing TYC management from the grievance reporting and
investigation process and making the Office of the Inspector General
responsible for the entire process. The Inspector General should report
directly to the TYC board.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 9

ƒ

Establish an Office of Inspector General at TYC for the investigation of
complaints of abuse at youth facilities. The Office of Inspector General
should be responsible for:
-

Establishing protocols, including establishing grievance investigation
timeframes that differentiate between allegations that require
immediate action and those that are less serious in nature. Upon
resolving a grievance, the resolution should be communicated to the
youth in writing within 48 hours.

-

Forwarding a substantiated grievance that indicates a crime has been
committed to law enforcement and the local prosecuting entity.

-

Following up on grievances that are withdrawn or voided to determine
whether youth suffered consequences as a result of filing a grievance.

-

Reviewing grievance documentation periodically to determine whether
appropriate action was taken and whether sufficient documentation is
available to support the resolution.

-

Routinely analyzing data in automated grievance systems to identify
potential trends and performing additional work to follow up on those
trends.

-

Placing a grievance coordinator at each facility, and requiring that
individual to report directly to the Office of Inspector General. Youths
should receive signed copies of their grievances.

-

Establishing a permanent, toll-free telephone number for the reporting
of grievances involving allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
It should post the number prominently in all facilities and ensure that
youths and staff can access telephones in order to call this number.

-

Preparing information on the status of outstanding grievances and
providing it to the Governor, TYC board members, TYC executive
management, and legislative oversight committees on a periodic basis.

ƒ

Specifically require the TYC executive director or inspector general, if he
or she has reasonable cause to believe that a crime involving a youth at a
TYC facility has been committed on the premises of a state facility, to
immediately file a complaint with a law enforcement entity that has
jurisdiction over the crime.

ƒ

Establish, recognize, and authorize a juvenile advocacy group that could
effectively represent youths before TYC’s board in matters involving their
treatment.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 10

TYC should:
ƒ

Enforce a disciplinary policy that outlines consequences for employees
who mistreat or abuse youths.

ƒ

Ensure that all grievances are received and investigated by requiring staff
to immediately report any suspected mistreatment or abuse of youth to the
Office of the Inspector General for investigation.

ƒ

Allow youths to challenge consequences for misconduct separately from
the grievance process. For example, youths’ complaints about
consequences from incident reports could be addressed at weekly Phase
Assessment Team meetings. The youths would retain the ability to file a
grievance with the Office of Inspector General if they felt the members of
the Phase Assessment Team were retaliating against or otherwise
harassing them.

ƒ

Develop and implement a policy that outlines consequences to youths
according to the level and type of their misconduct.

ƒ

Require TYC’s executive director or his or her designee to verify and
approve “phase adjustments” that result in extending a youth’s stay at a
facility.

ƒ

Transfer TYC’s automated grievance systems to the Office of Inspector
General. In addition, consider automating the process for submitting
grievances so that, if they desire, youths can submit grievances without the
assistance of facility staff and anonymously. The automated grievance
systems also should include proper controls.

ƒ

Implement controls over information technology resources, including:

ƒ

-

Strengthening password protection on all TYC computers.

-

Performing Web filtering to prevent users from accessing sexually
oriented sites.

-

Monitoring employees’ computers to detect storage of inappropriate
images and referring employees to the Office of Inspector General if
inappropriate images are detected.

Upon admission to a youth facility, provide an information packet to the
youth and parents or guardians describing facility services and grievance
procedures.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 11

Chapter 2

TYC Should Identify the Functions Necessary to Accomplish Its Mission
and Assign Resources to the Areas of Highest Priority
TYC’s organizational structure, allocation of resources, and employee hiring
and disciplinary practices should be thoroughly re-evaluated to ensure that
TYC can operate in the most effective manner possible. TYC should evaluate
whether its organizational structure is allowing it to accomplish its mission.
This should include assessing whether the areas of highest priority have the
resources necessary to be effective. (Also see Chapter 3 for additional issues
and recommendations related to facility staff.)
Chapter 2-A

Processes for Hiring and Evaluating TYC Employees Should Be
Standardized and Strengthened
TYC has significant weaknesses in its workforce management practices,
including inadequate screening, background checks, and employee
performance evaluations. Examples of these issues are described below.
Hiring

ƒ

TYC performs only computerized criminal history background checks on
prospective employees using name and date of birth (rather then
performing fingerprint checks). TYC also checks prospective employees’
names against the registered sex offender database. The risk with this
process is that a prospective employee could give false information,
rendering the background check ineffective. This process also would not
identify individuals who were arrested but not convicted of a sex-related
offense.

ƒ

TYC conducts criminal history background checks only when employees
are initially hired. This creates the risk that an employee could be arrested
subsequently without TYC’s knowledge.

ƒ

TYC does not have policies that prohibit it or its contractors that work
with youths from hiring convicted felons or sex offenders.

ƒ

TYC’s policy is to destroy the criminal background check record after an
individual’s eligibility for employment is determined. Thus, TYC does
not retain the results of criminal background checks in employees’ files.

Evaluations

ƒ

TYC has policies and procedures regarding disciplinary actions; however,
our review of employee performance evaluations did not indicate that
disciplinary actions had been taken into consideration for employees with
confirmed grievances. (See Chapter 3-A for additional information.)
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 12

Recommendations

TYC should:
ƒ

Establish and implement a policy that prohibits TYC or its contractors
who work with youth to hire a convicted felon or sex offender.

ƒ

Amend its policy related to criminal background checks so that the results
of these checks are retained in employee files.

ƒ

Require that all contracts between TYC and a contractor contain a
provision requiring the contractor to certify that the contractor does not
have an employee who has been convicted of an offense and that the
contractor will take reasonable steps to become informed of each proposed
employee’s criminal convictions prior to employment and during
employment. The contract should be voidable in the event that TYC
discovers that the contractor has violated these terms of the contract.

ƒ

Establish a security officer position to oversee the following:
-

Obtaining fingerprints from all employees so that background checks
can be performed using the Department of Public Safety’s and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s databases.

-

Requiring and ensuring that post-employment criminal history checks
on TYC employees are conducted at least every two years.

-

Requiring and ensuring that contractors that provide services to TYC’s
youths be fingerprinted and undergo criminal background checks prior
to their having contact with the youths.

ƒ

Clarify promotion and transfer guidelines to include a review of the
history of disciplinary actions, evaluations, and all current and prior
grievances.

ƒ

After grievances involving staff are confirmed, local human resources,
central office human resources, and central office general counsel should
determine disciplinary actions based on a policy that outlines a range of
disciplinary actions.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 13

Chapter 2-B

TYC Resources Should Be Reallocated to the Areas of Highest
Priority
In fiscal year 2006, TYC spent $292.8 million, with 56 percent of this amount
going to salaries and wages (see Table 3 below). As of February 2007, TYC
had 4,847 employees, 94 percent of whom worked outside of the central office
in Austin.
The central office has 280 positions with total annual salaries of $13,034,000
(see Figure 1 on the next page). TYC should review the duties and
responsibilities of its central office staff to determine whether staff have been
allocated to mission-critical duties. For example, TYC currently has 21 field
investigator positions, four of which are vacant. These investigators are
responsible for conducting investigations of grievances reported at TYC’s 15
institutions, 9 halfway houses, and 15 contract facilities. TYC estimates that
TYC investigators handle 1,400 grievances per year and about 20 percent of
the allegations are confirmed.
Table 3

TYC Expenditures by Category
Expenditure Category

Fiscal Year 2007
(through February 2007)

Fiscal Year 2006

Salaries and Wages

$ 162,874,841

$ 85,776,492

Employee Benefits

43,663,507

23,183,466

Other Expenditures

28,508,701

14,094,410

Professional Service and Fees

15,727,173

8,104,717

Supplies and Materials

15,276,283

7,117,284

Interfund Transfers

7,545,889

5,871,327

Communications and Utilities

6,724,899

3,352,457

Capital Outlay

5,459,727

1,521,755

Rentals and Leases

2,415,768

1,334,147

Repairs and Maintenance

2,232,297

1,178,418

Travel

2,126,091

904,568

238,119

91,406

11,307

59,920

458

120

$ 292,805,060

$152,590,487

Printing and Reproduction
Claims and Judgments
Public Assistance Payments
Totals
Source: Uniform Statewide Accounting System.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 14

Figure 1

TYC Executive Administration Organizational Chart

a

The salary shown for the Acting Executive Director is the salary specified for the Executive Director in the General Appropriations Act
(79th Legislature).

Source: The State Auditor’s Office developed this organizational chart by (1) summing full-time equivalent (FTE) employee counts in
detailed TYC organizational charts and (2) summing salary information provided by TYC or in the General Appropriations Act (79th
Legislature).

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 15

Recommendations

TYC should:
ƒ

Evaluate and assess all central office employees’ and organizational units’
roles and responsibilities in the near future, with the following goals in
mind:
-

ƒ

Reassigning some staff resources from the central office to youth
facilities. This could include:
•

Establishing on-site, certified sex offender counselor positions
at TYC facilities.

•

Establishing on-site grievance officers at TYC facilities who
report to the Office of Inspector General.

Reallocating central office staff resources to the highest priority
functions.

Fill vacant positions for investigators to more effectively handle the
investigation of grievances.

Chapter 2-C

TYC’s Board Members Should Have Qualifications That Will Enable
Them to Provide Adequate Oversight of TYC Operations
TYC is governed by a seven-member board appointed by the Governor for
six-year terms. A chairman selected by the Governor serves a two-year term.
The board is required to meet on a quarterly basis, and its primary purpose is
to adopt policies and make rules necessary to the proper accomplishment of
the agency's functions.
Recommendations

The Legislature should consider requiring TYC board members to possess a
range of backgrounds, including criminal justice and legal expertise.
TYC board members should:
ƒ

Visit youth facilities periodically.

ƒ

Hold board meetings at youth facilities.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 16

Chapter 3

TYC Needs to Evaluate Resources at Youth Facilities
The overall ratio of juvenile correctional officers-to-youths (7-to-1) appears
reasonable. (Auditors estimated this ratio assuming supervision levels remain
equal for all shifts each day of the week and approximately 10 percent of
juvenile correctional officer time is spent on leave, training, or other activity
not directly supervising youth.) However, in survey comments and
interviews, employees at youth facilities indicated they had concerns and
frustrations about being overworked and not having the necessary resources
and training to perform their jobs effectively. Turnover among juvenile
correctional officers is excessive, at 112.6 percent for entry-level officers.
Exit survey data for TYC employees suggests that working conditions, and
not salaries, are the primary reason that TYC employees leave their jobs.
Chapter 3-A

TYC Should Establish a Process to Ensure that Facility Employees
Have the Knowledge and Qualifications to Adequately Perform
Their Jobs
About 94 percent of TYC’s employees are assigned to its 24 youth facilities
(institutions and halfway houses). Through site visits to youth facilities and
surveys of TYC employees, auditors identified the following issues that may
affect the employees’ ability to perform their jobs adequately.
Qualifications

Facility staff are given reading and writing exams after they have accepted
employment offers. This practice could increase the risk that staff may not
have the skills necessary to carry out their duties.
Maturity

The minimum required age for juvenile correctional officers is 18. Survey
respondents suggested that the minimum age should be increased because of
the maturity needed to work in youth facilities. Youths in facilities can range
from 10 up to 21 years of age, which means that juvenile correctional officers
can be younger than the youths they are guarding.
Training and Resources

TYC requires any staff who have regular or daily contact with youth to
complete 73 hours of new employee orientation. Current TYC policy requires
staff to complete orientation within the first 60 days of employment. In
addition to new employee orientation, staff also must complete 80 hours of
training during the first year of employment and 40 hours of training in each
subsequent year of employment. Certain positions, including juvenile
correctional officers, are required to obtain additional training that is specific
to their job responsibilities, including resocialization training. Juvenile
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 17

correctional officers also must take required tests for resocialization training.
Juvenile correctional officers may retake the test as many times as needed
within a year’s time until they pass the test.
In interviews, staff indicated that they were asked to affirm that they attended
training when, in fact, they had not.
Facility staff also expressed concerns that they do not have the equipment
necessary to perform their jobs. This includes items from communication
devices that do not work properly to cleaning supplies that are unavailable.
Performance Evaluations for Juvenile Correctional Officers

The performance evaluations for juvenile correctional officers may not reflect
their actual performance. Evaluation forms have rating levels of only
“satisfactory” or “unsatisfactory.” According to facility staff, the TYC central
office defined satisfactory performance as attaining satisfactory on 50 percent
or more categories of required tasks. Juvenile correctional officers who had
written reprimands in their personnel files still received satisfactory
evaluations. For example, a juvenile correctional officer who received a
satisfactory rating in all categories had two written reprimands in his
personnel file that had been administered during the reporting period. One
reprimand was for performing a pat search of a female youth (male staff are
prohibited from performing pat searches of female youth).
Some performance evaluations were completed excessively late. For
example, one employee had only one evaluation in seven years.
Youth Rehabilitation

In survey responses, some youth expressed concern that:
ƒ

They are not being taught because class instruction is independent study.

ƒ

Staff behavior and use of profanities did not provide the youths with
positive role models.

According to facility staff, the consequences for youths not taking prescribed
medication can be denial of medication for up to three months.
Recommendations

TYC should:
ƒ

Analyze how juvenile correctional officers are (1) allocated across
facilities, (2) scheduled at individual facilities, and (3) tasked with duties
other than youth supervision to ensure the most effective use of the

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 18

officers. This analysis should include a review of overtime and the ability
of employees to use accrued leave.
ƒ

Administer reading comprehension and writing tests to facility staff and
require passing scores prior to extending a job offer.

ƒ

Establish and enforce a policy to assign staff younger than 21 years of age
to facilities that house younger youths.

ƒ

Develop a core training curriculum that all new juvenile correctional
officers must receive during their first 30 days of employment and require
annual training updates. At a minimum, the curriculum should include:
-

Proper behavior for juvenile correctional officers.

-

Proper techniques for the control and restraint of youths.

-

The grievance process.

ƒ

Identify the minimum equipment and supplies needed at facilities to
operate effectively and ensure that these items are available.

ƒ

Ensure that employee performance evaluations better reflect employee
performance by allowing a greater range of rating levels (such as
excellent, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory) and that
these evaluations take disciplinary actions into account.

ƒ

Require juvenile correctional officers to attain a “satisfactory” rating on at
least 75 percent of the required elements to receive an overall
“satisfactory” rating.

ƒ

Prepare employee performance evaluations at least annually.

ƒ

Review rehabilitation programs to improve their effectiveness.

ƒ

Require and enforce a code of conduct for facility staff that models
appropriate behavior for the youths.

Chapter 3-B

Employees Most Often Cited Poor Working Conditions as Their
Reason for Leaving TYC
The top reason employees cited in exit surveys for leaving TYC in fiscal year
2006 was poor working conditions or environment (for example, safety, workrelated stress, and/or workload issues). By comparison, 23.3 percent of exit
survey responses from all state employees leaving employment cited better
pay and benefits and 12.9 percent cited poor working conditions/environment
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 19

as reasons for leaving state employment. The primary reasons most
frequently cited by TYC employees for leaving were as follows:
ƒ

26 percent of exiting TYC employees cited poor working conditions.

ƒ

19 percent of exiting TYC employees cited the need for better pay and
benefits.

ƒ

14 percent of exiting TYC employees cited personal or health reasons.

Based on headcount, TYC had an average of 2,948 juvenile correctional
officers (60.82 percent of all TYC employees) and 350 case managers in fiscal
year 2006. (Case managers within TYC are responsible for providing youths
with counseling and treatment for issues such as chemical dependency. Case
managers are required to have specialized certifications and advanced
degrees.)
These two job classifications accounted for 68 percent of all TYC employees.
Below are turnover and pay rates for these jobs. Given its difficulty in
recruiting and retaining staff, TYC needs to explore different staffing
strategies. For example, TYC currently hires very few part-time employees: it
has only 35 part-time employees, 8 of whom are juvenile correctional officers.
However, part-time work could be an attractive option for state, military, and
other retirees.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 20

Turnover Rates

ƒ

Turnover rates for juvenile correctional officers have been excessive and
range from 112.6 percent for an Officer I to 16.4 percent for an Officer VI.

ƒ

Turnover rates for case managers also have been excessive and range from
55.1 percent for a Level I to 27.1 percent for a Level II (see Table 4).

Table 4

Turnover Rate and Average Length of Employment for
TYC Juvenile Correctional Officers and Case Managers
Fiscal Year 2006

Job Classification

Fiscal Year 2006
Turnover
(Including Transfers)

Average Length of
Employment
a
with TYC

Juvenile Correctional Officer I

112.6%

4 months

Juvenile Correctional Officer II

59.4%

9 months

Juvenile Correctional Officer III

38.7%

1 year, 9 months

Juvenile Correctional Officer IV

21.8%

7 years, 3 months

Juvenile Correctional Officer V

24.8%

6 years, 2 months

Juvenile Correctional Officer VI

16.4%

9 years, 6 months

Case Manager I

55.1%

1 year, 10 months

Case Manager II

27.1%

2 years, 11 months

Case Manager III

31.3%

5 years, 4 months

a

Note: Juvenile correctional officers follow a career ladder that makes the average length of
employment for some positions appear low. The career ladder allows employees to move to a
higher position once they have met certain criteria related to performance and time in the
position. For example, employees at the lowest levels (levels I and II) may stay in those positions
for only 3-6 months before moving to a higher level.
Source: The Comptroller of Public Accounts' Uniform Statewide Payroll/Personnel System.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 21

Pay Rates

ƒ

Pay rates for juvenile correctional officers range from an average of
$21,693 for an Officer I to $35,756 for an Officer VI.

ƒ

Pay rates for case managers range from an average of $26,332 for a Level
I to $32,371 for a Level III (see Table 5).
Table 5

Average Headcount and Employee Salary for
TYC Juvenile Correctional Officer and Case Managers
Fiscal Year 2006

Job Classification

Average
Employee
Headcount

Average
Employee
Salary

Juvenile Correctional Officer I

613.50

$ 21,693

Juvenile Correctional Officer II

336.25

$ 23,598

Juvenile Correctional Officer III

510.75

$ 27,046

Juvenile Correctional Officer IV

1,007.50

$ 31,390

Juvenile Correctional Officer V

321.75

$ 32,442

Juvenile Correctional Officer VI

158.50

$ 35,756

Case Manager I

14.50

$ 26,332

Case Manager II

118.00

$ 27,953

Case Manager III

217.00

$ 32,371

Source: The Comptroller of Public Accounts' Uniform Statewide
Payroll/Personnel System.

Recommendations

TYC should take action to increase the job applicant pool for juvenile
correctional officers by encouraging the hiring of part-time officers such as
state, military, and other retirees.
The Legislature should consider enacting laws that offer incentives to juvenile
correctional officers by providing a one-semester tuition exemption at a
community college or state higher education institution for every six months
of “satisfactory” evaluations. Individuals should be eligible for this benefit
only as long as their performance is continuously satisfactory and their
employment has not been terminated by TYC.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 22

Chapter 4

Youth Survey Results
At the direction of the Legislative Audit Committee and the Joint Select
Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth
Commission, we surveyed youths to (1) gain an understanding of the
grievance process from the youths’ perspective and (2) determine whether the
youths have a sufficient understanding of that process. We received responses
from 3,279 youths, or 68.24 percent of the 4,805 youths who are under the
jurisdiction of TYC and housed at 15 TYC institutions, 9 TYC halfway
houses, and 11 of the 15 contract care residential facilities.1 See Appendix 2
for a list of all TYC facilities at which we surveyed youth.
While our youth survey was anonymous, it is important to note that we also
informed the youths that they could voluntarily provide us with information
regarding allegations of abuse that we would turn over to the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice’s Office of Inspector General for further
investigation. Upon receipt of this information, we immediately referred 205
potential cases for further investigation (as of March 15, 2007).
We asked the youths to rank their level of agreement or disagreement with 19
statements (on a scale of 1 to 5) related to the grievance process, trust, and
allegations of mistreatment. The youths also had an opportunity to provide
additional written comments. Chapter 4-A provides an analysis of survey
questions and comments, and Chapter 4-B provides detailed survey results.
Chapter 4-A

Many Youths Said the Grievance Process Is Not Effective
The youths who responded to a State Auditor’s Office survey do not feel that
TYC takes immediate action to address their safety and welfare concerns.
Survey results indicate that many youths may have knowledge of retaliation
taken against others who reported physical or sexual abuse. In addition,
youths do not feel the grievance system works, and they indicated that they do
not always have an objective, trusted resource to address problems.

1

As explained in more detailed in Chapter 4-B, we attempted to survey youths in all contracted facilities but were unable to do so
for a variety of reasons.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 23

Youths are aware of TYC’s grievance process, but they said the grievance
process is not effective.

Fifty percent of the youths who responded to our survey did not feel that TYC
takes immediate action regarding safety and welfare issues, and 65 percent did
not think that the grievance system works (see Table 6 below). Survey
comments from youths indicate they had concerns regarding the timeliness
and consistency of decisions, as well as when they are informed of the
outcome of their grievance. Forty-three percent of youths responding
indicated that they had first-hand knowledge of retaliation against youths who
filed grievances related to physical and sexual abuse. In their survey
comments, some youths indicated that they chose not to use the grievance
process because they believe it does not work and their complaints will not be
fairly assessed.
Table 6

State Auditor’s Office Survey of Youth
Survey Results Related to the Effectiveness of the Grievance Process
Percentage of
Youth Who Agreed
with Survey
Statement

Percentage of Youth
Who Disagreed with
Survey Statement

1. Texas Youth Commission management takes immediate
action to address safety and welfare concerns for the
youth.

26%

50%

2. I have first hand knowledge of retaliation taken against
a youth who filed a grievance or reported physical or
sexual abuse.

43%

39%

15. I think the grievance system works in the Texas Youth
Commission

17%

65%

Survey Statement

Notes:
1) Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the
“Agree” column; respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were
grouped together in the “Disagree” column.
2) The percentages of youths who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some youths answered
that they felt “Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to
them. Those responses are not included in this table.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 24

TYC has an established grievance process, and youths responding to the
survey indicated that they understood how it works and their rights related to
that process. The percentages in the survey results indicate that youths were
informed about the grievance process, were not afraid to file a grievance, and
understood what was involved in filing an appeal (see Table 7 below).
However, youths expressed concern about accessing the grievance process
when they are in a security unit: only 36 percent agreed that they can file a
grievance and only 23 percent felt that they can obtain grievance forms.
(According to the TYC youth handbook, youths are placed in a security unit
away from their peer group if they cannot control themselves. Each facility
has a separate area that is designated as “security.”)
Table 7

State Auditor’s Office Survey of Youth
Survey Results Related to an Established Grievance Process
Percentage of Youth
Who Agreed with
Survey Statement

Percentage of Youth
Who Disagreed with
Survey Statement

3. I was told how the youth grievance system works at
this facility

64%

23%

4. It is my right to file a grievance

91%

4%

5. I know how to get a grievance form

89%

6%

6. I can get grievance forms when I ask

51%

32%

7. I can file a grievance form when I am in the security
unit

36%

43%

8. I got a grievance from in security when I asked for
it.

23%

58%

12. I am not afraid to file a youth grievance

76%

17%

13. I have never gotten a grievance form and thrown
the form away

62%

25%

14. I know how to file an appeal if I am not satisfied
with the outcome.

57%

32%

16. I always get to keep a copy of my grievance forms.

73%

16%

Survey Statement

Notes:
1) Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the
“Agree” column; respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were
grouped together in the “Disagree” column.
2) The percentages of youths who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some youths answered
that they felt “Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to
them. Those responses are not included in this table.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 25

Youths said they do not always have an objective, trusted resource for their
concerns and issues.

Although there are some resources for youths in TYC to approach (such as
youth grievance officers and other staff), they did not feel that staff--including
juvenile correctional officers--would help them report problems. In survey
comments, youths cited many instances of retaliation taking place after a
grievance was filed. Youths perceive juvenile correctional officers as having
too much authority over decisions that may result in negative consequences to
the youths; and youths believe these officers do not make objective decisions.
Additionally, survey results indicate that only 23 percent of youths trusted
their juvenile correctional officers and 47 percent trusted the grievance clerks
at their facilities. Forty-six percent of the youths did not believe that juvenile
correctional officers would take action if they report a problem (see Table 8
below).
Table 8

State Auditor’s Office Survey of Youth
Survey Results Related to Objective, Trusted Resources
Percentage of Youth
Who Agreed with
Survey Statement

Percentage of Youth
Who Disagreed with
Survey Statement

9. If I ask, staff will help me file a grievance

27%

55%

10. Staff have never told me not to file a grievance.

46%

39%

11. Staff have never gotten back at me for filing a
grievance.

33%

53%

17. I trust my Juvenile Correctional Officer

23%

55%

18. My Juvenile Correctional Officer will take action to
help me if I report a problem.

30%

46%

19. I trust the grievance clerk at my facility

47%

30%

Survey Statement

Notes:
1) Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the
“Agree” column; respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were
grouped together in the “Disagree” column.
2) The percentages of youths who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some youths answered
that they felt “Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to
them. Those responses are not included in this table.

Additional Survey Comment Analysis

Additional information from survey comments indicates that youths did not
feel value or respected and were often subjected to verbal abuse and
intimidation. Youths had multiple complaints about the clothing, food,
medical needs, and adequacy of teachers at the facilities.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 26

Chapter 4-B

Detailed Results from the Youth Survey
As discussed above, the State Auditor’s Office surveyed youths at 15 TYC
facilities, 9 halfway houses, and 11 of the 15 contract care residential
facilities. We attempted to survey youths at all TYC facilities. However, we
were unable to survey youths at 4 of the 15 contract facilities because: (1) the
Coke County Juvenile Justice Center was on lockdown because two youths
had escaped and (2) three contract care facilities either did not have any TYC
youths at the time of our survey or the youths in these facilities were receiving
mental health treatment. As of March 14, 2007, a total of 3,279 youths (68.24
percent of the TYC youths) responded to the survey.
Youths responded to survey questions using a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For each survey statement, Table 9 shows the
percent of respondents who agreed or disagreed.
Our survey of youth was based on a survey instrument developed by TYC’s
Internal Audit Division for its youth grievance audit. Of the 19 questions on
our youth survey, 13 came from the internal audit survey. Our survey results
were consistent with a draft report prepared by TYC’s Internal Audit Division.
This report was scheduled for release on March 6, 2007, but at the time of this
report, it had not been released.
Table 9

Results from Survey of Youths in TYC Institutions
Survey Statement

AGREE

DISAGREE

1. TYC management takes immediate action to address safety and welfare concerns for
the youth.

26%

50%

2. I have first-hand knowledge of retaliation taken against a youth who filed a grievance
or reported physical or sexual abuse.

43%

39%

3. I was told how the your grievance system works at this facility.

64%

23%

4. It is my right to file a grievance.

91%

4%

5. I know how to get a grievance form.

89%

6%

6. I can get grievance forms when I ask for them.

51%

32%

7. I can file a grievance when I am in the security unit.

36%

43%

8. I got a grievance form in security when I asked for it.

23%

58%

9. If I ask, staff will help me file my grievance.

27%

55%

10. Staff have never told me not to file a grievance.

46%

39%

11. Staff have never gotten back at me for filing a grievance.

33%

53%

12. I am not afraid to file a youth grievance.

76%

17%

13. I have never gotten a grievance form and thrown the form away.

62%

25%

14. I know how to file an appeal if I am not satisfied with the outcome.

57%

32%

15. I think the grievance system works in TYC.

17%

65%

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 27

Results from Survey of Youths in TYC Institutions
Survey Statement

AGREE

DISAGREE

16. I always get to keep a copy of my grievance forms.

73%

16%

17. I trust my Juvenile Control Officer.

23%

55%

18. My Juvenile Control Officer will take action to help me if I report a problem.

30%

46%

19. I trust the grievance Clerk at my facility.

47%

30%

Notes:
1) The State Auditor’s Office administered this survey in March 2007 to youth in all TYC institutions, with the following exceptions. We
did not survey youth at the Coke County Juvenile Justice Center because the facility was on lockdown due to two escaped youths. Also,
we did not survey 3 other contract care facilities because they either did not have any TYC youth at the time or the youths were
receiving mental health treatment.
2) Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Agree” column;
respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Disagree” column.
3) The percentages of youths who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some youths answered that they felt
“Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to them. Those responses are not
included in this table.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 28

Chapter 5

TYC Employee Survey Results
At the direction of the Legislative Audit Committee and the Joint Select
Committee on the Operation and Management of the Texas Youth
Commission, the State Auditor’s Office surveyed TYC employees to gain an
understanding of issues and concerns they may have about their workplace.
We asked employees to rank their level of agreement or disagreement (on a
scale of 1 to 5) with 32 statements related to allegations of mistreatment, job
duties and performance, trust and respect, training, and TYC’s culture.2
Employees also had an opportunity to provide written comments regarding the
general work environment. Chapter 5-A provides an analysis of survey
questions and comments, and Chapter 5-B provides detailed survey results.
A total of 1,672 employees, or 34.49 percent of TYC’s 4,847 employees,
responded to the survey. Of those responding:
ƒ

4.8 percent were managers and 95.2 percent were staff.

ƒ

13.5 percent worked at the central office and 86.5 percent worked at a
youth facility.

Concerns employees expressed in the survey are not new; a separate survey
conducted by the University of Texas at Austin (the Survey of Organizational
Excellence) identified similar results for TYC in November 2005.

Chapter 5-A

TYC Employees Who Responded to Our Survey Have Serious
Concerns About the TYC Work Environment and Their Ability to
Express Concerns to Management
A significant number of employees who responded to our survey felt that they
(1) were not included in the decision-making process and (2) were not treated
with dignity and respect. Employees also did not believe that TYC’s culture
was cooperative and supportive.
Some respondents indicated that they did not trust the TYC board or executive
management. They also indicated that they fear they may experience
retaliation if they raise significant issues, concerns, or complaints. Similarly,
many employees felt intimidated and did not believe TYC handles conflict in
a tactful and professional manner.

2

Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Agree” column;
respondents who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Disagree”
column. Also, the percentages of employees who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some employees
answered that they felt “Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to them.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 29

Employees felt that TYC is not creating a positive, cooperative work
environment.

Statements related to employees’ work environment were among the lowest
scoring on the survey. Forty-three percent of the respondents did not agree
that the culture was supportive and encouraging. Only 25 percent felt that
they were included in the decision-making process, and 41 percent of the staff
and 21 percent of managers did not feel that employees were treated with
respect and dignity (see Table 10 below).
Table 10

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results Related to the Work Environment
Percentage of Employees Who
Agreed with Survey Statement

Percentage of Employees Who
Disagreed with Survey Statement

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

13. Overall, employees are treated with respect and
dignity in this agency.

44 %

65%

43%

40%

21%

41%

14. In this agency, management includes employees in the
decision making process.

25%

45%

24%

55%

34%

57%

30. The culture in our agency is cooperative and
supportive.

36%

53%

35%

43%

25%

43%

Survey Statement

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 30

Employees expressed concerns about discrimination, harassment, and fear and
intimidation within TYC.

Thirty-nine percent of survey respondents indicated that they feared retaliation
if they were to file a grievance against a coworker or supervisor. This
includes 18 percent of the managers who responded to our survey. We also
found that 37 percent of staff were concerned that they will be retaliated
against if they raise any issues or concerns. However, when managers were
asked the same question, 70 percent did not share the same fear. Although 70
percent of managers felt that they worked in an environment free of fear and
intimidation, staff perceptions were notably different. We found that 45
percent of staff did not agree that the work environment was free of fear and
intimidation. Forty-five percent of all respondents, regardless of their level in
the organization, did not feel that conflict was handled in a tactful and
professional manner (see Table 11 below).
Table 11

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results Related to Fear and Intimidation in the Agency
Percentage of Employees Who
Agreed with Survey Statement

Percentage of Employees Who
Disagreed with Survey Statement

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

6. I fear retaliation if I were to file a grievance against a
coworker or supervisor.

39%

18%

40%

47%

74%

46%

25. If I raise any issues or concerns, I believe there will be
no retaliation against me.

44%

70%

42%

36%

21%

37%

28. I work in an environment that is free of fear and
intimidation.

41%

70%

39%

44%

20%

45%

29. I feel that conflict in this agency is handled in a
tactful and professional manner.

34%

54%

33%

45%

27%

46%

31. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about
discrimination.

36%

69%

34%

44%

19%

45%

32. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about
harassment.

37%

67%

36%

40%

20%

41%

Survey Statement

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 31

According to survey respondents, issues of fear and intimidation are present
throughout TYC; however, for employees working outside of the central
office, these problems were more pronounced. For example, while 63 percent
of central office staff felt that they worked in an environment that was free of
fear and intimidation, 46 percent of employees at youth facilities disagreed
with that statement (see Table 12 below).
When asked if employees were free from concerns about harassment, 52
percent of central office staff agreed with the statement compared to 42
percent of facility staff who disagreed with the statement. When asked if they
were free from concerns about discrimination, 32 percent of employees in
central office and 45 percent of employees in youth facilities disagreed.
Table 12

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results by Location Related to Fear and Intimidation in the Agency
Percentage of Employees Who
Agreed with Survey Statement

Percentage of Employees Who
Disagreed with Survey
Statement

Central Office

Facilities

Central Office

Facilities

6. I fear retaliation if I were to file a grievance against a
coworker or supervisor.

30%

41%

57%

45%

25. If I raise any issues or concerns, I believe there will be
no retaliation against me.

56%

42%

27%

38%

28. I work in an environment that is free of fear and
intimidation.

63%

37%

28%

46%

29. I feel that conflict in this agency is handled in a
tactful and professional manner.

49 %

32%

33%

47%

31. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about
discrimination.

49%

34%

32%

45%

32. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about
harassment.

52%

35%

28%

42%

Survey Statement

Employee survey results indicate that employees mistrust various levels of
management and do not feel that managers always behave in an ethical
manner.

According to survey respondents, employees mistrust the TYC board,
executive management, and the Assistant Deputy Director for Youth
Corrections more than other managers. Only 27 percent of respondents
agreed that they trust the board, and only 28 percent agreed that they trusted
executive management.3 In particular, 27 percent of manager respondents
(more than one out of four) did not trust executive management. When asked
the same question about the Assistant Deputy Executive Director for Youth
Corrections, only 31 percent of respondents agreed that they trusted that
3

TYC’s executive director resigned on February 23, 2007.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 32

position. Forty-one percent of staff and 22 percent of managers did not think
that management at TYC leads by example and behaves in an ethical manner.
In contrast, 64 percent of employees trust their immediate supervisor (see
Table 13 below).
Table 13

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results Related to Trust in Management
Percentage of Employees Who
Agreed with Survey Statement

Percentage of Employees Who
Disagreed with Survey Statement

Survey Statement

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

15. I trust the Texas Youth Commission Board of Directors

27%

58%

25%

32%

16 %

33%

16. I trust Executive Management

28%

52%

27%

37%

27%

38%

17. I trust my immediate supervisor.

64%

80%

63%

22%

6%

23%

18. I trust the Assistant Deputy Executive Director for
Youth Corrections.

31%

60%

30%

29%

19%

30%

19. I trust Youth Care Investigations.

43%

61%

42%

25%

18%

26%

20. I trust Internal Audit

42%

68%

40%

21%

6%

22%

21. I trust Human Resources

50%

65%

49%

26%

12%

27%

22. I trust General Counsel

37%

63%

35%

23%

19%

23%

23. I trust the superintendent at the facility I work in.

55%

79%

54%

25%

4%

26%

24. I trust the principal at the facility I work in.

62%

81%

62%

17%

7%

17%

26. In this agency, management leads by example and
behaves in an ethical manner.

38%

64%

37%

40%

22%

41%

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 33

Employees indicate that more individuals may have information regarding the
mistreatment of youth

Survey results indicate that a small percentage of respondents had knowledge
or additional information about potential retaliation toward staff or youth. For
example, 127 of them (11 percent) indicated that they had reported physical or
sexual abuse of a youth and no response was taken. A total of 172
respondents (13 percent) indicated that they had first-hand knowledge of
retaliation against a guard, and 110 (8 percent) said they had first-hand
knowledge of retaliation against a youth who either filed a grievance or
reported physical or sexual abuse. A smaller, but significant, number of
respondents (91 respondents or 8 percent), indicated that they had been the
subject of retaliation within TYC (see Table 14 below).
Table 14

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results Related to Allegations of Mistreatment
Percentage of
Employees Who Agreed
with Survey Statement

Number of Employees
Who Agreed with
Survey Statement

5. I have first hand knowledge of retaliation taken against a guard who filed
a grievance or reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth.

13%

172

10. I have reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth and no response was
taken.

11%

127

4. I have first hand knowledge of retaliation taken against a youth who filed
a grievance or reported physical or sexual abuse.

8%

110

3. I have first hand knowledge of adults viewing pornographic images while
at work.

6%

90

9. I have reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth and been retaliated
against

8%

91

Survey Statement

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 34

Although a majority of respondents felt that youth can trust that TYC will take
immediate actions to address safety and welfare issues, not all respondents
agreed.

Survey results related to the safety and welfare of the youths were mixed.
Sixty-five percent of respondents agreed that youths can trust that adults are
free to report allegations of mistreatment and abuse. However, 20 percent
disagreed with that statement. Seventy-three percent of managers felt that
they take action to address safety and welfare concerns of the youths.
However, 23 percent of staff (315 employees) disagreed that action had been
taken to address safety and welfare concerns. Thirty-nine percent of staff and
30 percent of managers felt that policies and procedures within TYC were not
consistently applied. Seventy-nine percent of respondents felt they had
received the training necessary to perform their jobs; 96 percent were aware of
policies and procedures, and 84 percent received training for reporting
mistreatment or sexual abuse of youth (see Table 15 below).
Table 15

State Auditor’s Office Survey of TYC Employees
Survey Results Related to Safety and Welfare of the Youth
Percentage of Employees Who
Agreed with Survey Statement

Percentage of Employees Who
Disagreed with Survey Statement

Survey Statement

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

Managers
and Staff

Managers

Staff

1. Texas Youth Commission management takes immediate
action to address safety and welfare concerns for the
youth.

61%

73%

60%

23%

13%

23%

2. Youth can trust that adults are free to report
allegations of mistreatment and abuse.

65%

77%

65%

20%

9%

21%

7. I am aware of the agency’s policies and procedures on
reporting mistreatment or sexual abuse of youth.

96%

100%

95%

2%

0%

2%

8. I have received training on how to recognize and report
mistreatment or sexual abuse of youth.

84%

79%

85%

10%

18%

10%

11. I have actually received the training necessary to
perform my job.

79%

83%

79%

11%

10%

11%

27. Policies and procedures are consistently applied
within our agency.

43%

56%

43%

39%

30%

39%

Additional survey comments from employees indicated concerns over staffing
levels, working hours and conditions, shortage of qualified staff at facilities,
as well as the adequacy of supplies and equipment to perform their jobs.
Employees also voiced concerns over the fairness of employee grievance,
promotion, and performance appraisal systems.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 35

Chapter 5-B

Detailed Employee Survey Responses
As discussed above, the State Auditor’s Office surveyed TYC employees
working in both the TYC central offices and in TYC facilities. As of March
14, 2007, a total of 1,672 employees (or 34.49 percent of TYC’s 4,847
employees) had responded to the survey. (The employee response rate may
increase after this report is issued because those who did not have either a
TYC or personal e-mail address received hard copies of the surveys. We left
stamped envelopes for these employees to return the surveys.)
Employees responded to survey questions using a scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagreed) to 5 (strongly agreed). For each survey statement, Table
16 shows the percent of respondents who agreed or disagreed. Respondents
were divided into three groups: (1) TYC as a whole (managers and staff), (2)
managers only, and (3) non-supervisory staff members (staff only).
Responses are also shown by location in which employees work (central
office and youth facilities).
Table 16

Results from Survey of TYC Employees
AGREE
Employee
Location

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

DISAGREE
Staff
Only

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

1. TYC management takes immediate action to address safety and welfare concerns for the youth.
Central Office

61%

72%

59%

21%

12%

22%

Facilities

61%

74%

61%

23%

13%

23%

61%

73%

60%

23%

13%

23%

All Respondents

2. Youth can trust that adults are free to report allegations of mistreatment and abuse.
Central Office

61%

67%

60%

22%

13%

24%

Facilities

66%

81%

65%

20%

8%

20%

65%

77%

65%

20%

9%

21%

All Respondents

3. I have first-hand knowledge of adults viewing pornographic images while at work.
Central Office

10%

13%

9%

86%

79%

87%

Facilities

6%

6%

6%

87%

87%

87%

6%

8%

6%

87%

84%

87%

All Respondents

4. I have first-hand knowledge of retaliation taken against a youth who filed a grievance or reported physical or sexual abuse.
Central Office

4%

5%

3%

89%

85%

90%

Facilities

8%

6%

9%

82%

92%

82%

8%

6%

8%

83%

90%

82%

All Respondents

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 36

Results from Survey of TYC Employees
AGREE
Employee
Location

Managers and
Staff

DISAGREE

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

5. I have first-hand knowledge of retaliation taken against a guard who filed a grievance or reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth.
Central Office

7%

5%

8%

86%

85%

87%

Facilities

13%

4%

14%

76%

92%

75%

13%

4%

13%

77%

90%

76%

All Respondents

6. I fear retaliation if I were to file a grievance against a coworker or supervisor.
Central Office

30%

16%

32%

57%

76%

54%

Facilities

41%

20%

42%

45%

73%

44%

39%

18%

40%

47%

74%

46%

All Respondents

7. I am aware of the agency’s policies and procedures on reporting mistreatment or sexual abuse of youth.
Central Office

91%

100%

90%

5%

0

5%

Facilities

96%

100%

96%

2%

0

2%

96%

100%

95%

2%

0

2%

All Respondents

8. I have received training on how to recognize and report mistreatment or sexual abuse of youth.
Central Office

62%

58%

62%

30%

37%

30%

Facilities

87%

87%

87%

8%

11%

8%

84%

79%

85%

10%

18%

10%

All Respondents

9. I have reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth and been retaliated against.
Central Office

7%

6%

7%

88%

81%

90%

Facilities

8%

4%

8%

84%

89%

83%

8%

5%

8%

84%

87%

84%

All Respondents

10. I have reported physical or sexual abuse of a youth and no response was taken.
Central Office

9%

7%

9%

86%

87%

86%

Facilities

11%

7%

12%

80%

89%

80%

11%

7%

11%

81%

88%

80%

All Respondents

11. I have actually received the training necessary to perform my job.
Central Office

75%

89%

73%

12%

7%

13%

Facilities

80%

79%

80%

10%

11%

10%

79%

83%

79%

11%

10%

11%

71%

28%

32%

27%

All Respondents

12. I have only signed off on training that I have received.
Central Office
Facilities
All Respondents

70%

64%

a

69%

61%

70%

25%

35%

24%

70%

62%

70%

25%

34%

25%

13. Overall, employees are treated with respect and dignity in this agency.
Central Office

61%

71%

59%

26%

18%

27%

Facilities

41%

62%

41%

42%

23%

43%

44%

65%

43%

40%

21%

41%

All Respondents

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 37

Results from Survey of TYC Employees
AGREE
Employee
Location

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

DISAGREE
Staff
Only

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

14. In this agency, management includes employees in the decision making process.
Central Office

35%

50%

33%

42%

32%

43%

Facilities

23%

42%

22%

58%

35%

59%

25%

45%

24%

55%

34%

57%

All Respondents

15. I trust the TYC Board of Directors.
Central Office

40%

78%

35%

24%

11%

26%

Facilities

25%

48%

24%

33%

19%

34%

27%

58%

25%

32%

16%

33%

All Respondents

16. I trust Executive Management.
Central Office

49%

78%

45%

26%

15%

28%

Facilities

25%

38%

25%

39%

33%

39%

28%

52%

27%

37%

27%

38%

All Respondents

17. I trust my immediate supervisor.
Central Office

77%

89%

75%

15%

4%

16%

Facilities

62%

75%

62%

23%

8%

24%

64%

80%

63%

22%

6%

23%

All Respondents

18. I trust the Assistant Deputy Executive Director for Youth Corrections.
Central Office

52%

82%

47%

18%

7%

20%

Facilities

28%

48%

27%

31%

25%

31%

31%

60%

30%

29%

19%

30%

All Respondents

19. I trust the Youth Care Investigations.
Central Office

45%

54%

44%

23%

27%

23%

Facilities

43%

64%

42%

26%

13%

26%

43%

61%

42%

25%

18%

26%

Central Office

67%

86%

64%

10%

4%

11%

Facilities

38%

58%

37%

23%

8%

24%

42%

68%

40%

21%

6%

22%

All Respondents
20. I trust Internal Audit.

All Respondents

21. I trust Human Resources.
Central Office

55%

82%

51%

22%

4%

24%

Facilities

49%

57%

48%

27%

17%

28%

50%

65%

49%

26%

12%

27%

79%

56%

16%

7%

18%

All Respondents

22. I trust General Counsel.
Central Office
Facilities
All Respondents

59%
33%

55%

33%

24%

25%

24%

37%

63%

35%

23%

19%

23%

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 38

Results from Survey of TYC Employees
AGREE
Employee
Location

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

DISAGREE
Staff
Only

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

23. I trust the superintendent at the facility I work in.
Central Office

45%

50%

45%

27%

n/a

28%

Facilities

56%

80%

55%

25%

4%

26%

55%

79%

54%

25%

4%

26%

All Respondents

24. I trust the principal at the facility I work in.
Central Office

45%

50%

45%

10%

n/a

11%

Facilities

63%

83%

62%

17%

8%

17%

62%

81%

62%

17%

7%

17%

All Respondents

25. If I raise any issues or concerns, I believe there will be no retaliation against me.
Central Office

56%

70%

53%

27%

22%

28%

Facilities

42%

70%

41%

38%

21%

39%

44%

70%

42%

36%

21%

37%

All Respondents

26. In this agency, management leads by example and behaves in an ethical manner.
Central Office

50%

71%

47%

32%

18%

34%

Facilities

36%

60%

35%

41%

25%

42%

38%

64%

37%

40%

22%

41%

All Respondents

27. Policies and procedures are consistently applied within our agency.
Central Office

40%

50%

39%

38%

32%

39%

Facilities

44%

58%

43%

39%

28%

39%

43%

56%

43%

39%

30%

39%

All Respondents

28. I work in an environment that is free of fear and intimidation.
Central Office

63%

82%

60%

28%

14%

30%

Facilities

37%

64%

36%

46%

23%

47%

41%

70%

39%

44%

20%

45%

All Respondents

29. I feel that conflict in this agency is handled in a tactful and professional manner.
Central Office

49%

75%

45%

33%

18%

35%

Facilities

32%

43%

32%

47%

32%

47%

34%

54%

33%

45%

27%

46%

All Respondents

30. The culture in our agency is cooperative and supportive.
Central Office

53%

75%

50%

27%

11%

29%

Facilities

33%

42%

32%

45%

32%

45%

36%

53%

35%

43%

25%

43%

All Respondents

31. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about discrimination.
Central Office

49%

82%

44%

32%

4%

36%

Facilities

34%

62%

33%

45%

26%

46%

36%

69%

34%

44%

19%

45%

All Respondents

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 39

Results from Survey of TYC Employees
AGREE
Employee
Location

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

DISAGREE
Staff
Only

Managers and
Staff

Managers
Only

Staff
Only

32. Employees in this agency are free from concerns about harassment.
Central Office

52%

75%

49%

28%

11%

31%

Facilities

35%

62%

34%

42%

25%

43%

37%

67%

36%

40%

20%

41%

All Respondents
a

The responses to statement 12 were not consistent with the responses to other survey questions; for that reason, we did no further analysis of
the responses to statement 12.
Notes:
1) The State Auditor’s Office administered this survey in March 2007 to the following employees:

ƒ All TYC employees who had a TYC e-mail address received electronic surveys.
ƒ TYC employees who did not have a TYC e-mail address but for whom TYC had a personal e-mail address on file received electronic surveys.
ƒ Staff at all TYC institutions who did not have a TYC or personal e-mail address received hard copy surveys.
2) Respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Agree” column; respondents
who disagreed or strongly disagreed with an individual survey statement were grouped together in the “Disagree” column.
3) The percentages of employees who agreed and disagreed do not sum to 100 percent because some employees answered that they felt
“Neutral” about certain survey statements or that certain survey statements were not applicable to them. Those responses are not included in
this table.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 40

Chapter 6

List of All Recommendations in This Report
All of the recommendations in this report are listed below.
Chapter 1-A

TYC should:
ƒ

Separate different categories of youths, including:
-

Separating youths by age.

-

Separating youths by severity of offense.

ƒ

Consider the addition of some single-cell dorms at facilities.

ƒ

Establish and enforce a limit on the number of youths who can be assigned
to an individual, open-bay dorm.

ƒ

Increase controls at youth facilities, including:
-

Establishing and enforcing juvenile correctional officer-to-youth ratios
that provide for a safe and effective environment.

-

Conducting more frequent and random bed checks.

-

Enforcing maximum occupancy rates.

-

Requiring investigators to conduct unannounced visits.

-

Filling the vacant dog-handler position and evaluating current
resources to determine if additional positions are necessary to search
staff and visitors for drugs and other contraband.

-

Searching staff for drugs and contraband, including staff working on
night shifts, and considering random drug testing.

-

Increasing the number and placement of electronic monitoring devices
(surveillance cameras and audio recording devices).

-

Replacing some solid doors with glass doors to allow staff to monitor
youths more easily.

-

Maintaining surveillance data from monitoring devices for at least 15
working days or until grievances alleged to have occurred on a
particular day are resolved. TYC should consider using digital
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 41

equipment, which may be more cost-effective than the current
equipment in use.

ƒ

-

Placing youths in close proximity to their homes or communities,
when possible.

-

Rotating juvenile correction officers’ dorm assignments every six
months so that they do not always work with the same personnel and
supervise the same youths.

Evaluate the West Texas State School for possible closure. Youths could
be transferred to other facilities over the next 12 to 24 months, in the event
that a decision is made to close the school.

Chapter 1-B

The Legislature should consider enacting laws to:
ƒ

Permit the appointment of a special prosecutor from the Office of the
Attorney General staff if a chief law enforcement officer of a county files
a sworn affidavit stating that:
-

A case involving the physical or sexual abuse of a youth at a TYC
facility was investigated by the local law enforcement officer
under the jurisdiction of the chief law enforcement officer;

-

The investigation has been presented to the local prosecutorial
entity;

-

120 days have passed since the case was presented to the local
prosecutorial entity; and

-

No action has been taken by the local prosecutorial entity.

ƒ

Create independence in the reporting and investigating process by
removing TYC management from the grievance reporting and
investigation process and making the Office of the Inspector General
responsible for the entire process. The Inspector General should report
directly to the TYC board.

ƒ

Establish an Office of Inspector General at TYC for the investigation of
complaints of abuse at youth facilities. The Office of Inspector General
should be responsible for:
-

Establishing protocols, including establishing grievance investigation
timeframes that differentiate between allegations that require
immediate action and those that are less serious in nature. Upon
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 42

resolving a grievance, the resolution should be communicated to the
youth in writing within 48 hours.
-

Forwarding a substantiated grievance that indicates a crime has been
committed to law enforcement and the local prosecuting entity.

-

Following up on grievances that are withdrawn or voided to determine
whether youth suffered consequences as a result of filing a grievance.

-

Reviewing grievance documentation periodically to determine whether
appropriate action was taken and whether sufficient documentation is
available to support the resolution.

-

Routinely analyzing data in automated grievance systems to identify
potential trends and performing additional work to follow up on those
trends.

-

Placing a grievance coordinator at each facility, and requiring that
individual to report directly to the Office of Inspector General. Youths
should receive signed copies of their grievances.

-

Establishing a permanent, toll-free telephone number for the reporting
of grievances involving allegations of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
It should post the number prominently in all facilities and ensure that
youths and staff can access telephones in order to call this number.

-

Preparing information on the status of outstanding grievances and
providing it to the Governor, TYC board members, TYC executive
management, and legislative oversight committees on a periodic basis.

ƒ

Specifically require the TYC executive director or inspector general, if he
or she has reasonable cause to believe that a crime involving a youth at a
TYC facility has been committed on the premises of a state facility, to
immediately file a complaint with a law enforcement entity that has
jurisdiction over the crime.

ƒ

Establish, recognize, and authorize a juvenile advocacy group that could
effectively represent youths before TYC’s board in matters involving their
treatment.

TYC should:
ƒ

Enforce a disciplinary policy that outlines consequences for employees
who mistreat or abuse youths.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 43

ƒ

Ensure that all grievances are received and investigated by requiring staff
to immediately report any suspected mistreatment or abuse of youth to the
Office of the Inspector General for investigation.

ƒ

Allow youths to challenge consequences for misconduct separately from
the grievance process. For example, youths’ complaints about
consequences from incident reports could be addressed at weekly Phase
Assessment Team meetings. The youths would retain the ability to file a
grievance with the Office of Inspector General if they felt the members of
the Phase Assessment Team were retaliating against or otherwise
harassing them.

ƒ

Develop and implement a policy that outlines consequences to youths
according to the level and type of their misconduct.

ƒ

Require TYC’s executive director or his or her designee to verify and
approve “phase adjustments” that result in extending a youth’s stay at a
facility.

ƒ

Transfer TYC’s automated grievance systems to the Office of Inspector
General. In addition, consider automating the process for submitting
grievances so that, if they desire, youths can submit grievances without the
assistance of facility staff and anonymously. The automated grievance
systems also should include proper controls.

ƒ

Implement controls over information technology resources, including:

ƒ

-

Strengthening password protection on all TYC computers.

-

Performing Web filtering to prevent users from accessing sexually
oriented sites.

-

Monitoring employees’ computers to detect storage of inappropriate
images and referring employees to the Office of Inspector General if
inappropriate images are detected.

Upon admission to a youth facility, providing an information packet to the
youth and parents or guardians describing facility services and grievance
procedures.

Chapter 2-A

TYC should:
ƒ

Establish and implement a policy that prohibits TYC or its contractors
who work with youth to hire a convicted felon or sex offender.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 44

ƒ

Amend its policy related to criminal background checks so that the results
of these checks are retained in employee files.

ƒ

Require that all contracts between TYC and a contractor contain a
provision requiring the contractor to certify that the contractor does not
have an employee who has been convicted of an offense and that the
contractor will take reasonable steps to become informed of each proposed
employee’s criminal convictions prior to employment and during
employment. The contract should be voidable in the event that TYC
discovers that the contractor has violated these terms of the contract.

ƒ

Establish a security officer position to oversee the following:
-

Obtaining fingerprints from all employees so that background checks
can be performed using the Department of Public Safety’s and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation’s databases.

-

Requiring and ensuring that post-employment criminal history checks
on TYC employees are conducted at least every two years.

-

Requiring and ensuring that contractors that provide services to TYC’s
youths be fingerprinted and undergo criminal background checks prior
to their having contact with the youths.

ƒ

Clarify promotion and transfer guidelines to include a review of the
history of disciplinary actions, evaluations, and all current and prior
grievances.

ƒ

After grievances involving staff are confirmed, local human resources,
central office human resources, and central office general counsel should
determine disciplinary actions based on a policy that outlines a range of
disciplinary actions.

Chapter 2-B

TYC should:
ƒ

Evaluate and assess all central office employees’ and organizational units’
roles and responsibilities in the near future, with the following goals in
mind:
-

Reassigning some staff resources from the central office to youth
facilities. This could include:
•

Establishing on-site, certified sex offender counselor positions
at TYC facilities.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 45

•

ƒ

Establishing on-site grievance officers at TYC facilities who
report to the Office of Inspector General.

Reallocating central office staff resources to the highest priority
functions.

Fill vacant positions for investigators to more effectively handle the
investigation of grievances.

Chapter 2-C

The Legislature should consider requiring TYC board members to possess a
range of backgrounds, including criminal justice and legal expertise.
TYC board members should:
ƒ

Visit youth facilities periodically.

ƒ

Hold board meetings at youth facilities.

Chapter 3-A

TYC should:
ƒ

Analyze how juvenile correctional officers are (1) allocated across
facilities, (2) scheduled at individual facilities, and (3) tasked with duties
other than youth supervision to ensure the most effective use of the
officers. This analysis should include a review of overtime and the ability
of employees to use accrued leave.

ƒ

Administer reading comprehension and writing tests to facility staff and
require passing scores prior to extending a job offer.

ƒ

Establish and enforce a policy to assign staff younger than 21 years of age
to facilities that house younger youths.

ƒ

Develop a core training curriculum that all new juvenile correctional
officers must receive during their first 30 days of employment and require
annual training updates. At a minimum, the curriculum should include:

ƒ

-

Proper behavior for juvenile correctional officers.

-

Proper techniques for the control and restraint of youths.

-

The grievance process.

Identify the minimum equipment and supplies needed at facilities to
operate effectively and ensure that these items are available.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 46

ƒ

Ensure that employee performance evaluations better reflect employee
performance by allowing a greater range of rating levels (such as
excellent, satisfactory, needs improvement, and unsatisfactory) and that
these evaluations take disciplinary actions into account.

ƒ

Require juvenile correctional officers to attain a “satisfactory” rating on at
least 75 percent of the required elements to receive an overall
“satisfactory” rating.

ƒ

Prepare employee performance evaluations at least annually.

ƒ

Review rehabilitation programs to improve their effectiveness.

ƒ

Require and enforce a code of conduct for facility staff that models
appropriate behavior for the youths.

Chapter 3-B

TYC should take action to increase the job applicant pool for juvenile
correctional officers by encouraging the hiring of part-time officers such as
state, military, and other retirees.
The Legislature should consider enacting laws that offer incentives to juvenile
correctional officers by providing a one-semester tuition exemption at a
community college or state higher education institution for every six months
of “satisfactory” evaluations. Individuals should be eligible for this benefit
only as long as their performance is continuously satisfactory and their
employment has not been terminated by TYC.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 47

Chapter 7

Rehabilitation Plan: Preliminary Issues the State Auditor’s Office
Presented to TYC’s Acting Executive Director on March 12 2007, for
Consideration in a Rehabilitation Plan
Below are issues that the State Auditor’s Office has identified as a result of
reviewing documents at the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) central office
and four youth facilities, interviewing staff and youths, analyzing data from
TYC information systems, and analyzing survey responses from both
employees and youths. This is a preliminary list based on only one week of
investigative work.
Physical Security at Youth Facilities
Structural and Policy Changes

ƒ

The 15-to-1 student-to-staff ratio is sometimes exceeded, especially on
night shifts.

ƒ

As many as 45 youths of various ages and levels of offenses sleep in the
same room.

ƒ

Both males and females are housed on the same campuses.

Additional Controls

ƒ

Some campus buildings and areas within buildings do not have electronic
monitoring devices.

ƒ

Surveillance camera video tapes are recorded over (and, therefore, erased)
within 3 days, although the period for resolving a grievance is 15 days.

Youth Grievance Process
Absence of an Independent and Centralized Investigative Entity

ƒ

Facility superintendents or chief local authorities oversee the grievance
process at youth facilities. They also have the authority to extend a
youth’s detention period. Having these duties performed by an
independent entity would prevent superintendents and chief local
authorities from interfering with the investigation of grievances.

ƒ

The local complaint coordinator is responsible for assigning youth
grievances for resolution. Individuals in this position report to the
superintendent or chief local authority, which could discourage them from
elevating grievances to the TYC central office.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 48

ƒ

The senior juvenile correctional officer for a particular dorm is often the
same individual who is assigned to investigate and resolve grievances filed
by youths from that same dorm. Therefore, this individual is frequently in
the direct chain of command of the accused staff member and may not be
independent.

ƒ

Currently, criminal cases are filed with local prosecutors who are
sometimes unwilling to prosecute or have limited resources to handle
cases.

Timeliness of the Resolution of Youth Grievances

ƒ

TYC’s policy is to resolve grievances within 15 working days. However,
a review of TYC’s Alleged Mistreatment System (where information
regarding the most serious grievances is stored) indicated that grievances
were not resolved in a timely manner.

ƒ

Both in their survey responses and in interviews, youths expressed
concern that their grievances were not resolved in a timely manner and
usually were resolved later than the 15 days allowed by TYC policy. As a
result, the negative action that caused the youth to file the grievance in the
first place (such as a reduction in phase, removal of privileges, or
extension of their detention period) had already occurred by the time the
grievance was resolved.

ƒ

A large percentage of grievances filed by youths are related to the
consequences they receive as a result of unacceptable behavior. It is timeconsuming to investigate these grievances through the current system.
These grievances adversely affect the youths’ phase assessment,
privileges, and special treatment. When these grievances are not resolved
in a timely manner, the negative impact is not overturned.

Youths’ Access to the Grievance Process

ƒ

Each facility is responsible for developing and pre-numbering its
grievance forms, and not all facilities perform reconciliations to ensure
that all of the forms are accounted for. As a result, TYC cannot be assured
that all grievances are logged into its grievance systems. The process for
filing grievances at facilities includes the following steps:
Œ

A youth grievance clerk is responsible for giving the youths assigned
to his or her dorm grievance forms.

Œ

Completed forms are collected from lockboxes by the local complaint
coordinator (several individuals at a facility have keys to the
lockboxes).

Œ

The local complaint coordinator is responsible for entering the
grievances into TYC’s automated Youth Complaint System. The
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 49

coordinators also determine which grievances are the most serious and
then inform the TYC central office so that it can enter the most serious
grievances into the automated Alleged Mistreatment System.
However, review of this process indicates that some grievances are not
entered into the Youth Complaint System or the Alleged Mistreatment
System.
Œ

At one facility reviewed, the local complaint coordinator had difficulty
locating all youth grievances. In some months it appeared that no
grievances had been logged, and the local complaint coordinator could
not provide assurance that all grievances were available for review.

ƒ

Youths do not have unrestricted and anonymous access to the grievance
process. Youths who fear retaliation may not feel comfortable filing a
grievance. At some facilities, youths must request permission from
juvenile correctional officers to request a grievance form. Additionally,
according to TYC policy, youth complaint clerks are selected by the
supervising juvenile correctional officer and voted on by youths in their
dorm. However, at one facility, youths indicated that the youth complaint
clerk is selected only by the supervising juvenile correctional officer and
not voted on by the youths. Finally, the process does not allow youths to
file grievances anonymously. These procedures could restrict youths’
access to grievance forms or prevent youths from requesting forms due to
lack of anonymity and mistrust of staff.

ƒ

The ability of facility staff to affect student phase ratings creates the
potential for abuse within the grievance system. Numerous youths who
responded to our survey indicated they had been “burned” by their
juvenile correctional officers filing false incident reports. Many of the
youth grievances we observed were appeals to have incident reports
repealed. Any juvenile correctional officer may issue an incident report
(CCF-225) to report a youth’s behavioral misconduct and rules violation.
The issuance of an incident report results in the loss of certain earned
privileges and may stop or demote the youth’s phase grade. Phases
determine when a youth is eligible for parole from the TYC system.

ƒ

Youths at some facilities may be disciplined for filing grievances if local
officials determine that the grievances are frivolous or excessive.
Consequences to the youths may include being placed on probation,
restriction or denial of privileges, and extension of detention periods.

ƒ

Having a facility staff member prepare an incident report regarding a
youth may have a negative effect on the youth’s release date and/or
continuation in special treatment programs.

ƒ

Facility staff may be assigned to investigate grievances filed against
themselves.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 50

TYC’s Office of Youth Care Investigations

ƒ

Investigators lack standardized methods for conducting and documenting
monitoring visits to verify that (1) youths understand the grievance
process and (2) the local complaint coordinators are resolving grievances
appropriately and in a timely manner.

ƒ

Potential conflicts of interest may exist because investigators are residents
of the communities where the facilities are located, and their immediate
family members also may be employed at the facilities under review.

ƒ

Investigators who monitor selected grievances to determine whether the
facility staff appropriately resolved the grievances can select only rating
options of “excellent,” “good,” or “non-responsive.” These limited rating
options may skew results in the facilities’ favor.

ƒ

Facilities’ policies and procedures for youth grievances are generally
similar. However, according to a March 6, 2007, TYC internal audit
report, the policies and procedures may not provide sufficient detail so that
facility staff know how to implement them consistently statewide.

ƒ

Investigations can be hindered by the lack of or poor quality of
surveillance tapes or video at facilities.

Information Systems

ƒ

Some TYC computers do not have password protection. TYC also does
not perform Web filtering to prevent users from accessing sexually
oriented Web sites from their TYC computers. TYC does not monitor
users’ computers to detect the storage of inappropriate images.

ƒ

TYC’s two automated systems for grievances (the Youth Complaint
System and the Alleged Mistreatment System) cannot easily generate
information to monitor activities at facilities. As a result, TYC is
performing limited to no analysis of the grievance data that would enable
it to identify facilities and juvenile correctional officers with a higherthan-average number of grievances filed against them.

Hiring, Promoting, Transferring, Evaluating, and Disciplining TYC
Employees
Hiring

ƒ

TYC performs only computerized criminal history background checks on
prospective employees using name and date of birth (rather then
performing fingerprint checks). TYC also checks prospective employees’
names against the registered sex offender database. The risk with this
process is that a prospective employee could give false information,
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 51

rendering the background check ineffective. This process also would not
identify individuals who were arrested but not convicted of a sex-related
offense.
ƒ

TYC does not have policies that prevent it or its contractors that work with
youths from hiring convicted felons or sex offenders.

ƒ

TYC does not retain the results of criminal background checks in
employees’ files. Instead, it destroys these records.

Employee Promotions, Transfers, and Evaluations

TYC conducts criminal history background checks only when employees are
initially hired. This creates the risk that an employee could be arrested
subsequently without TYC’s knowledge.
Disciplinary Actions

TYC has policies and procedures regarding disciplinary actions; however, our
review of employee performance evaluations did not indicate that disciplinary
actions had been taken for employees with confirmed grievances.

Facility Staff Knowledge and Qualifications
Qualifications

According to one facility staff interview and survey results, some facility staff
are unable to read or write. Staff are given reading and writing exams after
they have accepted employment offers.
Maturity

The minimum required age for juvenile correctional officers is 18. Survey
respondents suggested that the minimum age should be increased because of
the maturity needed to work in youth facilities. Detained youths can range
from 10 up to 21 years of age, which means that juvenile correctional officers
can be younger than the youths they are guarding.
Training and Resources

ƒ

In survey responses and interviews, staff indicated that they were asked to
affirm that they attended training when, in fact, they had not.

ƒ

Facility staff expressed concerns that they do not have the equipment
necessary to perform their jobs. This includes items from communication
devices that do not work properly to cleaning supplies that are unavailable.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 52

Performance Evaluations

The performance evaluations for juvenile correctional officers may not reflect
their actual performance. Evaluation forms have rating levels of only
satisfactory or unsatisfactory. According to facility staff, the TYC central
office defined satisfactory performance as attaining satisfactory on 50 percent
or more categories of required tasks. Juvenile correctional officers who had
written reprimands in their personnel files still received satisfactory
evaluations. For example, a juvenile correctional officer who received a
satisfactory rating in all categories had two written reprimands in his
personnel file that had been administered during the reporting period. One
reprimand was for performing a pat search of a female youth (male staff are
prohibited from performing pat searches of female youth).
Some performance evaluations were completed excessively late.

Youth Rehabilitation
In survey responses, some youths expressed concern that:
ƒ

They are not being taught because class instruction is independent study.

ƒ

Staffs’ behavior and use of profanities did not provide the youths with
positive role models.

According to facility staff and youths interviewed, the consequences for
youths not taking prescribed medication can be denial of medication for up to
three months.

Turnover, Pay Rates, and Job Applicant Pools for Juvenile
Correctional Officers and Case Managers
Turnover Rates

ƒ

Turnover rates for juvenile correctional officers have been excessive and
range from 113 percent for an Officer I to 16.4 percent for an Officer VI.

ƒ

Turnover rates for case managers also have been excessive and range from
55 percent for Level I to 31 percent for a Level III.

Pay Rates

ƒ

Pay rates for juvenile correctional officers range from an average of
$21,792 for an Officer I to $35,756 for an Officer VI.

ƒ

Pay rates for case managers range from an average of $26,332 for a Level
I to $32,371 for a Level III.
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 53

Job Applicant Pools

TYC states that it has a limited pool of job applicants. However, TYC has
limited its job applicant pool by not hiring part-time employees and return-towork employees more frequently.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 54

Appendices
Appendix 1

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Objectives
At the request of the Legislative Audit Committee, the objectives of this
investigation were to:
ƒ

Gather financial and operational information to develop a rehabilitation
plan for the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) and submit the plan to the
Legislative Audit Committee by March 16, 2007.

ƒ

Coordinate with the Special Master appointed by the Governor, law
enforcement organizations, and other oversight authorities.

Scope
The scope of this investigation covered activities related to financial and
operational processes at TYC’s central office and four of its facilities. We also
surveyed TYC employees and youths at 15 TYC institutions, 9 TYC halfway
houses, and 11 of the 15 contract care residential facilities.
Methodology
The investigative methodology included collecting and reviewing information
and documentation, performing selected tests, analyzing and evaluating the
results of testing, conducting interviews with TYC management and staff, and
conducting an agency-wide survey and a survey of youth.
Information collected and reviewed included the following:
ƒ

Interviews with TYC management and staff.

ƒ

TYC policies and procedures.

ƒ

Survey of TYC employees and youths.

ƒ

Reports and data extracts from the Texas Youth Complaint System and the
Alleged Mistreatment Information System.

ƒ

Youth grievance forms.

ƒ

Employee personnel files, including performance evaluations.

ƒ

Juvenile correctional officer work schedules.

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 55

ƒ

Comptroller of Public Accounts Uniform Statewide Payroll/Personnel
System.

ƒ

State Auditor’s Office Exit Survey System.

ƒ

The University of Texas at Austin’s Survey of Organizational Excellence.

ƒ

TYC internal audit draft report on youth grievance.

Procedures and tests conducted included the following:
ƒ

Reviewed policies and documentation related to employee grievances,
discipline, and termination files.

ƒ

Reviewed and analyzed TYC employee comments on State Auditor’s
Office surveys.

ƒ

Toured facilities.

ƒ

Reviewed and analyzed manual and automated records for youth
grievances.

ƒ

Reviewed administrative leave records.

Criteria used included the following:
ƒ

TYC policies and procedures.

ƒ

Texas Administrative Code.

Project Information
Fieldwork was conducted from March 2, 2007, through March 15, 2007. This
project was an investigation performed at the direction of the Legislative
Audit Committee. Therefore, the information in this report was not subjected
to all the tests and confirmations that would be performed in an audit.
However, the information in this report was subject to certain quality control
procedures to help ensure accuracy.
The following members of the State Auditor’s staff performed this
investigation:
Audit Staff

ƒ

Angelica Martinez, CPA (Project Manager)

ƒ

Isaac Barajas (Auditor)

ƒ

Wesley Vaughn Hodgin, CPA (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Jennifer Lehman, CGAP (Senior Auditor)
An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 56

ƒ

Audrey A. O'Neill, CGAP (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

James Timberlake, CIA (Managing Senior Auditor)

ƒ

William Vanecek, CGAP (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Kenneth F. Wade (Auditor)

The following members of the State Auditor’s staff assisted in surveying
youths at TYC’s facilities:
ƒ

Cesar Saldivar, CGAP (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Juan Sanchez, CGAP (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Katrina Schlue (Auditor)

ƒ

Sherry Sewell, CGAP (Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Christine Wahl (Auditor)

ƒ

Brian York (Auditor)

Special Investigations Unit Staff

ƒ

Harold Burns, CFE (Senior Investigator)

ƒ

Lucy Cantu, CFE (Investigative Researcher)

ƒ

Matthew Samuelson, CPA, CFE, CFCE (Senior Investigator)

ƒ

Robert Smith, CFE, CFI (Senior Investigator)

ƒ

Pamela Munn (Special Investigation Unit Manager)

Information Technology Staff

ƒ

Lynne Ballman, CISA, CDP, CSP (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Dorvin Handrick, CISA, CDP (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Kristen Lanum (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Frank Locklear, CISA (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Steve Summers, CPA, CISA (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Tom Winn, Ph.D. (Senior Systems Analyst)

ƒ

Ralph McClendon, CISSP, CISA (Audit Manager)

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 57

Classification Staff

ƒ

Christine Bailey, CCP (Senior Classification Analyst)

ƒ

Stacey McClure, PHR (Senior Classification Analyst)

ƒ

Sharon Schneider, PHR (Senior Classification Analyst)

ƒ

Juliette Torres, PHR, CCP (Senior Classification Analyst)

Quality Control Review Staff

ƒ

Leslie Ashton, CPA (Managing Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Dennis Ray Bushnell, CPA (Managing Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Charles Dunlap, CPA (Managing Senior Auditor)

ƒ

J. Scott Killingsworth, CIA, CGFM (Managing Senior Auditor)

ƒ

Nancy McBride, MA (Senior Audit Report Editor)

ƒ

Worth S. Ferguson, CPA (Audit Manager)

Coordination of Investigation

ƒ

Lisa R. Collier, CPA (Audit Manager)

ƒ

Dave Gerber, CIA, CISA (Audit Manager)

ƒ

Sandra Vice, CIA, CGAP, CISA (Assistant State Auditor)

ƒ

Anita D’Souza, JD (General Counsel)

ƒ

Daniel Wattles, CPM (Legislative Coordination Manager)

ƒ

Cody Smith (Project Manager)

ƒ

John Keel, CPA (State Auditor)

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 58

Appendix 2

TYC Facilities at Which the State Auditor’s Office Surveyed Youth
Table 17 lists the TYC facilities at which the State Auditor’s Office surveyed
youth.
Table 17

TYC Facilities at Which Youths Were Surveyed
Name of Youth Facility

Location

Number of
Youths

15 TYC Institutions
Al Price State Juvenile Correctional Facility

Beaumont

316

Corsicana Residential Treatment Center

Corsicana

202

Crockett State School

Crockett

276

Evins Regional Juvenile Center

Edinburg

187

Gainesville State School

Gainesville

359

Giddings State School

Giddings

391

John Shero State Juvenile Correctional Facility (formerly San
Saba State School)

San Saba

Marlin Orientation and Assessment Unit

Marlin

341

Mclennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility Unit I

Mart

294

Mclennan County State Juvenile Correctional Facility Unit II

Mart

250

Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex Unit I

Brownwood

357

Ron Jackson State Juvenile Correctional Complex Unit II

Brownwood

117

Sheffield Boot Camp

Sheffield

108

Victory Field Correctional Academy

Vernon

306

West Texas State School

Pyote

253

289

Total TYC Institutions

4,046

9 TYC Halfway Houses
Ayres House

San Antonio

30

Beto House

McAllen

29

Cottrell House

Dallas

23

Edna Tamayo House

Harlingen

26

McFadden Ranch

Roanoke

48

Schaeffer House

El Paso

23

Turman House

Austin

22

Willoughby House

Fort Worth

22

York House

Corpus Christi

19

Total TYC Halfway Houses

242

11 Contract Facilities
Alliance Childrens Services, Inc

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 59

Houston

15

TYC Facilities at Which Youths Were Surveyed
Name of Youth Facility

Location

Number of
Youths

Alliance Childrens Services, Inc

Austin

1

Associated Marine Institutes, Inc.

Los Fresnos

32

Brookhaven Youth Ranch Inc.

West

15

Byrds Therapeutic Group Home

Houston

12

Garza County Regional Juvenile Center

Post

41

Gulf Coast Trades Center

New Waverly

29

Mel Matthews Boys Ranch and Vocational Center

Cisco

59

Southwest Key Program, Inc.

Houston

20

Victoria County Jjc - County Of Victoria

Victoria

24

W.I.N.G.S. For Life, Inc.

Marion

12

Total Contract Facilities

260

Total Youth Facilities Visited (35)

4,548

Note: We did not visit or survey the contract facilities listed below. The Coke County Juvenile Justice
Center was on lockdown because two youths had escaped. The other facilities either did not have any
TYC youths at the time we conducted our survey or the youths were receiving mental health treatment.
Coke County Juvenile Justice Center

Bronte

Roy Maas' Youth Alternatives

San Antonio

Specialized Alternatives For Youth

Arlington

Terrell State Hospital

Terrell

An Investigative Report on the Texas Youth Commission
SAO Report No. 07-022
March 2007
Page 60