PREA AUDIT REPORTADULT PRISONS & JAILSDate of Report:July 2, 2017Auditor InformationAuditor name: Roger BentonAddress: PO Box 942883, Suite 344-N, Sacramento, CA 94283-0001Email: [email protected] number: 916 798-9953Date of facility visit: May 22-25, 2017Facility InformationFacility name: Plainfield Correctional Facility (Formally Indiana Youth Center)Facility physical address: 727 Moon Road, Plainfield, Indiana 46168Facility mailing address: (if different from above)Facility telephone number: (317) 839-2513The facility is: Federal State County Military Municipal Private for profit Private not for profit Prison JailName of facility’s Chief Executive Officer: Stanley KnightFacility type:Number of staff assigned to the facility in the last 12 months: 125Current Designed facility capacity: 1,547Current population of facility: 1497Facility security levels/inmate custody levels: Level 2, Medium Security FacilityAge range of the population: 18-82Name of PREA Compliance Manager: Michael ArthurTitle: Administrative Assistant 4Email address: [email protected] number: (317) 839-2513 x 2222Agency InformationName of agency: Indiana Department of CorrectionsGoverning authority or parent agency: (if applicable)Physical address: 302 West Washington Street Room E-334, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204Mailing address: (if different from above)Telephone number: (317) 232-5711Agency Chief Executive OfficerName: Robert CarterTitle: CommissionerEmail address: [email protected] number: (317) 232-5711Agency-Wide PREA CoordinatorName: Bryan PearsonTitle: Executive Directive of PREAEmail address: [email protected] number: (812) 526-8434 x 2202

AUDIT FINDINGSNARRATIVEThe Plainfield Correctional Facility, formally known as the Indiana Youth Center (PCF-IYC) is located at 727Moon Road, Plainfield, Indiana. Plainfield Correctional Facility is participating in a Prison Rape Elimination Act(PREA) audit conducted by a certified auditor from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation(CDCR). The on-site portion of the audit was conducted at the address stated above during the period ofMay 22-25, 2017. Following coordination, preparatory work and collaboration with management staff at thePlainfield Correctional Facility, some pre-audit work was completed prior to traveling to the facility for the on-sitereview portion of the audit.PRE-AUDIT PHASEOn April 7, 2017, the CDCR provided the audit notice to the agency’s PREA Coordinator with instructions to postcopies in the housing units and other places deemed appropriate by facility staff. Notices were to be posted inareas accessible to both offenders and staff. Plainfield Correctional Facility staff emailed the auditor 8 time/datestamped pictures of different locations within the facility to include general work and program areas, housingunits, Medical/Mental Health Clinics and dayroom/recreation rooms. The pictures were date and time stampedon April 10, 2017, to indicate when they were taken with the posted upcoming audit information in their assignedposition. The posted information was still in many, if not all, of those same locations, during our on-site audittour. CDCR received the pre-audit questionnaire, audit process map, checklist of policies/procedures and otherdocuments from the Indiana Department of Corrections (IDOC) in early May 2017.Pre-audit Section of the compliance tool: In early May 2017, the IDOC agency PREA Coordinator provided thecompleted pre-audit questionnaire, including supporting documentation, to the audit team. The certified auditorstarted completing the Audit section of the Auditor Compliance Tool (ACT) by transferring information from thepre-audit questionnaire and supporting documentation to the pre-audit section of the compliance tool. Theauditor received 1 letter from an offender at the facility prior to arrival at the institution. This letter and subsequentinterview is discussed in this Final Report.It should be noted that the Plainfield Correctional Facility received their PREA Final Report from their last3-year cycle on November 30, 2016.ON-SITE PHASEOn May 22, 2017, the audit team arrived at the Plainfield Correctional Facility (PCF). The audit team consistedof 2 auditors, which included myself, a certified auditor and retired Correctional Captain for CDCR and RayHarrington, a retired Associate Warden for CDCR. Both of us have conducted 30 plus CDCR Pre-Audits and areMaster Trainers in the Locally Designated Investigators (LDI) course.Upon arrival, the audit team met with the Superintendent, PREA Compliance Manager and Plainfield CorrectionalFacility (PCF-IYC) management staff for greetings, introductions and information sharing. The audit team wasescorted to a conference room which served as a home base for audit preparation and organization.Prior to arrival at the Plainfield Correctional Facility, the audit team requested and received the names of theemployees assigned in the management and specialized staff positions, who would be interviewed during theon-site portion of the audit. The auditor also requested a current listing of all staff working at the PlainfieldCorrectional Facility as well as a current list of all offenders housed at the Plainfield Correctional Facility. Oncesettled in the conference room, all the requested information was provided to the auditors. The audit teamreviewed the lists and highlighted, in yellow, the names of random staff and random offenders we wished tointerview. The reviewed list that the audit team received contained all the custody and non-custody staffscheduled to work on the days of the on-site review, sorted by shift. Plainfield Correctional Facility custody staffwork 12 hour shifts.3

The staff names were randomly chosen to include various work areas, shift schedules and classifications to geta formal response of wide-spread information from around the institution.The offender names were randomly chosen to include some from each of the housing units andclassification/custody level.The auditor also requested a list of offenders, if any, classified/known in any of the following categories: Disabled InmatesLimited English Proficient InmatesTransgender & Intersex InmatesGay & Bisexual InmatesInmates in Segregated Housing for Risk of Sexual VictimizationInmates who Reported Sexual AbuseInmates who Disclosed Sexual Victimization during Risk ScreeningThis list did not specifically identify offenders according to any/all the seven above referenced categories,however, the PREA Compliance Manager worked with the auditor to identify the offenders in the categories, and,after review, a complete list was later supplied.On-site Review: The audit team conducted a thorough on-site review of the facility. The Superintendent, PREACompliance Manager and several custody staff escorted the audit team. The team toured all of the housingunits, administration building, the chapel, hospital unit, Education Building, Gymnasium, Service and Laundryareas, motor pool, garage, the warehouse, food services, medical, mental health, the main kitchen, intakeprocessing area, main control, the pharmacy, canteen processing, etc. As the tour moved throughout the facility,the auditors would make a notation on the supplied site map indicating that that area had been visited andreviewed.During the tour, audit team members asked impromptu questions (Informal interviews) of staff and offenders,noted the placement and coverage of surveillance cameras, inspected surveillance monitors, identified potentialblind spots, and inspected bathrooms and showers to identify potential cross gender viewing concerns, etc. Inoffender dayrooms and hallways, audit team members tested offender telephones to determine the functionalityof the facility’s hotline for reporting sexual abuse or harassment. All numbers called were received with amessage line for call back or a live person. Auditors were also given a demonstration of the JPAY system toensure offenders could reach an outside agency through the main screen. In offender work areas, audit teammembers assessed the level of staff supervision and asked questions (Informal interviews) to determine whetheroffenders are in lead positions over other offenders. Audit team members also noted the placement of PREAinformation posters in offender housing/work areas and placement of the PREA audit notices provided to thefacility. In most areas, audit team members took photos to document the on-site review.PREA Management Interviews: Both audit team members were assigned the responsibility for interviewingvarious members of the management team, including the Superintendent and the PREA Compliance Manager.The auditors worked with facility staff to schedule a time for each of these interviews; audit team members wereescorted to the office of the respective manager or arranged to utilize another office where the auditor conductedthe interviews using the applicable interview protocols and recorded the responses by hand.The Agency Director’s designee, the Agency Contract Administrator, the Agency PREA Coordinator, theSAFE/SANE Nursing staff and the Contracted Victim Advocates were all interviewed telephonically during thisaudit. All their remarks and documentation presented, are in this report.Specialized Staff Interviews: Using the list of specialized staff received from the PREA Compliance Manager,the same audit team members were later escorted to the work locations of individual specialized staff to performthe required interviews.4

The audit team identified 17 specialized staff to be interviewed. Interviews included staff from the following areas: Medical and Mental Health staff (Wexford contractor). This is a new contractor from last audit.Incident Review Team MembersStaff who Conduct Intake ScreeningClassification StaffCase WorkersInvestigations and Intelligence Staff (I&I) (Facility level investigators)Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)Human Resources ChiefPerson Responsible for Contractor, Volunteer and Vendor ClearancesSegregated Housing StaffPerson Responsible for Monitoring RetaliationHigher Level SupervisorFood Services (Aramark Contractors)Religious VolunteerHead of EducationFirst RespondersPlainfield Correctional Facility Training DirectorDuring the initial informal interviews with investigative staff, the team learned that any allegations of PREA areforwarded to the Shift Commander. The Shift Commander creates an incident report in the Incident ReportManagement System (IRMS). Headquarters PREA Unit staff review all PREA allegations and make adetermination if the allegation meets the prima fascia of PREA. If the allegation is determined to be a PREAincident, the PREA unit assigns an investigation log number and sends the incident back to the institution forinvestigation. It was shown in documentation and interviews that all allegations are investigated.Any grievance received by the Grievance Coordinator that makes an allegation of PREA is removed from thegrievance process and handled similar to all other PREA allegations.Where the circumstances dictate, the auditors would ask to review documentation, logs, computerized tracking,or other material necessary to make a determination of compliance with the standards.Random Staff Interviews: The audit team identified random staff to be interviewed. The random staff wereselected from the shift rosters, considering a variety of work locations and both shifts. Both audit team memberswere escorted to various location where identified staff members were located for the interviews. The interviewswere conducted individually and in private offices. The auditors introduced themselves, communicated theadvisory statements to the staff, proceeded to ask the line of questions from the interview protocols for randomstaff and recorded the answers by hand. Audit team members asked for clarifications where needed to ensurethe responses were clear enough to make a determination of compliance with applicable standards. A total of15 formal and 14 informal random staff interviews were conducted from various categories of staff from bothshifts.During the on-site tour, auditors would stop, speak to numerous staff (Informal interviews) in all categories, andask 2 to 3 questions about PREA issues to include, training, actions taken, response, communications, etc.These conversations would not take the place of the formal process of questions, they would only be used asan additional tool to supplement the overall audit informational gathering process.Work shifts for custody staff are as follows: 1st watch: 0600-1800 hours2nd watch: 1800-0600 hoursNon-custody staff worked similar variations of these shifts.5

Random Offender Interviews: The auditor determined that at least one offender from each housing unit wouldbe interviewed. Both audit team members were assigned responsibility for the various offender interviews. Auditteam members used the alphabetical roster of offenders to randomly select offenders, from various age groups,ethnicities and races, from their assigned housing units.Audit team members were escorted to various location where the identified offenders were made available toparticipate in the interview in a private interview room/office.During our on-site tour, auditors would stop, speak to numerous offenders in all categories,(Informal interviews)and ask 2 to 3 questions about PREA issues to include, training, actions taken, response, communications, etc.These conversations would not take the place of the formal process of questions, they would only be used asan additional tool to supplement the overall audit informational gathering process.A total of 13 formal and 13 informal random offenders’ interviews were conducted from offenders living in varioushousing units to include the Detention Housing Unit (DHU), the Individual Housing Unit (IHU), and the North,South, East, West and Central Housing Units.PREA-Interest Offender Interviews: Both audit team members were assigned responsibility for interviewingspecific categories of offenders identified for interviews based upon their relevance to specific PREA standards.These 8 categories are: Disabled Offenders:Limited English Proficient (LEP):Transgender and Intersex Offenders:Gay & Bisexual Offenders:Offenders in Segregated Housing for Risk of Sexual Victimization:Offenders who Reported Sexual Abuse:Offenders who disclosed Sexual Victimization during Risk Screening:Offender’s that wrote letters to the auditors:Audit team members selected offenders from the list received from the PREA Compliance Manager. Eachoffender’s housing location was determined from the alphabetical roster and audit team members were eitherescorted to the offender’s housing unit or provided a centralized private office for interviews.The offenders were escorted to where the auditor was located. The auditor would tell the offender why they wereat this institution, what their role was in the PREA Audit process and explain why the interviews were beingconducted. The auditors would also explain that the offender’s participation, although helpful, is voluntary andthey could stay or leave at the convenience.The auditor then asked if the offender wanted to participate, and if so, begin to ask the line of questions in therespective interview protocols. Audit team members also conducted additional interviews of the same offenderif a random offender interviewee also disclosed information suggesting that one of the above categories of PREAinterest applied to them.Document Reviews: The document review process was divided up between both of the auditors. One auditorreviewed all 34 investigation files related to allegations of sexual abuse. There were 34 administrative allegationsand 0 Criminal Allegations. The other auditors reviewed all training records, personnel records, contractor andvolunteer records, and reviewed the records maintained through the offender intake process. Both auditorscollected copies of documents, as necessary.A thorough review of the Indiana State Policies was included in all three phases of the audit: Pre-Audit,On-site portion and the Post-Audit.6

The auditor responsible for the records review indicated that they chose 12, various category, staff personnelfiles, chosen from a wide list of new employees, employees who were promoted and those who have been atPlainfield Correctional Facility for longer than 12 months for review. Of the 12, documentation shows all of themwere in compliance with the required information. Additionally, 15, various category staffs Training files werereviewed to show that all 15 were in full compliance. Finally, 12 offender files, chosen randomly from a MasterRoster sheet, were reviewed to show, though their signed acknowledgement sheets, all had received anOrientation Booklet, PREA Brochure and viewed the PREA video, when they arrived at Plainfield CorrectionalFacility. Of the 12 offender files reviewed, 1 of them was in the files of offenders that were also interviewed.These files were randomly chosen and the 1 just happen to be among them.The PREA Compliance Manager provided Sexual Incident Reports (SIR) for 34 allegations received during theprevious 12 months. The list included the report number, date of report, name of the victim, name of the suspect,and the disposition or status of the case. The auditor obtained the Sexual Incident Report and Investigativereports from facility investigative staff for each allegation. These reports were reviewed using a PREA auditinvestigative records review tool to record the following information relative to each investigative report: Case#/IDDate of AllegationDate of InvestigationStaff or Inmate on InmateSexual Abuse or Sexual HarassmentFinal DispositionIs Disposition JustifiedInvestigating OfficerNotification Given to InmateAudit team members recorded this information for the case reviewed and provided additional relevant informationin the space provided for additional notes.Throughout the on-site review, the team had discussion about what was being observed and reviewed anddiscrepancies that were being identified.Both team members would seek clarification, when discrepancies were identified to ensure that we were notmissing pertinent information. The audit team scheduled a close-out discussion with the Superintendent and hisexecutive staff on May 25, 2017. During this close-out discussion, the facility staff and the PREA Coordinatorwere provided with an overview of what had been identified as areas of possible concern.POST-AUDIT PHASEFollowing the on-site portion of the audit, the team met and discussed the post-audit phase and the next steps.This auditor gathered written information and feedback from the other team member and took responsibility forcompleting the final report.Per PREA procedure, starting on August 20, 2016, which is the first day of the first year of the second 3-year auditcycle, certified auditors are required to submit a report to the audited agency within 45 days of completion of anon-site audit. It is expected that if an auditor determines that a facility does not meet one or more of thestandards, this report will be considered an “interim report,” triggering a 180-day corrective action period, andthe auditor will include in the report recommendations for any required corrective action and shall jointly developwith the agency a corrective action plan to achieve compliance. The auditor is required to “take necessary andappropriate steps to verify implementation of the corrective action, such as reviewing updated policies andprocedures or re-inspecting portions of a facility.” At the completion of the corrective action period, theauditor has 30 days to issue a “final report” with final determinations.7

Section 115.404 (d) states that, “After the 180-day corrective action period ends, the auditor shall issue a finaldetermination as to whether