Part 3.
TEXAS YOUTH COMMISSION
Chapter 95.
YOUTH DISCIPLINE
Subchapter A. DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES
37 TAC §95.16
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts new §95.16,
concerning Primary Intervention Program without changes to the proposed text
as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 10227).
The justification for the new rule is to provide chronically disruptive
youth with more target-specific behavioral intervention and enhanced opportunities
to progress in the agency's Resocialization program. The new rule establishes
a program which will function as a dorm-based intensive treatment intervention
and disciplinary consequence for youth who repeatedly engage in non-violent
behavior that disrupts facility operations or negatively impacts facility
safety.
The commission received comments from Advocacy, Inc regarding the proposed
new rule. The comments are summarized below, followed by the commission's
response.
Comment: Regarding subsection (c)(3), a recommendation was made to add
a psychologist or child psychiatrist to the Phase Assessment Team (PAT).
Response: The commission is not funded at a level which would allow for
a psychologist or child psychiatrist to be present at every PAT. Every youth
is assessed monthly, and to coordinate the presence of either of these professionals
would require additional funding of psychiatric and psychological services.
If a youth is seen by either of these professionals, there is a formal process
by which feedback is provided to the PAT for incorporation in phase assessment
and additional mental health adaptations in the behavioral phase assessment.
There is also a process for PAT-identified youth suspected of having mental
health conditions warranting additional assessment to be referred to psychology
for screening/testing and then to psychiatry. However, given existing resources,
there is a system in place to identify youth in need of formal assessment
and increased clinical resources. The commission made no changes to the rule
in response to the recommendation.
Comment: Regarding subsection (f)(4), the comment expressed concern that
a psychologist, not a child psychiatrist, interviews the youth prior to the
implementation of the Primary Intervention Program. The comment also expressed
the belief that it is clinically appropriate and in the best interest of the
youth to be evaluated by a child psychiatrist, who would be able to prescribe
psychotropic medications if needed.
Response: The commission's practice is to screen youth via psychological
clinical interview with a Masters or Ph.D. psychologist prior to referral
to the psychiatrist. Psychologists have expertise in psychometric testing
which may be used for differential diagnosis and a current measure of intellectual/adaptive
functioning as deemed clinically necessary. All referrals are tracked through
the Director of Clinical Services and Special Services Committee to ensure
accountability. All youth deemed in need of psychiatric services are referred
to psychiatry through the Psychology Departments at each TYC facility. This
process ensures the necessary screening and differential diagnosis to best
utilize psychiatric services and ensure that all youth on ongoing psychiatric
caseloads are seen in a timely manner, in addition to newly identified youth.
Some youth may be seen by psychiatry and receive psychological individual
counseling. Every TYC facility has a formal referral procedure for psychological
and psychiatric services. Any youth deemed in need of assessment for placement
on psychotropic medication is referred to the Psychology Department and assigned,
by the Director of Clinical Services, for a clinical assessment by an MA or
Ph.D psychologist and referred to psychiatrist. Only a psychiatrist can prescribe
psychotropic medication to a youth. As deemed necessary, some youth receive
both psychiatric medication and monitoring and psychological counseling. The
commission made no changes to the rule in response to the comments.
The new rule is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.075,
which provides the TYC with the authority to order a child's confinement under
conditions it believes best designed for the child's welfare and the interests
of the public.
The adopted rule implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407475
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §95.17
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts the repeal
of §95.17, concerning Behavior Management Program without changes to
the proposal as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 10229).
The justification for the repeal of this section is to allow for a significantly
revised rule to be published in its place.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the repeal.
The repeal is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.034,
which provides the Texas Youth Commission with the authority to make rules
appropriate to the proper accomplishment of its function.
The adopted rule implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 27, 2004.
TRD-200407497
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §95.17
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts new §95.17,
concerning Behavior Management Program with changes to the proposed text as
published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 10229). Changes to the proposed text consist
of a revision to subsection (k)(2)(A). Clarification was added to reflect
that a youth may not be transferred directly from a Behavior Management Program
into Aggression Management Program. Upon a finding of true that a youth committed
an AMP-eligible rule violation while assigned to a BMP, pursuant to §95.43
of this title the youth will be transferred to IDP while awaiting AMP admission.
A minor revision occurred in subsection (i)(2)(A)(i); the word "least" was
inadvertently omitted from the original proposal; therefore, the word was
reinstated.
The justification for the new rule is to provide youth with enhanced opportunities
to progress in the agency's Resocialization program and contribute to overall
facility safety and order by reducing high-risk behaviors. The enhancement
of the present program is designed to deliver target-specific treatment intervention
in a highly secure environment, with a structured campus reintegration component.
The commission received comments from Advocacy, Inc. regarding the proposed
new rule. The comments are summarized below, followed by the agency's response.
Comment: Regarding subsection (d)(1), a recommendation was made to include
a child psychiatrist on the Special Services Panel.
Response: The commission disagrees with this recommendation. The Director
of Clinical Services (DOCS), a licensed Ph.D. Psychologist (licensed by the
State of Texas Examiners of Psychologists) chairs the Special Services Panel.
Any youth for whom a Behavior Management Program (BMP) is determined prior
to placement on a BMP to be clinically contraindicated would not be placed
on a BMP. Psychological assessment prior to BMP placement ensures that appropriate
clinical services and intervention are developed to best serve any youth having
a psychiatric history. The commission believes that psychiatric services are
best utilized for psychiatric assessment and medication monitoring for those
youth currently being seen or referred. Any psychiatric information is communicated
by the psychiatrist to the DOCS or available to the DOCS via an electronic
medical record. The commission made no changes to the rule in response to
the recommendation.
Comment: Regarding subsection (f)(1)(A), the comment expressed concern
that a psychologist, not a child psychiatrist, interviews the youth prior
to the implementation of a BMP. The comment also expressed the belief that
it is clinically appropriate and in the best interest of the youth to be evaluated
by a child psychiatrist, who would be able to prescribe psychotropic medications
if needed.
Response: The commission's practice is to screen youth via psychological
clinical interview with a Masters or Ph.D. psychologist prior to referral
to the psychiatrist. Psychologists have expertise in psychometric testing
which may be used for differential diagnosis and a current measure of intellectual/adaptive
functioning as deemed clinically necessary. All referrals are tracked through
the Director of Clinical Services and Special Services Committee to ensure
accountability. All youth deemed in need of psychiatric services are referred
to psychiatry through the psychology departments at each facility. This process
ensures the necessary screening and differential diagnosis to best utilize
psychiatric services and ensure that all youth on ongoing psychiatric caseloads
are seen in a timely manner, in addition to newly identified youth. Some youth
may be seen by psychiatry and receive psychological individual counseling.
Every facility has a formal referral procedure for psychological and psychiatric
services. Any youth deemed in need of assessment for placement on psychotropic
medication is referred to the Psychology Department and assigned, by the Director
of Clinical Services, for a clinical assessment by an MA or PH.D psychologist.
Only a psychiatrist can prescribe psychotropic medication to a youth. As deemed
necessary, some youth receive both psychiatric medication and monitoring and
psychological counseling. The commission made no changes to the rule in response
to the comment.
Comment: Regarding subsection (g)(2)(B), the comment expresses confusion
about the language used to describe the relationship between the Individualized
Education Program (IEP) and the BMP. A BMP should be part of the child's IEP,
and therefore one should not be in effect without the other. Advocacy, Inc.
would strongly recommend changing the language about the BMP and IEP.
Response: The commission disagrees with the recommendation. The Behavioral
Management Program (BMP) should not be confused with a behavior intervention
plan (BIP) specified in 34 CFR 300.519-529 and alluded to in 34 CFR 300.346(a)(2).
A BMP is a non-educational, corrections implemented progressive dorm reintegration
program. The goal is to address the aggressive or chronically disruptive behavior
where dorm intervention based programs have been unsuccessful.
In most cases, the behaviors leading to consideration of a BMP have not
interfered with the youth's educational progress, including progress toward
achieving a youth's IEP goals and objectives. However, in accordance with
34 CFR 300.346(a)(2), whenever a youth engages in behavior in the classroom
that the teacher, administrator, or parent believes significantly impedes
the youth's learning or the learning of others, the teacher, administrator,
or parent, must request that an ARD committee meeting be convened to discuss
the potential need for further educational intervention(s), such as a BIP.
It may be the ARD committee's decision to gather further evaluation data (either
existing or new) as part of a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA), before
determining the need for a BIP.
The convening of an ARD committee meeting to discuss the implications of
disruptive or interfering behaviors on implementation of a youth's IEP has
been designated at the commission as a Behavior Review ARD meeting. At this
meeting the committee will specify, if appropriate, the need for the development
of any positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and/or supports to address
the behavior. These specified behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports
constitute a BIP and would be incorporated into the youth's IEP.
A BIP is NOT to be confused with the commission's BMP that is developed
and implemented accordance with §95.17. Whereas a BIP is developed by
an ARD committee to address behavior concerns for a special education student
only in the school setting, a BMP is developed, implemented, and monitored
by correctional and treatment staff, with input from educational staff. In
situations where a youth's behaviors lead to the development of an ARD-determined
BIP, and a youth is also participating in the BMP, the youth's Phase Assessment
Team (PAT) is required to coordinate information from the BMP and BIP to assess
the youth's progress. The commission made no changes to the rule in response
to the recommendation.
Comment: Regarding subsection (g)(5), the comment expressed a desire to
see more information regarding dorm caseworkers' responsibilities and qualifications,
and a recommendation that the qualifications of the position be at least LPC
or MSW.
Response: The commission strives to recruit qualified, credentialed casework
professionals; however, the barriers due to the rural locations of the commission
facilities adds a challenge to this commitment. The majority of caseworkers,
68%, have a BA degree in social science. All caseworkers receive training
in the Resocialization Program (44 hours), and ongoing case management and
core intervention group supervision by their Program Administrator. The caseworker
conducts Resocialization Core Groups, individual counseling, family contacts
(including family therapy), case management, phase assessment, and may participate
in behavioral intervention (behavior groups). The commission made no changes
to the rule in response to the recommendation.
The new rule is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.075,
which provides the Texas Youth Commission with the authority to order a child's
confinement under conditions it believes best designed for the child's welfare
and the interests of the public.
The adopted rule implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
§95.17.Behavior Management Program.
(a)
Purpose. The Behavior Management Program (BMP) functions
as a disciplinary consequence and a means for delivering intensive treatment
interventions in a highly secure and structured environment for youth who
have engaged in certain high-risk behaviors. This rule sets forth eligibility
criteria, program completion requirements, and services to be provided to
youth in the program.
(b)
Authorized Facilities. The facilities authorized to administer
the BMP are:
(1)
Texas Youth Commission (TYC)-operated high restriction
facilities; and
(2)
residential facilities operating under contract with TYC
which are approved by the TYC executive director or designee to administer
a BMP.
(c)
Applicability.
(1)
The BMP is administered in the security unit except as
noted herein. All standard security unit requirements and services as set
forth in §97.36 of this title (relating to Standard Security Unit Program
Requirements), unless otherwise noted herein, shall be observed while the
youth is in the security unit.
(2)
This rule does not apply to:
(A)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as security intake. See §97.37 of this title (relating to Security Intake);
(B)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as a security program. See §97.40 of this title (relating to Security
Program);
(C)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as detention in a TYC institution. See §97.43 of this title (relating
to Institution Detention Program);
(D)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as protective custody. See §97.45 of this title (relating to Protective
Custody);
(E)
the use of same or adjacent space when used specifically
as temporary admission. See §85.41 of this title (relating to Temporary
Admission Awaiting Transportation);
(F)
the Aggression Management Program. See §95.21 of this
title (relating to Aggression Management Program).
(d)
Explanation of Terms Used.
(1)
Special Services Panel--a panel that reviews the recommendation
for a youth's admission to BMP. At a minimum, the panel includes a caseworker
and a program administrator who are not responsible for direct supervision
of the youth, and the director of clinical services (DOCS).
(2)
Progress Review Team--a team which assesses youth progress
through the stages of the BMP. At a minimum, the team includes the director
of security, a staff psychologist, the security caseworker, the youth's dorm
program administrator, and a representative from education.
(3)
Individual Behavior Management Plan (IBMP)--a plan developed
for each youth placed in the BMP which consists of objectives that address
the behavior or cluster of behaviors that prevent the youth from successfully
participating in regular programming.
(4)
Security Unit--see definition in §97.36 of this title.
(5)
Security Program--see program description in §97.40
of this title.
(6)
Core Group--a daily meeting conducted by a caseworker with
the youth on a dorm to help the youth develop an understanding of criminal
behavior and thinking.
(7)
Category I/II Rule Violations--see explanation in §95.3
of this title (relating to Rules of Conduct).
(8)
Primary Intervention Program (PIP)--see program description
in §95.16 of this title (relating to Primary Intervention Program).
(9)
Admission, Review, and Dismissal (ARD) committee--a committee
that makes decisions on educational matters relating to special education-eligible
students.
(10)
Individualized Education Program (IEP)--the program of
special education and related services developed by a student's ARD committee.
(11)
Institution Detention Program (IDP)--see program description
in §97.43 of this title.
(e)
Program Eligibility. A youth who knowingly engages in,
aids, or abets someone else to engage in one or more of the following high
risk behaviors is eligible for placement in a BMP:
(1)
willful destruction of property of $50 or more;
(2)
assault resulting in bodily injury;
(3)
escape or attempted escape as defined in §95.3 of
this title;
(4)
fleeing apprehension which results in a significant disruption
of campus operations;
(5)
riotous conduct as defined in §95.3 of this title;
(6)
sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, or inappropriate
sexual contact other than just kissing;
(7)
possessing any item defined as a weapon in the Penal Code
or threatening others with use of an object which could be used as a weapon;
(8)
threatening imminent bodily injury as defined in §95.3
of this title;
(9)
unauthorized possession or use of a controlled substance
or marijuana;
(10)
self-harm or threatening self-harm, which has been clinically
assessed by a mental health professional as not motivated by mental illness
pursuant to assessment procedures as set forth in §91.88 of this title
(relating to Suicide Alert for Secure Programs);
(11)
chronic disruptive behavior, as demonstrated by:
(A)
five (5) or more admissions or extensions to the security
program in a 30-day period, or ten (10) or more admissions or extensions to
the security program in a three (3)-month period; and
(B)
release within the previous six (6) months from a PIP or
BMP; or
(12)
behavior which is found in a due process hearing to be
eligible for placement in the AMP pursuant to §95.21 of this title and
subsequently denied admission to AMP.
(f)
Admission Decision.
(1)
Except as described in paragraph (2) of this subsection,
the following is the process by which a determination shall be made to place
a youth in a BMP.
(A)
Upon a recommendation by staff for placement in a BMP,
a psychologist shall interview the youth and document an assessment of the
motivation for the behavior and the mental status of the youth to determine
whether any therapeutic contraindications for admission exist.
(B)
The assistant superintendent shall approve the request
to hold a due process hearing in order to pursue placement in a BMP upon a
determination by the Special Services Panel that:
(i)
the youth poses a continuing risk for identified admitting
behavior(s);
(ii)
less restrictive methods of documented intervention have
been attempted when appropriate; and
(iii)
the mental status of the youth has been assessed and
there are no therapeutic contraindications for admission to the BMP.
(C)
A due process hearing shall be held in accordance with
procedures set forth in §95.51 of this title (relating to Level I Hearing
Procedure) or §95.55 of this title (relating to Level II Hearing Procedure).
If there is a finding of true with no extenuating circumstances that the youth
engaged in one of the behavioral criteria listed in subsection (e) of this
section, the youth shall be admitted to the BMP.
(2)
For youth in IDP that were denied admission to AMP, the
superintendent or assistant superintendent shall make a determination whether
or not to admit the youth to the BMP.
(g)
Program Requirements.
(1)
The BMP shall not exceed 90 days in duration.
(2)
Special education services are provided in accordance with
ARD committee decisions.
(A)
If a determination is made by the principal that the youth's
IEP cannot be implemented while the youth is on a BMP, an ARD committee meeting
shall be held to develop an appropriate IEP to be implemented while the youth
is in the security unit on a BMP.
(B)
The ARD committee shall also determine whether or not the
youth's IEP in effect prior to the BMP will be reinstated upon the youth's
release from the BMP. If a determination is made not to reinstate the prior
IEP, the committee shall reconvene upon the youth's release from BMP to develop
a new IEP.
(3)
An IBMP shall be developed for each youth.
(A)
The plan will be developed by the youth's caseworker, in
consultation with the security caseworker, psychologist, and education staff.
(B)
The plan will consist of objectives that address the specific
target behavior or cluster of behaviors that led to admission to the BMP,
taking into consideration the psychologist's recommendations to address the
motivation for the behavior.
(C)
The plan must involve strategies for intervention and prevention.
(D)
The plan must include a component which addresses transition
to the general campus population.
(E)
Objectives for release shall be clearly written in the
IBMP.
(F)
The plan shall be explained to the youth and he/she will
sign the plan in acknowledgment.
(4)
The IBMP and youth's progress with regard to target behaviors
is reviewed and evaluated every seven (7) days by the Progress Review Team.
(5)
The youth's dorm caseworker shall provide at least 45 minutes
of individual counseling with the youth every 30 days.
(6)
Youth shall spend time out of the security unit as described
herein. Participation in campus programming is contingent upon compliance
with programming. If a youth is non-compliant with programming, the security
caseworker will determine appropriate programming based on the youth's conduct
and level of risk, pending the weekly Progress Review Team assessment.
(h)
Stage Determination for Youth Transferred from IDP while
Awaiting AMP Admission.
(1)
Upon a determination by the superintendent or assistant
superintendent to place the youth on a BMP, the Progress Review Team will
evaluate the youth's behavior and progress toward meeting goals and objectives
while assigned to the IDP and determine the appropriate BMP stage at which
the youth will begin progression through the BMP, not to exceed Stage 3.
(2)
The number of days spent in IDP following the date of the
youth's due process hearing will be credited toward the 90-day maximum in
the BMP.
(i)
Progress Through Program Stages. The program consists of
five (5) stages. Movement through each stage is based on successful completion
of performance objectives.
(1)
Stage 1. Stage 1 shall last a minimum of seven (7) days.
(A)
Services and Activities.
(i)
At least five and one-half (5 1/2) hours daily of academic
services will be provided in the security unit.
(ii)
Daily counseling and progress reviews with the designated
security caseworker, with a minimum of one weekly 20-minute session.
(iii)
Weekly meetings by the Progress Review Team to discuss
progress on IBMP objectives.
(iv)
Target-specific materials (e.g., anger management, gang
intervention strategies) and weekly opportunities to review and discuss material
with staff.
(v)
Weekly mental health status exams by a psychologist.
(B)
Stage 1 Completion Criteria.
(i)
Observe standardized security unit rules with no Category
I rule violations and no more than three (3) Category II rule violations within
the seven-day review period.
(ii)
Meet short-term IBMP objectives and complete verbal and
written assignments.
(2)
Stage 2. Stage 2 shall last a minimum of seven (7) days.
(A)
Services and Activities.
(i)
At least five and one-half (5 1/2) hours daily of academic
services will be provided in the security unit.
(ii)
Five (5) hours per week of behavior group on the dorm,
provided by appropriate staff.
(iii)
Daily counseling and progress reviews with the designated
security caseworker, with a minimum of one weekly 20-minute session.
(iv)
Weekly meetings by the Progress Review Team to discuss
progress on IBMP objectives.
(v)
Target-specific materials (e.g., anger management, gang
intervention strategies) and weekly opportunities to review and discuss material
with staff.
(vi)
Weekly mental health status exams by a psychologist.
(B)
Stage 2 Completion Criteria.
(i)
Observe standardized security unit rules with no Category
I rule violations and no more than two (2) Category II rule violations within
the seven-day review period.
(ii)
Meet short-term IBMP objectives and complete verbal and
written assignments.
(3)
Stage 3. Stage 3 shall last a minimum of seven (7) days.
(A)
Services and Activities.
(i)
At least five and one-half (5 1/2) hours daily of academic
services will be provided, consisting of at least four (4) hours on campus.
(ii)
Five (5) hours per week of behavior group on the dorm,
provided by appropriate staff.
(iii)
Daily counseling and progress reviews with the designated
security caseworker, with a minimum of one weekly 20-minute session.
(iv)
Weekly meetings by the Progress Review Team to discuss
progress on IBMP objectives.
(v)
Target-specific materials (e.g., anger management, gang
intervention strategies) and weekly opportunities to review and discuss material
with staff.
(B)
Stage 3 Completion Criteria.
(i)
Observe standardized security unit rules with no Category
I rule violations and no more than two (2) Category II rule violations within
the seven-day review period.
(ii)
Meet short-term IBMP objectives and complete verbal and
written assignments.
(4)
Stage 4. Stage 4 shall last a minimum of seven (7) days.
(A)
Services and Activities.
(i)
At least five and one-half (5 1/2) hours daily of academic
services will be provided on campus.
(ii)
Participation in youth's daily dorm program.
(iii)
Weekly meetings by the Progress Review Team and youth's
dorm caseworker to discuss progress on IBMP objectives.
(iv)
Target-specific materials (e.g., anger management, gang
intervention strategies) and weekly opportunities to review and discuss material
with staff.
(B)
Stage 4 Completion Criteria.
(i)
Observe standardized security unit rules with no Category
I rule violations and no more than one (1) Category II rule violation within
the seven-day review period.
(ii)
Meet short-term IBMP objectives and complete verbal and
written assignments.
(5)
Stage 5. Stage 5 shall not exceed 30 consecutive days in
duration. Youth are released from the security unit immediately upon completion
of Stage 4 and begin participating in a Primary Intervention Program (PIP)
on an assigned general population dorm. Youth may earn phases in all areas
of Resocialization while on this stage.
(A)
Services and Activities. See §95.16 of this title
for program components.
(B)
Stage 5 Completion Criteria.
(i)
Completion of 30 consecutive days with no Category I rule
violations, no more than one (1) Category II rule violation in any seven-day
review period, no security referrals in any seven-day review period and compliance
with short term IBMP objectives; or
(ii)
Completion of 90th day from initial admission to the BMP.
(j)
Progress Reviews.
(1)
For Stages 1 - 4. The Progress Review Team, in consultation
with the youth's dorm caseworker when appropriate, reviews the youth's IBMP
and evaluates the completion of stage requirements and the effectiveness of
treatment strategies every seven (7) days.
(A)
Stage Promotion. Youth who meet the established stage completion
criteria must be promoted to the next stage.
(B)
Stage Retention/Demotion.
(i)
Youth who fail to meet established stage completion criteria
may be retained on the same stage or demoted one or more stages.
(ii)
The Progress Review Team shall make a determination whether
to retain or demote based on the level of youth non-compliance with completion
criteria.
(iii)
Demotions of more than one stage may be administered
only upon a youth's commission of a Category I rule violation during the review
period.
(iv)
A stage demotion requires a Level III due process hearing.
See §95.57 of this title (relating to Level III Hearing Procedure).
(2)
For Stage 5. The Phase Assessment Team (PAT), with initial
consultation with the security caseworker, reviews the youth's PIP plan objectives
and behavior on a weekly basis in accordance with §95.16 of this title.
(A)
Stage Maintenance. Youth who meet the following requirements
in each seven-day review are maintained on Stage 5 until completion of the
program:
(i)
comply with PIP plan objectives;
(ii)
commit no Category I rule violations and no more than
one (1) Category II rule violation; and
(iii)
no security referrals.
(B)
Stage Demotion.
(i)
Youth who fail to meet stage maintenance requirements may
be demoted one or more stages.
(ii)
The PAT shall make a determination whether to demote based
on the level of youth non-compliance with stage maintenance criteria.
(iii)
Demotions of more than one stage may be administered
only upon a youth's commission of a Category I rule violation during the review
period.
(iv)
A stage demotion requires a Level III due process hearing.
See §95.57 of this title.
(k)
Release from BMP.
(1)
Program Completion. A youth has completed the program and
shall be returned to regular programming when one of the following occurs:
(A)
the youth has completed Stage 5 of the BMP; or
(B)
the youth has completed 90 days from the date of initial
admission to the BMP.
(2)
Release without Program Completion. A youth shall be released
from BMP when one of the following occurs prior to program completion:
(A)
the youth is transferred to the AMP pursuant to §95.21
of this title;
(B)
a determination by the superintendent or designee that
the program has failed to be implemented as designed for reasons other than
non-compliance of the youth;
(C)
a decision by the superintendent or designee to release
the youth to the general population based on:
(i)
population concerns in the security unit; or
(ii)
a recommendation by a mental health professional due to
the youth's mental health condition.
(D)
a decision by the receiving superintendent or designee
not to continue the BMP after transfer of the youth to another high restriction
facility; or
(E)
placement on a new BMP upon a finding of true in a Level
II hearing that the youth committed a rule violation listed in subsection
(e) of this section while assigned to a BMP.
(l)
Right to Appeal. The youth shall be notified in writing
of his/her right to appeal the BMP placement to the executive director. See §93.53
of this title (relating to Appeal to Executive Director). The pendency of
an appeal shall not preclude implementation of the decision.
(m)
Family Notification. A youth's parents or guardian shall
be notified within 24 hours of the hearing of the youth's admission to the
BMP if allowable under §87.5 of this title (relating to Family Involvement).
(n)
Impact on Length of Stay.
(1)
A placement in a BMP will not impact a youth's classification
minimum length of stay or any disciplinary minimum length of stay.
(2)
Pursuant to a Level II hearing, certain youth who are assessed
a disposition under this rule may also be assigned a disciplinary minimum
length of stay disposition, but only if criteria have been met and if the
youth was given notice of the specific disposition request. All policy and
program requirements of §95.11 of this title (relating to Disciplinary
Transfer/Assigned Minimum Length of Stay/Demotion of Phase Consequence) will
apply to the assignment of such.
(3)
Youth are not eligible to earn Resocialization phases while
on Stages 1- 4 of the BMP.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407476
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §95.21
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts an amendment
to §95.21, concerning Aggression Management Program without changes to
the proposed text as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
The justification for amending the section is to provide appropriate services
for youth pending admission to the Aggression Management Program with serious
high-risk behaviors.
The amendment will allow for youth pending admission to the Aggression
Management Program (AMP) with an assigned maximum length of stay will remain
or be placed in the Institution Detention Program (IDP) at the youth's current
placement. If the youth completes the maximum length of stay in the IDP prior
to admission in AMP, the youth shall not be admitted to AMP.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.075,
which provides the commission with the authority to determine services for
the youth's confinement under conditions it believes best designed for the
youth's welfare and the interests of the public.
The adopted rule implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407477
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §95.57
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts an amendment
to §95.57, concerning Level III Hearing Procedure without changes to
the proposed text as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
The justification for amending the section is afford a due process hearing
for admission to the Primary Intervention Program (PIP) or a stage demotion
in the Behavior Management Program (BMP) for disciplinary consequences.
The amendment will require a Level III hearing for admission to the PIP
or a stage demotion in the BMP.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.075,
which provides the commission with the authority to determine services it
believes conducive to acceptable behavior.
The adopted rule implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407478
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
Subchapter A. SECURITY AND CONTROL
37 TAC §97.36
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts new §97.36,
concerning Standard Security Unit Program Requirements, without changes to
the proposed text as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
The justification for the new section is to provide standardized services
to promote a safe environment for the youth and staff at the commission's
institutions.
The new section will provide standard service delivery, contact, and security
requirements for all programs administered through the commission-operated
security unit.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the new section.
The new section is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.045,
which provides the commission with the authority to take appropriate measures
to ensure the safety of the youth and staff.
The adopted section implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407481
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §97.37
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts an amendment
to §97.37, concerning Security Intake, with changes to the proposed text
as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 10239).
The justification for amending the section allows for a new reference regarding
Standard Security Unit Program requirements to be incorporated in this rule.
The amendment will reference a new §97.36, regarding Standard Security
Unit Program requirements, which is simultaneously adopted in this issue of
the
Texas Register
.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.034,
which provides the commission with the authority to make rules appropriate
to the proper accomplishment of its function.
The adopted amendment implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
§97.37.Security Intake.
(a)
Purpose.
(1)
The purpose of this rule is to establish criteria and procedure
for segregating youth from the general population under certain circumstances.
Each Texas Youth Commission (TYC) operated institution or secure contract
program provides for segregation programs. Placement in a segregation program
may be imposed only in specific situations for specified periods of time.
Youth who may be eligible for a placement in a segregation program may be
initially referred to the security intake. Such youth are placed into a secure
setting that is controlled exclusively by staff.
(2)
If a youth from the community is referred to the institution
for placement in protective custody, and the youth arrives without a formal
assessment by a mental health professional (MHP), that youth will be placed
in security intake, pending face-to-face assessment.
(b)
Applicability.
(1)
This rule does not apply to:
(A)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as a Security Program. See §97.40 of this title (relating to Security
Program);
(B)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as detention in lieu-of-county detention or specifically as institution detention.
See §97.43 of this title (relating to Institution Detention Program);
(C)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as a disciplinary segregation program. See §95.17 of this title (relating
to Behavior Management Program);
(D)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as protective custody. See §97.45 of this title (relating to Protective
Custody);
(E)
the use of the same or adjacent space when used specifically
as temporary admission. See §85.41 of this title (relating to Temporary
Admission Awaiting Transportation); and
(F)
the Aggression Management Program (AMP). See §95.21
of this title (relating to Aggression Management Program).
(2)
Security intake is administered in the security unit. All
standard security unit requirements and services as set forth in §97.36
of this title (relating to Standard Security Unit Program Requirements), unless
otherwise noted herein, shall be observed while the youth is in the security
unit.
(c)
Referral and Admission Criteria. A youth may be admitted
to security intake if there is reason to believe, based on overt acts by the
youth, and/or under the following circumstances:
(1)
the youth is a serious and continuing escape risk; or
(2)
the youth is a serious and immediate physical danger to
others and staff cannot protect others except by referring the youth to security
intake; or
(3)
the youth engages in or verbalizes overt or non-lethal
suicide behavior as defined in §91.87 of this title (relating to Suicide
Alert Explanation of Terms); or
(4)
confinement is necessary to prevent imminent and substantial
destruction of property; or
(5)
confinement is necessary to control behavior that creates
disruption of the youth's current program; or
(6)
the youth requests confinement, unless self-referrals have
been disallowed by the superintendent or designee; or
(7)
staff requests detention for a youth.
(d)
Referral and Admission Process.
(1)
A youth may be referred to the security intake by staff
or at the youth's own request.
(2)
A youth may be held in security intake on referral for
up to one (1) hour.
(3)
The superintendent or designee may extend the one (1)-hour
time limit up to one (1) additional hour, if requested and necessary, in order
to make a proper decision.
(4)
Within one (1) hour (or two (2) hours if an extension has
been granted) of the youth's arrival at security intake, the designated staff
shall determine whether criteria for admission have been met. If admission
criteria are met, designated staff may admit youth to the security intake
for up to 24 hours.
(5)
Designated staff include the superintendent, assistant
superintendent, administrative duty officer (ADO), program administrator (PA),
institution placement coordinator (IPC), principal, psychologist, caseworker,
or designated juvenile correctional officer (JCO) VI trained in the security
intake policy and procedure to admit youth to the security intake program.
On the late night shift, a JCO V trained in the security intake admission
policy and procedure may admit a youth to security intake. The director of
security may not admit a youth to security intake.
(6)
If a youth is referred to security intake for danger of
injury to self, this policy needs to be read in conjunction with §91.88
of this title (relating to Suicide Alert for Secure Programs). Security staff
shall immediately contact an MHP and a trained designated staff who must initiate
a suicide risk screening within one (1) hour from referral.
(7)
The director of security or designee will review all admission
decisions within one (1) working day to determine if admission criteria have
been met. If the criteria are not met or policy and procedures are not followed,
the youth will be released from the security unit. The director of security
or designee shall not have been involved in the admission decision.
(8)
A youth may appeal the admission decision to the security
intake through the youth complaint system as defined in §93.31 of this
title (relating to Complaint Resolution System).
(e)
Security Intake Termination/Other Segregation Programs.
(1)
Within 24 hours of admission to security intake, a youth
shall be:
(A)
released to the general population; or
(B)
admitted to one of the following programs:
(i)
Security Program--if it is determined that there are reasonable
grounds to believe one or more of the security program admission criteria
is occurring. See §97.40 of this title;
(ii)
Institution Detention Program--if it is determined that
there are reasonable grounds to believe one or more of the institution detention
admission criteria is occurring. See §97.43 of this title;
(iii)
Protective Custody--if it is determined by an MHP, following
a face-to-face assessment, that protective custody admission criteria are
occurring. See §97.45 of this title.
(2)
If a youth is admitted to security intake for any reason
other than danger of injury to self, the youth may be released by the director
of security or any designated staff authorized to admit youth in this policy.
(3)
Youth admitted to security intake for danger of injury
to self may only be released from security intake to the general population
under two circumstances:
(A)
by an MHP in accordance with §91.88 of this title;
or
(B)
if an MHP does not assess the youth within 24 hours of
admission to intake. The superintendent or assistant superintendent will be
contacted immediately and the youth will be returned to the general population
under one-to-one (1:1) observation until an MHP conducts a face-to-face suicide
risk assessment.
(f)
Restrictions.
(1)
Segregation shall not be used for retribution at any time.
(2)
No minimum length of time in security intake shall be imposed.
(3)
The superintendent or assistant superintendent may place
moratoriums on self-referrals to security intake for individual dormitories
(such as during dorm shutdown), as well as campus-wide when appropriate.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been
reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's
legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407484
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
37 TAC §97.40
The Texas Youth Commission (the commission) adopts an amendment
to §97.40, concerning Security Program, without changes to the proposed
text as published in the November 5, 2004, issue of the
Texas Register
(29 TexReg 10240).
The justification for amending the section allows for a new reference regarding
Standard Security Unit Program requirements to be incorporated in this rule.
The amendment will reference a new §97.36, regarding Standard Security
Unit Program requirements, which is simultaneously adopted in this issue of
the
Texas Register
.
No comments were received regarding adoption of the amendment.
The amendment is adopted under the Human Resources Code, §61.034,
which provides the commission with the authority to make rules appropriate
to the proper accomplishment of its function.
The adopted amendment implements the Human Resources Code, §61.034.
This agency hereby certifies that the adoption has been reviewed
by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.
Filed with the Office of
the Secretary of State on December 22, 2004.
TRD-200407485
Dwight Harris
Executive Director
Texas Youth Commission
Effective date: January 21, 2005
Proposal publication date: November 5, 2004
For further information, please call: (512) 424-6301
Subchapter B. DUE PROCESS HEARINGS PROCEDURES
Chapter 97.
SECURITY AND CONTROL