Academy to obtain signatures on the Individual Behavior Management Plans the youth, the Administration] Social “from youth’s [Children’s Service Specialist, and or parent” “foster parent.” In response to request for treatment and behavior DRW’s “individual support Clarinda Academy produced initial and quarterly plans,” assessments that its legal counsel confirmed contained the treatment and behavior plans. The assessments included general references to negative attitudes, lack of motivation, refusal to take responsibility, tendency to argue disrespectfully with and histories of “authority,” criminal or or behavior. Yet, DRW found no “aggressive” “menacing” list of specific and current behaviors that present particular “safety None of the assessments contained explicit information to issues.” define actions that create an and immediate or any “imminent danger” personally tailored instructions for limiting types of interventions or effective ways to help each student calm down. None had signatures from the youth or any Administration staff. Children’s Remarkably, all the initial and quarterly assessments for each individual investigation participant contained identical generic language for a “crisis plan”: that pronouns in excerpts have been redacted for privacy, but in two of these (Note examples, the did not use correct gender pronouns in reference to the “crisis plan” individuals.) Staff Judgment With no definition in policy to identify and no individualized “danger” treatment plans outlining what de-escalation strategies are most likely to be effective for each person, the records suggest that Clarinda Academy staff must use their own subjective assessments of danger. All staff must receive Safe Crisis Management (SCM) training before initiating a restraint, but personnel records of staff involved in restraint episodes of Washington youth show that this training is provided inconsistently. Some employees had been provided over 40 hours of SCM training, but a significant number had ten or less hours documented in their files. Three employees had documentation of three or fewer SCM training hours.
Academy to obtain signatures on the Individual Behavior Management Plans “from the youth, the youth’s [Children’s Administration] Social Service Specialist, and parent” or “foster parent.” In response to DRW’s request for “individual treatment and behavior support plans,” Clarinda Academy produced initial and quarterly assessments that its legal counsel confirmed contained the treatment and behavior plans. The assessments included general references to negative attitudes, lack of motivation, refusal to take responsibility, tendency to argue disrespectfully with “authority,” and histories of criminal or “aggressive” or “menacing” behavior. Yet, DRW found no list of specific and current behaviors that present particular “safety issues.” None of the assessments contained explicit information to define actions that create an “imminent and immediate danger” or any personally tailored instructions for limiting types of interventions or effective ways to help each student calm down. None had signatures from the youth or any Children’s Administration staff. Remarkably, all the initial and quarterly assessments for each individual investigation participant contained identical generic language for a “crisis plan”: (Note that pronouns in excerpts have been redacted for privacy, but in two of these examples, the “crisis plan” did not use correct gender pronouns in reference to the individuals.) Staff Judgment With no definition in policy to identify “danger” and no individualized treatment plans outlining what de-escalation strategies are most likely to be effective for each person, the records suggest that Clarinda Academy staff must use their own subjective assessments of danger. All staff must receive Safe Crisis Management (SCM) training before initiating a restraint, but personnel records of staff involved in restraint episodes of Washington youth show that this training is provided inconsistently. Some employees had been provided over 40 hours of SCM training, but a significant number had ten or less hours documented in their files. Three employees had documentation of three or fewer SCM training hours.