Quality
Assurance Comments
Hillsborough East JDC site visit
|
09/09/05 Another reply from John Criswell (DJJ QA Bureau Chief) -
responding to the 9/8 BB posting that I forwarded to him..... ..... It's
identical to his 1st response dated 9/1/05, except for the following
paragraph has been added to this 9/9/05 reply:
QA teams report suspected falsification through the CCC frequently, and these instances are investigated either by the IG or the branch of the Department responsible for the program. In instances where the falsification is found to be pervasive, we have treated the QA review as a failure and have gone back in 6 months as the law requires. In all our QA certification training sessions and in meetings with providers, I warn against cheating since it can result in a felony charge if it causes harm to a child in our custody. We all try to promote the concept of "QA every day" and the idea of "continuous improvement" with the focus being the youth in the Department's custody. When staff and management take these ideas to heart, there is no falsification or game playing. 09/09/05 Feedback from justice4kids.org [QA notice at JDC's] Cathy, It seems like this anonymous writer may be the same one who wrote a few weeks ago. I've added to my previous response somewhat. Good morning. The concerns that were raised have been heard before and there have been arguments for more notice as well as no notice. When we first began QA in 1994, we published our review schedule long before the review season began so everyone knew when our teams would be in their program. We still had programs fail. Under then Secretary Ross, the legislators began voicing opinions that reviews should be unannounced and the Secretary decided that they would be. Because of the logistics of having to pull so much information together and notifying team members, the final decision was that detention centers would get no notice but that all other programs would get a 3 working day notice. We did that until Frank Alarcon decided that providers were entitled to more notice. We went to a 30-day notice format for all programs. My staff began noticing that there seemed to be more instances of suspected falsification of documents and other last-minute cleaning up when we gave so much time, and we convinced then Secretary Denman to go back to 3 working days, which is where we are now. In all 3 formats we had programs fail at about the same rate, so notice doesn't seem to be that great a factor. Also, because we try to do annual reviews, programs know, within a 30-day window either way, when they can expect a review team. Each year, when we do our schedule, we move programs around but it makes little sense to move them around so much that our reviews are spaced very close together for the same program. The other thing we've found through years of experience, is that no matter how much management may coach, threaten, or reward staff and kids to play up to a QA team, the fact that we're there for a week in most cases causes the truth to come out. After about 2 days, we start to see staff and kids behave as they do when we're not there. In our surveys of kids, we get comments about how the food, clothing and other things have improved when the QA team is there. We use this information in the ratings. QA teams report suspected falsification through the CCC frequently, and these instances are investigated either by the IG or the branch of the Department responsible for the program. In instances where the falsification is found to be pervasive, we have treated the QA review as a failure and have gone back in in 6 months as the law requires. In all our QA certification training sessions and in meetings with providers, I warn against cheating since it can result in a felony charge if it causes harm to a child in our custody. We all try to promote the concept of "QA every day" and the idea of "continuous improvement" with the focus being the youth in the Department's custody. When staff and management take these ideas to heart, there is no falsification or game playing. We have to remember that the QA process is neither an investigation nor an audit. It is more aligned with an accreditation process, all of which I know provide substantial notice to programs before an accreditation visit, and the visits occur only every 3 years. Secretary Schembri has implemented the Mobil Inspection Team concept whereby a team is assembled very quickly and goes unannounced into a program as a result of suspected problems, and this has proved to be another effective process to ensure programs are operating as they should. I think all aspects of our oversight arsenal, QA, monitoring, audits, investigations, CCC reporting, and the MITs, should work together well to keep kids safe and keep treatment at an appropriate levels. Playing games with any of these systems is not in anyone's best interest in the long run. I hope this helps. Let me know if your need more information. 09/08/05 Feedback from justice4kids.org [QA notice at JDC's]
John Criswell, Please read QA concerns described in anonymous message (below) received at our website bulletin board. Cathy Corry - www.Justice4Kids.org Orange JDC What ever became of DJJ's "no-notice" inspections of its facilities? Can someone from DJJ please answer this question? I note from reading this bulletin board recently that Manatee, Orange and Hillsborough's East & West have problems like this with regard to sufficient notice being given so the JDC's can "clean-up" their messes before the inspectors arrive. I thought DJJ was going to put a stop to this game-playing dog & poney show.. My opinion is that none of these facilities should ever be given notice as to when inspections occur. To do so would be too tempting for the facilities to prepare. There should be no preparation for these visits because the whole purpose of the inspections is to gauge the status of the facilities as they really are and the QA's purpose is being defeated when notice is given. No facility should ever have to "prepare" for an inspection if they were doing what they were supposed to be doing; I am surprised that Secretary Schembri doesn't understand this - he's certainly been on the job long enough and his honeymoon is over! Subject: RE: Questionable tactics by Hillsborough E JDC for QA site visit Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 From:
John Criswell [Quality Assurance, DJJ] Good morning. The concerns that were raised [09/01/05 Questionable tactics...] have been heard before. When we first began QA in 1994, we published our review schedule long before the reviews began so everyone knew when our teams would be there. We still had programs fail. Under then Secretary Ross, the legislators began voicing opinions that reviews should be unannounced and the Secretary decided that they would be. Because of the logistics of having to pull so much information together and notifying team members, the final decision was that detention centers would get no notice but that all other programs would get a 3 working day notice. We did that until Frank Alarcon decided that providers were entitled to more notice. We went to a 30-day notice format. My staff started noticing that there seemed to be more instances of suspected falsification of documents when we gave so much time and we convinced then Secretary Denman to go back to 3 working days, which is where we are now. In all 3 formats we had programs fail at about the same rate, so notice doesn't seem to be that great a factor. Also, because we try to do annual reviews, programs know, within a 30-day window either way, when they can expect a review team. Each year, when we do our schedule, we move programs around but it makes little sense to move them around so much that our reviews are spaced very close together for the same program. The other thing we've found by years of experience, is that no matter how much management may coach, threaten, or reward staff and kids to play up to a QA team, the fact that we're there for a week in most cases causes the truth to come out. After about 2 days, we start to see staff and kids behave as they do when we're not there. In our surveys of kids, we get comments about how the food and other things have improved when the QA team is there. We use this information in the ratings. We have to remember that the QA process is neither an investigation nor an audit. It is more aligned with an accreditation process, all of which I know of provide substantial notice to programs before an accreditation visit, and the visits occur every 3 years. Secretary Schembri has implemented the Mobil Inspection Team concept whereby a team is assembled very quickly and goes unannounced into a program as a result of suspected problems, and this has proved to be another effective process to ensure programs are operating as they should. I think all aspects of our oversight arsenal, QA, monitoring, audits, investigations, CCC reporting, and the MITs, should work together well to keep kids safe and keep treatment at an appropriate level. I hope this helps. Let me know if your need more information. Thanks Subject: Questionable tactics by Hillsborough E JDC for QA site visit Date: Thursday, September 01, 2005 From:
Cathy Corry John, I have been provided information concerning the recent QA Deemed Status site visit at Hillsborough East JDC. I was told that facility staff were aware of the upcoming site visit 'at least one month in advance'. In addition, I was told that the staff 'rehearsed and practiced prior to QA's arrival' and 'were in the building countless hours scrubbing and cleaning every weekend and evening for a month before the visit and then went back to regular after the QA visit'. Also, 'the Superintendent had the Supervisor making sure their paperwork was done, the maintenance person trying to get all the work orders caught up. They were painting the facility to get all of the gang symbols and slang and everything off of the door. Even the Supervisors were buffing the floors, cleaning and getting their files straight.' At this time, I am not disclosing the names of the persons who have conveyed this information to me, although they have not asked me to keep their names confidential. They have stated their intention to talk to the media about numerous DJJ/JDC issues. I see the value in the QA process, but I do believe there is a gap in the method because I consistently hear about last-minute site fixes and coaching of youth and staff prior to QA visits. Please provide to me the advance notification timeframe procedure, as well as a description of any action that will be taken regarding these concerns. Thank you! |