Persons with Mental Illnesses

Monthly coaching meetings and phone/email contact as needed.
The coaches conducted an on-site visit to this agency in late April 2023. The on-site visit was intended to assist the agency in its review and revision of its grant strategies so that these strategies can better align with the agency?s PREA grant goals and what needs to be done to prepare for PREA audits.

Coaching focused on strategies that will impact the timely implementation of the PREA plan, specifically staff engagement/facility leadership were discussed during Q3 meetings.
Assisted with facility camera purchasing and placement strategy and agency-level leadership PREA education.

Coaching discussions centered on upcoming PREA Audit and challenges that are impacting timely implementation of the PREA plan such as staff shortages and facility buy-in.

Coaches conducted an on-site PREA audit readiness assessment on October 16-19, 2022 where the areas of training, investigations, grievances and the agency work camp were assessed.

Assisted with policy/SOP and training development, leadership training development, and culture assessment.

Grantee was not notified of grant award until December 2022, so there was not a lot of engagement with the grantee during this quarter.

Assisted with general PREA implementation, including an onsite visit.
Assisted with general PREA implementation, including an onsite visit.

The coaches continued to provide edits to staff trainings, policies and forms that LACPD developed during this reporting period. The LA Probation PREA team has been fully engaged with the coaches.
The coaches have checked in with the grantee at least once a month via video call and they have communicated via e-mail regarding developed materials for the coaches to review.

This quarter the coach had no contact with the facility directly, despite emails that were sent. There was one email exchange between the BJA Policy Advisor and the site’s grant administrator on which the coach was copied. This exchange was to follow-up on the de minimums indirect cost rate letter and to see if the site planned to submit for a second extension. The site submitted the letter, but did not submit for a second NCE. Attempts were made to reach the site to no avail. The coach confirmed with the policy advisor that they did not apply for an extension.

During this reporting period, King County was fully engaged with the coaches. The coaches have continued to assist King County with their development of youth education and sustainability plan.