Use of Seclusion at the Philadelphia Juvenile Justice Services Center (PJJSC)

The Office of the Youth Ombudsperson (OYO) has found that youth "seclusion" at the Philadelphia Juvenile Justice Services Center (PJJSC) has been overly employed. It is also clear that the practice has not been in strict compliance with applicable laws meant to ensure the safety and well-being of youth in detention. The OYO has based this conclusion on substantial evidence, including:

1. Notable OYO complaint activity;
2. Direct OYO observations;
3. Youth interviews by the OYO team;
4. PJJSC departmental policy flaws; and
5. Questionable practice and documentation by the PJJSC.

The PJJSC is Philadelphia's Department of Human Services (DHS)-operated secure youth detention facility. As a secure detention facility, the PJJSC can only use "seclusion" in very specific situations and under strict rules. "Seclusion" is defined as placing a child in a locked room. Most other youth residential facilities prohibit the practice. Our report raises concerns with current PJJSC seclusion practices and policies. The OYO calls for targeted and swift reform to bring the PJJSC's use of seclusion into compliance with the law.

We presented this report and its findings to DHS and PJJSC leadership on November 18th, 2024. DHS provided a written response on December 19th, 2024, acknowledging some need for reform but largely disputing the OYO's assertion that the use of seclusion is overly employed at the PJJSC.

The OYO stands by the original findings outlined in the report and maintains that some aspects of DHS' response are based on flawed documentation and data. For example, the bulk of DHS' analysis in their response is based on seclusion logs, some of which we have already deemed to be inconsistent and unreliable. The remainder of their analysis cites interviews with youth, but in the interviews that OYO staff attended, DHS did not ask youth clear and specific questions about seclusion without OYO prompting.It is unclear whether DHS asked these questions of youth in interviews that OYO did not attend.

Additionally, the OYO and the PJJSC have differing interpretations of when the seclusion period starts and stops. This affects the PJJSC's determination of whether youth are held for more than 8 hours in a 48-hour period. For example, it is the PJJSC's view that if youth are placed in seclusion and happen to fall asleep during awake hours, the seclusion clock should stop. However, the OYO believes that the clock should continue to run. We look forward to continued collaboration with DHS and the PJJSC to address any outstanding issues of legal interpretation and explore opportunities for further growth.

But ultimately, we want to emphasize the importance of empowering young people to voice their concerns, providing them with opportunities to do so, and valuing their insights through meaningful action.