Texas Youth Commission:

An Inventory of Morales Case Files at the Texas State Archives, 1949-1990, undated (bulk 1969-1989)

Agency History

Juvenile corrections efforts by the state began in 1887 with the passage of legislation for a House of Correction and Reformatory (House Bill 21, 20th Legislature, Regular Session). This correctional facility for boys began operation in 1889 in Gatesville. In 1913, the 33rd Legislature authorized the creation of the Girl's Training School (House Bill 570, Regular Session), a correctional facility for girls in Gainesville. It began operation in 1916. In 1945, the legislature approved the establishment of the State Training School for Delinquent and Dependent Colored Girls (Senate Bill 46, 49th Legislature, Regular Session). Located in Brady, it began operation in 1947. Between 1887 and 1920, separate boards of directors managed each of these schools and reported directly to the Governor. The Texas State Board of Control, created by the 36th Legislature in 1919 (Senate Bill 147, Regular Session) took over management of the three schools from 1920 to 1949.

Additional 1887 legislation established facilities to care for dependent and neglected children. The State Orphan's Asylum (later known as the Corsicana State Home), began operation in 1889 in Corsicana (Senate Bill 261, 20th Legislature, Regular Session, 1887). Further legislation in 1887 created another home (House Bill 445, 20th Legislature, Regular Session), located in Austin, known as the Deaf, Dumb and Blind Asylum for Colored Youth (later named the Texas Blind, Deaf and Orphan School). A third home was established in 1919 and located in Waco (House Bill 112, 36th Legislature, Regular Session), the State Home for Dependent and Neglected Children (later known as the Waco State Home). The state homes, as with the schools for delinquent children, were managed by the Board of Control beginning in 1920. Management of the Waco State Home passed to the Department of Public Welfare in 1939 (Senate Bill 36, 46th Legislature, Regular Session). Management of the Corsicana State Home, the Texas Blind, Deaf and Orphan Home, and the Waco State Home was transferred to the newly created Texas Board for State Hospitals and Special Schools in 1949 (House Bill 1, 51st Legislature, Regular Session).

In 1947, the 50th Legislature created the State Training Code Commission (Senate Concurrent Resolution 34, Regular Session), composed of seven members appointed by the Governor, to study the state schools for delinquent children and examine the problem of juvenile delinquency. It was to determine changes that would improve the administration of the schools and enable them to more nearly accomplish their broad social objectives. The Commission's report to the 51st Legislature resulted in the creation of the Texas State Youth Development Council.

The State Youth Development Council was created in 1949 (House Bill 705, 51st Legislature, Regular Session). It was composed of six "influential" citizens appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate, and eight ex-officio members - Chairman, Board of Control; Executive Director, Department of Public Welfare; Commissioner of Education; Executive Director, Board for State Hospitals and Special Schools; State Health Officer; Director, Department of Public Safety; Executive Secretary, State Parks Board; and Chairman, Texas Employment Commission. The Governor appointed the chair. The purpose of the Council was to coordinate state efforts to help communities develop and strengthen all child services. It was also directed to administer the state's correctional facilities for delinquent children by providing a program of constructive training aimed at the rehabilitation and successful reestablishment of these children into society. The Council took over control of the correctional schools then managed by the State Board of Control - the Gatesville State School for Boys, Gainesville State School for Girls, and the Brady State School for Delinquent Colored Girls.

The State Youth Development Council became the Texas Youth Council in 1957 (Senate Bill 303, 55th Legislature, Regular Session). It was composed of three members appointed by the governor with consent of the Senate, to six year overlapping terms, and the members elected the chair. The members were to be citizens recognized in their communities for their interest in youth. The size of the commission increased to six in 1975 (Senate Bill 278, 64th Legislature, Regular Session), with the same qualifications applying to the new members. The Youth Council had the same duties as the State Youth Development Council with the additional mandate to provide parole supervision for certain delinquent children until their discharge. The Legislature also directed the Youth Council to operate institutions for dependent and neglected children (Corsicana State Home, Waco State Home, and the Texas Blind, Deaf and Orphan School). During the 1970s the Youth Council initiated a county juvenile probation subsidy program that was transferred to the newly created Texas Juvenile Probation Commission in 1981 (House Bill 1904, 67th Legislature, Regular Session).

In 1971, a class action lawsuit, Morales v. Turman, was brought against the agency, its officers, and staff by children confined in the juvenile corrections facilities. In response to the lawsuit, changes were initiated in the way juvenile correction facilities were operated.

The name of the agency was changed to the Texas Youth Commission in 1983 (Senate Bill 422, 68th Legislature, Regular Session). The Youth Commission operates under the Texas Human Resource Code, Title 3, Chapter 61, as the state's juvenile correction agency. Under Title 3 of the Texas Family Code, the Commission provides for the care, custody, rehabilitation, and reestablishment into society of those youth convicted of delinquent conduct. The Commission operates secure residential, institutional, and community-based programs for delinquent youth, and supervises the youth once they return to the community. It also contracts with private sector providers to operate residential and non-residential services. The agency protects the identities of youth admitted to their facilities by keeping personal information confidential (such as names and home addresses) and not allowing photographs of the children to be taken (without permission of the child) as required by the Texas Family Code, Section 58.005. Care for dependent and neglected children is no longer a function of the Youth Commission. Effective 1992, responsibility for these children is handled by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (DPRS). The department was created in 1991 (House Bill 7, 72nd Legislature, First Called Session) and began operation in 1992.

In 1995, the 74th Legislature passed an omnibus juvenile justice reform package, House Bill 327, that changed the way juvenile justice was administered in Texas. The bill expanded the offenses for which a youth could receive a determinate sentence (sentence with a fixed term) to include most violent offenses, such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault. It also enabled supervision of youth to continue into the adult criminal justice system; lowered the age that a juvenile could be tried as an adult from 15 to 14; and directed that both the most violent juvenile defenders, and mentally retarded delinquent youth be sent to the Youth Commission. In light of this new legislation, the Youth Commission provides greater structure, strictly enforced discipline, and increased accountability of the delinquent youth in their programs.

Youth committed for minor offenses are the responsibility of local governments. The Youth Commission receives the most serious offenders with longer sentences. These comprise two categories: committed juveniles and sentenced offenders. Committed juveniles are sent to the Commission by juvenile courts after adjudication, allowing the Youth Commission to determine the length of stay and the type of services provided (e.g., Capitol Offender Program or Chemical Dependency Program). The second category, sentenced offenders, are given a specific sentence through determinate sentencing status and cannot be released prior to their sentence termination.

The agency directly operates fourteen correctional institutions (one more was scheduled to open in 1999) and nine community-based residential programs; and contracts with private sector providers for a variety of residential programs. Through these institutions and facilities the agency provides accredited secondary education, vocational training, and several specialized programs, concerning sex offenders, capital offenders who have committed murder, chemical dependency, resocialization, independent living preparation, mentally retarded youth, and seriously emotionally disturbed youth. The commission also operates a parole system for supervision of youth released from residential programs.

The Texas Youth Commission also administers the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (ICJ) for the state of Texas. The Compact provides for the cooperative supervision of juvenile probationers and parolees who move from state to state. It also provides for the return of non-delinquent runaway youth, parole and probation absconders, and escapees to their home state. The administrators of each state compact are members of the Association of Juvenile Compact Administrators (AJCA). The AJCA holds annual meetings and sponsors mid-winter workshops on relevant juvenile issues.

According to an internal agency history (and repeated by the Handbook of Texas) the roots of the Youth Commission extend back to 1859 when the Eighth Legislature authorized separate corrections facilities for children (the age of criminal responsibility was nine at this time, it was raised to seventeen in 1918). No funding was provided and such facilities were not established until 1887. We were unable to locate the 1859 legislation referred to in these sources.

The commission is headed by an executive director, has about 4900 FTE staff (as of 2001), and manages about 7000 juvenile offenders. It operates under V.T.C.A , Human Resources Code, Title 3, Chapter 61; and the Texas Family Code, Title 3.

Return to the Table of Contents

Morales Litigation History

The Texas Youth Council [note that the abbreviation TYC is used hereafter to refer to both the Texas Youth Council and, as of September 1,1983, the Texas Youth Commission] was headed by James A. Turman from its inception in 1957 until his resignation on September 21, 1973. He was succeeded in 1973 by Ron Jackson, the Superintendent of Brownwood State Home and School for Girls. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, TYC operated six major institutions for delinquents: Brownwood State Home and School for Girls, Crockett State School for Girls, Gainesville State School for Girls, Giddings State Home and School for Boys, the Mountain View State School for Boys, and Gatesville State Schools for Boys which had seven sub-schools, namely Valley, Hackberry, Riverside, Terrace, Hilltop, Live Oak, and Sycamore. The TYC also operated two Statewide Reception Centers, one at Brownwood for girls and one at Gatesville for boys. In addition, TYC was responsible for several smaller homes for dependent or neglected children, such as the West Texas Children's Home, Waco State Home, and Corsicana State Home. During the 1970's, TYC underwent a massive transformation in response to litigation and court-ordered reforms resulting from the Morales, et al. v. Turman, et al. class action suit on behalf of the committed minors.

The Morales litigation commenced on February 12, 1971, with the filing of a class action suit (the complaint and first amended complaint with two major causes of action) on behalf of those involuntarily committed to the custody of the Texas Youth Council against, both personally and professionally, Dr. James A. Turman, then Executive Director of the TYC, members of the TYC, superintendents of TYC schools, and other employees responsible for the supervision of juveniles committed to TYC custody. The first major hearings occurred on February 16, April 19, and September 7, 1971 under Judge William Wayne Justice of the District Court, Eastern District of Texas, in Tyler, Texas. It was not until November 1972, however, that the Judge issued a summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs' first cause of action, specifically regarding TYC interference with the attorney-client relationship, ordering the TYC to change its practices and awarding the plaintiffs both general and punitive damages. In December of 1972 Judge Justice issued a second summary judgement in favor of the plaintiffs' second cause of action, regarding the failure of many juvenile courts to provide due process protections for minors. He ordered the defendants to come up with a plan to provide for legal representation of minors throughout Texas and to produce a complete list of all committed minor children and the representation they received prior to commitment, eventually releasing a number of children on due process grounds.

However, during an early portion of this initial case, the plaintiffs, by their attorneys, received permission to interview a majority of TYC inmates, a process not completed until February 1972. Upon review of the interview data, plaintiffs believed they found evidence of pervasive constitutional deprivations suffered by TYC inmates and, on this basis, amended their original complaint (creating the second amended complaint and the third cause). Therefore, though the original scope of the suit was limited to securing private access to counsel and due process protections, the case continued and expanded to include a wide range of issues regarding the nature and adequacy of TYC programs and procedures. The first main premise for this third cause was the perceived failure of the TYC to provide rehabilitative treatment, rather than punishment, for adjudicated youth, in spite of the fact that the constitutionality of juvenile courts specifically depended upon the promise of such rehabilitative treatment. The second major premise for action was based upon perceived constitutional violations falling under the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, specifically including violations such as censorship of incoming and outgoing mail, prohibition of speaking in languages other than English, physical abuse, use of tear gas for punishment, security/solitary confinement, requiring children to remain silent for punishment or to perform repetitive, degrading and unnecessary tasks for hours, and placement in a maximum security facility without due process. Additional key issues concerned the quality and sufficiency of medical and psychiatric care.

In July and August, 1973, during a six week trial in Tyler, Texas regarding this second complaint and third cause, Judge Justice issued an emergency parliamentary injunction which forbade the continuation of particularly egregious practices and activities that would "work irreparable injury, both physical and psychological, upon members of the plaintiff class." The interim order was followed somewhat later (August 30, 1974) by the Judge's Memorandum Opinion and Order. The bulk of the memorandum dealt with the due process right to treatment, the severe lack of rehabilitative treatment, and the court's order of corrections to conform with this right. As a part of the correction, the court ordered Mountain View and the Gatesville Schools for Boys shut down (as occurred in 1975 and 1979, respectively) and expected TYC to create or discover a system of community-based treatment alternatives.

The TYC appealed the 1974 order, challenging Judge Justice's jurisdiction. In 1976, the Fifth Circuit U. S. Court of Appeals held that because granting the relief sought would entail extensive alterations in virtually every phase of TYC operations, it ought to be retried before a three-judge panel. On a further appeal by the plaintiffs in 1977, however, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and held that a single district judge would be appropriate to hear the case, denying the State's Motion for Rehearing and ordering the case to be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Supreme Court did not address the substance of Judge Justice's 1974 order. The case returned on remand to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which considered the defendants' claim that they had instituted substantial programmatic changes since 1971 and remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas and Judge Justice so that he might determine whether or not the same level of injunctive relief was still appropriate.

Before Judge Justice, the parties decided to try and enter as much of the evidence as possible into the record prior to a formal trial. The defendants sought to establish that, to whatever extent egregious practices had existed, both those practices and overall conditions had already been drastically improved. Thus they presented to the court three basic categories of evidence of changed conditions: first, statistical and factual data concerning the student population and staff qualifications; second, descriptive information concerning programming and other aspects of TYC operations; and third, expert evaluations of certain aspects of TYC operations. In addition, some limited formal discovery was submitted and ruled upon by Judge Justice, namely expert evaluations by both parties, the taking of depositions, and the submission of interrogatories. As a part of this evidence gathering process, plaintiffs' lawyers sent out two sets of interrogatories, one general in 1979 and one specific in 1981. On August 21, 1981 the parties and amici filed a Joint Status Report stating that they had agreed to suspend formal discovery pending the completion of both informal discovery and a series of meetings intended to negotiate a settlement of all remaining outstanding issues.

Settlement negotiations were carried out during 1982 and the first proposed settlement agreement was presented to Judge Justice on March 3, 1983. The Judge did not approve the settlement. The parties then submitted a second agreement, which Judge Justice also rejected in a Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 28, 1983. In a hearing on July 11, 1983, the Court accepted the parties' request to have plaintiffs' experts tour all TYC facilities and report back to the Court regarding the state of conditions at a later date. These tours occurred during October and November, 1983, and following their completion, the parties submitted the second amended settlement agreement. Finally, on April 16, 1984, Judge Justice approved the settlement and dismissed the case.

As a required part of the agreement, however, the second amended settlement established the creation of a Committee of Consultants whose purpose was to review the compliance of TYC with the terms of the settlement, to report the results of these reviews to TYC's Executive Director, and to recommend to the TYC answers and solutions to issues and problems which were referred to the Committee by either the terms of the settlement agreement or the Executive Director in the future. The Committee was to consist of three experts (Allen Breed, Milton Shore, and Frank Garfunkel), the chairman and vice-chairman to be chosen from among them, who would serve for four consecutive years, beginning not later than September 1, 1984. Any continuation of the Committee beyond the four year period was up to the discretion of TYC, barring the event that the Committee became involved in litigation against TYC in which case any time spent in litigation would not count as any part of the four total years. Funding was provided by TYC.

To fulfil its purposes, the Committee was to inspect each TYC facility once a year and TYC contract facilities and other programs whenever feasible and appropriate. The scheduling of the inspections was at the discretion of the Committee, which should, but was not required to, give TYC prior notice. Follow up inspections could be performed either with the agreement of the Executive Director or under two exceptional circumstances, namely to observe TYC responses to identified and acknowledged problems or if, after consultation with the Executive Director regarding problems, a majority of the Committee voted to hold follow-up inspections. The Committee had to provide a written report of findings and recommendations within 30 days following inspections and the TYC Board had two weeks, following its first meeting to discuss the report, to respond. Committee members were authorized to request personal meetings with TYC administrators, to meet with staff and students in private, to have unlimited access to all relevant files and records, and to employ consultants, if necessary, to assist them in their work. TYC was required to provide the Committee with a complete set of all rules, policies, procedures, manuals, and newsletters and to select an employee liaison through whom Committee information requests could be made. Specific areas which the Committee was to review included the use of security and isolation, the use and adequacy of the grievance system, the need for and/or availability of student advocates, the adequacy of parole release criteria, the adequacy of due process protections, the role of the Chief of Educational Services, the vocational education programs, the development and monitoring of the TYC program evaluation system, and non-institutional community placement alternatives.

The Committee issued reports in November 1985, December 1986, October 1987, and November 1988 with the consistent findings that the TYC was generally, and increasingly, in compliance with the settlement agreement. The Consultants Committee was not continued beyond its original four year mandate.

Return to the Table of Contents

Scope and Contents of the Records

Types of material found in the Morales case files include legal documents, reports, correspondence, memoranda, trial proceedings, testimony, depositions, charts, drafts, publications, administrative records, photocopies, clippings, manuals, field notes, and eight photographs. The records range in date from 1949 until 1990 and undated (bulk 1969-1989). These are records from the Morales v. Turman lawsuit, filed by students in several state juvenile correctional institutions against the Texas Youth Commission. The materials document the entire history of the Morales lawsuit, from its inception to the final report of the Consultants Committee.

The records have been arranged in file drawer order with undesignated material at the end remaining in the order in which they arrived. Drawers 1-9, with the exception of Drawer 3, appear to be materials gathered as evidence and in basic preparation for the 1973 trial and the 1974 memorandum opinion and order - some of the materials did become court exhibits. Drawer 3, however, particularly regards the immediate aftermath of the trial and the 1974 memorandum and opinion. Following Drawer 9, the complete 1973 trial proceedings are listed. Drawers B-1 through B-4 appear to contain materials concerning the appeal process, changing conditions at TYC, and information gathered for the potential re-hearing, such as the 1979 and 1981 interrogatories. An exception to this tendency exists among the files marked with roman numerals found in Drawer B-2. These materials generally document the process of the litigation from the initial complaint (regarding lack of access to attorneys and failure to provide the children with due process) up until the actual trial on the second amended complaint (charging major constitutional deprivations). Finally, the undesignated materials primarily concern processes of negotiation, settlement, and the creation and functioning of the Morales Consultants Committee. Some files appear to be numbered according to an unknown system, possibly the date of creation, and their relationship to the surrounding records is unclear, thus they remain in the order in which the State Archives received them. Some records from earlier periods are found randomly among these undesignated materials; some documents are duplicates of earlier records.

To prepare this inventory, the described materials were cursorily reviewed to delineate series, to confirm the accuracy of contents lists, to provide an estimate of dates covered, and to determine record types.

This series is part of the Texas Youth Commission, Records finding aid. It was removed from that finding aid due to the electronic file size limitations imposed by the online finding aid web site (TARO). If you are reading this electronically, click on the following link to access the finding aid Texas Youth Commission, Records. If you are reading this in paper, the finding aid for the Records is precedes the Morales case file within the same binder.

Return to the Table of Contents

Return to the Table of Contents

Restrictions

Restrictions on Access

Because of the possibility that portions of these records fall under Public Information Act exceptions including, but not limited to, names, home addresses and other identifying information of juvenile offenders in the agency's juvenile delinquent system and of dependent and neglected children in any facilities operated by the Texas Youth Commission (V.T.C.A., Texas Family Code, Section 58.005); photographs where individual children in Youth Commission facilities can be identified are also confidential unless the child granted permission to allow the photograph to be taken (V.T.C.A., Texas Family Code, Section 58.005); psychological or psychiatric reports and evalutations (V.T.C.A., Health and Safety Code, Mental Health records, 611.002); medical records (V.T.C.A., Occupations Code, 159.002 (Medical Practice Act)); an archivist must review these records before they can be accessed for research. The records may be requested for research under the provisions of the Public Information Act (V.T.C.A., Government Code, Chapter 552). The researcher may request an interview with an archivist or submit a request by mail, fax, or email including enough description and detail about the information requested to enable the archivist to accurately identify and locate the information requested. If our review reveals information that may be excepted by the Public Information Act, we are obligated to seek an open records decision from the Attorney General on whether the records can be released. The Public Information Act allows the Archives ten working days after receiving a request to make this determination. The Attorney General has 45 working days to render a decision. Alternately, the Archives can inform you of the nature of the potentially excepted information and if you agree, that information can be redacted or removed and you can access the remainder of the records.

Restrictions on Use

Most records created by Texas state agencies are not copyrighted and may be freely used in any way. State records also include materials received by, not created by, state agencies. Copyright remains with the creator. The researcher is responsible for complying with U.S. Copyright Law (Title 17 U.S.C.).

Technical Requirements

None.

Return to the Table of Contents

Return to the Table of Contents

Related Material

Return to the Table of Contents

Administrative Information

Preferred Citation

(Identify the item), Morales case files, Texas Youth Commission. Archives and Information Services Division, Texas State Library and Archives Commission.

Accession Information

Accession number: 1999/085

These records were transferred to the Archives and Information Services Division of the Texas State Library and Archives Commission by the Texas Youth Commission on December 15, 1998.

Processing Information

Nancy Enneking, March 1999

Revised by Laura K. Saegert, February 2002; October 2004

Return to the Table of Contents

Detailed Description of the Records