`RESPONSE TO SUBSTANTIATED DETAILS REPORT The Substantiated Details Report completed after a two-month investigation by the Department of Public

Health and Human Services outlines an alleged pattern of systemic abuse on the part of Swan Valley Youth Academy employees Chris Perkins and Jeff Wagner. This response will show that the investigators, Jackie Kruzen and John Clymer, misunderstood, amplified, and, more importantly, manufactured evidence in order to substantiate allegations of Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, and Physical Neglect. The response will also show that in using pejorative language, Kruzen and Clymer consciously attempt to create a perception of abuse that they cannot validate with evidence. It should be noted that the majority of Substantiated Allegations of Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse and Physical Neglect, do not meet the definitions as outlined in the Montana Code Annotated 2005 Section 41-3-102. The allegations made by Kruzen and Clymer are in direct contrast to Licensing audits, statements made by DPHHS personnel, actions taken by probation officers, and evaluations conducted by external accrediting agencies. For example, in her report dated 3/31/04, DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago made the following statements: They all [cadets] denied experiencing anything that felt abusive in the program, and expressed that staff seem to be genuinely caring and reasonable in their actions. Although youth admitted to resisting doing what they are told when they first come into the program [Intake], they denied that anything excessive is demanded or required. All [cadets] denied any type of cruel, harsh or unusual punishment. No information surfaced which would support a concern about how discipline is implemented in the facility. the licensing specialist found that residents described staff as reasonable and caring. Residents also confirmed their belief that staff are responsive to grievances which are lodged by the youth. Residents described problems being solved in ways that were sensitive to their needs and that explanations are given for the actions taken by staff. Residents appear to see these explanations as reasonable even if they do not always fully agree with the results. Residents were aware that staff are prohibited from using abusive methods of discipline and indicated that staff would be fired if they did so.

These statements establish a strong precedent for both the actions and character of Mr. Perkins and Mr. Wagner. Mr. Perkins was the director of the Swan Valley Youth Academy from October 21, 2003, to July 1, 2005. Upon leaving the facility, he was appointed as the National Director of Program Compliance for Cornerstone Programs.

Mr. Perkins re-assumed command of the facility on October, 3, 2005. At this time he maintained both administrative duties for Cornerstone Programs. The report submitted by Marti Crago on 3/31/04, was the first extended contact Mr. Perkins had with the DPHHS Licensing Specialist. Her findings legitimized the progress made at the academy since Mr. Perkins assumed command. This progress continued as the facility was granted the following from DPHHS in 2004-2005: Licensing Increase from 24 to 30 youth in April of 2004 Licensing Increase from 30 to 36 youth in June of 2004 Licensing Increase from 36 to 42 youth in October of 2004 100% compliance in June 2004 annual audit 100% compliance in June 2005 annual audit

DPHHS conducted extensive audits in granting each of these awards. Their investigations included reviewing the following: Case Files Personnel Records Nurse Progress Notes Medical Records Intake Procedures Seclusion Procedures Operational Compliance with Licensing Regulations Incident Reports Grievances Youth Interviews Staff Interviews

At no time in any of the above referenced investigations did DPHHS document a case of Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, or Physical Neglect. In fact, their actions demonstrate that the facility was operating in full compliance with all licensing regulations and laws. To further amplify the acute oversight conducted at the facility from October, 2003, to October, 2005, the following is a list of the other agencies/individuals that were on-site in a regulatory capacity: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract Oversight Specialist Darryl Cash o April 2004 (Successfully passed annual audit) o October 2004 (Successfully passed interim audit) o June 2005 (Successfully passed interim audit) o November 2005 (Successfully passed annual audit) Cornerstone Chief Executive Officer Joe Newman : 6 visits 2

 Cornerstone Business Development Director Kara Plender : 4 visits Cornerstone Director of Quality Assurance: 1 visit Department of Natural Resources and Conservation auditors : 2 visits Northwest Association of Accredited Schools Auditors o July 2004 (Achieved Accreditation) American Correctional Association Auditors o March 2005 o May 2005 (Achieved Accreditation) Lake County Sheriff Tony Buff: 4-6 visits Lake County Chemical Dependency Staff: daily Federal Probation Officers: 5-6 visits State of Montana Judicial District Probation Officers: 2025 visits Lake County Chief Probation Officer Barbara Monaco: 3 visits Douglas County, Nebraska, Probation Department Nebraska District Court Judge Wadie Thomas o October 2005 The historical accuracy of these awards and audits is irrefutable. Mr. Perkins and Mr. Wagner exposed the facility to thorough oversight. The quality and safety of the program was validated on numerous occasions by State and Federal authorities, accrediting bodies, probation officers, and Cornerstone corporate officials. The fact that DPHHS has retroactively substantiated abuse is disconcerting on many fronts. For instance, in June of 2005, DPHHS awarded the facility a rating of 100% compliance with licensing regulations. Less than 6 months later DPHHS returns, reviews the same materials, interviews the same residents, and finds 19 licensing violations and systemic abuse. In fact, Joel Ashleys records were reviewed by DPHHS in the 2004 audit, and again in January of 2005. The records of the other 13 youth mentioned in the report were reviewed in the 2005 audit. In their report, Kruzen and Clymer retroactively assigned as abusive the following items that had been previously approved by DPHHS licensing officials for over five years: The military modality (use of command voice, physical training, haircuts, etc) Intake procedures The use of the seclusion room The use of military experience as qualified experience for staff Holding youth directly accountable for their crimes Service delivery for multiple youths

DPHHS goes on to claim that Mr. Perkins and Mr. Wagner have perpetrated Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, and Physical Neglect, since December of 2003. If this is to 3

be believed, then DPHHS, the Department of Justice, the 22 Judicial Districts in Montana, The American Correctional Association, The Northwest Association of Accredited Schools, Douglas County Nebraska Judges and Officials, and Cornerstone Programs Corporate Officers, are all potentially complicit in the alleged perpetration of systemic abuse. By their criminal and unconstitutional actions, the manufacturing of evidence and the blatant disregard for the Administrative Rules of Montana, Julie Fink of Licensing, Jackie Kruzen, and John Clymer of Child Protective Services, negligently and maliciously reported inaccurate licensing violations and Substantiated Allegations of abuse. ***Responses are organized by allegation type and all comments by Mr. Perkins are in red ink. Paragraph 1: Sentence 1 The intake process seems to have been particularly brutal: the child would be placed in the seclusion cell for a period of time, anywhere between two (2) hours and nine (9) hours (however, one child was in seclusion for several days.) RESPONSE The Swan Valley Youth Academy opened in February of 2000. Mr. Perkins assumed command of the facility in October of 2003. During his training as director, he was informed that newly arrived youth were housed in the seclusion room until the Intake began. According to the previous director, this practice was communicated to and approved by DPHHS. The DPHHS licensing audits do not show a single licensing violation for this practice from 2/00 through 7/05. The Nurse Progress Notes reflect when youth arrived and when their Intake began. The facility communicated to probation officers and law enforcement that youth should arrive at the facility between 1300 and 1400 as Intakes usually started at 1400. Nurse Progress Notes indicate that the average length of stay in seclusion prior to the Intake was less than two hours. During this time youth were given a pre-intake assessment by the nurse if there was a medical concern. Youth were given restroom breaks and were also given a bottle of water. Staff maintained 5-10 minute visual checks as well. The Substantiated Details Report infers that by simply placing a youth in seclusion, both Jeff Wagner and Chris Perkins are guilty of physical abuse and neglect. While this practice may be contested by licensing, it clearly does not meet the definitions of abuse as defined in the Administrative Codes of Montana. If simply placing a youth in seclusion was indeed abusive, every administrator working in a secure setting in Montana would be guilty of physical abuse and neglect. The Swan Valley Youth Academy was approved to use seclusion per its contract with the Department of Public Health and Human Services.

The Substantiated Details report contains several inaccuracies regarding the length of stay in seclusion prior to the Intake. We will address each youth individually: Jonathan Weinberger Jeff Wagner placed Jonathan in seclusion 7/30/04 at 6:25 pm through 8/4/04 at 2:45 pm. This was due to the youths inability to complete his intake process. It was reported to both Wagner and Perkins that Jonathan had suffered the loss of both his father and stepfather due to their deaths in the previous months and that the child was likely evidencing symptoms of grief. Chris Perkins approved all decisions to use the seclusion room. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Weinberger was admitted to the facility 7/30/04 at 1420. His Intake began at 1440. The nurse states, Cadet would not follow directions but did keep up physically when he wanted to. At 1610, Weinberger participated in a PT session with the company. At 1750, according to the nurse, Weinberger was Rude and made no eye contact and did not answer all questions. Major Mark Mizner-Welch completed the suicide assessment on Weinberger and stated that the youth was defiant. Weinberger was placed back in seclusion due to his acute program non-compliance. He remained in seclusion over the weekend because he refused to comply with staff directives, refused to participate in the Intake process, and refused to act in a safe and secure manner. On at least two occasions, Weinberger agreed to begin the Intake process only to quit immediately thereafter. While in seclusion Weinberger had access to all normal program elements, including, but not limited to: Access to counseling Restroom breaks Large muscle activity Meals Books Religious materials

Per Mr. Perkins directive, Case Manager Curtis Wallace met with Weinberger several times each day in attempts to convince Weinberger to comply with staff directives. In each instance, Weinberger refused to participate in the Intake process. Wallace approached me to express his concerns that the reasons for Weinbergers non-compliance were clinical and not behavioral. He stated that Weinberger had recently suffered the loss of his father and step-father (5 months and 8 months respectively). Wallace went on to suggest that due to the grief suffered by these losses, Weinberger should be excused from the Intake process and be placed in the mainstream population. Perkins disagreed with Wallace for the following reasons: 5

In reviewing Weinbergers federal pre-sentence investigation report, and in talks with his probation officer, it was clear that Weinberger had an extensive history of non-compliant behavior. In the 2003-2004 school year, Weinberger was cited for over 78 violations of school policy, to include: Tobacco Use (7); Marijuana Use/Possession (2); Out of Bounds (21); AWOL (17); Absenteeism (7); Refusal to Comply (5); Theft (2); Physically Disruptive Behavior (6); Gang Activity (2); Vandalism (2); Verbally Disrespectful (5); Being an Accomplice/Conspirator; Assault/Sexual Behavior. Weinbergers criminal history included Arson and two counts of Theft. In Weinbergers federal Pre-Sentence Investigation Report, Weinberger never disclosed, nor did his probations officer state, that he was suffering from grief due to the deaths of his father and step-father. In Weinbergers federal Pre-Sentence Investigation Report it states that he refused to accept responsibility for his crime. It also stated that he was mad that he was the only person sentenced for the crime, although there were two other participants. These participants were 10 and 11 respectively. This showed us a pattern of refusal to accept the consequences of ones actions. All youth admitted to the Swan Valley Youth Academy are required to complete the Intake process prior to formal program admission. Once the facility begins to make arbitrary concessions for youth who have experienced alleged trauma, the precedent is set for other youth to refuse the Intake process. The majority of youth admitted to the program have experienced the loss of parents and family members. They also were exposed to significant trauma since early childhood. These issues did not preclude them from completing the Intake process. The central tenant of the treatment modality at the Swan Valley Youth Academy is that youth are responsible for their actions irrespective of how they may feel at any given time. This is understood by the clients who refer youth to the academy, namely judges, probation officers, district attorneys, and youth placement officials. Youth who are allowed to circumvent the requirements of the program undermine the validity of the treatment modality. Case Manager Wallace was not a licensed therapist, nor did he conduct a formal evaluation of Weinberger. Wallace could not make a clinical case for the suspension of Weinbergers Intake. Weinberger refused to comply with staff directives, refused to complete the Intake process, and refused to act in a safe and secure manner. Placing a new cadet into the population who adamantly refuses to comply with program rules puts all youth and staff at risk. By extending Weinbergers Intake over the course of five days, the staff was able to salvage his placement. As a federal placement, Weinberger was under court order to complete the program of study at the Swan Valley Youth Academy. Failure to complete the program would result in Weinberger being placed in a maximum secure facility. We made every effort to avoid this reality. As such, Weinberger ultimately graduated from the program and was placed with a local family.

The Swan Valley Youth Academy is a 42-bed non-secure facility. This means that all youth are housed in an open-bay format. Youth do not have individual rooms, nor do they share rooms. All youth are in the same area. Placing a newly admitted cadet who is non-compliant into this environment is both unsafe and illogical. We utilized the seclusion area as it was the safest environment for all parties. Weinbergers probation officer, Wade Riden, was made aware of our efforts regarding Intake and was in full agreement with our decision. We did not attempt to hide our actions.

David Head Placed in seclusion from 10:00 am until 3:30 pm prior to intake. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Head was admitted to the facility at 1200, accompanied by his probation officer. His Intake began at 1430. Head was given an assessment by the RN prior to the Intake beginning. He was cleared by the RN to participate in the Intake. Evidence clearly states that Head was in seclusion from 1200 until 1430. During this time he was given an evaluation by the nurse and cleared to participate in the Intake. The duration of time was 2:30 minutes, not 5:30 minutes. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Head was in seclusion from 1000 to 1530? This is the first example of Kruzen and Clymer using false testimony to support their allegations.

John Odom Child placed in seclusion for approximately 25 hours from arrival to completion of Intake. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, John Odom was admitted to the facility at 1200 on 11/3/04. He was given an assessment by the nurse at 1330 of the same day. Odoms Intake began at 1300 on 11/4/04. Mark Mizner-Welch was the acting administrator when Odoms Intake occurred. Mr. Perkins was on vacation on the east coast and unavailable during Odoms Intake. MiznerWelchs actions were inconsistent with program policy. As evidenced by the time frames of all other Intakes noted in this report, Odoms length of stay in seclusion was an aberration.

If this action constitutes abuse, why isnt Mark Mizner-Welch being charged with Physical Abuse and Neglect?

Dillon Everhart Child arrived at the facility at 9:00 am and was placed in seclusion until his intake began at 7:00 pm. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Everhart was admitted to the facility at 1045. He was assessed by the nurse at 1515. His Intake began at 1600. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Everhart was in seclusion from 0900 until 1900? The duration of time was 5:15 minutes, not 10:00 hours. This is the second example of Kruzen and Clymer using false testimony to substantiate an allegation.

Joel Ashley RESPONSE According to the Nurse progress Notes, Ashley was admitted to the facility at 1300. His Intake began at 1300. The duration of time was 0:00

Jeron Miller He sat in seclusion for about two hours before Jeff Wagner entered the room. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Miller was admitted to the facility at 1220. He was assessed by the nurse at 1230, and his Intake began at 1330. This means Miller was alone in the Intake room for less than one-hour prior to his Intake. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that he was in seclusion for two hours? The duration of time was 1:00 hour. This is the third example of Kruzen and Clymer using false testimony to support their allegations.

Jacob Dunlap RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Dunlap was admitted to the facility at 1400, accompanied by his probation officer. He was given an assessment by the nurse at approximately 1410. The Intake began at 1435. The duration of time was 35 minutes.

Chris Chapman RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Chapman was admitted to the facility at 1545, accompanied by his probation officer, Steve Kendley. The Intake began at 1555. The duration of time was 10 minutes.

Conrad Wasser RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Wasser was admitted to the facility at 1200. He was given an assessment by the nurse at 1410. His Intake began at 1445. The duration of time was 2:45 minutes.

Bryan Brown RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Brown was admitted to the facility at 1130. He was assessed by the nurse at 1240. His Intake began at 1440. The duration of time was 3:10 minutes.

Ryan Daugherty RESPONSE

According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Daugherty was admitted to the facility at 1400, accompanied by his probation officer, Nick Nyman, and case manager, Andy Thurman. His Intake began at 1400. The duration of time was 0:00.

Chase Robinson RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Robinson was admitted to the facility at 1405. He was given an assessment by the nurse at 1430. His Intake began at 1550. The duration of time was 1:45 minutes.

Joshua Severs RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Severs was admitted to the facility at 1305. He was given an assessment by the nurse at 1430. His Intake began at 1520. The duration of time was 2:15 minutes.

Paragraph 1: Sentences 2-4 During this time, staff, almost always Sgt Wagner and two other male staff would periodically go past the cell, shout at the child and kick the door. According to the cadets, this method was extremely successful at intimidating them, many of the youths described emotions of terror and extreme fear. Nearly all children reported that when the actual intake started, Wagner would throw open the door and rush into the room yelling. RESPONSE The report indicates that staff would periodically go past the cell, shout at the child and kick the door. According to the cadets, this method was extremely successful at intimidating them, many of the youths described emotions of terror and extreme fear. In reviewing the report, however, only one (1) out of fourteen (14) youth state that this occurred. The statement above, however, infers that the behavior was consistently repeated by all staff involved in Intakes. The Substantiated Details Report states: During Jacobs time in seclusion prior to intake, staff repeatedly walked past the door, kicked it and yelled comments such as youre mine. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Dunlap was admitted to the facility at 1400, accompanied by his probation officer. He was given a medical evaluation by the nurse at approximately 1410. Pre-Intake 10

assessments usually last between 15-20 minutes. His Intake began at 1435. How could staff possibly act in such a manner when it is clear that Dunlap spent less than 15 minutes in the seclusion room prior to his Intake? The majority of youth arrived at the facility between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. At this time we rarely had three male staff working the floor. Staff sign-in sheets can verify this claim. Staff were positioned in many areas of the facility for safety and security purposes. Staff were not congregating in the Intake area. The Seclusion room was located directly across the hall from Assistant Director Mark Mizner-Welchs office (approximately 4 feet away). Mizner-Welch was often responsible for conducting 5-minute checks on the new youth. At no time did Mizner-Welch bring to Mr. Perkins attention this alleged type of behavior. At no time did Mizner-Welch report that staff were acting in such a manner. The majority of youth placed at the academy experienced normal emotions of fear as a result of being placed in an unfamiliar and restrictive environment. For many youth, this was their first experience in a long-term residential treatment center. The fear of the unknown is, in my experience, a normal reaction to this type of experience. The auditors do not substantiate that the alleged terror and fear were caused by staff intimidating them.

Paragraph 1: Sentence 5 He [Jeff Wagner] would then grab the child who would be physically pulled, or semidragged to the space in front of the seclusion room where he was then forced to bend over a garbage can in order for his head to be shaved. RESPONSE According to this report, four (4) out of fourteen (14) youth state they were grabbed in the seclusion room and taken to the trash can. The report does not qualify the term grabbed in order to show that such action is, indeed, abusive. According to the report, any youth who is grabbed by staff is being abused. This does not meet the definition of Physical Abuse as defined in the Montana Code Annotated 2005. In the Nurse Progress Notes, there is no documentation that a cadet sustained bruises or was injured at any time during the Intake. According to the definition, Physical Abuse is defined as: substantial skin bruising, internal bleeding, substantial injury to skin, subdural hematoma, burns, bone fractures, extreme pain, permanent or temporary disfigurement, impairment of any bodily organ or function, or death. The Nurse Progress Notes indicate when cadets were given a haircut and what staff were involved. There is not a single notation in the logs where either the nurse or a cadet alleges abuse on the part of staff. In subsequent pages, this report will show that events surrounding the Intake were at times misunderstood, amplified and, more importantly, manufactured by Kruzen and Clymer in order to substantiate Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, and Neglect, that did not occur. 11

This claim is a clear indication of such amplification. It is also evidence that Kruzen and Clymer did not clearly understand the treatment modality. The Swan Valley Youth Academy employed a dual modality: the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model; and a Military Therapeutic Model. This dual modality has been approved and accepted by DPHHS and the Bureau of Prisons for six years. The primary purpose of the military component is to provide structure, discipline, and consistency, so that therapeutic and educational initiatives may progress with a minimum of behavioral disruption. In terms of the allegation noted above, the newly arrived cadet would await the beginning of the Intake in the seclusion room as they have not been formally admitted to the program. When the Intake began, two staff would open the door and issue commands to the cadet. This is consistent with the military component. The staff would command the cadet to stand-up, stand completely still, and look straight ahead. This command would be issued using a raised command voice. A command voice is simply a vocal technique where the pitch is altered, the volume raised, and directives given clearly and concisely. Youth admitted to the facility have extensive delinquent histories. The majority have also been terminated from less restrictive treatment programs because of violent behavior. As such, they usually have a pre-disposition towards non-compliant behavior. If the youth followed the commands given by the staff, they would walk to the trash can unassisted. If the youth failed to follow the commands given, they were escorted to the trash can. All staff are trained in the use of escorts. An escort is when a staff member(s) physically guides a youth to a designated point. In this instance, the youth is actively moving with the staff as opposed to being restrained from moving. As previously mentioned, Nurse Notes indicate that no youth was bruised or injured during an Intake. The youth would then be given a command to grab the trash can with both hands and prepare for a standard military haircut. Again, this process was approved by DPHHS and the Bureau of Prisons. Staff did not force the youth to grab the trash can. Staff commanded the youth to grab the trash can. According to Kruzen and Clymer, the distance between commanded and forced is abusive. Kruzen and Clymer never indicate HOW the youth was forced to grab the trash can. Paragraph 1: Sentence 6 Typically, this was done in a very brutal manner; one staff has reported that he refused to cut the youths hair because he was not trained to cut hair. RESPONSE All youth received the same standard haircut. If a staff refused to cut a youths hair because he was not trained, this validates that the program expects staff to only perform functions in which they are trained. This is an example of staff following policy. Over 20 staff participated in Intakes during Mr. Perkins tenure. One (1) out of approximately (20)

12

staff indicating that they would not cut hair does not suggest a pattern of negligence and abuse on the part of staff. The report does not qualify very brutal manner. Exactly what does that mean? And exactly how is that abusive? Once again, Kruzen and Clymer use inflammatory language to amplify behaviors that are not consistent with abuse. Paragraph 1: Sentence 7 There were usually cuts and nicks, some bleeding occurred and odd patches of hair were left. RESPONSE According to the Substantiated Details report, four (4) out of fourteen (14) youths experienced alleged nicks and/or cuts after receiving their standard military haircut. The nurse logged in her notes each instance where a youth was given a haircut. There is no documentation that the youth were handled in a rough manner or that the haircut caused nicks or cuts. After the Intake, all youth were given a Health Appraisal by the licensed RN. In reviewing the Nurse Progress Notes, there is no documentation that the youth received cuts, nicks, or bruises. In fact, the nurse states that there were no injuries or medical problems for any youth as a result of the Intake. There is no documentation to suggest that the nurse objected to how haircuts were administered to youth. Not only does the report not offer any corroboration for this claim, medical reports clearly contradict the claims. Paragraph 2: Sentence 1 The child would strip, then they would be searched and sometimes forced to exercise while naked; children were sometimes left naked for extended periods of time. RESPONSE Kruzen and Clymer clearly do not understand how the Intake process commenced. The youth were searched immediately following admission to the program. Program policy mandated that youth be searched prior to being placed in seclusion. Where did they obtain the information that youth were searched after they were stripped? The Substantiated Details Report states that two (2) out of fourteen (14) youth allege to have been naked during a portion of their Intake. The language above infers that such behavior is a pattern. The testimony suggests otherwise. These youth are:

13

1. Conrad Wasser- Also during the intake, Conrad was forced to exercise without any clothes on and was unclothed for nearly 2 hours, about half of the intake. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Wassers Intake began at 1445. At 1500, the nurse was called to the Intake room as Wasser was experiencing shortness of breath. The nurse evaluated Wasser, allowed him to rest for a few minutes, and then had him drink water. The nurse then approved Wassers continued participation in the Intake. Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Wasser completed the remainder of the Intake with no problems. The nurse notes reflect that Wasser was given his shower at 1610 and then accompanied the company to PT, indicating that the Intake was completed. These time frames prove that Wassers Intake lasted approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes. He was even allowed to rest in that time. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get their information that the Intake lasted 4 hours? Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Wasser was forced to exercise naked for approximately 2 hours? How could Wasser be forced to exercise without any clothes on for nearly 2 hours when the entire Intake lasted one-hour and twenty-five minutes? This is the fourth example of Kruzen and Clymer using false testimony to amplify their allegations.

2. Dillon Everhart After vomiting, Dillon was made to do more exercises they smoked me again, he was made to take a cold shower and leave the de-lousing solution on for 10 minutes. He was then given 10 seconds to get his clothes on but was unable to do so in 10 seconds so he was forced to exercise without clothes for approximately 30 minutes. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Everharts Intake ended when he was given his de-lousing shower at 1715. Everhart then attended dinner with the rest of the company at 1725. At 1800, the nurse met with Everhart, conducted an evaluation, and stated that there were no injuries during the Intake. How could Everhart be forced to exercise for approximately 30 minutes after he was given his de-lousing shower (at 1715) if he was at dinner with the rest of the company from 1725 to 1755? Where did Kruzen and Clymer get their information that Everhart was forced to exercise without clothes on for approximately 30 minutes after his shower? This is the fifth example of Kruzen and Clymer using false testimony to amplify their allegations. 14

The Intake process is standard for all cadets: it is as follows: Youth enter the facility, are searched, and are immediately placed in the seclusion room. The search consists of a basic pat-down and search of youths pockets and shoes. Strip searches are not allowed per policy. Intake begins youth is commanded to stand up and walk to the trash can in the seclusion area. Youth receive a standard military haircut. Youth are escorted to the Intake room by two staff members. Youth is directed to stand at attention and follow all commands. All youth have a pre-made basket of hygiene and facility-issued clothes waiting in the Intake area. These baskets are prepared by the Delta cadets prior to the Intake beginning. Youth is educated on the Intake process and what is expected of him. Youth is directed to follow all instructions. Failure to follow instructions will result in a consequence (usually push-ups, jumping jacks, sit-ups). Youth then change from their civilian clothes to facility-issued clothes one article at a time. Youth are asked to hold themselves accountable for the crimes they have committed. Per the program treatment modality (approved by DPHHS), personal accountability is the first step in the treatment process. Staff have previously reviewed the youths background and are familiar with their delinquent history. Staff obtain an assessment of the youths physical condition due to the physical nature of the program. Youth are taught basic military commands and facing movements. Youth shower, to include the use of de-lousing shampoo. Youth receive a visual inspection and any markings are noted on a Body Chart Form. Youth receive a health appraisal from the nurse. Youth complete a Suicide Assessment Evaluation. Youth is formally admitted to the program.

At no time were youth being forced to exercise while naked. The report offers testimony that is clearly false and defamatory. Such negligence on the part of Kruzen and Clymer clearly undermines their credibility. Paragraph 2: Sentence 2 The de-lousing shampoo and showers were often cold and lengthy. RESPONSE This report indicates that one (1) out of fourteen (14) cadets reported this type of incident. The statement above infers that this was a standard practice. 15

The Nurse Progress Notes document every single de-lousing shower given to youth. The nurse was responsible for distributing the de-lousing shampoo to the staff. There is no documentation in the nurse notes that the showers were conducted inappropriately. There is no documentation that the nurse, the youth, or staff, objected to the showers. Program policy requires completion of a Body Chart Form after the de-lousing shower is completed. Staff is required to document the following: condition of skin; trauma markings; tattoos; needle marks or other indications of drug abuse; STDs and sores on the genital area; birth marks. Such observation requires the youth to be naked and stationary. This examination usually took 3-5 minutes. It appears from the report that only the cadet substantiated the allegation noted above. The cadet in question is Dillon Everhart: They smoked me again, he was made to take a cold shower and leave the de-lousing solution on for 10 minutes. Everharts testimony has already been proven to be suspect. He previously stated that he was forced to exercise while naked after his de-lousing shower. Records clearly show that this did not happen. Paragraph 2: Sentence 3 Throughout this procedure, the male staff, typically Jeff Wagner and two others would yell at the youth, often calling the child demeaning names and casting aspersion on their family of origin, many of the youth we interviewed reported that they cried when the staff made fun of the familys and made demeaning remarks about their parents. RESPONSE According to the report, four (4) out of fourteen (14) youths alleged this type of behavior. Staff was trained to hold youth accountable for their crimes, not demean family members or parents. Kruzen and Clymer indicate that staff yelled at the youth during the Intake. Again, we question their understanding of the Intake process and how it is tied to the military modality. Staff issued multiple commands to youth during the Intake process. As previously stated, commands would be issued using a loud command voice. A command voice is simply a vocal technique where the pitch is altered, the volume raised, and directives given clearly and concisely. Moreover, Intakes occurred in a 15x7 concrete room. Naturally, sound is amplified in this type of environment. The allegation above indicates that staff called youth demeaning names and made fun of their families. One of the youth who makes such allegations is Conrad Wasser. According to the report: He was also called demeaning names: some of which were pussy; little bitch; spic; and told that his family didnt care about him and his dad hated him. On page 11, it was established that Wassers testimony regarding his

16

Intake was manufactured. Kruzen and Clymer stated that Wassers Intake lasted four hours and that he was forced to exercise naked for two hours. Both of these allegations were easily disproved. Why should Wassers testimony be deemed credible in this instance? The fact is that youth were confronted with their delinquent behavior during the Intake. In many instances, such as with Bryan Brown, the youth were involved in delinquent acts with family members. Brown was another youth who alleges that staff made fun of his family. Not only did Brown smoke crystal methamphetamine with his father, he also bought and sold drugs with his father. This would absolutely be confronted during the Intake. Kruzen and Clymer interpret this type of confrontation as belittling and demeaning. The modality interprets this confrontation as positive steps towards personal accountability and the elimination of delinquency. Such a distinction is a mature distinction. They obviously missed this point. Paragraph 2: Sentence 4 The child was also confronted with his own behavior and those actions that had caused him to be placed in the facility. RESPONSE How is this abusive? How does this meet the definitions of abuse as defined in the Administrative Codes of Montana? The confronting of delinquent and destructive behaviors is a central tenant of the Balanced and Restorative Justice model. This same model is approved and used by the Montana Attorney Generals office. Youth were held accountable for their criminal behavior. The Swan Valley Youth Academy employed as its treatment modality, the Balanced and Restorative Justice Model. In this model, the first step in the therapeutic process is taking Accountability for ones actions. This is understood by licensing, judges, probation officers, and Youth Placement officials. The program expects each youth to take accountability for his crimes and, at the very least, admit to what he has done. Paragraph 3: Sentences 1-3 Another issue of major concern was the practice of forcing the youth to ingest large amounts of warm water tore-hydrate them during the intensive exercise. This forced ingestion of excessive amounts of water in an exceeding brief span of time, often just a few seconds, is medically dangerous because it over-hydrates the body and causes an electrolyte imbalance. It almost always induced vomiting by the child and most reported that the water was hot not lukewarm. RESPONSE

17

As for youth ingesting large amounts of water, the report offers nine (9) examples out of fourteen (14) youth. In almost each case the report mentions very specific amounts 80 oz, 64 oz, 32 oz, 90 oz, 160-192 ozthese figures seem wildly arbitrary. The report does not offer any substantiation from staff that participated in the Intake process that these amounts were actually ingested. The issue of electrolyte imbalance raised by the CPS investigators is concerning as neither of the investigators, to my knowledge, are medically qualified to make this diagnosis. Moreover, the on-site nurse never placed a youth on profile due to an electrolyte imbalance. Nor did she mention electrolyte imbalance in any the Health Appraisals conducted immediately following the Intake. If a licensed nurse who was on-site for all Intakes did not document the excessive ingestion of water, the use of hot water, nor the potential electrolyte imbalance problem, how could investigators make these claims months (and sometimes years) after the Intake? The Nurse Progress Notes are especially instructive regarding these allegations. I will address each youth individually: Ryan Daugherty During both initial intake and a subsequent intake (which Ryan was required to re-do the intake process as a disciplinary action), Ryan was forced to over-exercise until he vomited. Child was given hot not tepid water to drink in order to re-hydrate. Child was forced to drink the water in a hurried manner. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes do not indicate any of the above referenced actions. She indicates that Daugherty began his Intake at 1400 and that he, tolerated poorly as he is very out of shape. There is no mention by the nurse that Daugherty vomited during his Intake. This is important because the nurse noted such occurrences when other youth have vomited. There is no indication that Daugherty was forced to drink hot water. There is no indication that Daugherty was forced to ingest excessive amounts of water. Kruzen and Clymer offer absolutely no corroboration for their claims. Their substantiations are exclusively based on the testimony of a cadet who experienced the Intake over 18 months ago and whose testimony is clearly contradicted by the official Nurse Progress Notes. As for the second Intake (Ryan was required to re-do the intake process as a disciplinary action), the nurse states that Daugherty was rude to her. She writes, RN told cadet he could not talk to her like this. Daughertys antagonistic attitude resulted in a short re-intake. He then returned to the nurses office and

18

continued his medical evaluation. If Daugherty vomited during his re-intake, why didnt the nurse document it in her notes? Nurse notes indicate that Daugherty was on 850 mgs of the anti-psychotic medication seroquel. This is a dangerously high dosage. In fact, the Federal Drug Administration does not recommend dosages in excess of 750 mgs as they have not been proven to be safe through clinical trials. According to his prescription, Daugherty was supposed to receive 200 mgs of seroquel at 0600, 1000, 1530, and 250 mgs at 1900. He was also taking 1 mg of cogentin and 250 mgs of trazadone. Daugherty was detained at the Kalispell Detention Center for approximately two months prior to coming to the facility. According to the nurse, Daughertys medications were being improperly administered while he was at the detention center in Kalispell. She notes that she made a phone call to an Officer Ward at the detention center who stated that they gave Daugherty ALL OF HIS MEDS at 1900 because it was easier and kids just sit in their cells all evening. The staff at the detention center simply medicated Daugherty into submission. Such mismanagement would seriously impede his judgment and memory.

Conrad Wasser During the intake, Jeff Wagner gave Conrad water to drink but Conrad stated that he was so scared he could not drink it fast enough so they threw it out and gave him hot water to drink. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Wassers Intake started at 1445. Fifteen minutes later, at 1500, the nurse was called into the Intake room as Wasser was experiencing shortness of breath. The nurse conducted an evaluation of Wasser, allowed him to rest for a few minutes, and then had him drink some water. The nurse concludes her notes by saying that Wasser tolerated the intake with no problems. It has already been established that Wasser, Kruzen and Clymer, lied about the nature of his Intake. Why should they be believed here? Wagner summoned the nurse when Wasser was experiencing shortness of breath. The nurse, acting in her assigned capacity, evaluated Wasser and even gave him water. Wagners actions prove that he was acting in the best interests of the youth in this situation. Kruzen and Clymer have offered no evidence to support this statement.

David Head Child forced to drink 160-192 ounces of warm water; bodily function was impaired to the extent that the child vomited three times during his intake procedure. RESPONSE

19

The Nurse Progress Notes do not indicate that Head vomited during his Intake. Moreover, according to the medical evaluation conducted by the licensed nurse, there is no indication that bodily functions were impaired. There is no indication that Head was forced to ingest excessive amounts of water. How did Kruzen and Clymer, some 14 months after Heads Intake, substantiate that Heads bodily functions were impaired? Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain such wildly arbitrary amounts of water (160-192 ounces)? The nurse has always indicated when other youth vomited during their Intake. Why is such information missing in this instance? The Nurse Notes indicate that Head cried for the first 30 minutes of his Intake. The notes also state that Head had a difficult time with the PT because he kept trying to collapse. If the nurse noticed all of this, why didnt she notice the vomiting and the excessive amounts of water? Why didnt she document these things in her notes? Once again, it has been proven that both Kruzen and Clymer and the youth have either lied about or exaggerated events that took place during Intake.

Chris Chapman Child was forced to drink approximately 90 ounces of water. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that the nurse was very involved in Chapmans Intake as he was seriously out-of-shape. The Nurse Progress Notes state: 1600 Intake started 1615 Cadet complains of not being able to breath very sweaty no audible wheezing just breathing hard. 1630 Having a hard time doing physical aspect of intake crying hyperventilating encouraged to breathe slowly. Staff will take it easy on him for remainder of intake. 1745 Shower and Liceate some dinner. Complete health appraisal done by nurse No health problems identified.

The nurse medically cleared Chapman to continue with the Intake process on 2 occasions. The staff followed the nurses advice and Chapman subsequently completed the Intake. At no time does the nurse indicate that Chapman was forced to drink excessive amounts of water. The staff followed policy by utilizing the nurse whenever Chapman appeared to be experiencing difficulty. The report does not offer any other corroboration for their claim.

20

John Odom Child forced to drink 80 ounces of hot water resulting in vomiting. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Odom vomited several times during his Intake. Her notes do not indicate why Odom experienced such issues. Her reports do not mention that Odom was forced to ingest excessive amounts of water. Kruzen and Clymer do not offer any evidence that this occurred. Instead, they assume that the reason Odom vomited was because he ingested large amounts of water. Odom was in jail for two months prior to coming to the facility. He was out-of-shape, scared, and off of his medication. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, he also refused to take accountability for his crimes during the intake. All of these factors could help to explain his vomiting. The nurse was aware that Odom vomited during his Intake. The nurse allowed the Intake to continue. The Health Appraisal states that the youth suffered no injuries during the Intake. Jacob Dunlap Child was forced to over-exercise until he vomited during Intake and state that he almost passed out in the shower. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, the nurse was called into the Intake room approximately 20 minutes after Dunlaps Intake began. The nurse states, Called into intake room. Pupils are dilated and cadet smells of marijuana. Admits his father smokes marijuana and he was smoking some in cadets presence this am. Denies he was smoking himself and states that the last time he smoked some was weeks ago. According to the nurse notes, Dunlaps Intake was completed at 1615, whereby he joined the company in a PT session in the gym. At 1710, the nurse checked in with Dunlap after his PT session in the gym. He tells the nurse at this time that he was going to pass out. The nurse states, In no apparent stress other than shortness of breath following running. Wagner noticed that Dunlap was acting strange. He called the nurse and it was at this time that staff discovered the possibility of youths marijuana use. Wagner did his job in this instance. The nurse approved Dunlaps continued participation in the Intake after her evaluation. There is no documentation in the Nurse Progress Notes to suggest Dunlap vomited.

21

Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that he almost passed out in the shower? The nurses notes clearly state that he made this statement almost an hour after his Intake was completed. And that this statement was referencing his state after he completed a PT session.

Dillon Everhart Child was given 32 ounces of water and forced to drink it in one minute resulting in Dillon vomiting. RESPONSE Statements and actions attributed to Everharts Intake have already been seriously discredited (page 12). Why should his statements be believed in this instance? The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Everhart vomited twice, but tolerated the Intake well. The notes do not state why Everhart vomited or that the vomiting was of medical concern. Kruzen and Clymer offer no evidence that Everhart was forced to drink 32 ounces of water in one minute. Instead, they assume that Everharts vomiting was the result of this alleged intake of water. The nurse notes do not mention that Everhart was forced to drink excessive water. What corroboration was used to substantiate this claim? Joel Ashley Jeff Wagner forced the child to drink hot water during the intake and forced Joel to over-exercise until he vomited. RESPONSE According to the Nurses Progress Notes, Ashley vomited large amounts of ingested food and was clammy. The staff called the nurse into the Intake room and she conducted an evaluation. Ashley was then approved to continue the Intake by the nurse. The nurse notes further indicate that Ashley tolerated the remainder of the Intake with no problems. As for the vomiting, Ashleys probation officer took him to McDonalds less than one-hour before his Intake began. Ashley arrived at the facility with a McDonalds bag and a large soda. The combination of nerves and exercise can easily explain Ashleys vomiting. The nurse makes no mention of Ashley being forced to drink hot water. Wagner followed protocol by requesting a medical evaluation when Ashley vomited. The nurse approved Ashleys participation in the remainder of the Intake. This allegation by Kruzen and Clymer was made 22 months after his Intake. Kruzen and Clymer offer no corroboration of their claims.

22

Joshua Severs Joshua was forced to drink, chug, warm water, first 64 ounces of water then 32 ounces of water. When he vomited from drinking the water so fast, he was given a very short period of time to clean up his vomit and when he did not clean it up in time, he was forced to do pushups in his vomit. During his 5-hour intake, staff yelled at him about his past issues. RESPONSE According to the Nurses Progress Notes, Severs Intake began at 1520. It was completed at 1645, when he took his shower. This means that Severs Intake lasted one hour and twenty-five minutes. If Severs Intake lasted 1:25, where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that his Intake lasted 5 hours? This false accusation made by Kruzen and Clymer thoroughly discredits all statements made above. If this discovery were not damaging enough, the nurses notes do not mention that Severs vomited at all. In fact, the nurse states that Severs Intake went well and that there were no problems. The nurse has indicated when other youth vomited. Why would she not note this in Severs file? Finally, there is absolutely no mention of Severs alleged ingestion of excessive amounts of water.

Zachary Trull He was forced to exercise excessively then forced to drink water causing him to vomit. RESPONSE The director of the Swan Valley Youth Academy was Ken Williams when Trulls Intake occurred. Why is this information on a Substantiated Details report for Mr. Perkins if he was not the director of the facility? Why is Ken Williams not being charged with abuse if this were indeed abusive behavior? Also, Jeff Wagner did not conduct Trulls Intake. Wagner was off-duty when Trull was admitted. The inclusion of this allegation once again shows the lack of professional character on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. It is a clear and deliberate attempt to increase the allegations made against Chris Perkins and Jeff Wagner. Paragraph 3: Sentence 4 The nurse at the facility objected to this practice when she discovered it and stated that she directed staff to stop. RESPONSE

23

The report offers no evidence that the nurse informed Mr. Perkins of her alleged concerns. The facts listed above also seriously question both the veracity of this claim, and the claims of Kruzen and Clymer. The report does not offer evidence that the nurse noted excessive amounts of water ingested in any of her medical notes. In fact, there is not a single notation in any of the Nurse Progress Notes that the youth were given hot water or that they were forced to ingest excessive amounts of water. In two years worth of Management and Team Meeting notes, of which the nurse participated in on a weekly basis, there is not a single notation that she objected to this alleged practice. The nurse submitted a weekly medical report to me and at no time did any of these reports indicate this practice and her objections to it. Paragraph 4: Sentence 1 The youths, most of whom were not physically fit, were forced to exercise excessively, doing push-ups, star jumps, sit ups and so on, generally to the point of vomiting. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, (3) three out of (14) fourteen youths vomited during the Intake process. The statement above attempts to infer that vomiting was a normal occurrence. The nurse maintained extensive medical notes on the youth in the program and noted when vomiting occurred. The nurse was on-site for intakes and was required to assess each youths physical readiness. If the nurse examined a youth and determined that the Intake should continue, slow down, or stop, then that is what happened. This occurred in several Intakes (Chapman, Wasser, Dunlap, Ashley, Brown, Robinson). It has been repeatedly illustrated that the testimonies given in the Substantiated Details Report lack credibility. The allegation noted above is not supported by consistently verifiable documentation. In fact, DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago conducted an investigation in March of 2004 and made the following observation: Although youth admitted to resisting doing what they are told when they first come into the program [Intake], they denied that anything excessive is demanded or required. Crago also stated, They all [cadets] denied experiencing anything that felt abusive in the program, and expressed that staff seem to be genuinely caring and reasonable in their actions.

Judges, probation officers, district attorneys, and Youth Placement Committee officials are well aware that the Swan Valley Youth Academy employs a strong physical fitness component as part of its military therapeutic model. This component has been in place since the programs inception in 2000. During the Intake component, youth are required to complete a variety of exercises. As stated above, many of the youth are out-of-shape and chemically addicted. This does not preclude them from exercising to their capabilities. The physical training component utilized in the Intake is a tool to assess the youths level of physical readiness.

24

Many times, youth refuse to complete an exercise knowing full well that failure to complete the exercise will result in having to do it over again. Youth who are compliant, thereby exhibiting safe behaviors and attitudes, complete the exercises the first time. Youth who are non-compliant and combative, and thereby exhibiting unsafe behaviors and attitudes, are required to continue exercising to their capability until they are compliant. Assessing compliance in the Intake ensures that the youth already in the facility are not exposed to new placements that are unsafe and non-compliant. It is a matter of public protection. In terms of alleged excessive physical activity during the Intake, I will address each youth individually: Ryan Daugherty- Ryan was forced to over-exercise until he vomitedChild expressed fear after initial intake and states that he was scared for two months. During my interview with him in December 2005, 13 months after his discharge, Ryan stated that he was physically shaking due to our conversation, because it was so difficult to remember the intake. RESPONSE As previously stated, the Nurse Progress Notes make no mention of Daugherty vomiting during the Intake. Daugherty was given an evaluation by the nurse after his initial intake. The nurse noted that during this evaluation Daugherty was rude and that she would not tolerate him talking to her in that manner. It was at this time that Daugherty was taken back into the Intake room. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Daugherty vomited during his Intake? There is no mention by the nurse that Daugherty vomited during his Intake. This is important because the nurse noted such occurrences when other youth have vomited. Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain the information that Daugherty expressed fear after initial intake and that he was scared for two months? Who did Daugherty report this to? There is no mention of him being scared or expressing fear in his Individual Treatment Plan or his Progress Notes. The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Daugherty had 16 contacts with the RN in his first two months at the facility. There is absolutely no mention of Daugherty being fearful or scared. Kruzen and Clymer offer absolutely no corroboration for their claims. Their substantiations are exclusively based on the testimony of a cadet who experienced the Intake over 18 months ago and whose testimony is clearly contradicted by the official Nurse Progress Notes. Nurse notes indicate that Daugherty was on 850 mgs of the anti-psychotic medication seroquel when admitted to the facility. This is an exceptionally high dosage for a teenager. According to his prescription, Daugherty was supposed to

25

receive 200 mgs of seroquel at 0600, 1000, 1530, and 250 mgs at 1900. He was also taking 1 mg of cogentin and 250 mgs of trazadone. According to the nurse, Daughertys medications were being improperly administered while he was at the detention center in Kalispell. She notes that she made a phone call to an Officer Ward at the detention center who stated that they gave Daugherty ALL OF HIS MEDS at 1900 because it was easier and kids just sit in their cells all evening. The fact the Daughertys extensive medication regime was being administered improperly, clearly suggests that he was not in a stable mind frame when admitted to the facility. Nurse notes clearly indicate that Daughertys medication was reduced significantly in the first two months. The fact that Daughertys med cocktail was administered inappropriately for months indicates that he would not be acting normal when he arrived at our facility. The investigator states, 13 months after discharge, Ryan stated that he was physically shaking due to our conversation, because it was difficult to remember the intake. Despite the fact that Daughertys credibility has already been put into question, how could the investigator verify this statement during a phone call? In fact, Daugherty was being interviewed at the juvenile detention center in Kalispell. If Daugherty was still on meds, can we be certain that they were administered appropriately as this was not the case previously.

All reports indicate that Daugherty did better at the Swan Valley Youth Academy than at any other treatment facility. His probation officer made this statement to staff at the youth academy on several occasions. Moreover, upon discharge, Nurse Mary Ann Hulsey made the following statement in her Medical Discharge Report, Ryan has made a lot of progress in our physical training program. He tends to be a whiner but continues to try very hard to participate in PT. He has lost 10 pounds since he was admitted to our facilityWe hope to have him completely off the Seroquel within the next few weeks and will then wean him off his other meds. We hope to see the real child and may then need to put him on something but he will continue to be monitored closely. He was on 850 mg of Seroquel per day when he came to our facility {he was at 125 mg upon discharge) so we have made some progress. This does not sound like a youth who was consistently abused. Jonathan Weinberger forced him to exercise until he had hard time breathing. RESPONSE This statement does not meet the definition of Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, or Neglect, as defined in the Montana Administrative Codes. How does this constitute abuse? At what level of breathing does an act move into the realm of abuse? Weinbergers intake, as mentioned above, was marked by frequent acts of non-

26

compliance. When he got tired or uncomfortable, he simply quit. Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain the information that this occurred? The Nurse Progress Notes do not indicate any physical problems during Weinbergers Intake. In fact, Weinberger was given a second medical evaluation on 8/3/04, prior to completing his Intake. The Nurse Notes indicate that Mr. Perkins ordered the evaluation. Conrad Wasser - Also, he was forced to over-exercise despite having problems with his asthma. RESPONSE The report indicated that the following people were interviewed: Conrad Wasser, probation officer Mike Birnbaum; Birnbaums supervisor; David Stube, his therapist; and Wassers father. None of these individuals were present during Wassers Intake. His probation officer inherited Wassers case approximately 8 months after Wasser was admitted to the program. Despite the fact that Wassers testimony has been thoroughly discredited on previous pages, the Nurse Progress Notes indicate the following: 1200 Wasser arrives from Missoula County Detention Center 1410 Nurse completes interview with Wasser and states that he is healthy but out of shape. Wasser states that he has a history of asthma but it doesnt ever bother me. Nurse states that he has not used an inhaler since he was very young. 1445 Intake starts 1500 The nurse is called into the Intake room as Wasser is sweaty and short of breath. The nurse conducts an assessment of Wasser, allows him to rest for several minutes, and then has him drink water. The nurse medically clears Wasser to continue his Intake. Nurse states in report that Wasser tolerated the remainder of the Intake with no problems. Wassers entire Intake, to include a rest, lasted only 1:25.

David Head- Child forced to do push-ups until he could not do any more. RESPONSE This statement does not meet the definition of Physical Abuse, Psychological Abuse, or Neglect, as defined in the Montana Administrative Codes. Moreover, there is no indication, either by the youth, or by the nurse in her medical evaluation, that Head was harmed in any way. The nurse noted that there were no immediate medical problems following the Intake.

27

Kruzen and Clymer once again use clever language to prosecute their case. This is a consistent theme throughout this report. In reading the entire Substantiated Details Report, you find multiple references to youth being forced to do something. Kruzen and Clymer never define this term. This response, however, does define this term for the benefit of those evaluating this response. Kruzen and Clymer use the term forced; the facility uses the term commanded. As part of the military component, staff issued frequent commands to cadets. This methodology has been approved since the programs inception. Commands are issued using a raised command voice. A command voice is simply a vocal technique where the pitch is altered, the volume raised, and directives given clearly and concisely. Finally, the nurse states that Head, kept trying to collapse during the Intake. This fact indicates that Head willfully disobeyed commands given by staff. Head had a history of openly defiant and uncooperative behavior. His probation officer specifically placed Head in our facility in order to deal with his non-compliance. Prior to coming to the Swan Valley Youth Academy, this cadet: Was terminated from the Flathead Youth Shelter due to program non-compliance Was terminated from the Aware group home in Great Falls for spitting on staff, pulling hair, and kicking them. Please refer to group note dates 7/13/04 by Richard Plasterer of Aware. The Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinical Nurse at Aware stated, I have grave concerns that he [Head] is potentially capable of jeopardizing the welfare of another person through violence or engaging in dangerous behaviors that could compromise societal safety. His clinical evaluation by Dr. Cornel states, In June of 2002, David was accused of trying to trick several students into drinking from a soda bottle that contained gasoline. Several children were sprayed with gasoline. The report states that although David denies doing this, he does say that he didnt think the soda bottle had gasoline in it.

Chris Chapman- Child was made to over-exercise Nurse notes report that Chris was crying and hyperventilating at 1630 hours, having a hard time doing the physical aspect of the intake Nurse wrote that staff will take it easy on him for remainder of intake. RESPONSE This is an example of staff doing their job. It also validates the statement above that the nurse is asked to assess a youth when the staff witness potential problems. Chapman was extremely overweight when he came in and was not accustomed to working out. Staff pushed Chapman to the level of his capabilities, and then the nurse helped them determine that it was time to slow down. The nurse was very involved in Chapmans Intake. The Nurse Progress Notes state:

28

1600 Intake started 1615 Cadet complains of not being able to breath very sweaty no audible wheezing just breathing hard. 1630 Having a hard time doing physical aspect of intake crying hyperventilating encouraged to breathe slowly. Staff will take it easy on him for remainder of intake. Complete health appraisal done by nurse No other health problems identified.

The staff conducting the Intake followed policy. Each time Chapman experienced difficulty in the Intake, the nurse was called in to evaluate him. In each instance Chapman was medically cleared to continue with the Intake. The nurse even states that Chapman was not injured in any way during the Intake. If Chapman were indeed abused during his Intake, why isnt the nurse being charged with abuse? She medically cleared Chapman to continue in the Intake after conducting an evaluation. Obviously, she was aware of his physical state.

Jacob Dunlap- Child was forced to over-exercise until he vomited during intake and state that he almost passed out in the shower. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, the nurse was called into the Intake room approximately 20 minutes after Dunlaps Intake began. The nurse states, Called into intake room. Pupils are dilated and cadet smells of marijuana. Admits his father smokes marijuana and he was smoking some in cadets presence this am. Denies he was smoking himself and states that the last time he smoked some was weeks ago. According to the nurse notes, Dunlaps Intake was completed at 1615, whereby he joined the company in a PT session in the gym. At 1710, the nurse checked in with Dunlap after his PT session in the gym. He tells the nurse at this time that he was going to pass out. The nurse states, In no apparent stress other than shortness of breath following running. Wagner noticed that Dunlap was acting strange. He called the nurse and it was at this time that staff discovered the possibility of youths marijuana use. Wagner did his job in this instance. Nurse notes state, [Dunlap] in no apparent distress other than shortness of breath following running (during PT session one-hour after the Intake was completed). There is no evidence to suggest Dunlap vomited. Dunlaps entire Intake, to include stoppage for an evaluation by the nurse lasted one hour and forty minutes. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that he almost passed out in the shower? The nurses notes clearly state that he made this statement almost an hour after his Intake was completed. And that this statement was referencing his state after he completed a PT session. 29

Dillon Everhart- Child was forced to over-exercise, including at least 50 star jumps and 100 push ups. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that although Everhart vomited twice during Intake, he tolerated the Intake well. The nurse was aware of Everharts physical condition during the Intake and allowed it to continue. She also stated that there were no injuries during the Intake. If this is the case, how does this claim by Kruzen and Clymer constitute abuse as defined by the Administrative Codes of Montana? Everharts testimony regarding his Intake has been thoroughly discredited on previous pages. Moreover, Everhart was interviewed approximately 10 months after his Intake. I find it highly suspect that this youth could remember exactly how many exercises he completed. Joshua Severs Joshua was forced to over exercise by doing push-ups, star jumps, and flutter kicks. He reported feeling tired and dizzy. RESPONSE According to the Nurses Progress Notes, Severs Intake began at 1520. It was completed at 1645, when he took his shower. This means that Severs Intake lasted one hour and twenty-five minutes. Previously, Kruzen and Clymer stated that Severs Intake lasted 5 hours. If Severs Intake lasted 1:25, where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that his Intake lasted 5 hours? This false accusation made by Kruzen and Clymer thoroughly discredits all statements made above. If this discovery were not damaging enough, the nurses notes do not mention that Severs vomited at all. In fact, the nurse states that Severs Intake went well and that there were no problems. The nurse has indicated when other youth vomited. Why would she not note this in Severs file? Finally, there is absolutely no mention of Severs alleged ingestion of excessive amounts of water. Kruzen and Clymer state that Severs reported feeling tired and dizzy. Who did Severs report this to? Where did Kruzen and Clymer get this information? There is absolutely no mention of this in the Nurse Progress Notes. The nurse met with Severs after his Intake and stated that there were no injuries during the Intake.

Zachary Trull-He was forced to exercise excessively RESPONSE The director of the Swan Valley Youth Academy was Ken Williams when Trulls Intake occurred. Why is this information on a Substantiated Details report for Mr. Perkins if he

30

was not the director of the facility? Why is Ken Williams not being charged with abuse if this were indeed abuse? Also, Jeff Wagner did not conduct Trulls Intake. Wagner was off-duty when Trull was admitted. The inclusion of this allegation once again shows the lack of professional character on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. It is a clear and deliberate attempt to increase the allegations made against Chris Perkins and Jeff Wagner.

Paragraph 4: Sentence 2 Some of the youths were physically abused while doing the exercises, for instance: kicked in the ribs while doing push-ups; stepped on or held down while doing push-ups: and physically punished for being either slow compliance or unable to continue exercising. RESPONSE The Substantiated Details report submitted by CPS has already been proven to contain substantial errors. Not only is the veracity of the report in question, the credibility of Kruzen and Clymer has been compromised. Kruzen and Clymer once again offer no credible evidence that youth were physically abused during the Intake process. There is no documentation of this abuse. There is no evidence in the Nurse Progress Notes that any youth was injured during the Intake. In fact, the nurse specifically states in each youths Health Appraisal completed after the Intake that there were no injuries or health concerns. There is not a single piece of documentation that a youth was injured as a result of staffs actions. Licensing Specialist Marti Crago conducted an investigation in March of 2004 and made the following comments: They all [cadets] denied experiencing anything that felt abusive in the program, and expressed that staff seem to be genuinely caring and reasonable in their actions. Although youth admitted to resisting doing what they are told when they first come into the program [Intake], they denied that anything excessive is demanded or required. All [cadets] denied any type of cruel, harsh or unusual punishment. No information surfaced which would support a concern about how discipline is implemented in the facility. the licensing specialist found that residents described staff as reasonable and caring.

Jeff Wagner was responsible for the Intake process when Crago conducted this interview. He was subsequently responsible for the Intake Process during the most recent investigation by DPHHS. With that in mind: 31

How does DPHHS explain the extreme dissonance in their own reports? Why would Wagner suddenly become abusive? Cragos comments clearly indicate that Wagner was acting in a caring, professional, and humane manner.

Even with the evidence listed above, Kruzen and Clymer do not prove Physical Abuse in their report. According to the definition, Physical Abuse is defined as: substantial skin bruising, internal bleeding, substantial injury to skin, subdural hematoma, burns, bone fractures, extreme pain, permanent or temporary disfigurement, impairment of any bodily organ or function, or death. With this in mind, we will address each allegation individually: Ryan Daugherty- Wagner and another staff sergeant, under the supervision of Mr. Wagner, each laid their full body weight on Cadet Daugherty. Witnessed by staff member. In the Interviews section for Ryan Daugherty in the Substantiated Details report, Kruzen and Clymer do not mention that staff members who participated in Daughertys Intake were interviewed. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Lieutenant Jeff Wagner and Sergeant Will Warricks conducted Daughertys Intake. Who was this mysterious third party? The nurse notes that only two staff participated in the Intake process. Were both of these individuals interviewed? On October 27th, 2005, the Montana Advocacy Program submitted a report to Lake County and DPHHS alleging various incidents of abuse on the part of staff at the facility. This report alleges the above infraction, and notes that staff Brian Larabee witnessed this event. The Substantiated Details Report does not indicate that Brian Larabee was interviewed. Did Kruzen and Clymer interview Larabee? If so, why isnt his name mentioned in their report? Not only did Larabee not participate in Daughertys Intake, he would have been assigned to another area of the facility at this time. Nurse notes indicate that Daughertys probation officer (Nick Nyman) and case manager (Andy Thurman) were present when Daughertys Intake began. Kruzen and Clymer state that they interviewed Nick Nyman. Did he state that Daugherty was restrained inappropriately? If so, why didnt he report this as child abuse? There is no evidence to suggest this occurred. There is no evidence that it was reported to me. There is, however, proof that the statements by investigators regarding Daughertys Intake have already been proven to be false. During his Intake, Jeff Wagner placed his full weight on Ryan; another staff member also placed his full body weight on the child during the Intake process. RESPONSE

32

How is this different from the above claim? It is a repeat of the claim noted above, only worded differently. Why is it in the report a second time? This error once again shows the acute and fatal errors present in this report. Joel Ashley- Also, 11 months after discharge, Joel states that there were so many incidents where he was restrained that he cant remember and also he says that he doesnt want to remember the rough handling he endured. RESPONSE There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. The report does not offer any corroboration of Ashleys comments. This is complete conjecture, not a statement of fact. Restraints involving Joel Ashley are documented in facility logs. What factors were used to determine that this anecdotal claim is substantiated? Ashley was interviewed 22 months after his Intake. There is no evidence to suggest that Ashley was restrained during his Intake. The harsh Intake procedure resulted in Joel being fearful and dissociating due to the extended trauma. This was demonstrated when we conducted his interview 11 months after his discharge from the program. RESPONSE In her report dated 1/25/05, DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago made the following statement: This youth did receive supportive mental health services while in placement and all indications were that the placement program was appropriate for the youthSteve {Ashleys Probation Officer] states that SVYA provided all the contracted services, and he has no concerns about the service plan or the service delivery. The allegations made by Kruzen and Clymer are in direct contrast to the statements made by DPHHS personnel and by the youths probation officer.

If the above fact is not disconcerting enough, Kruzen and Clymer also infer extended and pronounced trauma as a result of the Intake process. Are Kruzen and Clymer clinically qualified to assess extended trauma? What factors were used to determine extended trauma? Was a psychological evaluation conducted to determine if Ashley was dissociating? How can Kruzen and Clymer, 22 months after his Intake, diagnose Joel as dissociating during his Intake? Ashley had an Individual Treatment Plan, ten Monthly Progress Reports, an Exit Report, and a psychological assessment by Dr. Edward Trontel. At no time did any of these reports indicate dissociation or extended trauma due to the Intake.

33

According to the Nurses Progress Notes, Ashley vomited large amounts of ingested food and was clammy. Despite previous objections by the facility, Ashleys probation officer took him to McDonalds less than one hour before his Intake began. The staff called the nurse into the Intake room and she conducted an evaluation. Ashley was then medically approved to continue the Intake by the nurse. The nurse notes further indicate that Ashley tolerated the remainder of the Intake with no problems. The nurse makes no mention of Ashley being forced to drink hot water. Wagner followed protocol by requesting a medical evaluation when Ashley vomited. The nurse approved Ashleys participation in the remainder of the Intake. The nurse conducted a full health appraisal of Ashley following the Intake. This allegation by Kruzen and Clymer was made 22 months after his Intake. Kruzen and Clymer offer no corroboration of their claims. Ashleys Intake, to include stoppage for a medical evaluation, lasted approximately 2:15.

Jonathan Weinberger- Jeff Wagner, during the intake procedure, pushed Jonathan down to his knees and forced him to exercise until he had a hard time breathing. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Weinberger was admitted to the facility at 1420, on 7/30/04. His Intake began at 1440. The nurse states, Cadet would not follow directions but did keep up physically when he wanted to. At 1610, Weinberger participated in a PT session with the company. At 1750, according to the nurse, Weinberger was Rude and made no eye contact and did not answer all questions. Major Mark Mizner-Welch completed the suicide assessment on Weinberger and stated that the youth was defiant. Weinberger was placed back in seclusion due to his acute program non-compliance. He remained in seclusion over the weekend because he refused to comply with staff directives, refused to participate in the Intake process, and refused to act in a safe and secure manner. On at least two occasions, Weinberger agreed to begin the Intake process only to quit immediately thereafter. I have no knowledge of this allegation. Moreover, the report does not indicate that this statement was corroborated by any staff member. With specific respect to the language used by the auditors, I have the following questions: How does someone force another person to exercise? The report does not indicate the manner in which this was done. Weinberger was required, as all youth were, to exercise as part of the Intake process.

34

What metrics did the auditors use to determine that having a hard time breathing is abuse?

Conrad Wasser-Jeff Wagner grabbed Conrad and threw him against the wall when Conrad raised his arm to wipe some spittle off of his face. He was also called demeaning names: some of which were pussy; little bitch; spic; and told that his family didnt care about him and his dad hated him. Conrad reported that the intake was so scary that he couldnt remember a lot of it; he was so scared he couldnt ask to go to the bathroom for several weeks after the intake. He also said that he couldnt write because he was so shaky. Conrad related that he was scared for two months after his intake. Conrad also stated that he was kicked in the gut and ribs during the intake but it is unclear which staff member, under the supervision of Jeff Wagner, took those actions. RESPONSE According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Wassers Intake began at 1445. At 1500, the nurse was called to the Intake room as Wasser was experiencing shortness of breath. The nurse evaluated Wasser, allowed him to rest for a few minutes, and then had him drink water. The nurse then allowed Wasser to complete the Intake. The nurse then states that Wasser completed the remainder of the Intake with no problems. The nurse notes reflect that Wasser was given his shower at 1610, indicating that the Intake was completed. These time frames prove that Wassers Intake lasted approximately one hour and twenty-five minutes. He was even allowed to rest. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get their information that the Intake lasted 4 hours? Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Wasser was forced to exercise naked for approximately 2 hours?

We bring this up in this situation as it completely discredits the testimony of Wasser and Kruzen and Clymer. Kruzen and Clymer had previously stated that Wassers Intake lasted four hours and that he was made to exercise without clothes on for two hours. Why not continue the charade and introduce additional illegitimate information? The report indicated that the following people were interviewed regarding Wassers testimony: Conrad Wasser; probation officer Mike Birnbaum; Birnbaums supervisor; David Stube, his therapist; and Wassers father. None of these individuals were present during Wassers Intake. None of them reported allegations of abuse at any time. His

35

probation officer (Birnbaum) inherited Wassers case approximately 8 months after Wasser was admitted to the program. According to the report, no attempt was made to corroborate any of the allegations made by Wasser. In reviewing Wassers testimony, we have the following questions: If Wasser was so scared that he couldnt remember a lot of it, why was he able to remember so many vivid details of the Intake? All youth in the facility have required restroom breaks every 50 minutes. This is built into the schedule. Conrad, as a member of Bravo platoon, would have no need to ask for a restroom break. They are required of all youth. The report states, Conrad also stated that he was kicked in the gut and ribs during the intake but it is unclear which staff member, under the supervision of Jeff Wagner, took those actions. If it is unclear as to which staff took those actions, then how can it be a substantiated detail? What evidence supports the substantiation of the allegation? There is no evidence to support the statement, he couldnt write because he was so shaky. In fact, there is evidence to completely negate this statement: o Wasser completed (in his own writing) an Imminent Risk Suicide Assessment following his Intake. o The case manager conducting the post-intake interview states that Wasser is lucid and oriented. David Head- David was grabbed and his head shaved. RESPONSE As previously mentioned, all youth are required to have their head shaved. I am not aware that Wagner or any other staff grabbed Head during the Intake. The auditors repeatedly utilize the word grabbed in their report. Youth were, at times, escorted by staff from point A to point B. This is an authorized action per policy. The auditors do not differentiate between grabbed and escorted in this report. All staff are trained in the use of escorts. An escort is when a staff member(s) physically guides a youth to a designated point. In this instance, the youth is actively moving with the staff as opposed to being restrained from moving. Kruzen and Clymer do not explain how being grabbed meets the definition of physical abuse/neglect. Jeff Wagner grabbed him [David Head] while child was standing at attention and placed him in a full nelson hold, forcing David to the ground hitting his chest on the floor. RESPONSE

36

This allegation was never brought to the attention of Mr. Perkins. The report also offers no evidence that staff brought this situation to Mr. Perkins attention. The youth in question never reported this incident to his case manager, probation officer, or family. It has already been proven that Kruzen and Clymer introduced false evidence into the report regarding Heads Intake. What would keep them from doing this again in this instance? The report states that Sergeant Ray Betz was interviewed regarding Head. Did Betz witness this event? Betz was hired on 9/7/04. Heads Intake was on 9/10/04. He would have been required to watch the Intake as part of his new hire orientation. Mr. Perkins met with Betz before, during, and after, the Intake. Mr. Perkins also conducted the majority of the orientation training for Betz the entire week. At no time did Betz report this alleged incident to any staff member.

Chris Chapman- described Jeff Wagner slamming the door to the seclusion room open, grabbing him, putting him a half nelson hold and physically taking him to the garbage can to shave his head. RESPONSE Nurse notes indicate that Lieutenant Wagner, Sergeant Wallin, and Sergeant Mendez were present during Chapmans Intake. The Substantiated Report does not indicate that either Wallin or Mendez were interviewed. Nurse notes indicate that Chapman received his haircut at 1555. There is no mention of Chapman being placed in a half-nelson hold. Kruzen and Clymer offer no corroboration of this allegation. Moreover, the consistent and pervasive pattern of false allegations in this report once again jeopardizes their claim. Wallin put his knee against Chris neck after excessive exercise; child was forced to drink approximately 90 ounces of hot water. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes state: 1600 Intake started 1615 Cadet complains of not being able to breath very sweaty no audible wheezing just breathing hard. 1630 Having a hard time doing physical aspect of intake crying hyperventilating encouraged to breathe slowly. Staff will take it easy on him for remainder of intake. 1600 (10/28) Complete health appraisal done by nurse No other health problems identified.

37

The Nurse Progress Notes never mention that the staff forced Chapman to exercise excessively. In fact, each time Chapman struggled, staff summoned the nurse into the Intake room. After a full evaluation, the nurse approved Chapmans continued participation in the Intake. The nurse had already stated that Chapman was seriously outof-shape and such difficulty was to be expected. Was any of the staff involved in the Intake interviewed in order to corroborate Chapmans claim? If not, how can this be a substantiated allegation? Child sustained bruises on his arms where staff grabbed him and also on his knees and legs after he fell to the floor. RESPONSE Chapman was interviewed by the nurse after his Intake. There is no indication in the Nurse Progress Notes that Chapman suffered bruising during the Intake. Chapman then received a full Health Appraisal the day after his Intake. The Nurse Progress Notes do not mention any bruising on Chapman. Moreover, she states that no other health problems were identified. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get this information? How can it be substantiated if the Health Appraisal did not indicate any bruising? Once again it appears that evidence is being manufactured to amplify illegitimate abuse allegations.

John Odom- Staff reported that Jeff Wagner had Johns right arm behind his back with his face up against the wall. When Nurse Hulsey directed Wagner to release the child Wagner replied This little punk is being a pussy. Wagner was observed to place his full body weight on the child who was lying face down on the floor with his arm twisted in a position behind his back. RESPONSE Nurse Mary Ann Hulsey does not indicate in her Nurse Progress Notes that Odom was subjected to this type of abuse. In fact, her notes indicate that Odom would not take accountability for his crimes. Hulsey completed a full Health Appraisal of Odom on 11/4/04 and noted no health problems. Hulsey is required to note issues in the Nurse Progress Notes that affect the Intake. Why is there no documentation of this alleged abuse in Odoms notes? However, it came to Mr. Perkins attention [via CPS] in December of 2005, that Nurse Hulsey allegedly submitted an alternative report on this incident to Mr. Perkins. Hulsey alleges she submitted this report to Mr. Perkins directly and noted the date on the report. On this date, however, Mr. Perkins was in New Jersey. In fact, he was in New Jersey for several days after she said she submitted the report.

38

Why didnt Hulsey report her findings in the legal Nurse Progress Notes? How could Hulsey submit her report to Mr. Perkins when he was in New Jersey? Why didnt Hulsey submit her report to the acting administrator, Mark MiznerWelch? As a licensed nurse, Mary Ann Hulsey is classified as a mandatory reporter of child abuse. o Why didnt Hulsey report this allegation to the Child Abuse Hotline or to law enforcement? o If Hulsey did indeed submit her report to Mr. Perkins and he didnt do anything about it, why didnt she then report her findings to the Child Abuse Hotline, Licensing, Cornerstone Programs Corporation, or law enforcement?

The CPS report also indicates that Brian Larabee was interviewed regarding this incident. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Larabee did not participate in the Intake. Moreover, due to health concerns, Larabee was not allowed to participate in any Intake. Larabee would have been assigned to another part of the facility at this time. If he indeed did witness this activity, why didnt Larabee report his findings to Mr. Perkins? The report offers no evidence that Larabee made an attempt to report these alleged actions on the part of Wagner. Jacob Dunlap- While being forced to do pushups during intake, staff member Rodriquez stepped on Jacobs back, holding him to the floor while yelling at him to continue doing push ups. RESPONSE As previously indicated, the version of Dunlaps Intake being communicated by Kruzen and Clymer has been thoroughly discredited. Dunlaps entire Intake, to include stoppage for a health appraisal, lasted approximately one-hour and forty minutes. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, the nurse was called into the Intake room approximately 20 minutes after Dunlaps Intake began. The nurse states, Called into intake room. Pupils are dilated and cadet smells of marijuana. Admits his father smokes marijuana and he was smoking some in cadets presence this am. Denies he was smoking himself and states that the last time he smoked some was weeks ago. According to the nurse notes, Dunlaps Intake was completed at 1615, whereby he joined the company in a PT session in the gym. At 1710, the nurse checked in with Dunlap after his PT session in the gym. He tells the nurse at this time that he was going to pass out. The nurse states, In no apparent stress other than shortness of breath following running. Dunlap never mentioned that Rodriguez stepped on his back. What staff corroborated Dunlaps claim.

39

Wagner noticed that Dunlap was acting strange. He called the nurse and it was at this time that staff discovered the possibility of youths marijuana use. Wagner did his job in this instance. Dunlap was not forced to do push-ups. Dunlap was required to complete these exercise just as all other youth were required to. In fact, Hulsey approved the continuation of Dunlaps Intake after her health appraisal. Nurse notes state, [Dunlap] in no apparent distress other than shortness of breath following running (during PT session one-hour after the Intake was completed). There is no evidence to suggest Dunlap vomited. Dunlaps entire Intake, to include stoppage for an evaluation by the nurse lasted one hour and forty minutes. Kruzen and Clymer stated that Dunlap almost passed out in the shower. Where did they get this information? The nurses notes clearly state that he made this statement almost an hour after his Intake was completed. And that this statement was referencing his state after he completed a PT session.

Dillon Everhart- Child was handled in a very rough manner, grabbed and taken to the hair cut garbage can, then grabbed and taken to the intake room. Everharts testimony has been thoroughly discredited on previous pages: Child arrived at the facility at 9:00 am and was placed in seclusion until his intake began at 7:00 pm. o According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Everhart was admitted to the facility at 1000. He was assessed by the nurse at 1515. His Intake began at 1600. o Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Everhart was in seclusion from 0900 until 1900? After vomiting, Dillon was made to do more exercises they smoked me again, he was made to take a cold shower and leave the de-lousing solution on for 10 minutes. He was then given 10 seconds to get his clothes on but was unable to do so in 10 seconds so he was forced to exercise without clothes for approximately 30 minutes. o According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Everharts Intake ended when he was given his de-lousing shower at 1715. Everhart then attended dinner with the rest of the company at 1725. At 1800, the nurse met with Everhart, conducted an evaluation, and stated that there were no injuries during the Intake. o How could Everhart be forced to exercise for approximately 30 minutes after he was given his de-lousing shower (at 1715) if he was at dinner with the rest of the company from 1725 to 1755? o Where did Kruzen and Clymer get their information that Everhart was forced to exercise without clothes for approximately 30 minutes?

The Substantiated Details report indicates the Nurse Progress Notes were reviewed. If this were the case, then where did they get the information that Everhart was handled in 40

a very rough manner? Nurse notes indicate that Everhart was given his haircut by Sergeant Wallin at 1600 without incident. Based on the previous examples of false testimony, the veracity of this claim is in question. . Joshua Severs-Wagner physically moved Joshua to the garbage can at the time-out room door and told Joshua to grab the can. Jeff Wagner tackled him for not bending over the garbage can to have his hair cut. Staff witnessed this.

RESPONSE The Substantiated Details Report indicates that Sergeant Tony Bruno witnessed this event. With this in mind, we offer the following: Severs Intake was on 5-10-05 Brunos hire date was 7-5-05

The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Wagner, Sergeant Major Fred LaRoque, and Sergeant Mike Hathaway, participated in the Intake. Neither Laroque nor Hathaway was interviewed according to the report. Kruzen and Clymer have already stated that Severs Intake lasted 5 hours, when in fact it lasted one-hour and twenty-five minutes. They also stated that Severs vomited during his Intake when in fact Nurse Progress Notes indicate that he did not. Now they apparently state that a staff witnessed abuse when the staff wasnt even hired by the facility. This is gross negligence on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. Jeron Miller-Wagner grabbed Jeron by the arm before he could get up and pulled him to the garbage can where his head was quickly shaved RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Lieutenant Wagner and Sergeant Mike Hathaway conducted Millers Intake. The Substantiated Details report does not indicate that Hathaway was interviewed. Given the fact that almost all of the cadet testimony has proven to be false and/or amplified, how can Kruzen and Clymer conscientiously substantiate this claim? The language used by Kruzen and Clymer is once again called into question here. By using the pejorative terms pulled and grabbed, Kruzen and Clymer are consciously attempting to create a perception of abuse that they cannot create with evidence. The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Miller was given his haircut at 1330 without incident. Are they also suggesting that a haircut given quickly is abusive? If so, how does this act constitute abuse?

41

Given the lack of credibility in other similar claims, it is clear that this allegation is specious. Jeron Miller entered the program with an injured leg RESPONSE The fact that Miller entered the program with an injured leg is immaterial. The program was prepared for this contingency as evidenced by the Nurse Progress Notes: 1220 (5/20/05) Miller admitted to the program 1230 Nurse conducted health appraisal to ensure Millers Intake was conducted properly. 1330 Millers Intake started. 1430 Millers Intake completed. 1800 Complete health appraisal conducted by nurse. Nurse indicates no health problems except for known hip contusion. Miller was placed on medical profile per his private MD order. 6/24/05 Miller taken off medical profile after approved by doctor.

Paragraph 4: Sentence 3 Restraints, both the approved CPI holds and restraints not approved in the facilities policy manual, were frequently utilized inappropriately during intakes, evidently to reinforce the power hierarchy. RESPONSE Kruzen and Clymer create an interesting challenge for anyone reading their report. In order to judge the accuracy of their conclusions, one must first question the veracity of their sources. Allegations made by Kruzen and Clymer in this report have been seriously discredited. The sources have been seriously discredited; the statements have been discredited; the investigative competency of Kruzen and Clymer has been discredited; and, most importantly, the motives of their report are suspect. The claim above offers no evidence that inappropriate restraints were conducted. What credibility do they have given the litany of errors, lies, and misrepresentations, contained in their report? Restraints conducted in the facility are logged in the Master Incident Report Log. All staff were trained in the appropriate use of force, and in the attendant reporting requirements that follow. All staff signed documents stating that they have been trained in these procedures.

42

The Master Incident Report Log was reviewed by DPHHS, the Bureau of Prisons, the American Correctional Association, and Cornerstone Programs corporate executives. At no time was its validity questioned. It is interesting to note that the report does not indicate staff conducted inappropriate restraints in other programmatic elements. In fact, the report does not mention a single substantiated instance whereby staff conducted inappropriate restraints outside of the Intake. Wouldnt it be necessary to, as the report indicates, reinforce the power hierarchy throughout the youths tenure at the academy? The average length of stay at the academy was 12 months. The Intake lasted, on average, 2 hours. Why would management allow inappropriate and abusive behavior in the first two hours, but not in the ensuing 12 months? The report does not explain this dissonance. Paragraph 5: Sentences 1-2 The extent of violence utilized by staff in many of these intake procedures was so extreme that most youths, who underwent the severe intake procedure, seem to had dissociating during the intake experience and even now appear to evidence symptoms of relatively sever Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Some children seem to have blocked past memories of the experiences. RESPONSE Once again, the allegations made by CPS in this report regarding the Intake process have been seriously discredited. Kruzen and Clymers veracity has been severely compromised. The claim above offers no credible evidence that inappropriate restraints were conducted. The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that no youth was injured during the Intake process. Each youth was given a full medical evaluation and also a suicide assessment after the Intake. There is absolutely no evidence that violence was utilized during the Intake. There is, however, substantial evidence that the allegations made in this report by CPS were either manufactured or amplified to suit their purposes. Finally, based on the claim above, it must be asked: Were Kruzen and Clymer clinically qualified to assess dissociation and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Were each of these youth formally assessed via a psychological evaluation to determine dissociation and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder? Can the auditors prove that the alleged dissociation and/or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder are tied to the Intake process? If children have blocked past memories of the experience, then how can they remember so many specific details of the Intake? For instance, water measurements, specific language, alleged traumatic abuse?

43

The report states, The extent of violence utilized by staff in many of these intake procedures was so extreme that most youths, who underwent the severe intake procedure, seem to had dissociating during the intake experience o What factors do the auditors use to retroactively diagnose a youth as dissociating during an Intake? These interviews were conducted between 5-22 months after the Intake. Some interviews were conducted via telephone.

Paragraph 6: Sentence 1 One youth alleged sexual abuse by the other cadets, a game they called t-bagging but we were not able to verify that this had occurred. RESPONSE This is an unsubstantiated claim by the auditors own admission. Why is it included in the Substantiated Details section of this report? Its purpose seems to be to clearly and maliciously infer sexual abuse was happening in the facility. This is gross negligence on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. Paragraph 6: Sentence 2 Another cadet has alleged sexual abuse by a female staff member and Law Enforcement is investigating that issue. RESPONSE How can this comment be included in the Substantiated Details Section when it is allegedly being investigated? Moreover, Neither Cornerstone Programs nor the Swan Valley Youth Academy was notified of an investigation by law enforcement into alleged sexual abuse. A complaint of sexual abuse was never made to Cornerstone Programs during my tenure. IF there was a pending investigation, wouldnt this information be confidential? Why is such alleged activity being disclosed in this report?

Paragraph 7: Sentence 1 There were a significant number of former staff persons who are consistent in reporting that the management, Colonel Perkins was extremely unresponsive to their concerns regarding the excessive force used to breakdown youth, particularly in the intake process.

44

Who are these former staff members? What are their specific allegations? What is their evidence? Nothing supporting the claim Colonel Perkins was extremely unresponsive is given in this report. Where is the Substantiation for this Substantiated Detail?

If, indeed, this were the case, why is there not a single instance where one of these staff reported their concerns to the Child Abuse Hot line, to law enforcement, to probation, or to Cornerstone management? If this were indeed true, why is there not a single mention of this excessive abuse in any of the team meeting notes or management meeting notes? Staff meetings were conducted bi-weekly and management meetings were conducted weekly. Notes were taken by Administrative Assistant Donna Richardson. Staff had ample opportunity to publicly discuss their concerns. In fact, there is not a single instance where a former staff member reported allegations of abuse to any agency. One former staff mentioned in this report (Cheryl Nelson) was not an employee of Cornerstone Programs. She was employed by Lake County Chemical Dependency. Per her license, and per Lake County Chemical Dependency policy, Nelson was required to report allegations of abuse to her employer. At no time did she report any allegations of abuse to Lake County. During Mr. Perkins tenure the following agencies/individuals were on-site in a regulatory capacity: DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago o March 2004 o July 2004 (Successfully passed annual audit) o January 2005 o June 2005 (Successfully passed annual audit) U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract Oversight Specialist Darryl Cash o April 2004 (Successfully passed annual audit) o October 2004 (Successfully passed interim audit) o June 2005 (Successfully passed interim audit) o November 2005 (Successfully passed annual audit) Cornerstone Chief Executive Officer Joe Newman : 6 visits Cornerstone Business Development Director Kara Plender : 4 visits Cornerstone Director of Quality Assurance: 1 visit Department of Natural Resources and Conservation auditors : 2 visits Northwest Association of Accredited Schools Auditors o July 2004 (Achieved Accreditation) American Correctional Association Auditors o March 2005 45

o May 2005 (Achieved Accreditation) Lake County Sheriff Tony Buff: 4-6 visits Lake County Chemical Dependency Staff: daily Federal Probation Officers: 5-6 visits State of Montana Judicial District Probation Officers: 2025 visits Lake County Chief Probation Officer Barbara Monaco: 3 visits Douglas County, Nebraska, Probation Department Nebraska District Court Judge Wadie Thomas o October 2005 The Honorable Wadie Thomas of Douglas County, Nebraska, conducted interviews with staff and youth. In his report he states: I had the pleasure of spending a full-day at Swan Valley Academy on Friday, October 21, 2005, and while there I had the opportunity to observe several facets of the Swan Valley program. I had several opportunities to speak with youth who are placed there, both in the presence of staff as well as outside of the immediate presence of staff. Generally speaking the youth have responded well to the program and many expressed that they needed to come to that type of place in order to straighten out their lives. I also observed a diligent, dedicated and competent staff of professionals who work hands-on with the youth on a day-in and day-out basis. Sun Valley [sic] recently concluded a day-long training in the area of Cultural Competency for its staff, which is indicative of an ongoing effort to deliver a quality service product to the youth in its care. In each of the visits noted above, individuals/auditors interviewed youth and staff. At no time did any individual allege abuse had occurred at the Swan Valley Youth Academy during Mr. Perkins tenure. Paragraph 7: Sentence 2 Numerous cadets name captain Jeff Wagner, who resigned shortly after the start of our investigation, as a perpetrator of both psychological and physical abuse. RESPONSE Given the facts that have been outlined in this report, what credible evidence can Kruzen and Clymer show to justify this claim? Serious concerns have been raised regarding their veracity. Paragraph 7: Sentence 3

46

There were several other named staff members who have since left the organization who seem to have been very inappropriate in their methodology and abusive also. RESPONSE How is this statement a substantiated claim? If other staff were also abusive, why are they not being charged along with Jeff Wagner and Chris Perkins? Paragraph 7: Sentences 4-5 Captain Wagner, in particular seems to have instilled and promulgated a culture of terror, enforced with physical and psychological abuse which was contrary to Cornerstone Corporations written policy. These methods were very unproductive from a treatment standpoint.

RESPONSE Without once again introducing the obvious credibility questions already raised in this response, we will submit that during the time Captain Wagner was employed as a Lieutenant and Captain (1/04 11/05), the Swan Valley Youth Academy achieved the following: Increased its Licensing capacity (from DPHHS) from 24 to 42 youth. Obtained Educational Accreditation from the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. The facility operated for three years without this required accreditation. Successfully passed two (2) DPHHS audits Successfully passed (4) United States Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons audits Achieved accreditation from the American Correctional Association (ACA) as a Community Residential facility. ACA is the largest accrediting body in the United States. This process involved achieving compliance with 276 Audit Standards, two (2) on-site audits, and a panel review board hearing in Baltimore, Maryland. The facility operated for three years without this required accreditation. Started the first in-house licensed Chemical Dependency program at the academy. Re-designed the treatment modality to a more effective Balanced & Restorative Justice model. Successfully graduated over 20 cadets Created and operated an Equine-Assisted Psychotherapy program Increased the number of case managers from 1 to 3.

From February of 2000, to November of 2003, the Swan Valley Youth Academy operated as a sub-par facility without achieving the majority of successes noted above.

47

The achievements listed are in direct contrast to the allegations made in the statement above. The report alleges widespread abuse in the Intake process, but almost none elsewhere in the program. If this is to be believed, then we submit the following: Why did the abuse stop at the Intake process? Why were there not claims of widespread and systemic abuse in all other program elements? How come no probation officers made any allegations of abuse during this time period? Why didnt DPHHS or the Bureau of Prisons uncover any possible abusive actions in their collective 7 audits? Why did the program continue to strive for outside validation of its services? Why did the program go through the accreditation processes for the American Correctional Association and the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools? If abuse was occurring, why would the program attempt to increase its professional competencies, thereby increasing its exposure to external auditors?

With regards to staff and/or auditors: Why was none of this abuse noted in any audit report by any agency? DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago and Bureau of Prisons CCM Darryl Cash each reviewed case files, interviewed youth and staff, and conducted overall assessments of the policies and procedures of the facility. At no time was abuse reported or observed. Why didnt any current and/or former staff members report potentially abusive actions on the part of Wagner or other staff to law enforcement, probation officers, or Licensing? Why didnt any of the staff, and especially the professional staff such as teachers, nurse, or case managers, report abuse to the Child Abuse Hotline? This could have been done anonymously or through a third party. As a licensed RN and mandatory reporter, why didnt Mary Ann Hulsey report her allegations to Licensing, the Child Abuse Hotline, or to the numerous auditors who were on-site? If she knew that abuse was continuing, despite her alleged objections, why did she not report such activity?

Paragraph 7: Sentences 6-8 Colonel" Perkins gave active support to captain Wagner and refused to accept concerns from either staff or cadets. His tacit and active approval of Wagners methods seems to have led to widespread abuses within the program. Chris Perkins stated to us that he had not received formal complaints from staff regarding concerns of abuse; however, there is evidence to the contrary.

48

RESPONSE The report offers absolutely no evidence to the contrary. In fact, Kruzen and Clymer introduced false and defamatory evidence into the report to amplify their allegations. In order to amplify the points articulated above, we will list them again. From 10/03 to 10/05, the Swan Valley Youth Academy: Increased its Licensing capacity from 24 to 42 youth. Obtained Educational Accreditation from the Northwest Association of Accredited Schools. The facility operated for three years without this required accreditation Successfully passed two (2) DPHHS audits Successfully passed (4) United States Department of Justice Bureau of Prisons audits Achieved accreditation from the American Correctional Association (ACA) as a Community Residential facility. ACA is the largest accrediting body in the United States. This process involved achieving compliance with 276 Audit Standards, two (2) on-site audits, and a panel review board hearing in Baltimore, Maryland. The facility operated for three years without this required accreditation. Started the first in-house licensed Chemical Dependency program at the academy. Re-designed the treatment modality to a more effective Balanced & Restorative Justice model. Successfully graduated over 20 cadets Created and operated an Equine-Assisted Psychotherapy program Increased the number of case managers from 1 to 3.

The audit report stresses that Mr. Perkins gave tacit and active approval of Wagners methods. The report fails to offer specific, credible evidence to support this claim. Instead, the auditors attempted to concoct a case of systemic abuse from a cocktail of unsubstantiated allegations of abuse, anecdotal data from staff and youth, blatant lies, and what seems to be a pre-disposed opinion that the military therapeutic model is abusive as a therapeutic tool. We have knowledge that at least two of the four reports offered to CPS by Mary Ann Hulsey as evidence of her claims that she reported abuse to Mr. Perkins have dates on them when he was not even in the state. How could she submit reports to Mr. Perkins on dates when he was on the east coast? The fact is that Mary Ann Hulsey did not submit any reports to regarding her concerns of potential abuse. Moreover, CPS investigators introduced these letters in their interview with Mr. Perkins in Polson on December 5th. Why are these reports not mentioned as evidence in this report? We know of no other evidence that supports the claims that staff offered formal complaints to Mr. Perkins regarding the actions of Wagner. It certainly was not demonstrated in the report offered by CPS.

49

The final point regarding the allegation above surrounds Mr. Perkins departure as Program Manager the first week of July, 2005. At that time, he relinquished all administrative duties to Ken Williams and assumed his new role as National Director of Program Compliance for Cornerstone Programs. Mr. Williams was the Colonel/Program Manager from 7/05 thru 10/05. On 10/3/05, Mr. Perkins re-assumed duties as Program Manager due to ineffective performance on the part of Williams. During his tenure: No staff made allegations of abuse against Jeff Wagner or any other staff. No staff made allegations of past abuse by Jeff Wagner or any other staff. Why didnt Mary Ann Hulsey re-submit her reports to Ken Williams?

Paragraph 8: Sentence 1 (End of Substantiated Details summary) At this time, our substantiations include, but are not limited to, the following youths and specific incidents as follows.

RESPONSE After a two month investigation, why are not all substantiations included in this report? If other allegations of abuse are present, why are they not included in this report?

50

Substantiated Details of Abuse Not Addressed on Previous Pages Colonel Perkins stated that he encouraged the use of warm water in order to effectively re-hydrate the children during the intake process. Nurse Mary Ann Hulsey stated that she requested that practice be discontinued. Acknowledged by Colonel Perkins that he approved the utilization of this method and the use of warm water. RESPONSE As mentioned previously, cadets were periodically given tepid water from the faucet adjacent to the Intake area. At no time did Mr. Perkins approve of or request that youth be given hot water. Once again, Kruzen and Clymer amplify and concoct statements to suit their purposes. Mr. Perkins told Kruzen and Clymer that cadets were given tepid water at various times to assist in the hydration process. Mary Ann Hulsey states that she requested this practice be discontinued, yet: o There is not a single notation in any of her Nurse Progress Notes mentioning this practice. o There is not a single notation in her Nurse Progress Notes that she asked staff to discontinue this practice. o There is no evidence of either the Team Meeting or Management Meeting Notes that she objected to this practice. o There is no evidence that Hulsey reported her alleged concerns to Mr. Perkins.. o There is no evidence that Mr. Perkins either allowed or encouraged the use of hot water. o If Hulsey did indeed object to this practice and Mr. Perkins did nothing about it, why didnt she report this issue to authorities as she is legally required? o If youth did indeed drink hot water, why is there no mention of youth being injured as a result of this alleged action? Kruzen and Clymer state: Acknowledged by Colonel Perkins that he approved the utilization of this method and the use of warm water. What exactly does this mean? Mr. Perkins approved the purposeful usage of tepid water. But we have no idea what the utilization of this method means.

Ryan Daugherty Child states that whenever a new intake was done, the cadets were taken to the large classroom, the doors were closed and a movie was put in for them to watch because the intake process would bring up such bad memories.

51

RESPONSE All Intakes were conducted Monday Friday. Intakes were normally scheduled for 2:00 pm. At this time all youth were in school. Therefore, youth were in all three classrooms at this time. Once school ended at 3:15, all youth participated in normally scheduled activities. The above statement is anecdotal, inflammatory, and completely baseless. It is not a substantiated detail and should therefore not be in the Substantiated Details report. Moreover, the inclusion of such hearsay once again raises serious concerns regarding Kruzen and Clymers judgment and motives. Ryan recalled Col. Perkins telling the cadets to make things look good because Darrel Cash was returning to the facility. (Mr. Cash, who placed Federal kids at the facility, had reportedly told the program to make some changes or he would remove all of his placements there.) Col. Perkins also told the cadets to essentially keep their mouths shut or they would have to go through another intake process. RESPONSE There is absolutely no evidence to support these allegations. Daughertys testimony has been completely discredited throughout this response. This is baseless and defamatory. The auditors introduce further hearsay by stating, Mr. Cash, who placed federal kids at the facility, had reportedly told the program to make some changes or he would remove all of his placements there. Who did Cash report this to? Kruzen and Clymer do not qualify their allegation that Cash threatened to remove placements from the program. The federal audits all state that the program continued to operate within the guidelines established in the Statement of Work. In fact, the facility completed a federal audit just days prior to the DPHHS investigation. In that audit there was no mention of abuse or of major infractions committed by staff. The facility was preparing to transfer from the 2000 federal Statement of Work to the 2006 federal Statement of Work after that audit.

Joel Ashley Jeff Wagner curtailed the childs contact with treatment staff. This was done 1-2 days after it was reported to Wagner that Joel might be suicidal. Also therapeutic contact was limited to 15 minutes per session. This was despite that fact that the child had already attempted suicide and had significant mental health issues due to a history of severe trauma.

52

Col. Perkins for curtailing childs contact with treatment staff, 2-3 days after it was reported to both himself and Lt. Wagner that Joel might be suicidal. Also, child was limited to 15 minutes per therapeutic session and was not allowed to initiate contact with case manager. This was despite the fact that Joel had already attempted suicide and had a history of severe trauma in conjunction with significant mental health needs. Also, the child was not allowed the normal weekly telephone visits with his family despite the recommendations of his case manager. RESPONSE This response has established a clear pattern of negligence on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. Such negligence continues here. In the two paragraphs above, it reads as follows: Jeff Wagner curtailed the childs contact with treatment staff. This was done 1-2 days after it was reported to Wagner that Joel might be suicidal. Col. Perkins for curtailing childs contact with treatment staff, 2-3 days after it was reported to both himself and Lt. Wagner that Joel might be suicidal. Which is it? 1-2 days? Or was it 2-3 days? This might seem trivial. But it speaks volumes about the professional standards of Kruzen and Clymer. The report does not indicate who allegedly notified Wagner or me that Ashley was suicidal. Ashley made a suicide attempt on 9/10/04. Mr. Perkins was the staff who found Ashley and who wrote the subsequent Incident Report. In that report he ordered Case Manager Gary Schultz to conduct an Extended Suicide Assessment and a psychological evaluation on 9/11/04. In the interim, Perkins placed Ashley on Staff Constant Observation (SCO) status. If he was going to curtail contact with treatment staff, why would he order such evaluations to take place?

With regards to the allegation that Mr. Perkins did not allow weekly telephone contact between Ashley and his mother, Kruzen and Clymer offer the following sentences within the same paragraph: Also, the child was not allowed the normal weekly telephone visits with his family despite the recommendations of his case manager. Also, child was not allowed telephone visits with his mother for a period of months despite the recommendation of his case manager that these visits were necessary. First they say that Mr. Perkins did not allow telephone visits. Then they turn around, repeat the same sentence, and add the convenient phrase: for a period of months. With these statements in mind, we offer the following: Between March and May alone, Ashley had 27 phone contacts with his mother per the telephone logs.

53

In April of 2004, Ashleys mother was so impressed with Ashleys progress at the facility, she requested that her other son receive treatment at the academy. If Ashleys mother had no contact with her son, why would she suggest that her other son receive treatment at the academy? In the Monthly Progress Reports for December, January, February, March, April, May, July, August, and September, Ashleys case manager states that: The cadet has regular telephone calls and correspondence with family members. In May, July, August, and September, his case manager also reports that family counseling sessions are happening on a weekly basis. Kruzen and Clymer claim that the [unidentified] case manager reported objections to my alleged decision to suspend phone contact with Ashleys mother. However, the Monthly Progress Reviews written by Ashleys case manager state that he had consistent phone contact with his mother. In either June or July of 2004, Ashleys mother requested that her son be allowed to attend a bereavement camp in Seeley Lake. Ashley would have been required to stay at this camp for an extended period of time. Both the probation officer and Mr. Perkins denied this request. Ashley was placed at the academy via a court order. This order mandated that Ashley remain at the facility until he graduated. Neither the probation officer nor Mr. Perkins could violate this court order. Upon notification of our decision, Ashleys mother began to sabotage her sons treatment. She stated that the decision was wrong and that the only thing Ashley needed was to deal with his bereavement. It was during this very short period that her contact with Ashley was suspended. This decision was approved by Ashleys probation officer. This was the only time when Ashleys phone contact with his mother was curtailed. As evidenced by the case managers own progress reports, this duration of the curtailment was quite brief as the phone visits were quickly resumed when the mother stopped sabotaging his progress. On 7/13/04, Ashley, his mother, his case manager, and Mr. Perkins, conducted a family therapy session. In this session the mother was supportive of the program. In her report dated 1/25/05. Licensing Specialist Marti Crago confirmed the statement made above. She states, Probation officer states that youths mother has historically denied or minimized the behavior problems exhibited by this youth[probation officer] states that youth was progressing satisfactorily for several months but then regressed after mother told him that he didnt belong in the program. She apparently was disgruntled because SVYA would not agree to let the youth attend a summer camp program and told youth that he had done nothing to deserve to be in SVYA program.

Kruzen and Clymer also allege: Also, child was limited to 15 minutes per therapeutic session and was not allowed to initiate contact with case manager. This was despite the fact that Joel had already attempted suicide and had a history of severe trauma in conjunction with significant mental health needs. In the case managers Monthly Progress Notes there is not a single reference to Ashleys treatment sessions being limited to 15 minutes. These reports indicate that Ashley was participating in treatment and meeting with case manager as required. Given the frequent 54

and blatant lies and misrepresentations already noted regarding Ashley, how can this allegation be deemed credible? As for Ashley not being allowed to initiate contact with his case manager, Kruzen and Clymer once again fail to understand the mechanics of the program. All cadets followed the same policy regarding attempts to initiate contact with case managers. In the main lodge, the cadets had access to request forms. Cadets were required to fill out a request form. Case managers would review the request forms and then schedule appointments with cadets. This practice was implemented for several reasons: Cadets often made the claim that their case manager would never talk to them. By writing their requests down, the program had documentation to prove whether or not requests were made and honored. Cadets often tried to talk with their case manager every time the case manager entered the barracks. This caused significant disruption to the program. By eliminating this disruption, the program ran smoother. Case manager schedules were very busy. By having cadets write down the reasons for the requested meeting, case managers could prepare ahead of time if needed.

Colonel Perkins for maintaining a child in his program who was clearly in need of more therapeutic and mental health oriented treatment. RESPONSE Joel Ashley was placed at the Swan Valley Youth Academy because he was not eligible for placement at any other treatment facility in the state of Montana. He was too violent and unpredictable for community placement. His committing offense was Felony Assault on a Family Member. He did not meet the clinical criteria for intensive mental health placement. His adjudications did not warrant placement at the Pine Hills Correctional Facility.

His placement at the Swan Valley Youth Academy was approved by the Lake County Youth Placement Committee, the District Court Judge, Chief Probation Officer Barbara Monaco, and his probation officer Steve Kendley. As Ashleys placement progressed: He was clinically assessed by Dr, Ed Trontel, who approved of his placement at the facility. Dr. Trontel stated: Joel enjoyed his placement at SVYA, finding the structure and guidance comforting. Lake County Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Barbara Monaco and Lake County Deputy Juvenile Probation Officer Steve Kendley received Monthly Progress Reports for Ashley from December 2003 through September 2004. These reports 55

offered extensive information regarding Ashleys treatment progress at the academy. The decision to maintain placement at the facility is ultimately made by the youths probation officer. Lake County Juvenile Probation approved of Ashleys continued placement at the Swan Valley Youth Academy every month he was housed at the facility. Mr. Kendley visited Ashley on a monthly basis and was fully aware of Ashleys successes and failures in treatment. Ashleys Exit Report states: There is no question that Cadet Ashley improved during his stay at SVYA and had made many positive changes. For example, he was more social, could interact with his peers more normally, showed much greater physical strength and was a good student in school. Of particular note is that he thrived when a clearly defined goal was offered to him and he modified his behaviors in order to achieve this goal; he was disciplined, focused, and hard-working on assignments and behaviors. In her report dated 1/25/05, Licensing Specialist Marti Crago stated, Placing Probation Officer Steve Kendley, statesyouth was placed at SVYA specifically because of criminal behavior, not because of mental health issuesThis youth did receive supportive mental health services while in placement and all indications were that the placement program was appropriate treatment for the youth. Over the time Steve has placed approximately 20 different youths in the SVYA program and has been very pleased with the services they renderWith regards to this youths placement, Steve states that SVYA provided all the contracted services, and he has no concerns about the service plan or the service delivery.

Unilateral placement decisions were never made with regards to Joel Ashley. As noted above, all parties were involved in his placement decisions. He was placed at the facility by consensus. He was evaluated monthly by consensus. DPHHS approved of his placement. He was approved to remain at the academy by consensus. This includes: Lake County Chief Juvenile Probation Officer Barbara Monaca and Ashleys probation officer, Steve Kendley.

Yet, Kruzen and Clymer allege that Mr. Perkins is solely responsible for Ashleys continued placement at the academy. This logic defies all rationality and all of the known facts. This allegation is not only a personal attack, it is also indicative of their platform and motives in this investigation. Jonathan Weinberger On 8/5/04, staff members observed Jonathan standing at attention for over three hours, in a classroom.

56

RESPONSE At no time was Mr. Perkins made aware of this allegation. It is not consistent with policy. It is not consistent with how staff were trained. Mr. Perkins was not aware of this alleged action being conducted prior to or after the incident mentioned above. Despite no record of the child being a runaway risk, during his 5-day Intake, he was shackled in order to walk to breakfast and his leg was cut on his shackles. RESPONSE Weinberger was a definitive run risk as evidenced by his repeated refusal to complete the Intake process. He had a felony conviction of Arson and the federal government placed the responsibility of keeping the community safe in our hands. Weinbergers overt defiance has already been established in this report. Kruzen and Clymer infer that the wearing of shackles for less than 30 minutes automatically qualifies as abuse. How does this meet the definition of abuse as defined in the Montana Code Annotated 2005? The Nurse Progress Notes indicate that at Mr. Perkins request, Weinberger received a Health Appraisal on 8/3/04 as he was ready to complete his Intake. The notes do not indicate that Weinberger suffered a cut on his leg. Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain the information that Weinberger cut his leg? Conrad Wasser Sometime in July 2005, Col. Perkins told Conrad to stand in front of the group and put his hands out from his sides and face everybody. The Col. Then pulled down Conrads outer pants and everybody laughed. Conrad was needlessly humiliated. This is completely inaccurate. The report offers no evidence corroborating Wassers rendition of the incident. The fact is that Wasser was standing adjacent to the Delta Room (not a classroom) and Mr. Perkins noticed that he had on unapproved clothing. Each youth in the facility is issued specific sizes of clothing. Wasser had a history of stealing clothing from laundry that was larger than his approved size. Mr. Perkins approached Wasser who was getting ready for P.E., and asked him if the clothes he was wearing were indeed approved by staff. He stated that they were. Mr. Perkins walked up to Wasser and pulled back the collar of his shirt to see what size t-shirt he was wearing. Just as he discovered that he did in fact have on unapproved clothes, his shorts slid down his legs approximately 3 inches. This was due to him wearing XXL shorts, and not the approved large-size shorts he was supposed to wear. At no time was Wasser exposed. He immediately changed his clothes and continued with P.E.

57

David Head nurse reports a flat affect after the Intake and great discouragement on the part of the youth; the rough handling during the Intake placed child at an unreasonable physical and psychological risk. RESPONSE It has already been established that Kruzen and Clymer lied about events during Heads Intake. For example: Placed in seclusion from 10:00 am until 3:30 pm prior to intake. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Head was admitted to the facility at 1200, accompanied by his probation officer. His Intake began at 1430. Head was given an assessment by the RN prior to the Intake beginning. He was cleared by the RN to participate in the Intake. Evidence clearly states that Head was in seclusion from 1200 until 1430. During this time he was given an evaluation by the nurse and cleared to participate in the Intake. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Head was in seclusion from 1000 to 1530?

Child forced to drink 160-192 ounces of warm water; bodily function was impaired to the extent that the child vomited three times during his intake procedure. RESPONSE The Nurse Progress Notes do not indicate that Head vomited during his Intake. Moreover, according to the medical evaluation conducted by the licensed nurse, there is no indication that bodily functions were impaired. There is no indication that Head was forced to ingest excessive amounts of water. How did Kruzen and Clymer, some 14 months after Heads Intake, substantiate that Heads bodily functions were impaired when the medical notes suggest otherwise? The nurse has always indicated when other youth vomited during their Intake. Why is such information missing in this instance?

As for the nurse stating that Head had a flat affect and had great discouragement, this was simply an observation and not an assessment. The nurse is not a qualified mental health professional. There is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Head was placed at an unreasonable physical and psychological risk.

58

Quite often, youth are discouraged after an Intake as they finally realize that they are responsible for their actions and they are going to have to do a tremendous amount of work in order to graduate. David Head had been kicked out of all other treatment programs and thought that this program would be easy. He was more than likely discouraged as he realized he could not talk his way out of this placement. His probation officer, Libby Moothart, explicitly placed him at the academy because she wanted him to be challenged as he was extremely unmotivated. John Odom John reports being scared for first two weeks in the program and expressed concern that staff would tackle him. RESPONSE Who did Odom report this to? There is no mention of this in the nurses notes or his treatment records. We would assume that any normal 13 year-old placed into a residential facility 300 miles from home would be scared. This is a normal environmental response. The report offers no substantiation or corroboration as to his concerns. Why is this anecdote in the Substantiated Details Report? Jacob Dunlap Because Jacob talked about running away due to his fear of being in the program, he was shackled when he went to the dining hall and wore shower shoes or flip-flops outside in the snow. RESPONSE Dunlap was convicted of felony sexual assault. His referral packet indicated that he was a serious run-risk. Dunlap told other cadets that he was going to run away from the facility. The facility is a non-secure program. All of these factors resulted in Dunlap being placed in shackles when walking to the dining hall. Once Dunlap became invested in the program, the shackles were removed. On occasion, youth did wear flip-flops when they were run risks, but never in the snow. The walkway from the main lodge to the dining hall is paved and when it snows, it is shoveled clear. In a report from DPHHS Licensing Specialist Marti Crago, dated March of 2004, she investigated this practice. It was used sparingly and only under very specific guidelines. She stated, The rationale behind this limitation appears to be well grounded in safety issues and does not appear to be punitive in natureAll youth interviewed denied knowledge of any other youth complaining about this procedure. The practice of this limitation does not appear to be a problem for the youth involved, and there are

59

safety issues which are supported by the rationale for the limitationthe licensing specialist does not consider it to be a violation of licensing regulations. If the Licensing Specialist for DPHHS investigated and approved this infrequent practice, how can it be assessed as abusive?

In February or March of 2005, as a consequence of making jokes during a graduation ceremony, Jeff Wagner approved a Ring of Fire consequence but Wagner was not involved in its implementation. On a Sunday, Jacob was placed in the center of a group of cadets at the direction of staff member Eddy and Wallin. The cadets yelled derogatory comments and cursed at Jacob about his background resulting in Jacobs crying. During this process Jacob hyperventilated and started to shake. He stated that he exercised to the point that he couldnt feel his legs. RESPONSE Mr. Perkins has no knowledge that this alleged incident occurred. It is wholly inconsistent with how staff were trained. As evidenced by only being mentioned by one youth, this practice does not seem to be a pattern of behavior for any staff member. With regards to this being a substantiated claim, we offer the following: The report has shown that testimony given by youth is unreliable, amplified, and often times fraudulent. This fact undermines the full legitimacy of this allegation. The Substantiated Details report does not indicate that any staff members were interviewed regarding this incident. Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain the information that Wagner authorized this activity? Where did Kruzen and Clymer obtain the information that Dunlap hyperventilated and that he started to shake? Dunlaps credibility has been seriously compromised in other areas of this response. If Kruzen and Clymer are serious about identifying staff who abuse children, why arent Eddy and Wallin charged with abuse? The report clearly states that they supervised this alleged activity? Are they absolutely sure that Eddy and Wallin didnt act in an unauthorized capacity? The more likely scenario here is that Kruzen and Clymer are once again grasping at hearsay in order to amplify their case against Wagner.

Chase Robinson Including but not limited to the following acts and/or omissions: child reported that during his Intake, Jeff Wagner and the staff member who assisted in the Intake, threatened to hurt him, including a threat to beat him up. RESPONSE

60

Nurse Progress Notes indicate that Robinson displayed behaviors consistent with crystal methamphetamine withdrawal on the day of admission. Robinson admits to smoking crystal methamphetamine and marijuana two weeks prior to admission. The nurse indicates that it was not that long ago. According to the nurse, Robinson was uncooperative during the health appraisal and had to be redirected several times. The Nurse Progress Notes also indicate that Robinsons Intake was uneventful, although he was defiant in the beginning. Robinsons entire Intake lasted one-hour and thirty minutes. Despite the evidence above, Kruzen and Clymer introduce clear hearsay without any corroboration. It has been previously established that they claims, especially during the Intake process, are questionable. Finally, as with the claim immediately preceding this one, Kruzen and Clymer allege that another staff member committed an act of abuse. Nurse Progress Notes indicate that the other staff involved in Robinsons Intake was Jason Wallin. If this alleged abuse did indeed occur, why isnt Wallin charged with abuse? This would be the second time in as many allegations that Wallin was involved in acts of alleged abuse. Once again, the more likely scenario here is that Kruzen and Clymer are once again grasping at hearsay in order to amplify their case against Wagner. Dillon Everhart Child was told to sit in one spot throughout the 10-hour wait prior to his Intake. RESPONSE As has been previously mentioned, the rendition of Everharts Intake offered up by Kruzen and Clymer is completely false: Child arrived at the facility at 9:00 am and was placed in seclusion until his intake began at 7:00 pm. According to the Nurse Progress Notes, Everhart was admitted to the facility at 1045. He was assessed by the nurse at 1515. His Intake began at 1600. Where did Kruzen and Clymer get the information that Everhart was in seclusion from 0900 until 1900? If the nurse conducted an assessment at 1515, how could Everhart remain in the exact same position for ten hours?

Brian Brown Including but not limited to the following acts and/or omissions: During Intake staff yelled at child about things which he and his family did, to the extent that the child cried.

61

Reports that the Intake caused him to feel shocked for a couple of weeks. Stated he did not feel safe in the program and attempted to run away. RESPONSE In terms of the staff confronting the youth about things he did with his family, reports indicate that Brown was adjudicated for several offenses, including physically attacking his father, doing drugs in his mothers home despite her objections (she is a deaf mute), and smoking crystal methamphetamine with his father. We are quite certain that staff addressed these issues with Brown during his Intake. We would also assume that much like any young man finally confronted for his delinquent behaviors, Brown would feel shocked. The report does not qualify shocked, but does seem to feel that whatever shocked is, it is abusive. A more thorough explanation of the definition of shocked is warranted. As for Browns Intake, the Nurse Progress Notes state: 1410 (5-19-05) Intake began 1440 Clammy white sitting on floor in intake room has been drinking water states he has not eaten all day (cadet was transported by Nebraska staff overnight). Cadet taken to time-out room was given peanut butter & honey sandwich, crackers, milk, and banana - ate all of it & said he feels better - Was very polite. 1730 Back to intake room Intake completed without incident. 1330 (5-20-05) Complete Health Appraisal no health problems identified was talkative, polite, and respectful.

The staff started the Intake, noticed he was clammy and hungry, and then stopped the Intake. He was fed, allowed to rest for 2 hours, and then taken back to complete the Intake. The nurse says he was very polite and that the Intake was then completed without incident. Did Kruzen and Clymer bother to review the nurses notes regarding Browns Intake? The evidence clearly shows the staff acting in a professional and understanding manner. Once again we have false testimony introduced into the report that is clearly contradicted by Nurse Progress Notes. This is yet another example of gross negligence on the part of Kruzen and Clymer.

Finally, Brown was admitted to the Swan Valley Youth Academy on 5/19/05. The above allegation infers that the Intake made him feel unsafe. Evidently, this took a while to surface as Brown attempted to escape at the end of July. He was caught attempting to steal the vehicle of the programs 65 year-old English teacher.

62

Jeron Miller During the Intake, Wagner yelled at Jeron, saying that his mother, who was incarcerated, had been caught with drugs and would never get out of prison, and that his dad never cared for him. Jeron stated that he cried during the Intake, particularly when he was told that his dad was a loser and would never grow up and take care of Jeron. Jeron stated that he was petrified for about a week after he came out of the Intake, he stated that he was afraid to do anything that might cause staff to become upset with him or give him a consequence. RESPONSE Millers Intake lasted one-hour. He was on a medical profile due to a previous injury. Mr. Perkins cannot attest to what Wagner said to Miller as he was not present for Millers Intake. He can, however, speak to the tenor of the Intake. In reviewing Millers family history, it is clearly noted that both parents are in prison for drug-related charges. For being only 13 years old, Miller had an extensive drug history. His psychological evaluation states that he began using marijuana in the 4th grade. By the 6th grade Miller was using Marijuana weekly, and by 7th grade, he was smoking daily. The report indicates that Miller also drank alcohol a couple of times per month. In terms of confronting Miller, staff would be trained to address his escalating delinquency and his troubling early drug use. In doing so, staff could easily make parallels to Millers parents. If Miller continued on his current path, he could end up just like them. Again, while he cannot speak to the exact language used in the Intake, we can easily see how a teenager could construe such confrontation in the manner noted. Millers Individual Treatment Plan and his Monthly Progress Reports do not mention him being afraid. Zachary Trull Zachary reports being afraid for 1 month after the Intake to the extent that he sat alone in the barracks and was afraid to speak with anyone. RESPONSE The director of the Swan Valley Youth Academy was Ken Williams when Trulls Intake occurred. Why is this information on a Substantiated Details report for Mr. Perkins if he was not the director of the facility? Why is Ken Williams not being charged with abuse if this were indeed abuse? Also, Jeff Wagner did not conduct Trulls Intake. Wagner was off-duty when Trull was admitted. The inclusion of this allegation once again shows the

63

lack of professional character on the part of Kruzen and Clymer. It is a clear and deliberate attempt to increase the allegations made against Chris Perkins and Jeff Wagner.

64