Provo Canyon boys' program license revoked amid citations for inducing pain compliance, humiliation
The revocation comes 11 days after the revocation of the Springville campus and likely marks the end to more than 50 years of Provo Canyon School
Provo, Utah — Utah Department of Health and Human Services issued an agency action to revoke the license of Provo Canyon School’s Provo Campus, which was home to the facility’s program for boys. This revocation comes less than two weeks after the girls’ program on the facility’s Springville Campus also had its license revoked.
The Provo campus, which has been under strict license conditions since June 17, 2026, must cease all operations by August 16. The school was cited as having “chronic, ongoing noncompliance with applicable rules, statutes, or requirements.”
The boys’ program has been operating on a conditional license since an incident in May of this year, but the action seems to stem from an investigation inspection on June 19. That visit resulted in 16 findings.
Some of the documented abuses include:
November 27, 2025 — a staff member failed to supervise a client who ran from the facility and was missing without staff awareness for 1 hour and 40 minutes.
A staff member failed to verify that all clients were accounted for before transitioning clients from the living unit to the school and a client was left unsupervised on a living unit for 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Facility staff induced physical pain to obtain compliance during a prolonged and unnecessary physical restraint of a client.
Staff yell and curse at clients, use racist and homophobic slurs directed at clients, engage in power struggles, antagonize, and instigate reactive behaviors from clients. Additionally, clients reported staff are dismissive, nonresponsive, and verbally aggressive. One staff told a client to kill themselves when the client expressed suicidal ideation.
Facility staff used a cruel, unusual, and unnecessary practice on a child by using discipline or punishment that was intended to frighten or humiliate. Examples of staff humiliations include directing clients to get on their hands and knees and bark like a dog for snacks, and forcing a client, who is a black person, to eat a banana while peers laughed.
During the investigation, the provider omitted critical details from at least 2 reports previously submitted to the Utah DHHS.
At least 8 provider staff members did not pass a background screening and had access to clients and/or client records.
Staff failed to intervene during physical altercations between clients, and used physical restraints that resulted in a client sustaining a fractured foot.
Staff deprived clients of water, rest, and the opportunity to use the restroom, as well as withholding personal interaction, emotional response, or stimulation.
Provo Canyon School has until August 1, 2026, to appeal this revocation. Below is the official Notice of Agency Action as well as the detailed language of all 16 findings from the June 16 visit.
INSPECTION DATE:06/19/2026
INSPECTION TYPE(S):Complaint, Investigation Inspection
Finding #1
R380-80-5(10): Services and supervision to meet each clients needs.
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-5(10) by failing to provide services and supervision that is commensurate with the skills, abilities, behaviors, and needs of each client. During the investigation, provider records and facility video coverage show that on June 24, 2026, staff members failed to adequately supervise a client with a documented history of ingesting hazardous objects. Video evidence showed the client lying on the floor directly behind a staff member’s chair. Although the staff member was aware of the client’s presence, staff turned their back to the client to engage in a conversation with another youth. Left unmonitored, the client removed a metal screw from the underside of the chair the staff member was occupying and ingested it, which resulted in emergency medical intervention.
Finding #2
R380-80-5(10): Services and supervision to meet each clients needs.
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-5(10) for failing to provide services and supervision that is commensurate with the skills, abilities, behaviors, and needs of each client. During the investigation inspection, provider records documented that a staff member failed to verify that all clients were accounted for before transitioning clients from the living unit to the school and a client was left unsupervised on a living unit for 2 hours and 30 minutes.
Finding #3
R380-80-5(10): Services and supervision to meet each clients needs.
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-5(10) for failing to provide services and supervision that is commensurate with the skills, abilities, behaviors, and needs of each client. During the investigation, provider records documented an incident on November 27, 2025, in which a staff member failed to supervise a client who ran from the facility and was missing without staff awareness for 1 hour and 40 minutes.
Finding #4
26B-2-123(1)(a)-(b): Use of a cruel, severe, unusual, or unnecessary practice on a child.
The provider was out of compliance with 26B-2-123(1)(a)(iii) for using cruel and unnecessary practice on a child that included inducing pain to obtain compliance. During the investigation inspection, information was obtained through two (2) interviews, facility video coverage, and provider records that showed facility staff induced physical pain to obtain compliance during a prolonged and unnecessary physical restraint of a client.
Finding #5
R380-80-6(1)(a)-(i): Client rights.
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-6(1)(e) by not ensuring clients have the right to be free from abuse and mistreatment. During the investigation inspection, eleven (11) clients and six (6) staff interviews verified that clients were mistreated and felt unsafe with staff members. The evidence substantiated that staff yell and curse at clients, use racist and homophobic slurs directed at clients, engage in power struggles, antagonize, and instigate reactive behaviors from clients. Additionally, clients reported staff are dismissive, nonresponsive, and verbally aggressive. One staff told a client to kill themselves when the client expressed suicidal ideation.
Finding #6
26B-2-123(1)(a)-(b): Use of a cruel, severe, unusual, or unnecessary practice on a child.
The provider was out of compliance with 26B-2-123(1)(a)(vi) by using a cruel, unusual, and unnecessary practice on a child by using discipline or punishment that was intended to frighten or humiliate. During the investigation inspection, three (3) clients and one (1) staff member reported that staff intentionally humiliate clients. Examples include directing clients to get on their hands and knees and bark like a dog for snacks, and forcing a client, who is a black person, to eat a banana while peers laughed.
Finding #7
R380-600-7(6): No withholding or manipulating sources
The provider was out of compliance with R380-600-7(6) by not ensuring that the integrity of the department’s information gathering process is not compromised by withholding or manipulating information. During the investigation, it was determined that the provider omitted critical details from at least two (2) reports previously submitted to the department. Had this crucial information been properly disclosed at the time of submission, it would have immediately prompted a department investigation.
Finding #8
R501-14-4(3)(a)-(c): Agency’s roster and employee information current.
The provider was out of compliance with R501-14-4(3)(b) by not checking the roster at least monthly to verify employee information and the employment of the employees due for a renewal review. During the investigation inspection, the department identified at least eight (8) provider staff members who did not pass a background screening and had access to clients and/or client records.
Finding #9
R380-80-5(4): Provider shall protect clients from abuse, prevent abuse
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-5(4) by not protecting clients from abuse, harm, and mistreatment, and any action that may compromise the health and safety of clients through acts or omissions and shall instruct and encourage others to do the same. During the investigation, facility video footage and provider records verified that two (2) staff members failed to intervene, standing by as they watched a client slap two (2) other clients in the head and face. The staff initiated a physical restraint after the client threw water on the staff. During the physical restraint, a staff laid on the client’s legs, resulting in the client sustaining a fractured foot.
Finding #10
R501-14-5(2)(a)-(b): Application submitted within 2 weeks and applicant directly supervised
The provider was out of compliance with R501-14-5(2)(b)(i)(ii) by not ensuring each applicant is directly supervised until OBP issues a conditional or eligible clearance determination. During the investigation inspection, an audit conducted by the department identified one hundred (100) staff members whose background screening statuses required them to have direct, uninterrupted audio and visual supervision by a fully cleared staff member at all times when accessing clients or client records. During on-site investigation inspections and throughout facility video coverage review, the department directly observed multiple staff members from this audit list who did not have a conditional or eligible clearance determination interacting with clients without the mandated supervision.
Finding #11
26B-2-123(1)(a)-(b): Use of a cruel, severe, unusual, or unnecessary practice on a child.
The provider was out of compliance with 26B-2-123(1)(a)(xi) for depriving clients of water, rest, and the opportunity for toileting. During the investigation inspection, interviews with three (3) clients and three (3) staff members reported that clients in the Stabilization Unit were limited to using the restroom or obtaining drinking water only at the top of the hour. Clients who reported being ill were denied the opportunity to rest in their beds which was observed by department representatives. Sick clients were required to remain with their group or stay with the Stabilization Unit which only included options for resting were to lay on the floor or rest their heads on a desk while programming continued.
Finding #12
26B-2-123(1)(a)-(b): Use of a cruel, severe, unusual, or unnecessary practice on a child.
The provider was out of compliance with 26B-2-123(1)(a)(xiii) for using a cruel, unusual, or unnecessary practice on a child by withholding personal interaction, emotional response, or stimulation. During the investigation inspection, nine (9) clients and one (1) staff member reported that clients are strictly prohibited from speaking while on the Stabilization Unit, regardless of whether they were formally admitted to the unit or sent there to take a break. If a client does speak, their required time on the unit is punitively restarted. Furthermore, for a significant portion of the day, clients placed in the Stabilization Unit are severely restricted from communicating and are only permitted to ask questions to staff at the top of the hour.
Finding #13
R380-80-6(1)(a)-(i): Client rights.
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-6(1)(g) by not ensuring that each client has the right to be free from retaliation for reporting any violation of their rights. During the investigation, one (1) staff and three (3) client interviews substantiated that a staff member engaged in a verbal confrontation and called that client a bitch for submitting a grievance report about a staff member.
Finding #14
R501-19-5(1)(a)-(b): Manager responsibilities and qualifications.
The provider was out of compliance with R501-19-5(1)(b)((ii) and (iii) for not ensuring the manager has a bachelor’s degree or equivalent training in a human service-related field and has at least three years management experience in a residential or secure treatment setting. During the investigation, a credential review revealed that fifteen (15) provider Program Managers do not meet the requirements for their position.
Finding #15
R380-80-5(7): Maintaining health and safety of clients
The provider was out of compliance with R380-80-5(7) for failing to maintain the health and safety of clients. During on-site inspections conducted on June 20 and June 22, 2026, department investigators observed sanitation, maintenance, and safety deficiencies throughout the facility including, but not limited, damaged walls in client living units, an exposed cable wire hanging from a Stabilization Unit bedroom ceiling, multiple hanging wires under clients’ school desks, gang graffiti carved into the desks, and unsanitary bathrooms with sticky surfaces, a strong odor of urine, and a lack of toilet paper and paper towels across multiple bathrooms.
Finding #16
R501-14-4(3)(a)-(c): Agency’s roster and employee information current
The provider was out of compliance with R501-14-4(3)(a) by failing to keep the program’s roster and employee information current in DACS. During the investigation inspection, the provider did not update legal name changes and aliases for (3) staff members who have worked for the provider.