S
T
I
D
U
A
E
T
A
T
E

A

U

O

F

S

Although Addressing Deficiencies in Its
Employee Disciplinary Practices, the
Department Can Improve Its Efforts

R
U
B

California State Auditor

California
Department of
Corrections:

October 2004
2004-105

The first five copies of each California State Auditor report are free.
Additional copies are $3 each, payable by check or money order.
You can obtain reports by contacting the Bureau of State Audits
at the following address:
California State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 445-0255 or TTY (916) 445-0033
OR
This report is also available
on the World Wide Web
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa/
The California State Auditor is pleased to announce
the availability of an on-line subscription service.
For information on how to subscribe, please contact
the Information Technology Unit at (916) 445-0255, ext. 456,
or visit our Web site at www.bsa.ca.gov/bsa
Alternate format reports available upon request.
Permission is granted to reproduce reports.

���������� ����� �������
������ �� �����

������ �� �����������

����� �������

����� ������ ����� �������

October 19, 2004

2004-105

The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As requested by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, the Bureau of State Audits presents its audit report
concerning the California Department of Corrections’ (department) process of handling employee disciplinary
matters.
The department has taken steps to improve its adverse action process, but it can do more. Our review revealed
that the department spends an average of 285 days to serve an adverse action or close a case. We believe the
department can improve its timeliness and consistency by making certain changes to its process for dealing with
employment matters. For example, it can improve its disciplinary process by eliminating some of the minor
differences in its disciplinary practices and by taking steps to bring more standardization of penalties. Furthermore,
the department can update its disciplinary policies and procedures that are incomplete, out of date, and in need
of revision. Moreover, the department uses several redundant databases to track disciplinary matters and each
system is incomplete and inaccurate, thus, making it difficult for management to oversee the progress of employee
disciplinary matters. Further, although the department recently began requiring job-specific training for a key
position involved in its disciplinary process, it can do more to require training for other key positions. Finally,
the department has yet to implement several audit recommendations related to disciplinary matters from audits
conducted in 2000 and 2001.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor

������ �� ����� ������
��� ������� ����� ����� ���� ����������� ���������� ����� ���������� ����� �������� ���� ����� �������� ������������������

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

CONTENTS
Summary

1

Introduction

5

Chapter 1
The California Department of Corrections Can
Improve Its Timeliness and Handling of Employee
Misconduct Allegations and Discipline

15

Recommendations

34

Chapter 2
The California Department of Corrections Can
Do More to Improve Its Monitoring of Cases
and Training of Employees

37

Recommendations

53

Appendix A
Legal Expenses for Fiscal Years 2001–02
Through 2003–04

55

Appendix B
Status of Employment-Related Audit
Recommendations and Corrective Actions
From 2000 to Present

59

Response From the Youth and Adult
Correctional Agency, California
Department of Corrections

67

SUMMARY
RESULTS IN BRIEF
Audit Highlights . . .
Our review of the California
Department of Corrections’
(department) process
of handling employee
disciplinary matters revealed
that the department:

þ Spends an average of
285 days to serve an adverse
action or close a case.

þ Can improve its disciplinary
practices by simplifying its
investigative process for
straightforward, uncontested
cases, by eliminating the
headquarters review of most
adverse actions, and by
taking steps to bring more
standardization of penalties.
Further, many disciplinary
case files were disorganized
and had key pieces of
information missing.

þ Has disciplinary policies
and procedures that are
incomplete, out of date,
and in need of revision.

þ Uses several redundant
databases to track
disciplinary matters and
each system is incomplete
and inaccurate.

þ Recently began requiring
job-specific training for a
key position involved in
its disciplinary process;
however, it can do more
to require training for
other key positions.

þ Has yet to implement
several audit
recommendations related
to disciplinary matters
from audits conducted in
2000 and 2001.

T

he California Department of Corrections (department)
appears to take employment-related matters and discipline
seriously because it investigates and pursues employee
indiscretions at every level—from violations of departmental
policy to violations of law—both in and outside of work. It
allocates numerous full- and part-time staff to pursue these
indiscretions and to compel its employees to be upstanding
citizens who do not engage in activities that discredit the
department. However, it can be timelier in dealing with these
matters, and it can improve the coordination and consistency
of its processes. In addition, its employment-related computer
databases, policies, training, and monitoring continue to need
improvement despite previous audits that identified deficiencies.
Although the department is now taking actions to improve its
adverse-action process, it can further improve its efforts.1
The department employed about 45,000 full-time employees as
of June 2004. Although the vast majority of these employees do
not experience the disciplinary process, those who do encounter
a process that is time consuming—taking an average of 285 days
to serve an adverse action to an employee or close a case and
ranging between an average of 172 and 739 days at the six
institutions we reviewed. These findings are similar to those of
the Office of the Inspector General in October 2001; however,
since that time the department has shown improvement in
its ability to complete cases within a year. Annually the State
Personnel Board (board) revokes or modifies 62 percent of the
department’s adverse actions it reviews (roughly 14 percent of
the total). We believe this process provides a good measure
of the effectiveness of the department’s disciplinary process.
Improving this performance is important to ensure employee
confidence in the process and in management.
Moreover, the department can improve its disciplinary practices
by simplifying its investigative process for straightforward,
uncontested cases, by eliminating the headquarters review
of most adverse actions, and by taking steps to bring more
standardization of penalties. Although we found no significant
issues with regard to varying processes used by institutions and
regions, we did find instances of inefficiency and seemingly
1

Adverse action refers to all forms of formal discipline from a letter of reprimand to
demotion to dismissal.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

1

disparate disciplinary actions for similar offenses. Additionally,
the department’s operations manual contains policies and
procedures governing employment-related matters, but
many of the policies are incomplete, out of date, and in need
of revision. The lack of up-to-date policies may contribute to
inconsistencies in the process.
To its credit, the department has taken some actions to improve the
quality and consistency of its adverse actions. It is implementing
a process that will provide for more frequent and earlier attorney
involvement and is also working on a new discipline matrix,
which provides standard guidelines for specific offenses. These
changes should lead to improvements in the integrity, quality, and
timeliness of investigations; improve the consistency of adverse
actions for similar offenses; and reduce or eliminate the need
for headquarters review. However, the department seldom uses
mediation, which could help to prevent issues such as employee
disputes from festering into bigger problems. Moreover, although
the department designed a policy that enables headquarters
to provide meaningful oversight of and guidance regarding
settlements, it does not follow its policy. As a result, the department
cannot ensure it is settling as effectively or as often as it could.
To monitor and oversee its employment-related matters, the
department currently uses numerous electronic or manual databases
at its headquarters, regional offices, and institutions. The multiple
databases create much duplication of effort and redundancy.
More troubling, the data contained in several of these systems is
incomplete or inaccurate. None of the systems is comprehensive
enough to allow management to adequately monitor or oversee
the progress of employment-related actions. The department is
currently implementing two new data systems that should resolve
most of these problems if they are installed and used properly.
Full implementation is scheduled for late 2005.
The department has also recently begun to require and provide
job-specific training to its employee relations officers—a
key position for ensuring the success of disciplinary actions.
However, it still can do more to ensure it provides adequate
training for other key positions involved in the disciplinary
process and to improve its ability to prepare solid adverse-action
cases. Finally, the department has been slow to address previous
audit recommendations. It still has not implemented seven and
has chosen not to address four recommendations from audits
conducted in 2000 and 2001.

2

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve its disciplinary process, the department should do
the following:
• Benchmark and monitor for improvement the adverse-action
timelines for each step in the process for each program and
institution.
• Benchmark its individual program and overall performance
statistics for cases that go before the board and continually
monitor these statistics.
• Standardize adverse-action and investigative processes.
• Update its employment-related policies and procedures.
• Implement its own or use an outside mediation program.
• Follow the existing settlement policy or design and implement
a comprehensive new policy, ensure all pertinent employees
are aware of the policy, and monitor compliance.
• Complete its implementation of the new computer databases
and eliminate the redundant systems.
• Ensure that staff involved in maintaining the new computer
databases receive proper training, enter data accurately and
consistently, and appropriately update the systems in a
timely manner.
• Establish job-specific mandatory training requirements for key
employees involved in the disciplinary process.
• Ensure that it is proactive in tracking audit recommendations
and in taking corrective actions.

AGENCY COMMENTS
The department generally agrees with our recommendations and
reports that it has initiated or partially implemented several of
them already. n

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

3

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

4

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND

T

he California Department of Corrections (department)
is the agency responsible for overseeing and managing
California’s 32 prisons (institutions). The department’s
mission is the control, care, and treatment of men and women
convicted of serious crimes, or admitted to the civil narcotics
program, and entrusted to the department’s Institution, Health
Care, and Community Correctional programs. To accomplish
these objectives, the governor’s proposed budget for the
department was nearly $5.7 billion, pending unallocated
reductions, for fiscal year 2004–05. As shown in Figure 1, the
Institution Program accounts for roughly $4.1 billion, or more
than 70 percent of the department’s overall budget.

FIGURE 1
Department of Corrections’ Proposed Budget for
Fiscal Year 2004–05
(in Millions)
��������� ������������
������������

������ ���� ��������
������������
����������� ��������������

Source: 2004–05 Governor’s Budget Summary.
Notes: The Department of Corrections allocates the $136 million budget for the Central
Administration Program to the other three programs. This chart does not include the effect of
$400 million in pending, unallocated reductions.

The department is organized into four programs: Institution
Program, Health Care Services Program, Community
Correctional Program, and Central Administration Program
(headquarters). Within the Institution Program are 32 operating
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

5

correctional institutions, 11 of these having reception centers to
process and classify inmates according to level of risk. The department
expects an additional institution to be operational by March 2005.
Included within the Institution Program budget are the Narcotic
Addict Evaluation Authority, the Richard A. McGee Training Center,
and the field administration organization, which directly support
institution activities. The department employed roughly 45,000 fulltime employees as of June 2004. Some employees are public safety
officers who are directly responsible for inmate supervision and
other activities that require coverage around the clock.
Recent studies criticized the department’s process for handling
employee disciplinary matters. For example, the Office of the
Inspector General (inspector general)—an independent agency
that reports directly to the governor and conducts audits,
investigations, and special reviews of the State’s youth and adult
correctional agencies—criticized the department’s handling of
employee disciplinary matters in two reports dated October 2001
and March 2002. Furthermore, the department is currently
involved in a number of employment-related lawsuits and
appeals at the State Personnel Board (board). Concerns from
the Legislature regarding the department’s management and
treatment of its employees and the legal expenses
it incurs from employment-related matters led to
Rights Provided to Peace Officers
the request for the current audit.
by the Public Safety Officers
Procedural Bill of Rights
• Notice of the proposed disciplinary action
within one year of the date of discovery,
except in certain circumstances, such as
when the investigation involves more than
one employee.
• Notice of the nature of the investigation
before any interrogation related to discipline.
• Access to tapes of interrogations,
transcriptions, nonconfidential reports/
complaints, and a complete and correct
copy of personnel file.
• Notification of the department's intent
to impose discipline within 30 days of
its decision.
• Opportunity to review and sign any
adverse comment placed in personnel file
and 30 days to file a written response.
• Protections regarding use of lie detectors
and photographic images, personal
information disclosures, and locker searches.

6

LAWS AFFECTING EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE
All state employers (agencies) must operate
within various laws when dealing with employee
misconduct, and agencies employing peace officers
have specific rules they must follow. The Public
Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights affords peace
officers numerous rights and requires that agencies
deliver notice of any formal disciplinary action
against a peace officer within one year of the date
of discovery—the date that a person authorized
to initiate an investigation becomes aware of the
misconduct. Failure to meet this one-year deadline
will cause the agency to lose its ability to formally
discipline the officer. For other state employees,
state law requires that agencies serve any notice of
disciplinary action within three years of the date
of the misconduct. Again, an agency loses its ability
to discipline if the deadline is not met.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Equal employment opportunity (EEO) and civil rights laws are
also important for all agencies and employees. Both federal and
state government laws dictate how employers and employees
treat each other. These laws prohibit discrimination based on
protected classes such as race, national origin, and religion. They
also prohibit sexual harassment and retaliation against those who
report misconduct.

Types of Punitive and Corrective Actions
the Department Can Take
• Letter of reprimand
• Salary reduction, such as 5 percent for
six months
• Suspension
• Demotion
• Dismissal

Before an agency can impose disciplinary action,
California regulations entitle an employee to request a
Skelly hearing. A Skelly hearing is a meeting between
the employee and a Skelly officer—an independent
representative of the hiring authority who was not
involved in the disciplinary process—to discuss the
disciplinary action face to face.2 At this hearing
the employee may present information to refute the
charges, and the Skelly officer renders a decision as to
whether the action should be sustained as proposed,
modified to amend the charges or reduce the penalty,
or revoked altogether. An employee must be given at
least five working days following the service of the
disciplinary notice to schedule a Skelly hearing.

THE DEPARTMENT’S PROCESS FOR HANDLING
ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AND
EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE
The department issued roughly 1,000 adverse actions for
its 45,000 employees in 2002.3 As shown in Figure 2 on the
following page, the employee disciplinary process generally
involves the following steps: the warden initiates an investigation
by signing a request for investigation (the department’s Office
of Civil Rights initiates investigations regarding civil rights laws
after acceptance of a complaint); the applicable investigatory
body conducts the investigation; if the investigation sustains any
of the allegations, the warden submits a decision of proposed
disciplinary action to headquarters for review; headquarters
reviews the proposed disciplinary action and notifies the
institution of its recommendation. The institution prepares
and serves the employee with the notice of adverse action.

2

The department’s operations manual includes the warden as a hiring authority. For
the purposes of this report, when we refer to the warden we mean the warden or his
or her designee.

3

The department refers to punitive and corrective actions it takes against employees as
adverse actions.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

7

FIGURE 2
Condensed Disciplinary Flowchart for Institutions
������
� ������������
��
���������������������
�����������������
����
�����������
�����������������������
������������������
����������
������������
�����
����
���������
� ������������
��
�����������
���������
�������
���
������� ���������
���������
��������
��
���������
�� ���
� ��� ���������
��
�����
������
�� ��� ����� ����������
��� ���
��������������
����������� �������������

���
��������������
������������������������
�������������������
������
��������
�������������
�������� ����������������
���������
�������
������
�������������������
���������

�������
����������������
���������������������
�����������
���
������������
���������������
���������
��������������
����������
��
�������
����������������
���������������
���������
��������
���������
��
��������������
���������������
����������
�������

������������
������������ �������
������� ���
���
�����������
����
�������
���
�����������������
������
����
�������
�����
���� �����������
������������
���
� ������������
��
���� ���������
� �� ����
��
���
������ ��
���������
����������
���������
��������
��� �����������
��
����
�������� ��� �����������
�� ���
��� ��������������
��� �������
� �
��
�������������� ��� ��������

�����������
�������������������
�����������
��������
�����
������������
������������
� ������
��
��������
�����
������������
���������

�����
�������
�����
������������
���
� ����������
��
�����������
���
�������
����������
�����������
�����������
����������
���������
������
�������������
���������
������
������
��
�����������
�����������������
�����������������
����������
���
�������
�������
� �������
��
�����������������������
������������

��������
�����������
������
��������
�������
��������
����������
���
��������
��������������
���������������
�����������
��������
���
���
������������
���������
� ��
��
����������
��������������
��������
��
������
������
� ���
��
���������������
������������
� ������
��
�������������
�������

Sources: Various departmental staff and resource manuals.

As shown in Table 1, the department uses three different
categories and investigative bodies for different types of
misconduct. Its operations manual defines category I as
performance-related misconduct that falls within the normal
8

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

scope of employee/supervisor duties and does not pose a
serious threat to safety or security. Category II cases include
the more egregious allegations, such as those that potentially
jeopardize the safety and security of an institution, along
with high-profile cases or individuals and investigations that
require specialized skills or equipment. EEO or civil rights
cases consist of allegations of harassment, discrimination, or
retaliation. For the purposes of this report, we will refer to these
cases as category III. A separate investigatory body completes
the resulting investigation of each of these three categories of
disciplinary cases and answers to a different management entity.

TABLE 1
Differences in Processing the Three Categories of Employee Misconduct Allegations
Category I

Category II

Category III
(Equal Employment Opportunity)

Type of Case

Investigations of less serious
allegations that can be
reasonably handled at the
local level.

Investigations of more serious
misconduct issues (such as felonious
activity and conduct involving moral
turpitude) and high-profile cases.

Investigations of harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation,
based on a protected class.

Who Conducts
Investigation

The Investigative Services Unit
within each institution.

The applicable regional Office of
Investigative Services.

The applicable regional Office of
Civil Rights.

Oversight Entity

Warden

Headquarters Office of
Investigative Services

Headquarters Office of Civil Rights

When the Legal
Affairs Division
(legal affairs)
Becomes Involved

In most cases, not until an
appeal is filed with the State
Personnel Board (board).

Each regional office has at least
one staff counsel who is available
to provide legal advice throughout
the investigative process; however,
legal affairs usually gets more heavily
involved in the event of an appeal to
the board or if the case is criminal
(these are also referred to the Office
of the Attorney General).

As of October 2003, the Office of
Civil Rights sends legal affairs the
report of findings for the sustained
and borderline cases.

How the
Department
Tracks the Case

Legal affairs maintains the
employee misconduct
investigation system, which
tracks case timelines. Each
Investigative Services Unit and
Office of Investigative Services
keeps its own log of cases. The
Office of Personnel Management
(personnel office) tracks the
cases through the adverse
action database if an
adverse action is initiated.

Legal affairs maintains the employee
misconduct investigation system,
which tracks case timelines. The
Office of Investigative Services at
both the region and headquarters
keep database records on the cases.
The personnel office tracks the cases
through the adverse-action database
if an adverse action is initiated.

Legal affairs maintains the employee
misconduct investigation system,
which tracks case timelines. The
Office of Civil Rights inputs case
information into two databases it
maintains and the board’s database.
The personnel office tracks the
cases through the adverse-action
database if an adverse action
is initiated.

Applicable Policies
and Procedures

Department of Corrections
(department) operations
manual.

Department operations manual and
several procedural memos.

Department operations manual and
several memos and draft directives.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

9

Figure 3 shows the major players involved in the disciplinary
process. The Investigative Services Unit conducts the category I
investigations and submits its report to the warden for review
and referral to the employee relations officer if the allegations
are sustained. The employee relations officer creates and sends
an adverse-action package, which includes a statement of facts,
the government code reference, and recommended penalty,
to the warden for all sustained allegations, regardless of type.
The department sends all adverse-action packages to the Office
of Personnel Management (personnel office) at headquarters
for review by an analyst and by the appropriate managers.
Reflecting their more serious nature, category II investigations
are the responsibility of the appropriate regional Office of
Investigative Services. If approved as a category II case, special
agents at the regional office conduct the investigation under
the supervision of senior special agents and the special agent
in charge. The regional office sends rejected cases back to the
warden for disposition as category I cases. Staff at various
institutions refer potential category III cases to the appropriate
regional Office of Civil Rights for review.4 If the regional
office accepts the case, it assigns one of its EEO investigators
to complete the inquiry. The regional administrator sends the
completed investigation of any sustained case to the warden.
The regional office generally notifies the warden of cases not
meeting EEO criteria for investigation but needing alternative
corrective action by the institution.

TIMELINES THAT APPLY TO THE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS
To provide consistency in dealing with its employees, the
department extends the additional peace officer rights discussed
earlier to all its employees. Thus, because the deadline for issuing
disciplinary notices to peace officers is one year, the department
attempts to meet this deadline for all employees. However,
because the law allows three years for employees other than peace
officers, the department will give the peace officer cases a higher
priority and allow the others to exceed one year when necessary.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee (audit committee)
requested that the Bureau of State Audits (bureau) examine
the department’s process of handling employee disciplinary

4

10

EEO cases can also be filed directly through the Office of Civil Rights or via the EEO hotline.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

11

�������� �������
��������������

�������������
�������� ����
�������
����� ����������
����������� ����������

��������
�������� ���

�������
�������� ���

���������� �����������

���������� ������������
�����������

�����������
�������
�������� ������������
��� �����������
����������
����������� ���
���
������ ���� �������
����������
�����������
���
����� ���
� ���� ����
��
�����
���������
� �� ����
��
���������� ��������������
��������� �������� ���
������
�����������
�� ���
����������
����� �������
���
������� ������
��������������
���
����������
�������
� �����
��
� ������
��������� ����� ������
����������� ������ �����
������
�������� ����� ������
������� �� �������
������������ ��������
�� ���� ��������

�������� ������������� �����

Source: The Department of Corrections’ organizational charts.

��������
���������
�������

�����������
�������
������� ������������
��� �����������
������
����� ������
������ �����
����������
�������
����������
����� ���
������
��
�����������
����
����������
�������� ��
���������
� �� ����
����������
���������
���������
�������� ���
����� ���������
�����������
�� ���
�������� ��� �����
��������������
���
������ �� ��������
�������
�������
����������
� �
��
������� ��������
������������ ��������
��������
����� ���� ����� ������
�������� ������ �����
������
������� ������ �����
������
������ ����� ������ ���
�����
����� ����� ������

�����������
�������
�������� ������������
��� �����������
����������
������������
������ ���� �������
������
����������
����� ���
��������
��
���� ����
��������
���������
� �� ����
��
���������� ����� �������
���������
���������� �������� ���
�����������
���
����������
����� ��
�������
��� �������
��������������
���
����������
�������
� �����
��
� �������
������
����� ����������
�����������
������ ����� ������
���� ������ ����� ������
���� ����� ����� ������
������� ��� ����� ������
������ ������������
������

������

�������� ������������� �������

������������ ���������

����� ����������

������ ��
�������������
�������� �����

��������

��������
�������� ���

��������
�������� ���

�������
�������� ���

������ �� �����
������ �����

��������
�������� ���

Department of Corrections’ Organizational Chart Related to Its Disciplinary Process

�������� ������������� �����

FIGURE 3

������ ��
���������
����������

��������������
��������

� ������������� ��������

����������
��� ����

����� �������
��������

�������
��������

matters. Specifically, the audit committee requested that we
determine the extent to which the department has established
uniform policies and procedures for the use of legal services in
employment matters and whether the institutions are following
those policies and procedures. We were also asked to determine
whether the department has developed a centralized tracking
system to monitor employment-related legal actions and to
identify the department’s legal costs for the past three fiscal
years. Additionally, we were asked to determine whether the
department has established effective policies and procedures
governing the use of legal services by the correctional
institutions in the settlement of employee disciplinary actions
and, if so, whether the department has effective procedures for
monitoring and evaluating the settlement process.
Further, the audit committee asked that we identify, to the
extent possible, the institutions that have a very high or very
low incidence of civil litigation and any common factors that
may contribute to this. Finally, the audit committee requested
the bureau to review and evaluate the extent to which the
department has implemented or addressed recommendations
from studies performed by the inspector general and other
oversight entities related to legal services in employment matters.
To gain an understanding of the department’s processes for
handling employee disciplinary matters and determine if it has
improved its process for dealing with them, we interviewed
staff at headquarters and at six institutions. We also examined
a sample of the various types of investigations at these
institutions and reviewed the applicable laws, reports, policies,
and procedures of the investigative bodies. We then summarized
the various processes and the differences between institutions
and regional offices using flowcharts. We also performed limited
audit procedures verifying the accuracy of electronic data from the
board that we used to compare how the department performed
with its appealed cases with those of other state agencies.
To determine whether the department is complying with federal
and state laws governing employee conduct, the disciplinary
process, and EEO, we reviewed the relevant laws, rules, and
regulations to identify the applicable deadlines and determined
whether a sample of 135 cases met the statutory deadlines.

12

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

To determine whether the department has adequate policies
and procedures related to its employee disciplinary process, we
reviewed written policies and procedures as well as applicable
procedural memos. We also gained an understanding of the
department’s employee disciplinary process and the change
it is undergoing to determine what we should reasonably see
included in the revisions of these documents.
To determine whether the department developed a centralized
tracking system to monitor employment-related problems,
we contacted staff at headquarters, regional offices, and
institutions to obtain information on the systems they are
currently using or implementing. We also obtained electronic
files from several databases at headquarters for fiscal years
2001–02 through 2003–04. Testing determined that these
systems were incomplete and inaccurate.
To identify the department’s legal costs, we reviewed the budget
plan and accounting records for the Legal Affairs Division (legal
affairs) for fiscal years 2001–02 through 2003–04 and determined
that the department’s legal expenses have remained relatively
stable and within its spending plan. The department’s detailed
legal information is shown in Appendix A, tables A.1 through A.3.
To identify the department’s legal services costs related to
employment matters, we obtained records from legal affairs and
traced them to source documents. We determined that attorney
fees make up more than two-thirds of the Employment Law
Unit’s annual expenses. Because legal affairs does not track its
internal and external attorney costs by case or institution, we
could not identify the costs associated with headquarters and
the various individual institutions, nor could we separate the
legal costs related to administrative and civil litigation. However,
we were able to identify each institution’s settlement and
judgment costs.
To determine whether the department has established effective
policies and procedures governing the use of legal services by
institutions in the settlement of employee disciplinary actions
and, if so, whether the department has effective procedures
for monitoring and evaluating the settlement process, we
obtained all settlement policies and procedures and reviewed
its operations manual. We discussed settlements with the
department’s assistant chief counsel and employee relations
officers and reviewed settlement agreements for reasonableness.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

13

To identify the institutions that have a very high or very low
incidence of civil litigation involving employment matters
and to identify common factors that may contribute to this,
we obtained electronic files from the department and totaled
the number of cases during fiscal years 2001–02 through
2003–04 in the following categories: employee discipline,
EEO complaints, and civil litigation related to employment
matters. We also gathered, from various sources, demographic
information such as total number of employees who worked in
each institution, the average age of disciplined employees, age
of each facility, warden’s length of service, level of inmates in
each institution, and the occupancy rate. However, since the
data systems we reviewed had missing and inaccurate data, we
could not determine the total number of adverse-action cases by
institution to determine if demographics were a factor for higher
or lower incidence. However, based on the data we were able to
review, no trends were evident.
To review and evaluate the extent to which the department
has implemented or addressed recommendations from studies
performed by the inspector general and other oversight entities
related to legal services in employment matters, we obtained
copies of these studies and a copy of the remedial plan that
contains a detailed account of how the department will address
federal court concerns related to its employment matters. We
then obtained documentation from the department to verify the
implementation of those recommendations. n

14

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

CHAPTER 1
The California Department of
Corrections Can Improve Its
Timeliness and Handling of Employee
Misconduct Allegations and Discipline
CHAPTER SUMMARY

T

he California Department of Corrections (department)
can improve its timeliness in dealing with employee
misconduct allegations and discipline issues. On
average, it takes 285 days to deliver a notice of adverse action
against an employee or to close a case, and the process
occasionally surpasses the one-year deadline for taking action
against peace officers—leaving the department unable to correct
or punish the employee. The 285-day average does not include
the additional time for appeals the employee may file with the
department or outside entities. Lengthy time frames between
the date an offense is alleged and the date action is taken can
undermine the process—potentially lessening the effectiveness
of any corrective action taken. Our findings are similar to those
presented by the Office of the Inspector General (inspector
general) in an October 2001 report, although the department has
made some progress in improving its timelines for category II
cases and now appears to lose fewer of these cases to the oneyear statutory deadline for taking action against a peace officer.
Finally, the department can improve its timeliness by simplifying
its investigations of uncontested, straightforward cases and
eliminating unnecessary requests for information, transcriptions
of interviews, and headquarters review of most adverse actions.
Annually the State Personnel Board (board) reviews about
14 percent of the department’s adverse actions and revokes or
modifies 62 percent of those it reviews. The statewide average
for modifications and revocations for other agencies is nearly
50 percent. We believe the results of this review provide a good
measure of the effectiveness of the department’s disciplinary
process. However, the department does not currently analyze
its individual and overall performance statistics, nor has it
established any benchmarks. We believe it would be useful

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

15

to the department to continually monitor these statistics to
measure any improvements and to assist it in identifying
training needs.
Moreover, the department could improve its process for handling
employee misconduct allegations and discipline by eliminating
some of the minor differences in its disciplinary practices and
by standardizing penalties at various institutions. Although we
did not find significant issues with regard to varying processes
used by institutions and regions, we did find instances of
seemingly disparate disciplinary actions for similar offenses.
Surprisingly, the three investigative units of the department—the
Investigative Services Units at each institution (investigative
services), the Office of Investigative Services (OIS), and the Office of
Civil Rights—rarely work together and all have different processes.
The department’s policies and procedures for employment-related
matters are outdated and in need of revision and may contribute
to inconsistencies because they do not require common practices
or forms. The operations manual gives no clear guidance on how
any of the processes should work.
To its credit, the department has taken some actions that
should help it avoid employment-related disputes; however, it
can improve its efforts to resolve disputes that do occur before
ending up in litigation. On the positive side, it is implementing
a process that will provide for more and earlier attorney
involvement in allegation investigations and adverse actions,
which should improve the integrity, quality, and timeliness
of investigations. The department is also working on a new
discipline matrix that should improve the consistency of adverse
actions for similar offenses. However, it could implement
a mediation program to help resolve disputes and prevent
issues from festering into bigger problems. Finally, although
the department designed a policy for headquarters to provide
meaningful oversight of and guidance regarding settlements,
it does not follow the policy. As a result, it cannot ensure it is
settling as effectively or as often as it could.

THE DEPARTMENT AVERAGES 285 DAYS TO DELIVER AN
ADVERSE ACTION OR CLOSE A CASE
As discussed in the Introduction, state law generally requires
that agencies deliver notice of disciplinary action against a
peace officer within one year of the date of discovery and within
three years of the date of misconduct for all state employees
other than peace officers. The department strives to extend this
16

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Types of Adverse-Action
Investigations (Cases)
Category I: Investigations of less serious
allegations that can be reasonably handled at
the local level.
Category II: Investigations of more serious
misconduct issues (for example, felonious
activity or conduct involving moral turpitude),
and high-profile cases.
Category III: Investigations of discrimination,
harassment, or retaliation, based upon a
protected class.

peace officer right of one year to all its employees.
Additionally, the department’s current operations
manual identifies how long the investigative step
of the process should take but does not identify
any timelines for the other major steps in the
process. Although it is apparently not in use, we
did find a memo that outlines some of the other
timelines for various steps in the process. Using the
guidance included in the operations manual,
the memo, a directive, and other documents, the
individual goals total 172 days for category I and
category II cases and 203 days for category III cases
(without approved extensions), which are well
under the one-year requirement.

The department averaged 285 days between the discovery date—the
date a person authorized to initiate the investigation becomes
aware of the misconduct and the statutory clock starts ticking—
and the date an adverse action was served or the case was closed
for the 116 cases we reviewed at six institutions.5 As shown in
Table 2 on the following page, category I cases averaged between
223 and 279 days to complete at the different institutions. The
more serious category II cases, as one would expect, took longer,
averaging between 243 and 355 days. A comparison of our results
with the March 2002 results of the inspector general shows that
the department has made progress in reducing the percentage
of category II cases that exceeded 365 days from 43 percent to
21 percent. However, 38 percent of the category III cases went
over 365 days compared to only 3 percent for category I cases and
17 percent for all 116 cases we reviewed.
Category III cases, the equal employment opportunity (EEO)
cases reviewed by the Office of Civil Rights, had the widest
disparity in time frames—ranging from an average of 172 days to
739 days.6 Although we were unable to perform a departmentwide analysis of timelines because the department’s data systems
were unreliable, for the data that did exist, the department-wide
average time to complete cases was generally consistent with
the average times at these six institutions.
As Table 2 shows, wide disparities in the timelines exist at every
step of the process from the initiation of the investigation
through the institution discipline decision to the review by
5

Although we reviewed 135 cases at the institutions, we could only include 116 in our
calculation of this average because the department had not yet completed three cases
and its files lacked critical dates needed to make this calculation for 16 cases.

6

Throughout our report, we call these category III cases.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

17

18

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

21*

Service of notice

42*
21*

Headquarters review

Service of notice
397

3

2

189

9

33

19

184

13

260

23

56

32

107

13

223

9

58

38

106

56

Mule Creek
State Prison

739

2

14

151

199

57

327

6

48

35

213

45

279

2

26

114

144

64

Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility

442

NA

NA

NA

249

150

269

10

45

22

118

82

250

6

62

51

137

31

Correctional
Training Facility

Institution

172

NA

NA

NA

112

34

355

7

35

43

220

6

263

13

32

26

167

50

California
Institution for
Women

342

3

33

29

292

3

243

4

44

30

140

14

258

2

33

11

187

26

California
Correctional
Institution

Based on the department’s operations manual.

The totals of the individual lines do not agree to these totals because the files did not always contain adequate documentation to determine the time the department took to perform each step.

Based on the equal employment opportunity coordinator training documents.

Based on a department directive dated June 14, 2004.

‡

§

ll

325

28

37

36

192

32

2002 Report of
the Office of the
Inspector General

†

* Based on a departmental memo issued by two chief deputy directors in 1998.

NA = we could not determine due to incomplete information.

Sources: Department of Corrections’ (department) files at headquarters, the respective institutions, the regional offices of Investigative Services, and the Office of the Inspector General.

203

28*

Institution discipline decision

From date of discovery to service of
notice or case closed‡

84ll
NA

65
241

28§

Complete investigation

257

15

23

Initiate investigation

Category III

172-262

21*

Service of notice

From date of discovery to service of
notice or case closed‡

42*

Headquarters review

29

134

28*

26

60-150†

242

27

34

32

21*

Institution discipline decision

Complete investigation

Initiate investigation

Category II

172-262

42*

From date of discovery to service of
notice or case closed‡

28*

Headquarters review

46
111

21*

San Quentin

60-150†

Institution discipline decision

Complete investigation

Initiate investigation

Category I

Steps In the Process

Department
Policies and
Guidance

The Department of Corrections Spends the Most Time Completing the Investigation Step of Its Disciplinary Process
(in Days)

TABLE 2

headquarters. The department spends the most time completing
the investigation step of the process, routinely taking four
months or longer. In fact, for three of 34 category III cases,
the investigator took more than a year to complete the
investigation. If the department had sustained the one case
involving a peace officer, it would have lost the opportunity
to take action against the employee. Several of the managers
or supervisors of the category I and category II investigations
told us that a lack of staff resources is the primary cause of the
lengthy investigations. The assistant director of the Office of
Civil Rights told us that delays in the category III process occur
for a variety of reasons, which could be resolved with new
procedures and training.
As also shown in Table 2, the department often does not meet
the guidelines from its operations manual and a procedural
bulletin for completing the various steps involved in the
employee disciplinary process. To assist in meeting the overall
deadlines, the department should include similar steps in its
new procedures and then monitor the procedures to ensure that
staff are following them.
Moreover, as shown in Table 3 on the following page, 71
(61 percent) of the 116 cases we reviewed took the department
more than eight months to close, and 19 cases did not meet its
goal of one year (10 of these cases involved peace officers and
eight involved employees other than peace officers).7 Because
six of the 10 peace officer cases also included a criminal
investigation, the department, by law, tolled (stopped the clock
on) these cases during the time the criminal investigations were
pending. It forfeited its opportunity to discipline an employee in
only one of the other four cases, but could have also forfeited this
opportunity for the other three if it had sustained the cases.
Seventy-one of
116 disciplinary cases
we reviewed took the
department more than
eight months to close and
19 of the cases did not
meet its goal of one year.

The department forfeited the opportunity to discipline an
employee in one of the eight cases involving employees other
than peace officers because it exceeded the three-year deadline
for civil service employees. However, losing any cases to the
deadlines is unacceptable as it leaves the department unable
to take corrective or punitive action against the employee
and undermines the credibility of its commitment to require
appropriate conduct.
7

The 19th case involved allegations against several employees in the institution; thus,
the department identified the institution as the employees. Therefore, we could not
determine if the case involved peace officers.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

19

TABLE 3
The Department of Corrections Completed Most Cases
Between Nine to 12 Months
Type of Case

1-4 months

5-8 months

9-12 months

>12 months

Category I

4

15

28

1

Category II

3

13

19

9

Category III

3

7

5

9

10

35

52

19

Totals

THE DEPARTMENT LACKS A FORMAL STREAMLINED
PROCESS FOR STRAIGHTFORWARD CASES AND WASTES
TIME ON UNNEEDED INFORMATION REQUESTS
The department can reduce the time it spends on certain
disciplinary matters by simplifying its investigation of
uncontested, straightforward cases and eliminating unneeded
requests for information, transcriptions of interviews, and
headquarter review of most adverse actions. More efficient use
of their time allows staff involved in the disciplinary process to
focus their efforts on necessary work.
Department policy requires an investigation into any allegations of
misconduct by its staff, but it lacks a consistent streamlined process
and reporting mechanism for uncontested, straightforward cases.
The rationale some staff provided for investigating these cases was
that the department is trying to determine if other violations of
law are present, such as resisting arrest or improper use of peace
officer status. However, writing an 11-page investigation report
and spending as long as six months to close an uncontested
driving-while-intoxicated case, as we found in one instance, seems
excessive. The department also conducted a 167-day investigation
of an employee found with drugs and who admitted using them,
whereas, in a second case it terminated an employee who tested
positive in a drug test without an investigation. Several of the
institutional staff we spoke with agreed that a streamlined process
would be a benefit for certain types of cases. Quicker resolution of
simple cases would allow investigators and other staff to spend their
limited and valuable time focusing on cases that are more complex.
In fact, the Office of Civil Rights is implementing some measures
to expedite the completion of category III cases. For example, it is
expediting the investigative review process and limiting its field
visits to one trip per investigation.

20

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Staff spend valuable
time responding to
repeated requests for
the same information
and unnecessarily
transcribing interviews.

Another area where the department can expedite the disciplinaryaction process is by eliminating headquarters review of most adverse
actions for its institutions. Both the regional administrator and
the Office of Personnel Management (personnel office) review the
penalties recommended by the institutions (in this report we refer
to both reviews as headquarters review). According to the chief
of the personnel operations discipline and project development
section, one purpose of the review by the personnel office is
to ensure the recommended penalty is consistent with other
comparable cases. However, we found some instances where the
warden chose not to implement the recommended penalty. For
example, for one case we reviewed, the institution recommended a
30-day suspension; the personnel office reviewed the package and
recommended a 5 percent salary reduction for 12 months, and the
regional administrator recommended a third option of a 5 percent
reduction in pay for six months. Ultimately, the warden made the
final decision and chose the original 30-day suspension. The final
decision rests with the warden, and the other offices serve only
in an advisory capacity, adding an average of 39 days to processing
an adverse action. We believe that with the implementation of its
disciplinary matrix, vertical advocacy, and new case management
system, the need for a review outside the institution (prior to
serving an adverse action) should be limited to those cases that do
not fit within the disciplinary matrix parameters.8 However, we
are not suggesting that monitoring is unnecessary. Instead, as
we discuss later, we believe the department should centralize the
monitoring of all three types of disciplinary cases under one entity.
This monitoring can occur after the cases are finalized and can be
used to identify training opportunities. The deputy director of the
Legal Affairs Division (legal affairs) told us that the department
is in the process of evaluating the roles and duties of all entities
involved in the disciplinary process, including those involved
with headquarters review.
Concerning another inefficient use of time, five of the six employee
relations officers (EROs) we met told us they spend valuable
time responding to frequent requests to provide information for
closed cases and for information already sent to headquarters.
They attribute the repeated requests to upper-level staff either
losing the information or relying upon inaccurate data to produce
information requests. Although the EROs believe they sent
needed information to headquarters to update the status of the
cases, the reports they receive from legal affairs have not been
updated to reflect this information. Finally, we found instances
8

As we discuss later, the vertical advocacy model will involve an attorney early in the
investigative process and should provide additional legal guidance.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

21

where investigators or EROs in two of the six institutions visited
were unnecessarily transcribing witness and subject interviews.
Because each of the institutions records all interviews related
to an adverse action, transcribing the interviews is unnecessary
and time-consuming in most cases. According to some of these
institutions, the tape recording is sufficient and eliminates the need
to transcribe the interviews.

Reasons for Revocation or
Modification by the Board
Failure of Proof—The appointing power fails
to prove the charges against the employee by
a “preponderance of the evidence.” Failure of
proof may be the result of faulty investigation,
faulty preparation, or inadequate advocacy at
hearings. It may also result from witnesses not
testifying as expected or failing to appear at all.
No Legal Cause—The appointing power
meets its burden of proving the charges by
a preponderance of the evidence, but what
it has proven does not constitute legal cause
for formal discipline. The legal causes for
discipline are set forth in statute.
Time Barred—The government code sets
forth the general rule that appointing
powers have three years from the date of the
misconduct to bring an adverse action against
an employee. If the employee is a peace
officer, however, the Public Safety Officers
Procedural Bill of Rights provides only one
year to bring the adverse action.
Procedural/Legal Errors—Case law requires
that if the appointing power fails to give
specific notice of the charges and legal causes
for discipline, the discipline must be revoked.
If the appointing power has not waited
until the last minute to bring the action, it
may refile. Besides notice errors, appointing
powers make other errors in prosecuting
cases such as failing to subpoena necessary
witnesses or documents, failing to adequately
prepare the case or inadequately examining
or cross-examining witnesses. Often times
these errors are attributable to the fact that
inexperienced representatives are unprepared
and untrained to prosecute a case against
experienced union counsel.
Source: State Personnel Board.

22

THE BOARD OFTEN MODIFIES OR REVOKES
THE DEPARTMENT’S ADVERSE ACTIONS
The independent board, which reviews about
14 percent of the department’s decisions, revokes or
modifies 62 percent of those it reviews. As described
more fully in the Introduction, before an agency
imposes disciplinary action, state civil service
employees have the right to appeal their case to
the board. The board is a neutral body responsible
for administering a merit system of civil service
employment within state government. It hears and
decides disciplinary appeals. The board can elect to
sustain, modify, or revoke the adverse action taken;
its modification authority allows it to reduce but not
increase the penalty imposed by the department.
We believe this process provides a good measure of
the effectiveness of the department’s disciplinary
process. Improving this performance is important
for the department to ensure employee confidence
in the process and in management. Information
we obtained from the board for 2002 revealed that
employees appealed 56 percent of the department’s
adverse actions. Although the total number
of adverse-action cases was not available for 2003,
only 14 percent of the total appealed cases in
2003 ever reached the board because the majority
of the cases were either settled or the appeal was
withdrawn. As shown in Figure 4, the board revokes
or modifies the adverse action for 62 percent of
the department’s cases it reviews. Although board
modifications vary, the rate at which the board
revokes or modifies the department’s adverse actions
compares unfavorably with the board’s average in
revoking or modifying adverse actions for other state
agencies, which is just below 50 percent.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

FIGURE 4
The State Personnel Board (board) Revoked or Modified the Department of Corrections’
Adverse Actions at a Higher Rate Than Other Agencies
����� �� �������

����� �����
���������
��������
������
�� �������

������� �������
��� �����

�������
���������
��� �������

���������
�� �����

��������
�� �������

�������
�� �������

���������� ��
������������ �������
�������� �� �������
�� �����
���
����� ����� ��������
������� �������� ��
������� �� �����
�����

Source: Data from the State Personnel Board—appeals closed during 2003.
* Untimely filed or no jurisdiction.

It is important to recognize that a board modification does
not necessarily indicate that the department did a poor job; it
may indicate merely a different judgment related to the most
appropriate level of discipline in the circumstances. However,
the interim executive officer of the board wrote in a letter to the
Legislature related to adverse actions statewide that the most
common reason the board modifies adverse actions is when
the most serious of the allegations are unproven. The board
reports that it often revokes disciplinary cases because of poor
case preparation or advocacy during the disciplinary hearing.
Moreover, based on information provided by the board, 11 of
the 15 department employee dismissal cases it revoked or
modified from 2002 were due to a failure of proof.
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

23

The department does not
analyze or benchmark
its performance statistics
concerning cases that
go before the State
Personnel Board.

Currently, the department does not analyze its individual and
overall performance statistics concerning cases that go before
the board, nor has it established any benchmarks. We believe
it would be useful to the department to continually monitor
these statistics to measure any improvements and to assist it in
identifying training needs, as well as to ensure that responsible
parties are accountable and learn from mistakes made, while it
reforms its disciplinary process.

THE PROCESSES FOR HANDLING EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATIONS AND DISCIPLINE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT, BUT CONSISTENCY CAN BE IMPROVED
The department could improve its disciplinary process by
eliminating some of the minor differences in the disciplinary
practices and by standardizing penalties at various institutions.
Although we did not find any significant issues with regard to
varying processes used by institutions and regions, we did find
instances of seemingly disparate disciplinary actions for similar
offenses. More standardization should help improve consistency
and mitigate perceptions that the department handles its
disciplinary actions unfairly.
The process at five of the six institutions we reviewed was similar
to that described in the Introduction. Specifically, investigative
services within the institution is generally responsible for
conducting investigations in an ethical and impartial fashion with
the primary objective of providing facts surrounding category I
investigations, while the ERO is typically associated directly with
the adverse-action phase. In fact, five of the six EROs we spoke with
said they usually become involved in a case only if the allegations
are substantiated. However, according to San Quentin’s ERO, he is
much more involved earlier on in the process because he maintains
the investigation logs for the category I and category II cases and
decides whether to forward the case to the investigative services
lieutenant or to an associate warden for assignment to
an investigator.
Additionally, each institution we tested uses a combination
of full-time investigators and other employees at the rank of
sergeant or above who do not work solely for investigative
services. These “field investigators” have other duties and are
called upon to handle investigations as needed. Although this is
an acceptable way to deal with cases the full-time investigators
cannot handle due to their workload, the department may
want to consider conducting a workload study to determine the
24

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

number of full-time investigators each institution may need and
whether existing resources can be allocated for this purpose.
Increasing the number of dedicated investigators may improve
the timeliness of the investigative reports. In fact, according to
its warden, Pelican Bay State Prison (Pelican Bay) was required
to staff its investigative services unit with full-time investigators to
improve the timeliness and quality of the investigations as a
result of the special master’s involvement in the Madrid case.9

We found instances in
which the institutions took
different adverse actions
for similar offenses.

We also found instances in which the institutions took different
adverse actions for similar offenses; however, it is unclear
whether these disparities resulted from the minor differences in
processes or the value given to mitigating circumstances by the
decision maker. For example, for two different (but somewhat
similar in severity) cases of mistreatment of the public or
other employees at one institution, the warden recommended
penalties of a letter of reprimand in one case and a 5 percent
salary reduction for six months in a second case. In another
example, one institution had a case where an employee
was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. The
institution’s originally recommended penalty was a letter of
reprimand. Another institution had a very similar case for which
it recommended a 5 percent salary reduction for six months. EROs
also differ on their views of reasonable penalties. One ERO told
us that although he uses the personnel office’s comparable cases,
he tries to make the recommended penalty as high as reasonable
to allow room for negotiation; other EROs said they rely on
the personnel office’s comparable cases, their own experience
with similar cases, or a combination of both to establish their
penalties. Using different bases for imposing discipline can result
in inconsistency, which could in turn result in the perception of
bias or unfairness in the process.
The opportunity to assess inconsistent penalties may decrease
when the department implements its discipline matrix, which
will prescribe standard penalties within a range for specific
employee offenses, along with provisions to apply mitigating and
aggravating factors to decrease or increase the discipline imposed.
This matrix is designed to ensure a consistent foundation and
common approach regarding what type of penalty, if any,
to impose. However, for the matrix to be fully effective, the
department will need to ensure the wardens are held accountable
for their penalty decisions by requiring them to document their
reasons for any deviations from the prescribed penalty range.
9

The special master is the court-appointed individual responsible for developing a plan to
remedy the conditions at Pelican Bay deemed unconstitutional as the result of a lawsuit
alleging misconduct on the part of correctional officers at that prison.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

25

Moreover, although the department’s operations manual requires
that the regional OIS track and audit all category I cases, we found
no evidence that the auditing or review of the investigation
authorization forms or completed investigative reports occurs at
one OIS regional office. A senior special agent in this office said that
staff perform random reviews of the investigation authorization
forms but do not review the completed investigative reports. By
not following its policy, the department is failing to monitor
and missing an opportunity to provide feedback and training to
its investigators.

Many of the disciplinary
case files we reviewed
were disorganized
and had key pieces of
information missing.

Finally, although the three regional offices of Civil Rights appear
to handle investigations in a similar manner, the quality of case
files vary, even within the same regional office. Many cases we
tested were disorganized and had key pieces of information
missing. In fact, three files did not contain the investigative
report. When case files are incomplete and inconsistently
organized, users may have difficulty understanding and
monitoring the progress of the cases. In recognition of this
issue, as of September 2004, the Office of Civil Rights is working
on implementing a file setup and maintenance policy for the
category III cases.

INVESTIGATIVE AND OTHER DEPARTMENT OFFICES
THAT HANDLE EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
AND DISCIPLINE CAN IMPROVE THEIR COORDINATION
AND COMMUNICATION
The department has had difficulty coordinating efforts and
fostering effective communication among its various offices
and institutions involved in employee misconduct allegations
and discipline. The overall lack of interaction among the
major investigative bodies is unfortunate: if communication
and coordination improved, the three could coordinate policy
development, learning opportunities, and related investigative
work. For the most part, the department readily admits it has
a problem in this area and has begun addressing some of the
underlying issues.
Achieving coordination and effective communication among
more than a dozen units and hundreds of employees statewide is
a difficult task requiring clear procedures and cooperation. In its
March 2004 charter and strategic plan (plan), OIS acknowledges
the findings of a report by the special master, which identified
a lack of coordination in the department’s disciplinary
process. In its plan, OIS indicated that to successfully identify
26

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Achieving coordination and
effective communication
statewide is a difficult task
requiring clear procedures
and cooperation.

misconduct, carry out complete and timely investigations,
and reach appropriate and consistent dispositions, all of the
department’s participants must be aware of or actively involved
in the entire process from inception to the final outcome of each
case. Therefore, the plan proposes that OIS coordinate with the
regional offices and legal affairs to clarify the role of the regional
office attorneys and to establish regular communications with
the wardens, EROs, institution investigative services, and legal
affairs regarding the employee disciplinary process. Although its
plan has merit, it has not yet been fully implemented.
We found that breakdowns are occurring among the units
involved in different case categories (categories I, II, and III)
and, in some cases, with legal affairs and headquarters. The
three distinct investigative branches—the regional OIS offices,
the regional offices of Civil Rights, and institution investigative
services—provide good examples of the communication
breakdowns. For example, according to four investigative services
lieutenants at the institutions visited, staff from the regional OIS
do not consistently communicate with them outside of their role
of coordinating interviews and assisting with some of the factfinding efforts for the category II investigations. For example, the
investigative services staff could benefit from receiving feedback
regarding the quality of their investigations or related to new
investigative techniques or policies.
Additionally, the Office of Civil Rights has not always
communicated or reported to the affected institutions when it
discovers departmental policy violations or supervisory issues
during its investigations. As a result, the department may have
missed opportunities to take corrective or punitive action
against the guilty employee. As mentioned in the Introduction,
the regional offices of Civil Rights conduct the department’s
formal investigations into allegations of discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation within its institutions. To sustain
an EEO allegation, the investigation must determine that it
meets certain criteria. For example, in a sexual harassment
case, the allegation must be proven severe and pervasive to
meet the legal standard. However, in some cases, although not
severe and pervasive, the actions may violate departmental
policy. Because the Office of Civil Rights has not always reliably
referred departmental policy violations uncovered during EEO
investigations to the institutions, the institutions may not have
been aware of the violations.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

27

To resolve this problem, in June 2004 the Office of Civil Rights
implemented a new policy requiring its investigators at regional
offices to sustain instances of policy violations and to return
these reports to the institutions for appropriate action. One
effective way to monitor this process and to ensure policy or
supervisory issues are not missed would be for the offices of
Civil Rights to send all investigation reports, including those for
unsustained cases, to the warden for review.
In addition, regional OIS staff experience difficulty effectively
communicating and coordinating with headquarters. In an
October 2003 questionnaire designed to gauge employee
satisfaction with OIS operations at headquarters, employees
cited the level of communication between the headquarters
and the regional offices as a concern and requested better and
more consistent updates and information from headquarters.
Our conversations with the special agents in charge at the three
regional offices in April and May 2004 confirmed that they
continue to have very little contact with headquarters. The
assistant director of OIS told us that he has taken several steps to
address these concerns. Specifically, he holds weekly telephone
meetings with each special agent in charge, meets with all staff
at each regional office on a quarterly basis, forwards all pertinent
department information to the special agent in charge, and
solicits input from all staff on a project or policy basis.

The department’s Legal
Affairs Division generally
has minimal involvement
in the employee
disciplinary process.

28

Moreover, legal affairs generally has minimal involvement in
the employee disciplinary process. For example, according to
the assistant director of the Office of Civil Rights, legal affairs
currently becomes involved in a category III case only after the
regional Office of Civil Rights has completed its investigation
and sustains the cases. At that time, the Office of Civil Rights
sends the category III reports to legal affairs for review at the
same time it sends the report to the warden to take the necessary
adverse action. However, because the department does not
require legal affairs to respond within a certain period, the
warden may take action before legal affairs has reviewed the
case and identified any problems. This is disconcerting in light
of the fact that these cases can be costly for the department. The
department’s deputy director of legal affairs acknowledges
that this is not an ideal situation; however, this review
process is merely an interim measure until the department
can decide how best to integrate the Office of Civil Rights
into the vertical advocacy program, a new program we
describe in the next section.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

THE DEPARTMENT IS IMPLEMENTING A PROCESS
REQUIRING ITS ATTORNEYS TO BECOME MORE
INVOLVED IN EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS

The department is
moving forward with
a plan it believes will
ensure competent
legal representation
during the employee
disciplinary process.

The department is moving forward with a plan to improve
communication between legal affairs and the institutions to
have its attorneys more involved with employee misconduct
allegations. It will implement a vertical advocacy model, which
it believes will ensure competent legal representation during the
employee disciplinary process.
Currently, legal affairs’ communication with the institutions seems
to be limited. Our conversations with the EROs at five of the
six institutions we visited revealed that such communication
generally occurs when they have a specific legal question. In fact,
the deputy director of legal affairs indicated that its role in the
disciplinary process has been limited to taking certain cases
appealed to the board and offering ad hoc assistance through the
officer-of-the-day telephone service. A March 2003 memo stated
that in prioritizing case assignments, legal affairs would most likely
accept cases that involve a significant level of penalty, complex
factual or legal issues, discipline of management employees, or
employees engaged in litigation with the department. The vertical
advocacy model will involve an attorney early in the investigative
process and should provide additional legal guidance to the EROs
and improve the integrity, quality, and timeliness of investigations.
In response to the special master’s oversight resulting from the
Madrid case at Pelican Bay, the department implemented the vertical
prosecution model at that institution, requiring early involvement
in disciplinary cases by a staff attorney, called the vertical prosecutor.
According to Pelican Bay’s interim vertical prosecution procedures,
this model requires that the vertical prosecutor is made aware of
all new investigations, has an opportunity to provide input during
the course of the investigation, reviews draft reports and adverse
actions, and provides guidance to the EROs with respect to Skelly
and board hearings, in addition to presenting the case, when
necessary, at hearings.10
According to the deputy director of legal affairs, the department
has not yet implemented the vertical prosecution model outside
of Pelican Bay, but it is using this model as the prototype for a
department-wide policy, which it calls the vertical advocacy model.

10

A Skelly hearing is a meeting between the employee and an independent representative
of the hiring authority who was not involved in the disciplinary process to discuss the
disciplinary action face to face.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

29

We believe that, when established, this model should create a
new level of direction and communication between legal affairs
and the various parties involved in the employee disciplinary and
investigative processes. Additionally, the department has received
approval from the Department of Finance for the additional legal
personnel it needs to implement this model.

THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO UPDATE AND FOLLOW ITS
POLICIES ON EMPLOYEE MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS
AND DISCIPLINE

The department last
updated, with a few
exceptions, the articles
in its department
operations manual
related to disciplinary
matters in 1990.

In recognition of the need to address the investigative and
disciplinary process throughout the State, the department recently
began an effort to update its operations manual, which includes its
department-wide policies and procedures for employee misconduct
allegations and discipline. The department last updated, with a
few exceptions, the articles related to disciplinary matters in 1990,
and much of the operations manual in this area is outdated. In
addition, the current operations manual does not require common
practices or forms, which may contribute to inconsistencies.
According to its remedial plan timeline, the department will
not finish revising its policies and its operations manual until
between December 2004 and August 2005. Given our concerns, the
department should consider attempting to expedite the process.
One example of department employees lacking current guidance
on the discipline process is within the Office of Civil Rights.
Specifically, regional managers and staff of the Office of Civil
Rights are using the case analysis manual of the Department of
Fair Employment and Housing for direction on how to investigate
alleged violations of EEO laws. The assistant director of the Office
of Civil Rights admits that she is aware of the age of the manual
(most chapters were last updated in 1990 and 1992) but believes
it still offers valuable assistance. However, the assistant director
also stated that the investigators use it with the assistance of their
managers to ensure no misinformation is used. To its credit, the
Office of Civil Rights provided us with its operations procedures,
consisting of various directives distributed in June 2004 by the
assistant director. These directives set forth the investigative
procedures related to category III complaints and the procedures
for requiring legal opinions, which should assist in clarifying
many pertinent issues for investigators. However, these directives
are not an adequate substitute for a current operations manual or
legal reference tools.

30

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

These issues illustrate only a few of the concerns we have
related to the department’s disciplinary policies. Because it is
reviewing and plans to reform all its processes, the department’s
challenge will be to include all recent and proposed changes to
provide current and clear direction to all its operating units. For
example, the operations manual updates will need to include
directives that mirror the new ERO training and its newly
developed disciplinary matrix.

THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSOLIDATE ITS
POLICY AND PROCESS DEVELOPMENT FOR ALL
TYPES OF INVESTIGATIONS
To better standardize institutional and regional investigation
procedures and processes, the department should centralize
the oversight of the various investigatory bodies. Currently,
OIS manages the category II process, the Office
of Civil Rights manages the category III process,
and each of the investigative services units under
Our Proposal for Monitoring
the direction of the respective warden or designee
Department Investigations
manages the category I process. Although each
New unit to provide policy and
category of investigation has its own nuances,
procedural guidance and monitoring:
the generic processes and results are the same in
that each conducts a fact-finding exercise that
often involves interviews and results in a report
of findings. Centralizing policy and process
category I
category II
category III
development for the three types of investigations
would allow the department to create and
introduce more standardization into the processes,
the investigative report formats, and the case files and would
foster communication and coordination among investigators.
We are not suggesting combining the investigative units; however,
receiving consistent, across-the-board guidance and monitoring
from a central unit could help the department provide a more
effective and efficient investigative process and enhance the ability
of end users to review cases. The department will have some
external monitoring of its most serious and complex investigations
by the bureau of independent review within the inspector
general’s office. In fact, the governor and the Legislature approved
Senate Bill 1400 in September 2004, which creates the bureau of
independent review and makes it responsible for quality control
of OIS investigations—the unit that conducts the category II
investigations—and for advising the department regarding the
adequacy of each investigation. A similar but expanded model
would be useful for all three case categories.
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

31

THE DEPARTMENT CAN DO MORE TO RESOLVE
EMPLOYEE PROBLEMS SHORT OF LITIGATION
AND ADVERSE ACTIONS
The department can also improve its efforts to resolve
employment-related disputes without litigation. For example,
better communication regarding the availability and use of a
mediation program could help to resolve disputes before they
escalate into litigation or adverse actions that are heard by the
board. These proactive steps should help the department avoid
potentially time-consuming and costly litigation.
To its credit, to assist in avoiding employment-related disputes,
the department required its employees to attend a four-hour
training course about state and federal laws and its policies
on EEO and discrimination. The department also required
employees at the supervisory level to take an additional twohour training course in these subjects. In addition, it plans to
provide an annual two-hour refresher class to all employees.
The department has also recently developed pamphlets
regarding its policies as they pertain to state and federal laws,
such as discrimination in employment. The pamphlets we
viewed are clear about the fact that the department will not
tolerate violations of the state and federal EEO laws. The
assistant director of the Office of Civil Rights told us that the
department is currently working on the logistics, including
the costs involved, of distributing the pamphlets. Effective
communication of these policies should be another important
tool to help prevent unwanted behavior.

The department rarely
uses a mediation
program, which could
be effective in resolving
adverse action disputes
before reaching the State
Personnel Board hearing
stage or the courts.

32

However, the department can improve its efforts to resolve
employment-related disputes without litigation. As we will
discuss in the next section, when disagreements about adverse
actions occur, the department sometimes engages in settlement
conferences. However, it seldom uses a mediation program,
which could be effective in resolving adverse-action disputes
before reaching the board hearing stage or the courts. In fact,
the board administers a state employee mediation program,
which it reports is successful in resolving over 95 percent of the
cases that go to mediation. Further, the board indicated that
mediation may avoid the costs and disruptions associated with
taking a disciplinary action to hearing; it also avoids pitting
employees against one another and allows the workplace to
move forward with the tools to manage future conflicts.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

THE LACK OF DOCUMENTATION AND MONITORING
PREVENT THE DEPARTMENT FROM ENSURING
APPROPRIATE ADVERSE-ACTION SETTLEMENTS
An administrative bulletin discussing department policies for
settling appealed adverse actions exists, and the department
recently implemented training on factors to consider during
settlement negotiations. Unfortunately, the policies are not
completely followed, and the department does not monitor
settlements. In 2003, the department settled 54 percent of closed
cases appealed to the board, which saved the State both time
and money. However, because the department does not monitor
settlements, it cannot identify potential training opportunities
or ensure its settlements are appropriate, consistent, or effective.

Staff do not follow the
department’s settlement
policy designed to provide
staff with guidance on
settlement authority and
documentation of the
process, among others.

Staff do not completely follow the department policy, which
was distributed through a departmental administrative bulletin
in 2003, for settling adverse actions, and the department never
added it to the operations manual. The settlement policy,
if used, would provide staff with guidance on settlement
authority, factors to consider, essential settlement language, and
documenting the process. Although we did not determine if
all the other steps are followed, the department clearly fails to
follow the last step.
The policy includes a form for use by the department’s legal
representative or the ERO to identify the settlement decision
maker, the terms of the settlement, the underlying reason(s) for
settlement, and other generic information. Completion of this
form would allow for independent review of the appropriateness
of the settlement. The policy indicates that copies of this form
should remain in the files at the facility and in the personnel
office, and a copy should be sent to the Employment Law Unit.
However, none of the settled adverse-action files contain these
forms or any other documentation providing the reason or
basis for case settlements. More recently, as part of its advocacy
curriculum course, the department is providing its EROs with
training that includes guidance for preparing for settlements,
factors to consider, checklists, and an example of standard
settlement agreements. The training appears beneficial, but it
does not include any directives or guidance on steps to take to
ensure monitoring of the process.
The department was unable to explain why it did not fully
implement its settlement policy. However, legal affairs designed
the policy for headquarters to provide meaningful oversight
of and guidance regarding settlements to ensure consistency

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

33

in the process. Without these forms or other documentation
that includes the rationale for settling, this monitoring cannot
occur. The monitoring of settlements is important to ensure
consistency and fairness when agreeing to reductions in
penalties.

RECOMMENDATIONS
To improve its ability to discipline employees quickly and
efficiently, the department should do the following:
• Identify, benchmark, and monitor for improvement the
adverse action timelines for each step in the process for each
case category.
• Implement procedures to allow for expedited investigations
and actions for uncontested, straightforward cases such as
driving under the influence.
• Eliminate headquarters and regional reviews before serving
disciplinary actions that meet the parameters of the
disciplinary matrix.
• Discontinue the practice of transcribing all interviews and
transcribe only those that are necessary.
To measure any improvements made, assist in identifying
training needs, and ensure the responsible parties are
accountable and learn from mistakes made, the department
should benchmark its individual program and overall
performance statistics for cases that go before the board and
continually monitor these statistics.
To improve the quality and consistency of its cases for all types
of disciplinary actions, the department should:
• Standardize, as much as possible, adverse-action and
investigative processes, forms, reports, and file checklists for
the three types of cases.
• Continue its efforts to implement a disciplinary matrix and
ensure the wardens are held accountable for their penalty
decisions by requiring them to document their reasons for
any deviations from the prescribed penalty range.

34

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

To ensure supervisory issues or policy violations contained in
category III reports are not missed, the Office of Civil Rights should
consider sending all unsustained cases to the warden for review.
To ensure it completes category I investigations in a timely
manner, the department should consider conducting a workload
study to determine the number of full-time investigators each
institution may need and whether existing resources can be
allocated for this purpose.
To allow it to provide feedback and training to the Investigative
Services Units, the department should ensure that it monitors
and enforces its requirement for its OIS to review all category I
investigations.
To improve the quality and consistency of its adverse-action
investigations, the department should do the following:
• Continue its efforts to implement a department-wide vertical
advocacy model to allow for greater attorney involvement in
adverse-action cases, including EEO cases.
• Consolidate policy and procedure development and monitoring
for all types of adverse-action investigations under one branch
and continue its efforts to update its employment-related
policies and procedures.
To resolve protracted disputes with and between employees,
the department should implement its own or use an outside
mediation program, such as the one offered by the board, and
make the program known to and available to all programs
and institutions.
To ensure that it is settling adverse-action cases as often and
as appropriately as possible, the department should follow its
existing policy or design and implement a comprehensive new
settlement policy, ensure all pertinent employees are aware of
the policy, and monitor compliance at the headquarters level. n

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

35

Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.

36

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

CHAPTER 2
The California Department of
Corrections Can Do More to Improve
Its Monitoring of Cases and Training
of Employees
CHAPTER SUMMARY

M

ore than three years after an audit first identified
problems, the California Department of Corrections
(department) is making an effort to improve its ability
to track and monitor employment-related actions and outcomes.
However, its new systems will take time to implement and will
only be useful if the department improves its efforts to ensure
that the data input is reliable and that the data is analyzed and
acted upon. Moreover, although it is taking steps to ensure that
employees who oversee employment-related actions are adequately
qualified and trained, the department can still do more.
To monitor and oversee employee misconduct allegations
and discipline caseloads in its prisons and other facilities, the
department currently uses at least six electronic systems or
databases at its headquarters and regional offices. Prison facilities
use their own independent manual or electronic spreadsheets
to track employment matters. This causes much duplication of
effort and adds to the redundant information. More troubling, our
review of the data contained in four of these systems found the
information to be unreliable because the department fails to ensure
timely and accurate updating. Additionally, none of the systems
are comprehensive enough to allow management to adequately
oversee the progress of employment-related actions. To remedy
these issues, the department is currently installing two new data
systems that should resolve most of these problems if they are
implemented and used properly. However, full implementation will
not occur until late 2005, based on the current schedule.
The department has also recently begun to require and provide
job-specific training to its employee relations officers (EROs)—a
key position for ensuring the success of disciplinary actions.
However, it still can do more to provide adequate training
for other key positions involved in the disciplinary process

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

37

to improve its ability to prepare solid adverse-action cases.
Additionally, the department recently has taken steps that
should help to improve the competency and tenure for EROs.
Finally, although it has made much progress recently, the
department has been slow to address some previous audit findings
and recommendations and has chosen not to address others. As a
result, many earlier issues, such as the lack of adequate employee
disciplinary monitoring systems, continue to linger.

THE DEPARTMENT’S ELECTRONIC DATABASES DO
NOT ALLOW IT TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS AND DISCIPLINE

A primary database used
to track compliance with
statutory guidelines was
missing the entire case for
24 of 127 cases we tested
at six institutions.

Gaining an overall understanding of the department’s current
or past employee disciplinary actions is severely hindered by a
lack of cohesive or integrated electronic data systems. One must
currently obtain data from six different computer databases—all
of which track combinations of similar and entirely different
information—to try to piece together a complete picture of the
department’s actions. Further exacerbating this problem, the four
primary systems we tested are incomplete and include erroneous
data because the department does not keep the databases current.
A primary database used to track compliance with statutory
deadlines is missing important data, including all the information
related to 24 of 127 cases we tested at six institutions.11
Partially as a result of its poor tracking systems and management’s
inaction in using the data it does have, the department does very
little to monitor the disciplinary actions it pursues. In response to
these problems, it is implementing two new, integrated computer
databases for disciplinary and legal matters to replace the six
outmoded systems currently in place. Although the new systems,
which include deadline reminders and management reporting
capabilities, appear promising, the department will need to ensure
that it updates and maintains the systems to realize the benefits.

The Department’s Computer Databases for Tracking
Employee Misconduct Allegations and Discipline Cases Are
Incomplete and Redundant
The department currently relies on several computer databases
to track its employee investigations, disciplinary actions served,
and employment-related lawsuits. Because its electronic data
11

38

We did not test eight of the 135 cases because the department decided not to
investigate them or they were initiated prior to the beginning date of our review.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Terminology Used in the
Disciplinary Process
Discovery date—The date a person
authorized to initiate an investigation
becomes aware of the misconduct and the
statutory clock starts ticking.
Adverse-action deadline—The one-year
statutory deadline for serving a notice of
adverse action upon peace officers or three-year
deadline for serving a notice of adverse action
upon employees other than peace officers.

systems and databases we reviewed cannot provide
a complete picture for the types of adverse actions
they are designed to track, any attempts by staff
to use the systems to obtain useful management
reports is impractical. Further, because several of
the systems require input of the same information
and the information is not input consistently,
the department has conflicting information in its
various databases and loses valuable staff time to
input redundant information.

As shown in Table 4 on the following page, the
department uses six different primary databases
at its headquarters and regional offices to track
all types of employment matters, including
category I and category II actions, equal
employment opportunity (EEO) or category III cases,
and legal matters.12 Table 4 does not include the different
electronic and manual spreadsheets used by the institutions.
We reviewed four of these systems and found that they all are
missing key information; thus, the department cannot use any
of its systems to track the process from beginning to end for all
cases statewide. For example, one of the two databases used
by the Office of Civil Rights does not include information
indicating one of the most important elements of a case—
whether the allegation is sustained or not. Until August 2003,
according to the chief of the personnel operations discipline and
project development section, the database used by the Office of
Personnel Management (personnel office) did not include the
adverse-action service date—one of the more important dates,
as it is used to determine whether the department is meeting the
statutory deadline for imposing adverse action.

Tolling—A time during which the statutory
deadline clock stops moving for reasons such as
pending criminal investigations.

As another example, according to the project manager for the
user group at the time of system development, the purpose
of the employee misconduct investigation system (misconduct
system) is to track a case from inception to either closure or
service of an adverse action. Although the misconduct system has
the ability to track all crucial dates such as the date of discovery
of alleged actions and adverse action dates, the project manager
told us it was not designed to generate reports to list the cases the
department completed within mandated time frames. As a result,
the database does not allow management to adequately monitor
or oversee the progress of employment-related actions.
12

Equal employment opportunity cases refer to cases of alleged discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

39

40

California State Auditor Report 2004-105
Microsoft
Access
Structured
Query
Language
Integrated offthe-shelf matter
management
system

Office of Investigative
Services Database

Case Management
System†,‡

ProLaw‡

Microsoft
Access

Paradox

April to
December 2004

Starting April 2004

1999

July 2002

May 2003

2001

Various: 1995 to
February 2002

1994

Various

Implementation
Date
Examples of Main Fields

An integrated software to support a law firm’s
practice management needs: case, client,
docket and document management tools,
plus time keeping, billing and accounting,
dynamic court rules, and calendaring.

A client-server relational database. Standard
features: request for investigation, case
assignment, case activity, case reminder,
subjects, allegations, witnesses, file location.

Category, hiring authority, requestor, date
of incident, date of discovery, complainant,
subject and allegation, status.

Date received, primary legal theory, defendant,
plaintiff, house counsel, contract attorney, facts,
outcome, date closed, fiscal data.

Investigation type, discovery date, incident
date, adverse action service deadline, actual
service date, closure date, administrative
time-off date.

Complainant, respondent, investigator,
date of discovery, date received, date intake
completed, date investigation began, date
report of finding completed, date closed.

Complainant, respondent, complaint
disposition/remedy, date closed.

Primary charge, date of discovery, final
penalty, adverse action effective date,
investigation case number, date of Skelly,
State Personnel Board decisions.

Case number, subject name, subject title,
allegation.

Legal Affairs Division, Office of Civil Rights, Office of Personnel Management, regional offices of Investigative Services, and all institutions will also implement this system.

One of the two new systems the department is currently implementing. They will eventually eliminate the need for all other systems and therefore replace them.

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

‡

No

Yes (when fully
installed)

Regional offices have
access, but institutions
do not.

No

Regional offices have
read-only access.
Pelican Bay State
Prison is the only
institution that can
enter data into it.

Regions used to have
access. Currently no
access due to system
crashes.

No

No

No

Institutional or
Regional Access

†

* Office of Personnel Management, Office of Investigative Services, and Office of Civil Rights also have access to this system.

Source: Based on information provided by various staff at the Department of Corrections (department).

Legal Affairs Division

Office of
Investigative
Services

Microsoft Access

Employee Misconduct
Investigation System*

Microsoft
Access

Office of Civil Rights
Database

Legal Affairs Division

Paradox

Discrimination
Complaint Activity
Tracking System

Office of Civil Rights

Microsoft
Access

Adverse Personnel
Action Tracking System

Various

Office of Personnel
Management

Name of Database

Various

Type of
Database

Links to
Other
Systems

The Department of Corrections Uses Numerous Computer Database Systems to
Track Employee Misconduct Allegations and Discipline

Institutions

Division/Office

TABLE 4

Currently by the
State’s Teale Data
Center, later by
the department’s
Information
Services Division.

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Supported/
Maintained by
Information
Systems Division

Legal
matters

Currently
category ll,
eventually
all

Category II

Legal
matters

All

Category III

Category III

All

All

Type of
Cases
Tracked

For the cases we were able
to match to the employee
misconduct information
system from three of the
department’s databases,
between 19 percent and
68 percent contained
discovery dates that did
not agree.

In addition to being incomplete, some of the information
maintained in the various department databases is redundant.
For example, because the misconduct system does not share
information with the databases used in other offices such as the
Office of Civil Rights and the Office of Investigative Services
(OIS), staff at these offices enter data that already exist in their
own systems into the misconduct system. This creates duplicate
work, which increases the chance for input errors, and can result
in inconsistent data among the various systems. As we discuss in
more detail later in the report, for the cases we were able to
match to the misconduct system from the other three databases,
between 19 percent and 68 percent contained discovery dates
that did not agree. Moreover, each of the institutions use their
own independently developed tracking mechanisms that
include much of the same information found in each of the
systems used by headquarters and the regional offices. As a
result, department staff waste valuable time inputting redundant
information into the various systems.

Because the Department Does Not Ensure Timely and
Accurate Updating, Its Computer Databases Are Unreliable
Our review of four of the department’s employment-related
databases showed that they are missing important information
and contain inaccurate data. Because the systems are so
unreliable, we were unable to obtain a complete or accurate
picture of the department’s employment-related actions, and
any attempt by the department to use the systems to obtain
management information would be faulty at best. In addition,
because of these data problems, the department cannot ensure it
is effectively monitoring statutory deadlines for adverse actions.
As shown in Table 5 on the following page, we found inaccurate
and missing information in the department’s misconduct
system. To track timelines, every case in the misconduct system
should have a discovery date; however, we found that over
200 cases (more than 4 percent) are missing discovery dates.
In fact, 180 of these cases had a case-closed date or other
information indicating that the case had been in the system
for more than one month, an adequate amount of time to
determine the discovery date for tracking purposes. Without a
discovery date, the department cannot monitor statutory timeline
requirements or ensure it is meeting those requirements.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

41

TABLE 5
The Department of Corrections’ Computer Databases Are Unreliable
Fiscal Year 2003–04 Results of Comparisons
of the APA, OCR, and OIS Databases to the
EMIS Database

Results of Data Reliability Testing

Database
Name

Percent of
Sample Items
Missing From
Database

EMIS*

19%

APA†

Percent of Sample
Items Present
With Blank or
Incorrect Dates
of Discovery

Other Fields Tested

Percent of Sample
Item Records
With Blank or
Incorrect Values
in Other Fields

Percent of Records
in Database With
No Matching Case
Number in EMIS

Percent of Records
With Matching Records
in EMIS That Have
Inconsistent or Invalid
Discovery Dates

20%

Adverse action service
date and closure date

25%

—

—

1

29

Investigation number,
penalty served

24

27%

19%

OCR‡

14

52

Received and closure dates

25

85

68

OIS§

2

21

Closure date

7

19

26

Sources: Data from the four databases provided by various Department of Corrections’ staff.
* Employee Misconduct Investigation System.
†

Adverse Personnel Action tracking system.

‡

Office of Civil Rights’ database.

§

Office of Investigative Services’ database.

Of greater concern, 24 of the 127 (19 percent) cases we reviewed
at six institutions are missing entirely from the system. In
addition, 20 percent had incorrect or blank discovery dates
and nearly 25 percent had incorrect or blank adverse-action
service or closure dates. In fact, only 60 percent of the cases
in this system are accurate for the key fields we reviewed. The
assistant chief counsel of the Legal Affairs Division (legal affairs)
told us that these data problems occur because the institutions
and other divisions do not always provide needed information.
However, without complete and reliable information, the
department cannot ensure it is meeting its statutory timeline
requirements. Conversely, as discussed in Chapter 1, EROs
told us they frequently waste time responding to headquarters
requests for information already provided.
Our review of the adverse personnel action database (adverse
action database) maintained by the personnel office revealed
similar issues. According to the chief of the personnel operations
discipline and project development section (personnel chief),
this system is designed to track all adverse actions against
department employees to identify the need for increased
disciplinary action and to provide comparable data that staff
can use to try and achieve consistency in department-wide
disciplinary actions, among other reasons. Although more
complete than the misconduct system, the adverse action
42

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

The department’s adverse
personnel action database
is also inaccurate as
it contains incorrect
or blank misconduct
discovery dates nearly
30 percent of the time.

database is also inaccurate as it contains incorrect or blank
discovery dates nearly 30 percent of the time and almost
25 percent of the cases have incorrect or blank investigation
numbers or penalties served. The personnel chief also told us
that these problems are the result of the institutions and other
divisions not sending timely information. The lack of timely
information hinders the department’s ability to effectively use
the employee misconduct database.
As previously shown in Table 4 on page 40, the Office of Civil
Rights currently uses two different systems to track allegations and
investigations of alleged EEO violations such as discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation. Because these cases have the potential
to be costly to the department, effective monitoring is important.
The Office of Civil Rights uses two systems because it is the
product of a merger of two units that each had their own systems.
Unfortunately, we had similar issues with regard to the accuracy of
these systems as well. For instance, over half the cases in the Office
of Civil Rights database have incorrect or blank discovery dates,
and nearly one-quarter of them contain inaccurate or blank dates
in the fields indicating that the Office of Civil Rights received and
closed them.
Disturbingly, the Office of Civil Rights database is currently
only available on one computer—making its usefulness even
more limited. As an example of the repercussions that can occur
when cases are not effectively monitored, we learned from the
assistant director of the Office of Civil Rights, that 77 EEO case
files were kept in one person’s office and were not processed for
between one and 21 months, until after the person retired. The
assistant director of the Office of Civil Rights, who joined the
department in October 2003, indicated that she was aware of
the problems before our audit and has taken steps to compile
and update the missing information and to find a suitable
replacement system.
Data quality issues exist that transcend the limitations of
the current systems and are likely contributors to the lack
of data integrity. As indicated earlier in Table 4, systems
lack common development and maintenance; each unit is
generally responsible for maintaining its own data systems.
Furthermore, since data entry, data quality, and reporting are
not reviewed, consistency among the systems suffers. The
lack of accurate and complete data hampers the department’s
ability to derive important management information such as

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

43

case aging, case clearance rates, and prosecution rates, which
could be derived by combining the information from the
department’s current systems.

Because the department
is not effectively
monitoring cases, it did
not process 77 case files
that were kept in one
person’s office between
one and 21 months, until
after the person retired.

Incompleteness in these data systems is mirrored in the department’s
paper case files. We had to visit three locations—the personnel
office, the institutions, and the regional OIS—to obtain complete
case file information. Within and among these locations, we found
that paper files lacked standardization and contained varying types
of information. For example, the hard-copy files maintained by the
personnel office—the source documents for entering information
into the adverse action database—were sometimes missing and
incomplete. The personnel chief told us that distributing a checklist
to the appropriate individuals may help correct this situation.
Altogether, these issues not only hinder the department’s ability
to monitor and manage its employment-related actions, they also
decrease the transparency of the department’s actions and obstruct
efforts at performing certain types of analyses such as case aging.

The Department Is Implementing Two New Computer
Databases to Monitor Employee Misconduct Allegations
and Discipline Cases
To remedy the numerous problems with its current array of
electronic data systems, the department is replacing existing
systems with two new computer databases—one for the entire
disciplinary process and one for legal matters. The first is a case
management system that will allow real-time documentation
of case activities; the second, according to the department’s
feasibility study, is ProLaw software capable of managing legal
affairs’ information needs. These two new systems should allow
managers to generate reports to assist them in planning and
making decisions. However, given the poor job the department
has done with the current systems, it needs to ensure that staff
involved with the new systems receive proper training, enter
data accurately and consistently, and update the systems in a
timely manner. Because full implementation for both systems
will not occur until late 2005, the department has time to be
thorough in its approach.
The notion that the department is in need of an improved
computer database for its employment-related investigations is
not new. In fact, the Office of the Inspector General (inspector
general) in its 2001 report and the federal court special master
expressed the need for a meaningful new case management

44

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Benefits of the Department’s
New Case Management System
• Real-time documentation of case activities.
• Generation of automatic notices and
reminders to ensure compliance with
statutory and other timelines.
• Ability to isolate and identify specific case
information, such as misconduct trends and
at-risk employees.
• Capability of ongoing monitoring of highprofile cases and cases where an employee is
on paid administrative leave.
• Recording of hours spent on each case.
• Recording of reviewer approvals and
case dispositions.

system.13 The department completed initial
development and began implementing the new
case management system in its OIS in April 2004.
Because the system is expandable and supported
by one of the State’s main data centers, according
to its data processing manager, the department
also plans to install this system in its Office of
Civil Rights, legal affairs, and the personnel office,
in addition to all institutions and other areas
within the department. The system is an expanded
version of the one currently in use by the inspector
general. As shown in the text box, the system
includes several benefits for the department and,
once implemented department-wide, should
eliminate the need for redundant data input and
allow tracking of a case through the entire process.

• Generation of management reports on
caseloads, case clearance rates, prosecution
rates, and case aging.

Additionally, legal affairs is installing a new system—
ProLaw—for use by its attorneys. The ProLaw system
will assist the department in overcoming issues
such as a lack of data consistency, integrity, and
Source: California Department of Corrections,
Office of Investigative Services, draft charter and
quality control that occur because each unit within
strategic plan for 2004, dated March 2004.
legal affairs currently has its own, independent,
electronic tracking system. According to staff counsel,
ProLaw allows for storing and assembling case
information and documents electronically and the generation
of more meaningful reports to allow management to be more
proactive in identifying trends and patterns, thus potentially
lowering legal costs through early intervention in appropriate
cases. Finally, ProLaw will also allow legal affairs to implement
a recommendation we made in November 2001—to track its
attorney time by case—so that it can better determine the actual
cost by case.

THE DEPARTMENT CAN STILL DO MORE TO TRAIN
EMPLOYEES WHO DEAL WITH MISCONDUCT
ALLEGATIONS AND DISCIPLINE
Although the department has recently begun to provide jobspecific training to its EROs, a key position for ensuring the
success of disciplinary actions, it can do more to provide
13

The special master is the court-appointed individual responsible for developing a plan
to remedy the conditions at Pelican Bay State Prison that were deemed unconstitutional
as the result of a lawsuit alleging misconduct on the part of correctional officers at that
prison. The remedial plan includes a series of steps developed by the department to
address these conditions.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

45

adequate training for other key positions involved in the
disciplinary process. A commitment to ensuring the skill level
of the employees who administer the discipline process is
important for the department to improve its ability to assemble
and prepare the strongest adverse-action case possible.
A March 2002 report by the inspector general noted that the
department had established neither minimum background
requirements nor regular mandatory training for its EROs,
which contributes to its difficulty in meeting statutory
deadlines and impairs its ability to assemble and present the
strongest adverse-action cases possible. In response to
the inspector general’s concerns, the department developed
and provided its first ERO training curriculum in May 2004.
It designed this new course to meet the specific training
requirements of the ERO position. Additionally, in June 2004
the department’s deputy directors over legal affairs and the
institutions division sent a notice to all wardens, regional
administrators, and EROs that this training is mandatory for
EROs. Because it only recently implemented this new course,
we could not determine whether the program will accomplish
its purpose. Five other key positions play various roles in the
department’s disciplinary process; therefore, we also reviewed
the job-specific training requirements for them. Table 6
summarizes our review of all six positions.

The department should
consider establishing
mandatory job-specific
training requirements
for other key positions
involved in the employee
disciplinary process.

46

It is important to ensure that the employees who administer
the discipline process have the necessary training to do so.
Training is even more important for the employees in five of
these positions—the EROs, the Office of Civil Rights investigators,
the EEO coordinators, the investigative services staff, and the
litigation coordinators—because the positions do not have
specific state classifications, which means these employees did
not need to meet minimum qualification requirements specific
to these five positions. The department appears to be moving in
the right direction and appropriately responding to the inspector
general’s report by developing, implementing, and requiring
a job-specific training course for its EROs. Additionally, it has
developed job-specific training courses for the litigation and
EEO coordinators, as well as its Office of Civil Rights investigators,
but it should consider establishing mandatory job-specific
training requirements for these three positions as it has already
done for its EROs, investigative services staff, and special agents.
In recognition of the need to have training requirements, the

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

TABLE 6
Three Key Positions Lack Mandatory Training Requirements
Positions With
Job-Specific
Mandated Training

General Description of Duties

Description of Job-Related Training

Job-Related Training Received

Employee relations
officer (ERO)

Analyzes investigations of
employee misconduct, prepares
adverse actions, and often
prepares for and represents
the Department of Corrections
(department) at State Personnel
Board (board) hearings.

The department recently developed a 40-hour
advocacy curriculum course designed to
train EROs to represent the interests of the
department at board hearings on employee
discipline. As of June 2004, the department
developed, implemented, and now requires all
EROs to attend this course.

The six EROs we reviewed either
attended or are scheduled to
attend the new ERO training.

Investigative Services
Unit staff

Oversees investigations of inmate
misconduct and category I
investigations of employee
misconduct.

The department’s operations manual requires
that staff assigned to category I and category II
investigations complete an investigator training
course. The department sends staff to the
Sacramento Regional Criminal Justice Training
Center to attend its 40-hour basic internal affairs
investigation course.

All but one of 11 staff we
reviewed attended the internal
affairs investigation course.

Office of Investigative
Services investigator
(special agent)

Conducts more sensitive and
serious investigations of alleged
employee misconduct.

The department’s operations manual requires
that staff assigned to category I and category II
investigations complete an investigator training
course. The department sends staff to the
Sacramento Regional Criminal Justice Training
Center to attend its 40-hour basic internal affairs
investigation course. Additionally, special agents
are required to attend 16 hours of advanced
investigator training annually.

Although we could not completely
verify his assertion, the assistant
director of the Office of Investigative
Services told us that all his staff
completed the 40-hour training.
All but one of 23 special agents
appear to have taken the 16 hours
of advanced training.

Description of Job-Related Training

Job-Related Training Received

Positions Without
Job-Specific
Mandated Training

General Description of Duties

Office of Civil Rights
investigator

Collects and discovers factual
information concerning claims
of discrimination.

The department provided an investigator training
course in June 2004 specifically designed for its
Office of Civil Rights investigators. However, as of
August 6, 2004, according to the assistant director
for the Office of Civil Rights, the department has
not established any job-specific mandatory training
requirements for this position.

All but three of 21 Office of Civil
Rights investigators we reviewed
attended the new training course
in June 2004. Additionally, 17
have participated in the internal
affairs investigation course or other
investigative or equal employment
opportunity training.

Equal employment
opportunity (EEO)
coordinator

Assists supervisors and managers
in determining how to handle
EEO complaints.

The department provided a coordinator/
counselor training course in both 2003 and
2004. However, according to the assistant
deputy director of the Office of Departmental
Training, as of August 10, 2004, the department
has not established any statewide mandatory
training requirements specific to this position.

Five of the six coordinators
we reviewed received EEO
coordinator training. The one
remaining is scheduled to take
the course in September 2004.

Litigation coordinator

Works with the Office of the
Attorney General and the Legal
Affairs Division to assist the
department in legal matters.

The department provided a litigation
coordinator workshop in both 2003 and 2004.
However, according to the assistant deputy
director of the Office of Departmental Training,
as of August 10, 2004, the department has not
established any statewide mandatory training
requirements for this position.

We were unable to determine
from the training records whether
six litigation coordinators we
reviewed attended the litigation
workshops. However, five of them
attended as few as four hours and
as many as 19.5 hours of total
training during 2003 and 2004
identified as litigation training on
their training records.

Sources: Department training records generally from January 2002 to present and interviews with various department staff.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

47

Office of Civil Rights completed a proposal in September 2004
that would make training mandatory for all new investigators and
require annual training for all investigators.

THE DEPARTMENT COULD SAVE THE STATE MONEY BY
FILLING ITS ERO POSITIONS WITH EMPLOYEES WHO
ARE NOT PEACE OFFICERS

Staffing the employee
relations officer position
with staff other than peace
officers could save the
State money in salaries,
retirement, and reduced
overtime, and avoid
the inappropriate use
of custody personnel in
administrative positions.

The department has taken steps recently that should help to
improve the competency and tenure for those staff filling the
ERO position; however, it should consider the success rates of
the varying levels of staff in this position to determine if one
level is better than others. Using staff other than peace officers
could reduce salary, overtime, and retirement costs and help
relieve the possible shortage of correctional officers to work in
areas for which they are specifically trained.
In a March 2002 report, the inspector general recommended
that the department convert its ERO position from a temporary
training assignment to a permanent position. The inspector
general reported that the ERO position was often designated as
a training and development position with only a two-year term.
The report also noted that because of the lack of experience
and training requirements, most EROs were faced with a need
to learn on the job, finally gaining proficiency just as their
term ended and a new person moved into the assignment. In
response, in June 2004 the department obtained approval from
the Department of Personnel Administration to fill the ERO
position with correctional lieutenants on a four-year rotation.
Although we believe this is an improvement, the department
needs to ensure that any employee who fills this position is
properly trained and prepared. In fact, the Department of
Personnel Administration approval requires that the department
send EROs to training courses in the preparation of formal
personnel actions and the State Personnel Board hearing process.
The department’s new ERO training curriculum, discussed
above, will help to ensure that this requirement is met.
Although we agree that using peace officers, such as correctional
lieutenants may have merit due to their managerial experiences,
we believe that staff other than peace officers may also be a
viable alternative. However, we found that the department
has not always vigorously pursued filling the position with
employees other than peace officers. According to department
staff and job announcements, only three of the six institutions
we visited even advertised their ERO vacancies. Of the three

48

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

that did advertise, only one did so outside of the institution.
Ultimately, one of the three institutions was able to recruit a
labor relations analyst. According to the personnel chief, as of
December 2003, three of the six institutions budget for their
ERO position at the labor relations analyst level, but only two fill
it at this level; the other four fill the position with peace officers.

As an example, filling
its employee relations
officer positions at the
32 institutions with a
staff services manager I
rather than a correctional
lieutenant would save
$290,000 annually at
top salaries and allow the
department to redirect
the correctional lieutenants
to help alleviate the more
than $9.8 million it paid in
overtime for eight months.

Even though we found a lack of recruitment effort, the personnel
chief told us that this is probably due to the prior lack of
success in recruiting for staff other than peace officers for the
ERO positions. Given that the department provides job-specific
mandatory training to EROs whether they are correctional
lieutenants or staff other than peace officers, we believe it should
consider filling ERO positions with qualified staff other than
peace officers to save money and to avoid the inappropriate use
of custody personnel in administrative positions. For example,
staffing the ERO position at the 32 correctional institutions
with staff services manager I employees rather than correctional
lieutenants would save $226,000 annually, assuming entry-level
status, and $290,000 annually at top salaries.
Additionally, as peace officers, correctional lieutenants have a
higher retirement benefit formula than staff services manager I’s do.
Therefore, the State would save more from reduced contributions to
the California Public Employees’ Retirement System. Furthermore,
from July 2003 through March 2004, the department paid
correctional lieutenants at all its institutions more than $9.8 million
in overtime, indicating a potential staff shortage at this level. The
State could achieve additional savings by redirecting the correctional
lieutenants currently in the ERO position, thereby potentially
reducing overtime within the institutions.
A personnel program manager at the Department of Personnel
Administration also has concerns regarding use of the
correctional lieutenant classification to fill the ERO position.
For example, the correctional lieutenant’s job specifications
do not require previous experience or training in the areas of
employee discipline that would prepare an individual to be a
successful ERO. These concerns led the Department of Personnel
Administration to require that each of the incumbents take
training courses in the preparation of formal personnel actions
and the State Personnel Board hearing process and that the
department provide statistical data in two years to demonstrate
the success rate of adverse actions and rejection on probation
for which a correctional lieutenant is the ERO. However, given

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

49

the savings that can be achieved, the department should also
track the success rates for the staff other than peace officers to
determine if significant differences exist.

THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN SLOW TO IMPLEMENT
SOME CHANGES TO IMPROVE ITS EMPLOYEE
MISCONDUCT ALLEGATION AND DISCIPLINE PROCESS
Despite several prior audits that identified weaknesses in the
department’s employee disciplinary practices and that made
recommendations for improvements, the department has at
times been slow in taking action or has not taken any action
at all. This has likely contributed to the ongoing problems we
describe throughout this report.

The seven corrective
actions the department
has yet to implement
from three years ago
should not require years
to implement.

50

Table 7 summarizes the results of our review of the
recommendations from four audits and the department’s remedial
plan, and Appendix B provides the details. As Table 7 indicates,
the inspector general conducted two audits (2001 and 2002)
with numerous recommendations that directly related to the
department’s employee disciplinary practices, and we conducted
two audits (2000 and 2001), which included one recommendation
in each audit related to employment matters. Additionally, in
response to a report dated January 2004 by the federal court special
master, the department prepared a comprehensive remedial plan
with implementation timelines, largely addressing its investigation
and employee disciplinary processes. Combined, we identified and
reviewed the department’s progress in addressing 121 auditrecommended and department-proposed corrective actions that
relate to changes needed to improve its employment practices.
It is important to note that 41 of the steps in the remedial plan
(included in the 121 reviewed) were not yet due by the end of
our fieldwork.
Table 7 also shows that the department has yet to implement
seven and chose not to implement six of the recommendations
designed to bring about change to its employment practices.
All seven it has not yet implemented were recommended
three years ago; none of these corrective actions should require
years to implement. For example, the inspector general in its
October 2001 report recommended that OIS perform periodic
audits at each of the regional offices to ensure compliance
with the department’s policies and procedures. According to
the department’s remedial plan, it does not plan any action
on this until December 2004, more than three years later. In
another example, the inspector general also recommended
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

51

1
0

Number of corrective actions
not implemented

Chose not to implement
corrective action

NA

NA

NA

4

6

2

10

22

33

October 2001, Office of the
Inspector General—Special
Review of the Office of
Investigative Services

NA

NA

0

0

1

0

1

14

November 2001, Bureau of State
Audits—California Department of
Corrections: Its Fiscal Practices and
Internal Controls Are Inadequate to
Ensure Fiscal Responsibility

NA

NA

0

0

3

3

6

6

March 2002, Office of
the Inspector General—
Review of the Employee
Disciplinary Process

41

17

2

0

3

28

91

91

2004 Special Master’s
Remedial Plan*

The due date per the remedial plan has not yet occurred.

‡

NA = Not applicable.

We only reviewed those recommendations related to the current audit.

†

41

17

6

7

9

41

121

159

Totals

* The remedial plan is a series of steps developed by the department to address conditions at Pelican Bay that were deemed unconstitutional as the result of a lawsuit alleging misconduct on the part of
correctional officers at that prison.

Sources: Various departmental records and staff, the remedial plan, and prior audit reports.

Corrective action not due

NA

0

Number of corrective actions
partially implemented

yet‡

0

Number of corrective
actions implemented

Duplicate to previous
corrective action

1

15

January 2000, Bureau of State
Audits—California Department
of Corrections: Poor Management
Practices Have Resulted in
Excessive Personnel Costs

The Department of Corrections Has Not Yet Implemented All Corrective Actions

Total number of corrective
actions reviewed†

Total number of
corrective actions

TABLE 7

in its October 2001 report that OIS establish a managerial
review checklist to ensure uniformity in the maintenance and
documentation of investigative files. However, almost three
years later, according to a special agent in OIS, the department
has yet to implement this recommendation. Although staff
provided a few reasons for not taking action, given the years
elapsed since the original recommendations, the responses
are inadequate.
We also gave the department credit for partially implementing
six recommendations from three of the prior audits. For example,
we recommended in our November 2001 report that the
department fully implement its legal affairs cost-cutting strategies
and fix or replace its case-tracking database. According to the
department's deputy director of legal affairs, the department
implemented most of its cost-cutting strategies. However,
according to its implementation schedule, the department is
in the process of finally replacing its case-tracking systems with
ProLaw, but not until late 2004, more than three years later.

One reason for delays in
implementing corrective
actions is that until
May 2004, the department
did not have a centralized
division or unit with
responsibility for ensuring
that the department
addresses external
audit recommendations.

According to its deputy director of legal affairs, the department’s
efforts to implement corrective actions related to the inspector
general reports were delayed, in part, because of hearings that
resulted from disciplinary problems at Pelican Bay State Prison.
Another reason for implementation delays is that until May 2004,
the department did not have a centralized division or unit
with responsibility for ensuring that it addresses external audit
recommendations. Instead, each individual office and division
maintained responsibility for responding to applicable audit
recommendations and tracking their corrective action status. In
May 2004, the department created a new division and charged it
with monitoring due dates and alerting executive management
when deadlines for responding to recommendations approach.
In addition, according to the assistant secretary for administration
and oversight for the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency,
it recently began conducting bi-weekly project meetings with
department staff in an effort to discuss the status of key projects
or program issues, including some that have been the subject
of external audits. Centralizing the responsibility for tracking
corrective actions, along with additional monitoring, should help
ensure that the department implements them in a timely fashion.

52

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

RECOMMENDATIONS
To ensure that it can appropriately and accurately monitor
and track employment-related actions and outcomes, the
department should do the following:
• Complete its implementation of the new computer databases,
eliminate the redundant systems, and consolidate monitoring
of these systems within the information systems division.
• Ensure that staff involved in maintaining the new computer
databases receive proper training, enter data accurately and
consistently, and appropriately update the systems in a
timely manner.
To ensure that it provides adequate training for key positions
involved in the disciplinary process, the department should
consider establishing job-specific mandatory training requirements
for its litigation and equal employment opportunity coordinators.
Further, the Office of Civil Rights should continue its efforts to
implement mandatory training for its investigators and ensure
its policy is followed, as it already did for its EROs, investigative
services staff, and special agents.
To determine the most cost-effective job classification to fill its
ERO position, the department should track the success rates of
all its EROs, including staff other than peace officers.
To promptly address all current and future audit findings and
recommendations, the department should ensure that its newly
created division charged with tracking audit recommendations
and corrective action is proactive in doing so.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

53

We conducted this review under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by
Section 8543 et seq. of the California Government Code and according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. We limited our review to those areas specified in the audit
scope section of this report.
Respectfully submitted,

ELAINE M. HOWLE
State Auditor
Date: October 19, 2004
Staff:

54

Denise L. Vose, CPA, Audit Principal
Tyler Covey, CPA, CMA
Mandi Gallardo
Suzi Ishikawa
Lan Yan
Loretta Wright

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

APPENDIX A
Legal Expenses for Fiscal Years
2001–02 Through 2003–04

A

s shown in the following tables, legal expenses have
remained relatively stable during the past three fiscal
years. Table A.1 on the following page presents the
department’s legal expenses; Tables A.2 and A.3 on pages 57
and 58 focus on legal expenses related to employment
matters, primarily expenses of the Employment Law Unit and
settlements and judgments for each institution.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

55

TABLE A.1
The Department of Corrections’ Legal Expenses For
Fiscal Years 2001–02 Through 2003–04
Fiscal Year
2001–02

2002–03

2003–04

$ 3,851,864

$ 3,813,104

$ 4,465,746

339,822

156,787

15,083

Personal Services
Salaries and wages
Temporary help
Overtime

85,679

64,354

27,637

547,350

568,498

664,876

Retirement

22,688

125,200

515,933

Worker’s compensation

24,641

32,197

24,239

4,872,044

4,760,140

5,713,514

Benefits

Total Personal Services
Operating Expenses and Equipment
General expense

135,803

188,537

121,031

Printing

6,168

6,585

11,802

Communications

2,282

4,955

5,683

Postage

5,967

3,077

3,362

194,110

174,676

157,267

2,788

4,906

Travel inside state
Travel outside state
Training
Consulting and professional services
Consolidated data center

16,350

27,126

8,438,683

11,061,660

8,017

Facilities operations

—

16,185

13,281

21,554

135,443

Equipment

20,328

Other items of expense
Total Operating Expenses and Equipment
Special items of expense*
Grand Totals

12,165
12,385,997
—

Data processing

—

183
—

2,319
65,628

350

63

89

12,909,418

8,851,296

11,493,706

11,645,948

15,384,360

12,759,634

$29,427,410

$28,995,796

$29,966,854

Source: Expenditure reports from the Department of Corrections for fiscal years 2001–02 through 2003–04.
Note: Figures include expenses and encumbrances.
* Special items of expense include settlements and judgment payments, debt service taxes, and assessments.

56

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

TABLE A.2
Major Legal Expenses Related to Employment Misconduct Allegations and Discipline
Fiscal Year
2001–02

2002–03
Percentage

Expenses

Percentage

$1,445,387

15%

$ 1,624,106

15%

—

3,915,954

—

5,255,514

—

199,793

—

243,266

—

320,367

—

State Personnel Board
attorney fees

1,353,500

—

1,326,832

—

1,421,102

—

Consulting contracts

1,004,323

—

389,446

—

315,969

—

Total Consulting and
Professional Services

7,555,370

68

5,875,498

60

7,312,952

68

Settlements and judgments

1,842,721

16

2,418,482

25

1,805,912

17

100%

$9,739,367

100%

Employment Law Unit
personal services

Expenses

Percentage

$ 1,798,911

16%

4,997,754

Expenses

2003–04

Consulting and Professional Services
Department of Justice
attorney fees
Department of Personnel
Administration attorney fees

Employment Law Unit Totals

$11,197,002

$10,742,970

100%

Source: Payment information from the Legal Affairs Division, Department of Corrections.
Note: Operating expenses and equipment for the Employment Law Unit are not included in this table.

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

57

TABLE A.3
Legal Settlement and Judgment Expenses for Each Institution
Fiscal Year
Institution/Department Unit
Avenal State Prison
California Correctional Center
Central California Women’s Facility
Headquarters

2001–02
$

2002–03

2003–04

—

—

95,000
622,129
53,000
106,499

$

Totals
$

95,000

9,536

—

631,665

1,500,000

—

1,553,000

—

106,499

—

California Institution for Men

—

—

40,000

40,000

California Men’s Colony

18,500

18,000

—

36,500

California Medical Facility

91,500

—

—

91,500

Correctional Training Facility

—

216,076

—

216,076

Deuel Vocational Institution

—

75,000

—

75,000

Folsom State Prison

—

75,000

—

75,000

High Desert State Prison
High Desert State Prison/California
Correctional Center

5,000

—

$

102,000

107,000

400,000

—

—

400,000

Ironwood State Prison

20,000

—

—

20,000

Ironwood State Prison/Chuckawalla Valley
State Prison

—

—

California State Prison, Los Angeles County

15,000

North Kern State Prison

93,000

—

Pelican Bay State Prison

66,000

—

6,158

72,158

Parole Region 3

—

—

2,500

2,500

Parole Region 4

35,000

10,000

Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility at
Rock Mountain

107,343

347,240

—

380,254

380,254

995,000

1,357,240

—

—

93,000

45,000

47,500

154,843

150,000

190,993

California State Prison, Sacramento

—

40,993

Sierra Conservation Center

—

75,000

—

California State Prison, Solano

—

35,599

65,000

California State Prison, San Quentin

24,750

—

—

24,750

Salinas Valley State Prison

—

14,000

—

14,000

Valley State Prison for Women

—

—

17,500

17,500

Wasco State Prison

90,000

—

—

90,000

Parole and Community Services Division
Totals

—
$1,842,721

2,038
$2,418,482

—
$1,805,912

75,000
100,599

2,038
$6,067,115

Source: Payment information from the Legal Affairs Division, Department of Corrections.

58

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

APPENDIX B
Status of Employment-Related Audit
Recommendations and Corrective
Actions From 2000 to Present

C

ombined, two prior audit reports by the Bureau of State
Audits, two prior audit reports by the Office of the
Inspector General, and the Department of Corrections’
(department’s) remedial plan contain 121 recommendations
and corrective actions related to employee discipline at the
department. As shown in Table 7 on page 51 of this report, the
department has implemented 41, has partially implemented
nine, has not implemented seven, and chose not to implement
six. Furthermore, 17 corrective actions in the remedial plan
duplicate prior corrective actions recommended and 41 of the
remedial plan items were not due by the end of our fieldwork
on July 31, 2004. Table B.1 provides the detailed results of our
testing and the support for Table 7.

TABLE B.1
Status of Action Items
No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

Office of Inspector General, October 2001,
Special Review of the Office of Investigative Services:
California Department of Corrections
1

The department should reassess the mission and responsibilities of
its Office of Investigative Services (OIS) and allocate sufficient resources
to allow it to meet its mandate.

Implemented. OIS received budget authority in fiscal year 2004–05 to
hire an additional seven special agents and five supporting positions.
In addition, the department created two new units within OIS: the
Administrative Services Unit and the Special Investigations Unit.

2

OIS should review its organizational structure and administrative
processes to ensure standardization in the operation of the regional
offices. As part of the process, OIS should develop a formalized
system for prioritizing cases.

Partial corrective action taken. The department has created two new
units within OIS: the Administrative Services Unit and the Special
Investigations Unit. However, there is no case prioritization system.

3

The department should review and modify the OIS case-tracking
system to ensure that it fully meets management information needs
and department requirements.

Implemented. As of July 1, 2004, the department has procured and
implemented a new case management system within OIS.

4

The department should allow OIS to develop and manage its own
training budget.

Implemented. OIS is managing its own training budget.

5

The department should allow OIS staff members to comply with
the 40-hour training requirement on a calendar year or fiscal
year basis instead of basing compliance on each staff member’s
performance appraisal period.

Not implemented. According to a special agent with OIS, it is
developing a new training program with an expected completion
date of January 2005.

continued on next page

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

59

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

6

The department should establish minimum training requirements
for each job classification to ensure that employees possess the
minimum skills needed to perform assigned duties and to ensure
comparability in the proficiency of staff members among the
various offices.

Implemented. OIS has established minimum training requirements.

7

OIS should prepare an annual training plan that identifies and
summarizes training needs by employee, office, and topical area.

Not implemented. According to the remedial plan, the new training
program is not due until May 6, 2005. However, according to a
special agent with OIS, the training program will be implemented
by January 2005.

8

The department should establish a separate training database for OIS
staff members and maintain the training database at OIS headquarters.

Implemented. OIS has a training database.

9

OIS should establish a managerial review checklist to ensure
uniformity in the maintenance and documentation of
investigative files. The checklist should be signed and dated by the
senior special agent responsible for reviewing the case files.

Not implemented. According to a special agent with OIS, corrective
action may not be taken.

10

The department should amend the operations manual to provide
for centralized review and acceptance or rejection of investigation
requests to ensure consistency.

Not implemented. According to the remedial plan, this is due
August 16, 2005.

11

The department should adopt a policy and procedures for
assigning priority for case acceptance or rejection.

Not implemented. According to the remedial plan, this is due
March 30, 2005.

12

The department should provide refresher training for special agents
in charge and senior special agents on the definitions of category I
and category II misconduct.

Chose not to implement. According to the assistant director of
OIS, the department chose not to implement this recommendation
because the definition of what constitutes category I and category II
misconduct is currently under review. The assistant director went on
to say that the issue is not isolated to one of training but includes
questions such as what is or is not an investigation.

13

The department should establish procedures to ensure that case
rejection letters are issued within the prescribed 10-day time frame.

Chose not to implement. According to a special agent in OIS, the
department chose not to implement this recommendation as
the requirement is already in the operations manual.

14

The department should implement a process providing for
independent review of rejection letters to ensure that the letters
adequately explain why the case was rejected.

Chose not to implement. The department chose not to implement
this recommendation due to a lack of resources.

15

OIS should perform an analysis of the workload and resources
necessary to implement an effective tracking system, perform data
analysis, and conduct audits of the category I investigations. OIS
should also develop a work plan to identify the initial objectives and
timelines for implementing a legitimate oversight process.

Partial corrective action taken. An initial analysis of workload has begun,
and the new case management system will track category I cases.

16

If additional resources cannot be obtained, OIS should determine
the best way to provide at least minimal oversight of category I
investigations using existing resources.

Implemented. According to a special agent with OIS, this is done as
resources are available.

17

The department should provide training to all staff on general
evidence handling policies and procedures.

Implemented. The evidence officer and backup officer at the region
in question, as a result of the audit, did receive on-the-job training
and did travel to the other regional offices to ensure that evidence
is processed in the same manner. In addition, both the evidence
officer and backup officer obtained and reviewed the Peace Officer
Standards and Training Law Enforcement Property and Evidence
Guidebook. Finally, an internal evidence handling procedure was
written and implemented.

18

The department should provide specialized training for evidence
custodians and alternates.

Implemented. See previous entry.

60

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

19

The department should make physical modifications, as
necessary, to the regional evidence rooms to ensure that
they meet all requirements.

Chose not to implement. The Southern Regional OIS pursued
financing for an alarm for the evidence room, but department
management denied financing due to budgetary considerations
and an assessment that the existing alarm system for the building
as a whole was sufficient. According to the special agent in charge
at the Southern Regional OIS, unauthorized entry into the evidence
room would set off several alarms and would require dismantling of
several other locking devices.

20

The department should rekey evidence rooms to limit access to the
evidence custodian, the alternate, and the regional special agent
in charge.

Implemented. Only the evidence officer, the backup officer, and the
special agent in charge have access to the evidence room.

21

The department should use bound evidence logs that provide
space for all mandatory information.

Implemented. All evidence is now logged into a bound evidence book.

22

The department should perform periodic audits at each of the regions
to ensure compliance with policies and procedures.

Not implemented. According to the remedial plan, the department will
develop a self-audit plan by December 30, 2004.

Office of the Inspector General, March 2002, Review of
the Employee Disciplinary Process: California Department
of Corrections

*

23

The department should establish a centralized system to monitor and
track the status of employee disciplinary cases. The system should
also include an early warning mechanism for cases in danger of
exceeding statutory time limits.

Implemented. This is part of the new case
management system.

24

The department should issue clear guidelines defining what
constitutes the date of discovery, which is authorized to initiate the
investigation, and the date the department makes its decision to
impose discipline.

Partial corrective action taken. The Legal Affairs Division (legal affairs)
prepared a policy titled “Time Frames (Statutes of Limitations) for
Investigative and Disciplinary Actions,” which was submitted to the
special master in early 2003.* According to the deputy director
of legal affairs, the policy has been disseminated to department
employees, but is not yet implemented.

25

The department should establish a formalized training program for
employee relations officers (EROs) at the institutions and convert
these positions from temporary training assignments to permanent
positions.

Implemented. The department commenced implementation of the
ERO advocacy curriculum in March 2004. The department also
received Department of Personnel Administration approval to fill ERO
positions with correctional lieutenants on a four-year rotational basis.

26

The department should establish formalized policies and
procedures to expand the role and responsibility of the
Employment Law Unit in the preparation of employee disciplinary
actions. As part of that effort, the department should provide
internet access to EROs, including a comprehensive e-mail system.

Partial corrective action taken. The department implemented a
formalized vertical prosecution model at Pelican Bay State Prison on
February 8, 2003. The department has received approval from the
Department of Finance for the additional statewide legal personnel it
needs to implement this model on a statewide basis. Of six institutions
we reviewed, only one ERO was connected to the department’s e-mail
system. Three of the remaining EROs had outside e-mail addresses and
two did not have e-mail access. The department has not established a
timeline whereby all EROs will be connected to its network.

27

The department should evaluate its policies and procedures for
evaluating and appealing cases.

Implemented. Unit policies regarding State Personnel Board hearing
writs and appeals were issued to all Employment Law Unit attorneys
on December 6, 2002.

28

The department should establish policies and procedures governing
employee disciplinary action settlements and require that the
necessary documentation be maintained for monitoring and
evaluating the settlement process.

Partial corrective action taken. Even though an administrative
bulletin detailing the new settlement procedures was issued on
May 16, 2003, they have not been implemented or used.

The special master is the court-appointed individual responsible for developing a plan to remedy the conditions at Pelican Bay deemed
unconstitutional as the result of a lawsuit alleging misconduct on the part of correctional officers at that prison.
continued on next page

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

61

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

Bureau of State Audits, November 2001, California
Department of Corrections: Its Fiscal Practices Are Inadequate
to Ensure Fiscal Responsibility
29

The department should fully implement legal affairs cost-cutting
strategies, fix or replace its case-tracking database to provide a
stable tracking system for all settlement and judgment costs, and
consider the viability of tracking all internal and external attorney costs
associated with each legal case.

Partial corrective action taken. According to a staff counsel in legal
affairs, the department plans full implementation of ProLaw by the
end of 2004. ProLaw will allow tracking of attorney time (costs)
and settlement and judgment costs. The department has not fully
implemented its 13-step strategy for mitigating legal expenses.

Bureau of State Audits, January 2000, California
Department of Corrections: Poor Management Practices
Have Resulted in Excessive Personnel Costs
30

The department should take progressively aggressive disciplinary
action against employees it believes use sick leave excessively.

Not implemented. According to the department’s deputy director of
legal affairs, after its policy was challenged, it has not implemented a
revised sick leave policy. She also told us that as of August 2004, the
department is working on a statewide procedure for sick leave.

Remedial Plan, February 2004
Plan for Addressing Code of Silence
31

The department should arrange for an organizational/cultural
assessment by outside entity.

Not due.

32

The department should publish zero tolerance policy for employees.

Implemented. A zero tolerance policy was published in February 2004.

33

The department should revise code of ethics to show duty to report
and cooperate.

Implemented. A revised code of ethics was distributed in May 2004.

34

The department should distribute code of ethics via departmental
memorandum to wardens.

Implemented. A revised code of ethics was distributed in May 2004.

35

Department should address duty and discipline for failure-to-report
misconduct (via disciplinary matrix).

Not due.

36

Department should address prohibition of retaliation against
employees reporting misconduct (via disciplinary matrix).

Not due.

37

The department should circulate a special message regarding the code
of silence from its agency secretary to wardens.

Implemented. A special message regarding the code of silence was
delivered at a meeting on February 18, 2004.

38

The department should arrange for a special video message from its
agency secretary to academy cadets.

Implemented. According to the assistant director of the Office
of Departmental Training, in the absence of a video message, the
secretary personally addressed the last class at the academy. A video
message was subsequently created but is currently being revised.

39

The department should develop an ethics course for each institution.

Not due.

40

The department should publish employee duties in service
training bulletins.

Not due.

41

The department should conduct ethics training.

Not due.

Plan for Investigation Process
42

The department should evaluate role, responsibility, mission,
functions, and interface of OIS, the Office of Independent Review,
and the Office of the Inspector General.

Not due.

43

The department should revise Section 13 of its operations manual.

Not due.

62

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

Develop and Implement Action Plan and
Management Controls
44

The department should review existing policies and procedures
for revision.

Partial corrective action taken. A draft of a revised policies and
procedures manual has been created but is not finalized.

45

Department should survey OIS employees and managers.

Implemented.

46

Department should issue a confidentiality policy and other
key procedures.

Implemented. The department issued multiple policy memos in
December 2003 and January 2004.

47

Department should issue an OIS strategic plan.

Implemented. The plan was published in March 2004.

Develop OIS Case Management System
48

Department should procure additional software
security procedures.

Chose not to implement. According to the department’s chief of a
technology management section, technology staff found that this
was not necessary.

49

Department should develop and test application, import base from
Office of the Inspector General.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004,
and OIS staff are trained.

50

Department should install system at OIS headquarters for testing.

Duplicate to number 3 (implemented).

51

Department should develop case management system desk procedures.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004,
and OIS staff are trained.

52

Department should install system at Northern Regional OIS.

Duplicate to number 3 (implemented).

53

Department should train Northern Regional OIS users.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004, and
OIS staff are trained.

54

Department should install system at headquarters.

Duplicate to number 3 (implemented).

55

Department should train headquarters users.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004, and
OIS staff are trained.

56

Department should install system at Central Region OIS.

Duplicate to number 3 (implemented).

57

Department should train Central Regional OIS users.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004, and
OIS staff are trained.

58

Department should install system at Southern Regional OIS.

Duplicate to number 3 (implemented).

59

Train Southern Regional OIS users.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
at OIS headquarters and the regional offices as of July 1, 2004 and
OIS staff are trained.

60

Full implementation of case management system within OIS.

Duplicate to numbers 3 and 23 (implemented).

61

Department should prepare project implementation evaluation
report.

Not due.

62

Department should provide system adjustments and additional
training.

Not due.

63

Department should merge employee misconduct investigation
system (misconduct system) database with case management
system database.

Chose not to implement. The new case management system replaces
misconduct system database.

continued on next page

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

63

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

64

Department should train Employment Law Unit users on the case
management system.

Not due.

65

Department should install system at 32 institutions.

Not due.

66

Department should train institution staff on the case management
system.

Not due.

Develop Administrative Support Unit
67

Department should select staff for function.

Implemented. Staff were selected as of July 2004.

68

Department should coordinate and develop policies and
procedures manual.

Partial corrective action taken. A draft of a revised policies and
procedures manual has been created.

69

Department should develop investigators’ guide.

Not due.

70

Department should standardize a category I review process.

Duplicate to number 15 (partial corrective action taken).

71

Department should develop self-audit plan.

Duplicate to number 22 (not implemented).

72

Department should develop new case initiation model.

Duplicate to numbers 10 and 11 (not implemented).

73

Department should revise operations manual accordingly.

Not due.

Develop Management and Oversight Report
74

Department should survey for report models.

Implemented. The assistant director of OIS requested input from
various employees.

75

Department should build table reports in the case management
system.

Not due.

76

Department should develop case-aging report.

Duplicate to number 23 (implemented).

77

Department should develop OIS monthly report on the case
management system.

Not due.

Develop Special Investigations Unit
78

Department should identify sensitive case types.

Implemented. This is at the discretion of the special agent in charge
or the assistant director.

79

Department should select staff for function.

Implemented. Staff were selected as of July 2004.

80

Department should test Special Investigations Unit case
management system.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
throughout OIS as of July 1, 2004.

81

Department should implement case management system for
Special Investigations Unit cases.

Implemented. The new case management system is implemented
throughout OIS as of July 1, 2004.

Training Assessment
82

Department should select training coordinators for headquarters
and regions.

Implemented. Training coordinators were selected as of June 2004.

83

Department should conduct statewide coordinator meeting.

Implemented. According to a special agent in OIS, this was done via
teleconference in July 2004.

84

Department should conduct training assessment.

Not due.

85

Department should present training course alternatives.

Not due.

86

Department should develop training plans.

Not due.

87

Department should implement training program.

Not due.

64

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

Continuing Operational Assessments and Review
88

Department should request external assistance.

Implemented. This was done in May 2004.

89

Department should evaluate existing staff resources and skills to
align with new responsibilities.

Duplicate to number 1 (implemented).

90

Department should conduct first self-audit and review.

Duplicate to number 22 (not implemented).

Plan for Disciplinary Process
91

Department should evaluate role, responsibility, mission, and
function of the Employment Law Unit.

Not due.

Outside Consultant to Conduct Evaluation of the
Employment Law Unit
92

Develop protocol for interviews and focus group.

Implemented.

93

Conduct interviews and focus group.

Implemented. According to the deputy director of legal affairs, the
outside consultant is in the process of completing the final report.

94

Provide summary of interview findings.

Implemented. According to the deputy director of legal affairs, the
outside consultant is in the process of completing the final report.

95

Provide recommendations.

Not due.

96

Provide consultation on implementation.

Not due.

Develop Structural Changes in Employee
Disciplinary Process
97

Department should develop vertical prosecution model.

Duplicate to number 26 (partial corrective action taken).

98

Department should define roles and duties in disciplinary process.

Not due.

99

Department should evaluate and streamline process to ensure
statute of limitations is adhered to.

Not due.

100

Department should develop an approach to preventing inappropriate
communications between management and bargaining units related
to employee investigations and discipline.

Not due.

101

Department should develop disciplinary matrix.

Partial corrective action taken. An updated draft disciplinary matrix
was developed as of July 2004 but is not finalized.

102

Implement disciplinary matrix.

Not due.

103

Evaluate existing misconduct system.

Not due. Even though the case management system will eventually
replace the misconduct system, until cases already entered into
the misconduct system are complete, it will continue to be used.
Therefore, this does not conflict with our assessment of number 63.

104

Develop management and oversight reports of actions.

Not due.

105

Revise Article 22 of operations manual.

Not due.

Department Should Make the Following Policy Changes
106

Develop policy for vertical prosecution.

Duplicate to number 26 (partial corrective action taken).

107

Develop settlement policy for adverse actions.

Duplicate to number 28 (partial corrective action taken).

108

Develop Skelly hearing policies.

Not due.
continued on next page

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

65

No.

Action Items

Department’s Progress

109

Develop policy for employees testifying as expert witnesses.

Not due.

110

Develop policy for writs and appeal.

Duplicate to number 27 (implemented).

111

Revise Article 22 of operations manual.

Not due.

Department Should Provide the Following Hiring and Training
112

Train ERO officers and wardens on administrative
evidence standards.

Not due.

113

Revise qualifications for EROs concerning labor relations.

Not due.

114

Implement training for EROs.

Duplicate to number 25 (implemented).

115

Develop and implement training for Employment
Law Unit attorneys.

Not due.

116

Provide EROs access to electronic training for adverse-action process.

Not due.

Department Should Plan for Continual Monitoring
and Assessment
117

Develop procedures and reports for review by agency.

Not due.

118

Develop performance metrics for review by agency.

Not due.

119

Track settlement agreements in the case management system.

Not due.

120

Schedule 30-day review with Madrid plaintiffs.

Implemented. Multiple meetings were held.

121

Schedule 60-day review with Madrid special master.

Implemented. Multiple meetings were held.

66

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Agency’s comments provided as text only.

Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
1515 K Street, Suite 520
Sacramento, CA 95814

October 7, 2004

Elaine M. Howle, State Auditor
Bureau of State Audits
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Howle:
The Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) has reviewed your draft audit report entitled
“California Department of Corrections: Although Addressing Deficiencies in Its Employee
Disciplinary Practices, the Department Can Improve Its Efforts.” We appreciate the opportunity to
respond to the draft report. Enclosed is the California Department of Corrections’ (CDC) response
to the report’s recommendations.
We truly appreciate the attention to accuracy and detail that the Auditor’s staff put into the process.
Your staff has been professional and at all times available to discuss the issues. Please extend our
appreciation to those who participated in this review.
As indicated in the enclosed response, the CDC continues to improve its employee disciplinary
process and is committed to making further improvements by addressing the issues presented in
the report. If you have any questions concerning the response, please contact me at 323-6001.
Continued Success,
(Signed by: G.K. Carruth for)
RODERICK Q. HICKMAN
Secretary
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

67

State of California

Department of Corrections

Memorandum

To:

Roderick Q. Hickman, Secretary
Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
1515 K Street, Suite 520
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject:

BUREAU OF STATE AUDIT RESPONSE

Attached is a response to State Auditor Elaine Howle, regarding the Bureau of State
Audits Report No.2004-105 entitled, “California Department of Corrections: Although
Addressing Deficiencies in Its Employee Disciplinary Practices, the Department Can
Improve Its Efforts.” This response has been prepared for your signature. Also attached
is the report on disk.
If you should have any questions, or revisions please contact me at 445-7688.
Sincerely,
(Signed by: Ernie Van Sant for)
J. S. WOODFORD
Director

Attachment

68

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

Response to Bureau of State Audits’ Report No. 2004-105 – “California Department of
Corrections: Although Addressing Deficiencies in Its Employee Disciplinary Practices, the
Department Can Improve Its Efforts”

OVERVIEW
The California Department of Corrections (the CDC or the Department) has received and reviewed
the 13 recommendations contained in the California State Audit Report (Report) on employee
disciplinary practices.
At the outset, the CDC appreciates the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) acknowledging that the
Department takes employment-related matters and discipline seriously and has been actively
involved in efforts to improve the quality and consistency of its adverse actions. Many dedicated
staff put tremendous effort into the development of: (1) a vertical advocacy model, an innovative
initiative that provides for earlier and more intense legal support during the investigative and
disciplinary process; (2) a disciplinary matrix which imposes specific levels of discipline for specified
conduct; (3) a comprehensive mandatory advocacy training program for all Employee Relations
Offices; and (4) a Case Management System which will replace outdated and unreliable systems
with one comprehensive database for the entire disciplinary process that will provide for real-time
documentation of case activities. These initiatives are merely the beginning of an ongoing effort to
revitalize a broken system.
The Department Director and its Youth and Adult Correctional Agency (YACA) Secretary personally
committed to federal court district Judge Thelton Henderson that they will ensure the Department
designs and implements a revamped and reconstituted transparent employee investigative and
disciplinary system that will enhance the quality and consistency of the entire employee discipline
process. Like the BSA, Judge Henderson has acknowledged the Department’s efforts to date
towards meeting that commitment.
The CDC views this Report and its recommendations as assisting the Department in continuing its
efforts. Some of the recommendations bring novel suggestions and ideas to the process. Others
reinforce efforts and initiatives already underway. Ultimately, all of the suggestions have merit which
the CDC will address as it continues to improve its employee disciplinary process. The following
represents the detailed response of the Department to each of the recommendations identified in
Report No. 2004-105.

1
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

69

RECOMMENDATIONS
CHAPTER 1
The Department Can Improve Its Timeliness and Handling of Employee Misconduct
Allegations and Discipline.

RECOMMENDATION # 1:
To improve its ability to discipline employees quickly and efficiently, the department should
do the following:
A. Identify, benchmark, and monitor for improvement, the adverse action timelines for
each step in the process for each case category.
B. Implement procedures to allow for expedited investigations and actions for
uncontested, straightforward cases such as driving under the influence.
C. Eliminate headquarters and regional reviews before serving disciplinary actions that
meet the parameters of the disciplinary matrix.
D. Discontinue the practice of transcribing all interviews and transcribe only those that
are necessary.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 1:
A. Agree. The CDC agrees that there is a need to identify, benchmark and monitor for
improvement, the adverse action timelines for each step in the process. In recognition of
that need, the CDC committed to the federal court to develop a plan for continual monitoring
and assessment of the investigative and disciplinary process.
B. Agree – Partially Implemented. With respect to investigations conducted by the Office of
Civil Rights (OCR), in March 2004 the OCR implemented policy and procedures allowing for
expedited investigations. Specifically, on March 25, 2004, and on May 10, 2004, informal
processes were begun by way of memorandum to staff regarding the use of the Department
Operations Manual closure category of “No Findings” that would allow for expedited case
closures wherein jurisdiction is lacking. In addition, a draft directive has been developed
and is currently pending review and approval from our contract attorney prior to release and
training to staff. The OCR has increased the availability of closing categories to expedite
those complaints that do not require a complete investigation. Additional policy is being
developed.
With respect to investigations outside of the OCR, the CDC is considering a centralized
intake process and other procedural changes, which, along with the new Case Management
System, will facilitate implementation of these recommendations.

2
70

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

C. Agree. The Department agrees with this recommendation and plans to eliminate most, if
not all, headquarters and regional office reviews for actions as described. The Department
will meet in November 2004, develop a timeline for implementing this recommendation and
report back to the BSA on those efforts in the next 60 days.
D. Agree – Partially Implemented. One of the first policies issued by the OCR during the
Fall of 2003 was the directive to investigative staff to immediately cease and desist from the
practice of transcribing all interviews and transcribe only those that are necessary on the
premise it was simply too time consuming. Although staff were instructed to continue taping
interviews, they were advised to “take notes” in lieu of relying upon the tapes. An in-house
Auditor, hired September 1, 2004, will determine if this directive is followed. The auditor
will prepare periodic written reports concerning compliance. The first report is expected in
December 2004.
The CDC will implement this recommendation for all other investigations.
RECOMMENDATION # 2
To measure any improvements made, assist in identifying training needs, and ensure the
responsible parties are accountable and learn from mistakes made, the department should
benchmark its individual program and overall performance statistics for cases that go
before the State Personnel Board and continually monitor these statistics.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 2:
Agree. The CDC agrees that there is a need to benchmark and later monitor its individual program
and overall performance statistics for cases that go before the State Personnel Board (SPB). In
recognition of that need, the CDC committed to the federal court to develop a plan for oversight
of SPB cases continual monitoring and assessment of the investigative and disciplinary process.
The plan will incorporate this recommendation. The Department will develop management and
oversight reports of SPB actions by November 2004.
RECOMMENDATION # 3
To improve the quality and consistency of its cases for all types of disciplinary actions, the
department should:
A. Standardize as much as possible adverse action and investigative processes, forms,
reports, and file checklists for the three types of cases.
B. Continue its efforts to implement a disciplinary matrix and ensure the wardens are
held accountable for their penalty decisions by requiring them to document their
reasons for any deviations from the prescribed penalty range.

3
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

71

CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 3
A. Agree. The CDC agrees that the Department should standardize as much as possible
forms, reports, and file checklists for use in the adverse action and investigative process.
In recognition of that need, the CDC is in the process of reviewing and modifying all of
its policies and procedures in the employee investigative and discipline process. The
Department will report its progress on implementing this recommendation in future updates
to the BSA.
B. Agree – Implementation Initiated. The CDC appreciates the BSA acknowledging the
Department’s development of a disciplinary matrix, which imposes specific levels of
discipline for specified conduct. As recommended, the Department will hold the wardens
accountable for their penalty decisions by requiring them to document their reasons for
any deviations from the prescribed penalty range. Indeed, the matrix itself contains a form
that the wardens will be required to use to document their penalty decisions. In addition,
the Department has committed to the federal court that it will develop management and
oversight reports to monitor the use of the matrix by November of 2005.
RECOMMENDATION # 4
To ensure supervisory issues or policy violations contained in category III reports are not
missed, the Office of Civil Rights should consider sending all unsustained cases to the
hiring authority for review.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 4
Agree to Consider. The OCR agrees to consider the BSA’s proposed recommendation on this
matter. However, there remain a number of competing concerns that must be considered before
adopting this recommendation. The OCR must take into consideration its effort to create an
environment that fosters a “safe” environment for those who participate as witnesses. In that
regard, OCR must be in a position to offer confidentiality to those who provide testimony in order to
minimize their fear of reprisal. Although there has been discussion as to “redacting” witness names
or coding them in some manner as to protect their identity, many cases are sufficiently unique and
will enable the reader to identify witnesses. Further, a good portion of OCR investigations involve
medical issues. As such, the Department must make every effort to maintain confidentiality of
these documents.
These concerns need to be balanced against the benefit to the hiring authority in receiving
the Category III reports. Consequently, the Department agrees to develop a plan that will
accommodate both competing concerns and report back to the BSA in 90 days.

4
72

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

RECOMMENDATION #5
To ensure it completes Category I investigations in a timely manner, the department should
consider conducting a workload study to determine the number of full-time investigators
each institution may need and whether existing resources can be allocated for the purpose.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 5
Agree. The CDC agrees with the recommendation. The YACA chartered an “Internal Affairs” team
to address recommendations made by the IRP, the BSA, and the federal court. As part of this review, the
team will consider the Category I investigation workload to determine the number of full time investigators
each institution may need and whether existing resources can be allocated for that purpose.
RECOMMENDATION # 6
To allow it to provide feedback and training to the Investigative Services Units, the
department should ensure that it monitors and enforces its requirement for its Office of
Investigative Services to review all category I investigations.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 6
Agree – Implementation initiated. The CDC agrees with the recommendation. As part of the
Madrid Remedial Plan, the CDC previously committed to develop a self-audit plan for Category I
investigations by December 30, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION # 7
To improve the quality and consistency of its adverse action investigation, the department
should do the following:
A. Continue its efforts to implement a department-wide vertical advocacy model to
allow for greater attorney involvement in adverse action cases, including equal
employment opportunity cases.
B. Consolidate policy and procedure development and monitoring for all types of
adverse action investigations under one branch and continue its efforts to update
employment-related policies and procedures.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 7:
A. Agree – Implementation Initiated. The CDC appreciates the BSA acknowledging the
Department’s efforts to implement a departmentwide vertical advocacy model to allow for greater
attorney involvement in adverse action cases, including equal employment opportunity cases. The
pilot project implemented at Pelican Bay State Prison under the mandates of the Madrid Remedial
Plan has been extremely successful. On September 15, 2004, the Department presented the
status of plan to implement this model statewide, in conjunction with the disciplinary matrix,
5
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

73

to the federal court judge and the special master in the Madrid case. The judge was very
complimentary and commented on the history making precedents that are being set by the
individuals involved in this process. The Department agrees with this recommendation and
is continuing the implementation as scheduled.
B. Agree to Consider. The CDC agrees with the recommendation. YACA chartered an
“Internal Affairs” team to address recommendations made by the IRP, the BSA, and the
federal court. As part of its activities, the team will be considering various structural
changes, including the viability of consolidating all types of adverse actions under one
organization. Final action on the recommended structural changes is dependent upon the
Agency’s reorganization decisions. After the Agency reorganization is released, the CDC
will share it with the BSA.
RECOMMENDATION #8
To resolve protracted disputes between employees or with the department, the department
should implement its own or use an outside mediation program such as the one offered by
the State Personnel Board, and make the program known to and available to all programs
and institutions.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 8
Agree. The CDC agrees that it should implement a mediation program such as the program
offered by the SPB. The CDC has already initiated contact with the SPB to discuss its program and
will be making that program known to and available to all programs and institutions. The CDC will
report back on its progress relative to this recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION # 9
To ensure that it is settling adverse action cases as often and appropriately as possible,
the department should follow its existing policy or design and implement a comprehensive
new settlement policy, ensure all pertinent employees are aware of the policy, and monitor
compliance at the headquarters level.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 9
Agree – Implementation Initiated. The CDC agrees that the department implement and train
staff on a comprehensive new settlement policy and monitor compliance. In recognition of that
need, the CDC committed to the federal court to revise its settlement policy for adverse actions
by October 2004. As noted by the BSA, the CDC has already initiated training on the settlement
process in its Employee Relations Advocacy Training. The CDC appreciates the acknowledgement
of the benefits of that training and agrees that additional training in the area of monitoring
settlements would be useful. This recommendation will be incorporated into the ERO Advocacy
Curriculum by the end of the calendar year.

6
74

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

CHAPTER 2

The Department Can Do More to Improve Its Monitoring of Cases and Training of Employees
RECOMMENDATION # 10
To ensure that it can appropriately and accurately monitor and track employment-related
actions and outcomes, the department should do the following:
Ø Complete its implementation of the new computer databases, eliminate the
redundant systems, and consolidate monitoring of these systems within the
information systems division.
Ø Ensure that staff involved in maintaining the new computer databases receive
proper training, enter data accurately and consistently, and appropriately update the
systems in a timely manner.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 10
A. Agree – Implementation Initiated. The CDC appreciates the BSA acknowledging
the Department’s new case management system. The system is designed to provide
the department real-time case management activity. As noted in the report, while the
initial implementation effort has been limited to the Office of Investigative Services the
Department intends to extend implementation to the institutions, OCR, the Legal Affairs
Division and the Office of Personnel Management. The CDC also appreciates the
acknowledgment of the efforts of the Legal Affairs Division, initiated back in 2001, to obtain
a comprehensive legal case management system. The full implementation of both these
systems will eliminate the redundant systems currently in use. Full implementation will be
incrementally implemented by August 30, 2005.
B. Agree. The CDC agrees that staff involved in maintaining the new databases should be
trained on an ongoing basis.
RECOMMENDATION # 11
To ensure that it provides adequate training for key positions involved in the disciplinary
process, the department should consider establishing job-specific mandatory training
requirements for its litigation and equal employment opportunity coordinators. Further,
the Office of Civil Rights should continue its efforts to implement mandatory training for its
investigators and ensure its policy is followed, as it already did for its ERO’s, investigative
services staff, and special agents.

7
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

75

CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 11
Agree – Partially Implemented. The CDC appreciates the observation of the BSA that the CDC
is moving in the right direction by developing, implementing, and requiring a job-specific training
course for its Employee Relation Officers (ERO). The CDC also appreciates the acknowledgement
of the development of similar programs for the Litigation Coordinators, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Coordinators and the OCR investigators. The CDC agrees that making this training
compulsory will add value to the disciplinary process.
The CDC also appreciates the recognition that the OCR initiated and continues to develop a formal
training platform for investigative staff. The CDC held its first 40-hour session in June 2004 and
plans to hold another 40-hour session by January 2005. We will be developing and requiring new
investigative staff to participate in a two-week investigative course along with ongoing on-the-job
training by immediate supervisors who will be guided by an EEO Investigator Training Manual
currently under revision. The manual will be completed by January 2005.
RECOMMENDATION # 12
To determine the most cost effective level to fill its ERO position, the department should
track the success rates of all its EROs, including staff other than peace officers.
CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION #12
Agree. The Department has been implementing a new database system to provide more
consistent, nonredundant data collection. An outcome of this system will be the ability to sort and
track data such as the success rates of actions within a particular institution. Further database
modifications are being discussed in order enable a differentiation of success rates for cases with
representation by an attorney, versus an ERO and specific classifications performing the ERO
function of Discipline. The Department is developing a timeline for implementation and will report
back to the BSA on those efforts within the next 60 days.
It should be noted that within current context the report refers to ERO with respect to Discipline.
The designation of “ERO” with the Department is a working title consisting of two functions Labor
Relations and discipline.
RECOMMENDATION # 13
To promptly address all current and future audit findings and recommendations, the
department should ensure that its newly created division charged with tracking audit
recommendations and corrective action is proactive in doing so.

8
76

California State Auditor Report 2004-105

CDC’S RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION # 13
Agree – Implemented. As noted by the BSA, in March of 2004, shortly after the arrival of the new
Director of Corrections, the CDC announced the establishment of a centralized unit responsible for
ensuring that the Department addresses external audit recommendations. Additionally, both the
YACA Secretary and the Department’s Directorate have begun conducting bi-weekly project status
meetings at YACA and the Department to apprise executive staff of developments in key high profile
projects. Further, YACA is initiating efforts to establish an agency wide tracking system to ensure
that audit finding and recommendations are being appropriately addressed. YACA’s goal is to have
the audit tracking system online by the end of the calendar year. Both YACA and the Department
agree that these initiatives should help ensure that the Department implements corrective actions in
a timely manner.
CONCLUSION
The CDC and YACA are serious about employee-related matters and are committed to redesigning
the entire employee disciplinary system. It has demonstrated that commitment to the federal
courts, the legislature, and the office of the State Auditor. As part of its ongoing efforts to improve
the process, the CDC will take appropriate actions to address the issues presented in the report.
The CDC recognizes that the past timeliness and responsiveness to rectify identified deficiencies
has been unacceptably slow. The Department appreciates the auditor’s recognition, however, of the
progress made over the last year and we look forward to positive progress reports in the future.

9
California State Auditor Report 2004-105

77

cc:

78

Members of the Legislature
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Milton Marks Commission on California State
Government Organization and Economy
Department of Finance
Attorney General
State Controller
State Treasurer
Legislative Analyst
Senate Office of Research
California Research Bureau
Capitol Press

California State Auditor Report 2004-105