OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MATTHEW L. CATE, INSPECTOR GENERAL

ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT
REVIEW OF AUDITS OF THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION
ADULT OPERATIONS AND ADULT PROGRAMS
2000 – 2004

VOLUME II

APRIL 2006
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

(Blank page)

CONTENTS
VOLUME I
PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ES-1
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ---------------------------- ES-9
INDEX TO FINDING SUMMARIES------------------------------------------------- ES-55
INTRODUCTION ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
BACKGROUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------1
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ------------------------------------------2
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS --------------------------------------------------------------------5
CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY
AND STATE PRISON, CORCORAN -------------------------------------------------------7
PHARMACEUTICAL EXPENDITURES --------------------------------------------------------------- 53
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ------------------------------------------------------------ 65
EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINARY PROCESS ------------------------------------------------------------- 89
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE, AUDIT FUNCTIONS --------------------------------------------------- 99
MEDICAL CONTRACTING PROCESS --------------------------------------------------------------111
EDUCATION PROGRAMS AT LEVEL IV INSTITUTIONS ----------------------------------------121
RICHARD A. MCGEE CORRECTIONAL TRAINING CENTER ----------------------------------133
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOLANO -----------------------------------------------------------143
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SACRAMENTO ----------------------------------------------------165

VOLUME II
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, CONTINUED
HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON ---------------------------------------------------------------------183
VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN -----------------------------------------------------------209
SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER ----------------------------------------------------------------237
LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY -------------------------------------267
LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-------------------------------------------------------------------293
INMATE APPEALS BRANCH ------------------------------------------------------------------------301
SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES ---305
CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS ---------------------315
DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS ---------------------------323
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING ------------------------------------------------329
PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY, OPTICAL PROGRAM AT RICHARD J. DONOVAN --------349
KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27 -------------------------------------------------------355
RESPONSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
AND REHABILITATION --------------------------------------------------------------- ATTACHMENT

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON
The Office of the Inspector General found that
High Desert State Prison has addressed most of the
recommendations from a November 2001 audit
that were under its control, but the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation has not
implemented several recommendations to provide
the institution with needed resources or to take
other actions affecting both High Desert State
Prison and other institutions.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 31
Fully implemented: 18 (58%)
Substantially implemented: 4 (13%)
Partially implemented: 3 (10%)
Not implemented: 5 (16%)
Not applicable: 1 (3%)

In November 2001, the Office of the Inspector General
conducted a management review audit of High Desert State Prison. The audit determined
that the institution was generally well run, but identified a number of deficiencies
affecting safety and security, the inmate appeals process, the inmate disciplinary system,
employee performance reports, and inmate medical and dental care. The audit also
identified issues affecting safety and security and inmate dental care that required action
from the Department of Corrections.
BACKGROUND
High Desert State Prison is one of 12 California adult correctional institutions designated
for Level IV male inmates. It also houses Level I and Level III inmates. Presently, the
institution houses approximately 4,500 minimum to high maximum-custody male
inmates, with nearly 60 percent of the inmate population designated Level IV. The prison
includes two 180-design facilities, which are considered the most secure in the state
correctional system. The institution also operates a 570-bed reception center for inmates
remanded to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from Northern
California counties. The institution is located on 325 acres in Susanville, California,
adjacent to the California Correctional Center.
Although the institution’s mission is to confine inmates, it also provides vocational
programs, education programs, and work assignments for inmates who are willing to
participate. High Desert State Prison is one of the largest employers in Lassen County. It
has an annual operating budget of more than $140 million and has approximately 1,300
employees.
The remote location of High Desert State Prison, coupled with its large population of
Level IV inmates, presents particular management challenges. The institution continues
to have difficulty recruiting and retaining personnel, especially for medical positions. In
addition, ongoing violence among the inmate population, typical of a Level IV
institution, often results in institution lockdowns and program closures.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 183

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The November 2001 management review audit revealed deficiencies both in institution
programs under the direction of the warden and in health care program areas under the
direction of the health care manager. The findings consisted of the following:
•

Deficiencies in the inmate appeals system undermined the integrity of the appeals
process and subjected the inmates to possible safety risks.

•

The institution could not document that inmates received hot meals and showers
during lockdowns.

•

Inmate appeals, especially appeals related to medical issues and to the Americans
with Disabilities Act, were not processed within prescribed time limits. Also,
modification orders resulting from medical appeals were not being implemented.

•

Inmates who paroled from High Desert State Prison and the California Correctional
Center paid an additional transportation charge of $55 compared to inmates who
paroled from state prisons in Folsom.

•

There were numerous safety problems and documentation deficiencies in the
administrative segregation housing units and control rooms.

•

The design of the cells in the administrative segregation unit did not allow the
custody staff to control lights inside the cells.

•

Security cameras were not available to monitor activity on the main yards.

•

Improvements were needed in documenting the preparation and maintenance of
Category I investigations.

•

There were several procedural errors in the inmate disciplinary process.

•

The detention/segregation records for several inmates in the administrative
segregation unit in Building D-7 did not record the inmate’s exercise period or the
reason the period was not provided.

•

Performance and probation reports for employees were not being completed in a
timely manner.

•

The staff was not completing mandatory training courses in a timely manner and
training files did not document the completion of training.

•

The institution was budgeted for programs that had never been activated.

•

There were deficiencies in the documentation of chronically ill inmates.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 184

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

•

Inmate medications could have been tampered with before they were administered
and were not adequately documented in the medical files.

•

Thirteen inmates on psychotropic medication were not included in the mental health
delivery system.

•

The institution was not providing inmates with required dental services.

•

Inmates were not being provided with medical, psychiatric, and dental chrono forms
in a timely manner.

•

Controls over the tracking of prescription drugs were grossly inadequate.

As a result of the November 2001 audit, the Office of the Inspector General made 31
recommendations to the management of High Desert State Prison and to the Department
of Corrections.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented the 31 recommendations
from the Office of the Inspector General’s November 2001 management review audit of
High Desert State Prison. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector
General provided the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with a table listing
the November 2001 findings and recommendations and asked the department to provide
the implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the department, and
evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the recommendations. The
Office of the Inspector General completed its fieldwork in August 2005. The results are
presented in the tables following this section.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the 31 recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in November
2001 concerning High Desert State Prison, eighteen recommendations have been fully
implemented; four have been substantially implemented; three have been partially
implemented; five have not been implemented; and one is not applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that High Desert State Prison has made
significant progress in implementing recommendations affecting areas under the
warden’s control, but a number of issues requiring additional funding and policy
direction from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation central office have not
been addressed. The institution has addressed the timeliness of the inmate appeals
process, monitoring of inmate modification orders, and ensuring that inmates comply
with administrative segregation policies. The institution has also made improvements in
the inmate disciplinary process, in documenting services provided during lockdowns, in
completing staff performance reports, and in completing mandated training requirements.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 185

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

In contrast, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has made minimal progress
in performing security modifications, including installing security cameras on the main
yards, and in pursuing additional release allowance funding for inmates paroling from
rural areas.
A number of the recommendations affecting the health care program, which is under the
direction of the health care manager, have also been addressed. In particular, the
institution has made progress in documenting inmate medical histories before issuing
medications; in providing additional escorts for dental services; and in implementing
policies and procedures to improve distribution and tracking of inmate medications. But
the institution’s medical department still has not developed a system to ensure that
inmates on psychotropic medications are included in the mental health care delivery
system. Also, the department has not eliminated inconsistencies in regulations concerning
minimum dental service requirements and has not developed an automated system to
schedule and track dental services.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that High Desert State
Prison continue to pursue resources to install video cameras on the main
yards in order to enhance security.
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the High Desert State
Prison medical department develop a system to ensure that inmates
requiring psychotropic medications are included in the mental health
delivery system before they receive the medications.
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden of High
Desert State Prison hold managers and supervisors in the administrative
area accountable for completing annual performance evaluations and
probation reports.
The Office of the Inspector General also recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation take the following actions:
•

In future construction projects, design buildings to provide the
custody staff with the ability to control cell lights from the outside.

•

Eliminate inconsistencies between California Code of Regulations,
Title 15 and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual concerning inmate dental care.

•

Implement an automated inventory system to track and monitor
prescription drugs.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 186

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

INSTITUTION PROGRAMS
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found deficiencies in the inmate appeals system at High Desert State Prison that
undermined the integrity of the appeals process and may have subjected the inmates to possible safety risks.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections undertake a thorough revamping
of the inmate appeals system statewide to
address the deficiencies in the inmate appeals
system.

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
This finding was prompted by complaints from inmates that appeals were often
lost or ignored by the staff and that during lockdowns inmates were denied
access to appeal lock-boxes and that as a result, appeal forms were gathered by
staff members responsible for providing inmates with day-to-day oversight who
might themselves be the subject of the complaint.
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that in order to
provide better oversight of the appeals process, the Inmate Appeals Branch
designated eight regions, each with a separate facility captain assigned to
facilitate communication with the institutions and provide oversight. The
department reported that the new system is working reasonably well in light of
population pressures, staff turnover, and limited staffing. The facility captains
report problems from their respective regions to the chief of the Inmate Appeals
Branch, who in turn reports problems and trends to the department
administration.
The department noted that previous reports by the Office of the Inspector
General have cited deficiencies in the informal appeals process, specifically, lost
or destroyed appeals and untimely responses. The Inmate Appeals Branch
reported that it has worked with institutions to resolve problems with the
informal appeals process on an institution-by-institution basis, with the goal of
ensuring that measures have been put in place at the local level to ensure the
integrity of the institution’s appeals process. The department reported that these
measures appear to have been successful in mitigating some of the deficiencies
noted in the Office of the Inspector General’s November 2001 audit. The Inmate
Appeals Branch reported, for example, that it has received no complaints of lost

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 187

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

or destroyed appeals from inmates at High Desert State Prison in the last twelve
months.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed its database of letters from High
Desert State Prison inmates for complaints concerning lost or destroyed appeals
and found that 5 out of the 340 letters received in the last twelve months cited
lost or destroyed appeals, along with other complaints about institution
operations. The small number of complaints concerning this issue indicates the
system is working appropriately. The 340 letters received by the Office of the
Inspector General during the last twelve months also demonstrates that inmates
are able to correspond during lockdowns, even with outside agencies.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institution could not document that inmates received hot meals and
showers during lockdowns.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden ensure that staff
members document services provided to each
inmate during lockdowns to ensure that
inmates are provided with mandated services
and to avoid potential litigation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison prepared an addendum to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual, section 55010, Emergency
Operations, pertaining to documenting essential services during periods of
lockdown. According to the institution, multiple services were going to be listed
in the addendum initially, but several issues were raised during the review
process. For example, the institution noted that the California Correctional Peace
Officers Association raised the issue of additional workload for bargaining unit 6
personnel. In addition, the institution stated that documentation was already
available in inmates’ central files, medical records, and other logs and documents
maintained by the institution. As a result, the final addendum to the Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual required the staff only to
document inmate showers during lockdowns.
PAGE 188

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmate appeals, especially appeals related to medical issues and the Americans
with Disabilities Act, were not processed within prescribed time limits. Furthermore, modification orders resulting from
medical appeals were not implemented.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden continue
overseeing the inmate appeals process and that
the health care manager hold his staff
accountable for processing appeals and
implementing modification orders in a timely
manner.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison reported that it has dedicated a staff member to ensure
that medical appeals are processed within prescribed time limits and to track
modification orders to ensure that they are implemented within prescribed due
dates. The institution also assigns the chief deputy warden to gather reports on all
appeals and to inform departmental managers at weekly management meetings
of any overdue appeals in their areas. According to the institution, this process
ensures that all areas of the institution are completing appeals in a timely manner
and requires department managers to take appropriate action on any overdue
appeals.
High Desert State Prison provided the Office of the Inspector General with a
report on overdue appeals that showed only 14 appeals overdue. Twelve of the
14 overdue appeals concerned issues from outside the institution, such as appeals
filed by inmates concerning property and disciplinary actions from institutions at
which they were previously incarcerated.
The institution also provided a tracking report that showed High Desert State
Prison had significantly improved its monitoring and completion of modification
orders.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 189

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates who paroled from the Susanville prisons paid an extra $55
transportation charge compared to inmates paroled from the Folsom institutions.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the wardens of the two
Susanville institutions work with the
California Department of Corrections
headquarters staff to have additional funds
allocated to remotely located institutions to
make parolee transportation costs more
equitable among institutions. The Office of
the Inspector General suggested the California
Department of Corrections consider
transporting parolees to a Greyhound bus
station closer to Susanville, such as Red Bluff
or Redding. A bus ticket to Los Angeles from
either of those locations cost $59 at the time
of the audit.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Department of Corrections reported that due to budgetary constraints,
inmates cannot be provided with extra transportation funds upon parole.
In response to the Office of the Inspector General’s report, High Desert State
Prison submitted a memorandum on April 19, 2002 to the northern regional
administrator recommending that the department consider a change to California
Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3075.2 to provide increased funding for
rural areas to cover the extra transportation costs. The northern regional
administrator responded that such a change would create inequities for inmates
who did not receive the increased amount. The regional administrator also noted
that such a change would require legislation to modify the California Penal Code.
The department, therefore, did not implement the recommendation.
High Desert State Prison stated that budgetary constraints prohibit the institution
from transporting all parolees from Susanville to either Redding or Red Bluff.
According to the institution, the unbudgeted costs of transporting parolees no
longer in the custody of High Desert State Prison on a regular basis to a bus
station in a metropolitan area would be exorbitant and fiscally irresponsible. The
institution reported that it does address parolee transportation issues on a caseby-case basis, however. For example, because the only shuttle service in the
Lassen County area cannot accommodate Americans with Disabilities Act
inmates confined to a wheelchair, if such an inmate is paroling and lacks
personal transportation, the institution arranges for special transport to the parole
location. According to the institution, situations also have arisen in which the
parole agent of a high control inmate requested that the inmate be transported to
the parole office by High Desert State Prison staff. The institution reported that it
has also arranged for special transport in these cases.

PAGE 190

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found numerous safety problems and documentation deficiencies in the administrative
segregation housing units and control rooms.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden ensure that the
staff and the inmates comply with the
institution’s existing policies and procedures.

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison informed the Office of the Inspector General that
administrative segregation unit staff are continuously trained regarding the need
to ensure that inmates comply with institution policies and procedures.
According to High Desert State Prison, the training includes the following areas:
•
•
•
•

Ensuring that inmates do not cover cell windows
Confiscating inmate fish lines
Documenting cell searches
Documenting inmate misconduct on CDC Form 115

High Desert State Prison reported that it has archived all outdated operations
procedures and maintains only current procedures for staff review. According to
the institution, post orders are also up to date, and the institution has instructed
staff to sign post order acknowledgments monthly.
According to High Desert State Prison, administrative segregation sergeants and
lieutenants conduct weekly audits of post orders and provide training reiterating
the need to sign in and out on isolation logs. Administrative segregation
sergeants also monitor the logs and conduct weekly audits of the CDC Form 114
segregation logs. High Desert State Prison provided the Office of the Inspector
General with a copy of a weekly audit worksheet to validate those efforts.
In May 2004, the Program and Fiscal Audits Branch of the Department of
Corrections conducted an audit of High Desert State Prison’s administrative
segregation unit and reported that the institution was in compliance with 84
percent of the areas reviewed.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 191

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

One of the areas identified as deficient in that audit was also identified in the
Office of the Inspector General’s November 2001 report. The Program and
Fiscal Audits Branch found that only 66 percent of the posts in administrative
segregation had current post orders available at the job site; 29 percent of the
posts had outdated post orders; and five percent had no post orders. The
institution reported that it is taking corrective action in these areas.
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution apply a nonslip surface to the metal steps leading from the
ground floor to the control room in Facility C,
Building 5.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

High Desert State Prison stated it applied a non-slip material to the stairwell in
Building C-5 shortly after the Office of the Inspector General issued its report.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that the design of the cells in the administrative segregation unit did not allow the
custody staff to control the lights inside the cells.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that in future construction
projects, the Department of Corrections design
buildings to provide the custody staff with the
capability of overriding and controlling the
cell lights from the outside.

STATUS
NOT
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, due to budgetary constraints, it was not
feasible to install exterior light controls for existing cells. High Desert State
Prison stated that originally the new administrative segregation unit building was
supposed to have exterior cell light controls, but the department eliminated the
exterior feature during construction to reduce the cost of the project.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that in future construction projects, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation design buildings to provide the custody staff with the ability to control cell lights from the outside.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 192

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that security cameras were not available to monitor activity on the main yards.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the prison install video
cameras on the main yards.

STATUS
NOT
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Office of the Inspector General noted in the 2001 audit that placing video
cameras on the main yards would enhance institution security, help staff identify
inmates involved in incidents and gang activities, and act as a deterrent. The
institution could also use the videotapes as evidence for disciplinary actions and
as a training tool for staff response to incidents.
High Desert State Prison originally submitted a capital outlay budget change
proposal to headquarters for fiscal year 2001-02 concerning the need for cameras
on the Level IV general population yards. According to High Desert State Prison,
headquarters denied the proposal, stating that it would review the matter as a
statewide issue.
High Desert State Prison submitted another request to the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation headquarters in October 2004, requesting $2.3
million to install a video surveillance system throughout the institution, but
headquarters denied the request. According to High Desert State Prison,
headquarters was considering installing the video surveillance system at the new
Kern Valley State Prison because the new prison had the infrastructure to allow
for easy installation. Based on its response, it does not appear that the department
has plans to install cameras at High Desert State Prison in the near future.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that High Desert State Prison continue to pursue resources to install video
cameras on the main yards in order to enhance security.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 193

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that improvements were needed in documenting the preparation and maintenance
of Category I investigations.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden ensure that the
investigative services unit captain (1) review
documentation used to support Category I
investigations, and (2) implement a policy of
storing witness interviews on separate tapes.

STATUS
NOT
APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation made significant changes to
its investigative process including the elimination of Category I investigations.
The new process requires the Office of Internal Affairs to perform all formal
investigations. Therefore, this recommendation is no longer applicable.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 9
The Office of the Inspector General found several procedural errors in the inmate disciplinary process.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden implement the
following policies and procedures to remedy
the procedural deficiencies in the inmate
disciplinary system.
The reporting employee must sign the rules
violation report to authenticate it. In the rare
instance in which the employee is not
available, the signed draft report should be
attached to the completed rules violation
report for verification of authenticity.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, training was provided to all disciplinary
officers, captains, and lieutenants directing them to abide by the following
guidelines:
•

The reporting employee must sign the rules violation report to authenticate it.
In those rare instances in which the employee is unavailable to sign the rules
violation report in time to meet disciplinary time constraints, the facility
PAGE 194

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

disciplinary officer will sign the rules violation report for the reporting
employee and the signed draft report will be attached to the completed rules
violation report for verification of authenticity.
•

Once the rules violation report has been approved and classified, the
disciplinary hearing should be conducted. Only the staff member who
classifies the rules violation report, or a staff member at the level of captain,
or above, is permitted to void the rules violation report.

•

The person who voids the rules violation report will document the action in a
memorandum to the appropriate chief disciplinary officer for inclusion in the
registry of rules violation reports.

When the rules violation report has been
approved and classified, the disciplinary
hearing should be conducted. Only the staff
member who classifies the rules violation
report or a staff member at a higher level,
preferably the hearing officer, should be
allowed to void the rules violation report.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

High Desert State Prison addressed this recommendation in the response
described above.

A copy of the completed rules violation report
should be delivered to the inmate within five
working days of the chief disciplinary
officer’s audit.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, institution policy requires a completed
copy of the rules violation report to be delivered to the inmate within five
working days of the chief disciplinary officer’s audit.

The rules violation reports should be filed in
the register of institution violations in a timely
manner.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

High Desert State Prison reported that its policy requires the file copy of the
rules violation report for the registry to be delivered to the appropriate chief
disciplinary officer’s office within five working days of delivery to the inmate.
The institution reported that this practice is still in place and operating without
difficulty.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 195

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 10
The Office of the Inspector General found that the detention/segregation records for several inmates housed in the
administrative segregation unit in Building D-7 did not record the inmate’s exercise period or the reason the period was not
provided.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden ensure that the
CDC Form 114-A, detention/segregation
record, be completed as required.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison reported that this practice is in place and operating
without difficulty. According to the institution, it provides continuous training to
administrative segregation unit staff on documentation of inmate exercise
periods. In addition, the institution reported that administrative segregation unit
sergeants conduct weekly documented audits of the CDC Form 114-A files,
ensuring that staff members document all pertinent information. According to the
institution, captains have conducted training on the completion of CDC Form
114-A’s for all members of the administrative segregation unit on all shifts.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 11
The Office of the Inspector General found that performance and probation reports for employees at High Desert State Prison
were not being completed in a timely manner.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden hold managers
and supervisors accountable for completing
annual performance evaluations and
probationary reports in a timely manner.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, the chief deputy warden reviews the
monthly overdue performance/probationary report list provided by the personnel
office and provides verbal direction to supervisors who fail to complete reports
in a timely manner. The institution reported that the chief deputy warden reviews
updates of the overdue performance report list bi-weekly to ensure progress is
made in the completion of performance/probationary reports. The chief deputy
warden disseminates the information to all division heads in the warden’s
executive staff meetings. High Desert State Prison informed the Office of the
Inspector General that the number of overdue performance reports has been
PAGE 196

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

significantly reduced since this practice was implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General prepared an analysis of overdue performance
reports based on data provided by High Desert State Prison and found the
following:
•
•
•

Performance reports for 121 employees were overdue.
Overdue reports averaged 81 days (ranging from 30 to 334 days)
overdue.
Administration had the most overdue reports, with 48.

The November 2001 audit revealed that supervisors completed only 35 percent
of annual performance evaluations and 19 percent of probationary reports within
prescribed time limits. With only 121 employees on the latest overdue list and
more than 1,300 employees at the institution, it appears that supervisors now
complete more than 90 percent within the prescribed timeframes — a significant
improvement over the 2001 data.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden of High Desert State Prison hold managers and supervisors
in the administrative area accountable for completing annual performance evaluations and probation reports.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 12
The Office of the Inspector General found that the staff was not completing mandatory training courses in a timely manner,
and that training files did not document the completion of training.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution hold
employees accountable for completing
mandatory training requirements.
Furthermore, it was recommended that steps
be taken to ensure that the documentation in
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, the in-service training unit currently
audits the attendance of mandatory training and notifies employees if they are
delinquent. The institution reported that it distributes annual training audits for
each employee to supervisors and distributes delinquency lists to each division
head for corrective action. If an employee does not attend mandatory training,
the employee is subject to corrective disciplinary action. Employees who miss a
PAGE 197

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

the training file is adequate to support the
automated report.

second mandatory training are subject to adverse action up to and including
dismissal for repeat offenses. High Desert State Prison reported that from
October 2001 through July 2005, it served 19 adverse personnel actions to
employees for failure to attend mandatory training.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 13
The Office of the Inspector General found that High Desert State Prison was budgeted for programs that have never been
activated.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden develop a plan
to permanently redirect the excess positions
for both education and the enhanced
outpatient programs to areas of institutional
priority.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison reported it reviewed vacancies in the education
department following the original audit and determined that 18.8 vacancies
existed in academic and vocational programs. Of these vacancies, 6.8 were
included in the mandated 826 position reduction required for the Department of
Corrections. The institution used the remaining 12 vacancies (five in the
academic program and seven in the vocational program) to offset overtime
expenditures.
High Desert State Prison recently implemented the new bridging program,
encompassing fewer instructors and in-cell learning. As a result of the budget
cuts associated with this change, High Desert State Prison reported that there are
no longer excess positions in the academic or vocational programs.
The institution reported that it transferred the 3.6 positions associated with the
enhanced outpatient programs to the institution vacancy plan to offset overtime
expenditures.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 198

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

HEALTH CARE PROGRAM
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found deficiencies in the prison’s documentation of chronically ill inmates.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that physicians review an
inmate’s history and documentation before
reordering medication. In addition, it was
recommended that physicians should
document their findings when conducting a
chart review and should note the reason they
renewed the medication without seeing the
patient.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, it is standard procedure for physicians to
review an inmate’s unit health record before reordering medication. The medical
staff is required to state in the progress notes the reason a given medication is
ordered or discontinued. High Desert State Prison provided the Office of the
Inspector General with medical operating procedure #749 pertaining to unit
health record documentation, and the Office of the Inspector General verified
that the operating procedure includes instructions for documentation and recordkeeping practices to ensure that patients’ unit health records remain current.
High Desert State Prison noted that it was one of the seven rollout institutions for
the Inmate Medical Services Program required by the Plata court order. The
Inmate Medical Services Program consists of comprehensive and standardized
medical policies and procedures to ensure timely access to chronic care, specialty
services, reception center processing, medication management, intrasystem
transfer process, and access to health care, including nursing triage and physician
follow-up.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmate medications could have been tampered with before they were
administered and that inmate medications were not adequately documented in the medical file.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 199

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the prison develop and
implement a policy requiring the medical
technical assistants to package “hot”1
medications within two hours of the time they
are administered. As an alternative, a
pharmacy technician could prepackage the
medication in unit doses for the medical
technical assistant to administer.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, the new Inmate Medical Services
Program policies and procedures, Volume IV, Chapter 11 specifies the following
procedures for outpatient clinics:
•

Medications ordered on an “AM and PM” or twice daily basis must be
administered with at least eight hours between the two dosing times
unless otherwise indicated on the CDC Form 7221. Prescribers are
encouraged to limit medication dosing timeframes to as few times per
day as possible while observing the particular medication serum life and
clinical efficacy.

•

When clinically indicated, medications may be ordered as “HS.”
Medications ordered as “HS” shall be administered after 2000 (8:00
p.m.)

•

“Stat” medications must be administered within one hour.

•

Medications must be stored in a safe and secured manner at all times.

•

Medications must be prepared and administered by the same licensed
staff member on the same day.

High Desert State Prison also has a Correctional Treatment Center, which is
regulated by California Code of Regulations, Title 22. Title 22, section
79635(a)(C)(7), states that in a Correctional Treatment Center, all medications
must be administered as soon as possible, but no more than two hours after doses
are prepared and must be administered by the same person who prepares the
doses for administration. Doses must be administered within one hour of the
prescribed time unless otherwise indicated by the prescriber.
The Office of the Inspector General also
recommended that the medical staff
immediately begin placing labels in the
1

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, the new Inmate Medical Services
Program policies and procedures, Volume IV, Chapter 11 also addresses this
recommendation. The policies and procedures provide as follows:

“Hot” medications require direct observation when taken.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 200

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

medication administration record for all cold
medications administered to inmates. The
medical staff should also document in the
record if the inmate receives or refuses the
medication. After the medical administration
record is documented, it should be sent to the
unit health record for filing, so that there is a
permanent record in the chart of the inmate
receiving the medication.

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

•

All medications must be self-administered unless otherwise ordered,
with the exception of medications on the restricted list.

•

When prescribing self-administered medications, the prescriber shall
explain to the inmate-patient how to take the medication. The prescriber
must communicate effectively and appropriately based upon the inmatepatient’s ability to understand and shall document the notification as
necessary on a CDC Form 7230.

•

Pharmacy and nursing services staff must record on the inmate-patient’s
medication administration record when the inmate-patient receives
his/her self-administered medications. The medication administration
record shall include the inmate-patient name, inmate’s CDC number,
prescription, date, time, and signature of medical personnel distributing
the medication.

•

A medication refusal is when an inmate-patient comes to the pill line and
refuses his/her prescribed medication or fails to comply with medication
procedures either at the cell front or during pill line.

•

The facility clinic medical personnel must document each medication
refusal on the medication administration record by circling and initialing
in red the date and time slot where the medication would have been
recorded had it been given.

•

The facility clinic medical personnel must attempt to determine why the
inmate-patient is refusing the medication and document the reason for
each medication refused on the back of the medical administration
record.

•

When a referral is made to a prescriber, the medical personnel must
document any known reason(s) for the refusal on a CDC Form 7230,
interdisciplinary progress note.

According to the medical department, staff members currently place cold
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 201

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

medication stickers in the medication administration record. They also document
the medication administration record and send the documentation to be placed in
the unit health record. The medical department reported that it developed this
operating procedure and put it into practice in July 2003.
High Desert State Prison provided the Office of the Inspector General with a
copy of Medical Operational Procedure #711 pertaining to medication
administration, and the Office of the Inspector General verified that the operating
procedures is consistent with the new Inmate Medical Services Program
requirements.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that 13 inmates on psychotropic medication were not included in the mental health
delivery system.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the medical staff ensure
that inmates were included in the mental
health delivery system before providing them
with psychotropic medication.

STATUS
NOT
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to High Desert State Prison, it continues psychotropic drugs for newly
arrived inmates who have been mental health patients until they can be evaluated
during reception center processing.
While that explanation addresses reception center inmates, the institution did not
explain how it ensures that general population inmates on psychotropic
medications units are included in the mental health delivery system. High Desert
State Prison acknowledged it has not developed auditing procedures to ensure
that all inmates on psychotropic drugs are included in the mental health delivery
system.
In its response to the Office of the Inspector General, the medical department
reported that it has established a quality improvement committee and that it
anticipates developing auditing procedures to address this issue, but the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 202

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

department provided no timeframe for completion other than to report it would
be a lengthy process.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the High Desert State Prison medical department develop a system to
ensure that inmates requiring psychotropic medications are included in the mental health delivery system before they receive
the medications.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that High Desert State Prison was not providing inmates with dental services
required under state regulations.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

In order to improve inmate access to dental
services, the Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the actions listed below.
The California Department of Corrections
should closely examine the existing policies
and regulatory requirements governing dental
care and take action to eliminate any
inconsistencies between Title 15 requirements
and those of the Department of Corrections
Operations Manual.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Operations Manual and the California Code of Regulations, Title
15, are in close agreement with respect to the staffing ratio of 950 inmates to
each dentist/one dental assistant team. The institution acknowledged, however,
that the requirement in California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3355.1
for a 14-day examination of new commitments is inconsistent with the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual.
The Office of the Inspector General noted this inconsistency during the
November 2001 audit and reiterates that the inconsistency results in confusion
over minimum dental care standards. California Code of Regulations, Title 15,
section 3355.1 requires each newly committed inmate to receive a complete
examination by a dentist, who must develop an individual treatment plan for the
inmate. Yet, section 54050 of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual allows institutions to give priority to emergency care and to

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 203

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

limit other dental care depending on available funding.
Based on this response, the Office of the Inspector General concludes that the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation still has not clarified
this inconsistency.
The warden should provide additional custody
personnel to escort inmates to dental
appointments during lockdowns and
additional security coverage while inmates are
in the dental clinic to allow more than one
inmate to be served at a time.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, this recommendation was accomplished
under the Plata court settlement. While dental care was not part of the lawsuit,
the medical escorts hired under the Plata agreement serve the dental clinics in
addition to the medical clinics.

The health care manager should consider
pursuing resources to automate the scheduling
and tracking of dental services or explore
other measures to increase the productivity of
the dental staff.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, the Division of Correctional Health Care
Services has drafted a dental policy and procedure manual, which will
standardize dental services statewide. In addition, the dental department at High
Desert State Prison reported that in 2003 it initiated dental peer reviews and
monthly quality management committee meetings to improve both the quality
and productivity of its dental services.
The department reported that it recognizes the shortage in dental staff statewide
and the difficulty the majority of the dental departments experience in meeting
the examination mandates of Title 15. As a result, the department requested and
received in fiscal year 2005-06 an additional 63.5 positions and $13.3 million to
implement improvements in the dental program. It is too early to assess the
impact for purposes of this review, however.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation eliminate
inconsistencies between California Code of Regulations, Title 15 and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual concerning inmate dental care.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 204

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates were not provided with medical, psychiatric, and dental chrono forms
in a timely manner, potentially affecting the inmates’ health.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the medical department
allow staff physicians to issue temporary
chrono forms for a one- to two-week duration
until the permanent chrono has been approved
by the chrono committee.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
High Desert State Prison reported that the primary care providers complete a
comprehensive accommodation chrono when the primary care provider
determines that an inmate-patient requires a temporary or permanent
accommodation due to a medical condition. If the inmate-patient’s condition
warrants an immediate accommodation for conditions in which a delay would
jeopardize the inmate-patient’s health or safety, the primary care provider must
complete a physician’s order to initiate the temporary or permanent
accommodation and document that the chrono is pending. According to the
institution, the accommodation chrono will remain current and will be honored
by a receiving institution unless a new form is generated indicating a new
primary care provider order or until the documented timeframe has expired. The
department addresses the accommodation chrono process within the Inmate
Medical Services Program Policies and Procedures, Chapter 23.
The medical department reported that it holds weekly chrono committee
meetings and that the committee signs and delivers approved chronos to inmates
in a timely manner.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that the controls over the tracking of prescription drugs were grossly inadequate.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the chief medical
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 205

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

officer/health care manager take the actions
listed below.
The plastic garbage bags used to transport
medications should be replaced with a
container that allows for a lock or a seal, to
ensure that the contents are not compromised
during shipment. The pharmacist should
prepare a shipping order listing all
medications included in the container. The
clinic employees can sign the shipping order
to acknowledge receipt of the medications.
This would also provide documentation for
both the pharmacy and the clinic to update
their inventories. A similar procedure should
be implemented for the return of medications
from the clinics to the pharmacy.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The pharmacy and the clinics should maintain
a perpetual inventory of medications, because
the medications are costly and are dangerous
contraband in the institution.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The medications from the pharmacy should be
sent directly to the medical clinic, or the
medical staff should pick them up at the
pharmacy. The medications should not be left
at the control room.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The institution reported that the pharmacy technicians deliver medications twice
a day to each of the clinics and no longer leave medications in the control rooms.

Medications should be securely stored at all
times due to their value and the danger of
misuse in the institution.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The institution reported that it securely stores medications as a standard practice.

The supervising nurse should have sole

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, the supervising nurse has sole
responsibility for access to the DocuMed machine and for maintaining the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

According to the institution, consideration was given to this recommendation but
the institution decided to implement the following procedure: The pharmacy
technician delivers the medications personally to the clinics and also picks the
medication up from the clinic and returns it to the pharmacy.
The Office of the Inspector General notes that the new procedure is an
improvement, but the institution still lacks a tracking system to update its
pharmacy inventory.

According to the institution, it maintains various inventories, but the lack of
appropriate computer hardware and software limits the process.
Based on this response, the Office of the Inspector General concluded that the
pharmacy does not maintain a perpetual inventory of medications.

PAGE 206

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON

accountability log, as recommended.

responsibility for access to the DocuMed
machine and for maintaining the
accountability log.
Written operating procedures should be
prepared for the health care clinics to assist
them in standardizing their operations and
implementing proper controls.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to High Desert State Prison, a number of operating procedures
dictated by the Plata agreement are in place and are being followed. The policies
and procedures related to the pharmacy are located in Inmate Medication
Services Program manual, Volume IX.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation implement an
automated inventory system to track and monitor prescription drugs.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 207

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN
The Office of the Inspector General found that
Valley State Prison for Women has improved
employee morale and the timeliness and completion
of important administrative processes, such as
Category I investigations, inmate appeals, and
rules violation reports. The institution remains
deficient in areas involving employee performance
and probation reports, weapons qualification for
armed staff, drug disposal, and drug interdiction
training.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 35
Fully implemented: 24 (68%)
Substantially implemented: 2 (6%)
Partially implemented: 5 (14%)
Not implemented: 1 (3%)
Not applicable: 3 (9%)

The Office of the Inspector General conducted a January 2001 management review audit
of Valley State Prison for Women to provide a baseline review in accordance with
California Penal Code section 6051. The audit focused on institutional processes relating
to communications, personnel, investigations, training, security, and financial matters. As
a result of the review, the Office of the Inspector General found that poor morale among
the institution staff was pervasive. The Office of the Inspector General also found a
number of administrative deficiencies, such as incomplete and untimely Category I
investigations and rules violation reports, untimely completion of inmate appeals and
employee performance and probation reports, and inadequate control over drug disposal.
BACKGROUND
Valley State Prison for Women, opened in May 1995, is located on 640 acres in
Chowchilla, California. The institution has approximately 960 employees and an
operating budget for fiscal year 2005-06 of $112 million. Although, Valley State Prison
for Women was designed to house 1,980 inmates, it presently houses more than 3,800
inmates in facilities at Levels I through IV, a reception center, and a security housing
unit.
Valley State Prison for Women is a work-based, fully programmed prison that provides
legally mandated programs and services, including vocational programs in auto
mechanics, cosmetology, dry cleaning, eyewear manufacturing, graphic arts, janitorial
services, landscape gardening, mill and cabinetry, office services, refrigeration and airconditioning, small engine repair, and welding. The Prison Industry Authority operates an
optical laboratory and a laundry at the institution.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the January 2001 review:

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 209

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

•

The morale at Valley State Prison for Women was poor under the warden’s
leadership. Employee distrust of the warden was deep-seated and respect for him was
low.

•

The institution’s Category I investigations were delayed unnecessarily and were often
inadequate.

•

The inmate disciplinary process at Valley State Prison for Women was not regularly
meeting statutory mandates with respect to timeliness and documentation.

•

Inmate appeal forms were not being processed within the time limits required by
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3084.6.

•

Valley State Prison for Women’s training records were inadequate to document that
staff members had attended mandatory training classes and completed the minimum
hours of required annual training.

•

Employee probation and performance reports were not completed in a timely manner.

•

Control over the storage and disposal of drugs at Valley State Prison for Women was
inadequate.

•

The institution projected a budget deficit of $1.2 million for fiscal year 2000-01.

•

Valley State Prison for Women failed to respond expeditiously to an inmate’s request
under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which violated a court-ordered remedial
plan and subjected the institution to potential civil liability.

•

The institution’s quarterly tool audits did not accurately reflect actual conditions at
various inventory sites throughout the institution.

•

Adverse personnel action case files at Valley State Prison for Women were not
adequately monitored, tracked, or documented.

•

Equal employment opportunity complaint and investigation case files contained
inadequate documentation.

•

Valley State Prison for Women had a number of institutional security deficiencies.
Staff assigned to armed posts had not met quarterly range qualifications. The
institution had inadequate controls to ensure that authority to take home institutional
keys resided only with those employees whose current job assignment required takehome keys. There were no written guidelines covering the information the watch
commander was to record on the electrified fence log.

•

The Valley State Prison for Women warden failed to purchase drug interdiction
equipment mandated by the Department of Corrections.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 210

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

The institution’s emergency operations plan was not submitted in a timely manner.

The Office of the Inspector General made 35 recommendations to the Valley State Prison
for Women management as a result of the January 2001 review. The specific
recommendations are listed in the attached table.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which Valley
State Prison for Women has implemented the 35 recommendations from the Office of the
Inspector General’s January 2001 review. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of
the Inspector General provided Valley State Prison for Women with a table listing the
January 2001 findings and recommendations and asked the institution to provide the
implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the institution and
evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the recommendations. The
Office of the Inspector General’s fieldwork was completed during October 2005. The
results are presented in the tables following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the 35 recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in January
2001, 24 recommendations have been fully implemented; two have been substantially
implemented; five have been partially implemented; one has not been implemented: and
three are no longer applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women has taken
measures to improve employee morale and various important administrative procedures,
including Category I investigations, rules violation reports, inmate appeals, adverse
personnel actions, and equal employment opportunity complaints. The institution has
improved the tracking systems for these administrative processes and has established bimonthly employee advisory council meetings. Valley State Prison for Women has also
improved its budget situation by seeking additional funding and operating in a fiscally
conservative manner. However, the institution remains deficient in preparing timely
employee performance and probation reports; ensuring that staff members assigned to
armed posts meet quarterly weapons qualification requirements; providing drug
interdiction training; and complying with Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
drug disposal guidelines.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Valley State Prison for
Women take the following additional actions:
•

Hold staff members with responsibility for preparing performance and
probation reports accountable for completing and submitting the reports
on the required date and use progressive discipline to ensure compliance.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 211

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

•

Follow the updated evidence control procedure (operational procedure
83090.04) for the destruction of drugs.

•

Conduct a quarterly audit of staff members assigned to armed posts to
ensure compliance with the quarterly range qualifications.

•

Instruct armed post supervisors to ensure that their subordinates fulfill
their quarterly range requirements.

•

Pursue progressive discipline against staff members and supervisors who
are non-compliant with quarterly range requirements and their
supervisors.

•

Ensure that employees receive drug interdiction training.

•

Instruct staff members responsible for updating the emergency
operations plan to begin the process earlier than in previous years to
allow enough time for the warden’s review and sign-off by the first week
of January, as required.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 212

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that morale at Valley State Prison for Women was poor under the warden’s
leadership. The audit revealed that employee distrust of the warden was deep-seated and respect for him was low.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that Valley State Prison for
Women management take immediate steps to
regain employees’ trust and respect by taking
the actions listed below.

Acknowledge the extent to which cynicism
and distrust affects the employee population.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that its employee advisory
committee, which consists of an employee from each department, including
plant operations, education, administration, and records, has improved
employee trust and respect. The committee meets bi-monthly to discuss issues
and concerns raised by the employees. The committee provides copies of its
meeting minutes to the warden and area managers for evaluation and
resolution.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the meeting minutes of the July
12 and September 15, 2005 committee meetings. Eight of the committee’s 19
members attended the July meeting and five members attended the September
meeting. The Office of the Inspector General concluded from reviewing the
documents that the committee discussed issues related to employee concerns,
such as covered tram stops, employee tram services, soda machines, bomb
threats, and employee smoking prohibitions. The Office of the Inspector
General also noted that the next meeting was scheduled for November 8,
2005.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 213

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Meet with employees to identify and define the
issues most important to them.

Respond immediately to as many of the
initially identified employee concerns as
practically possible by introducing policy
changes, permitting activities, or making other
innovations that can be implemented without
compromising institutional security or agency
policy.
Form a committee of representatives from
various employee areas (administration,
custody, facilities, programming), to provide a
forum for identifying factors relating to
employee morale, recommending solutions,
and monitoring the effectiveness of the
solutions implemented.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the employee advisory
committee allows managers to acknowledge important issues affecting
employees outside the scope of collective bargaining, which improves daily
operations and employee morale. For example, the committee facilitated the
establishment of a tram to transport employees from the entrance building to
specific locations throughout the institution and worked to improve employee
break areas. Valley State Prison for Women also reported that facility
captains monitor their respective facilities monthly. In addition, all managers,
including the warden, chief deputy warden, and associate wardens, conduct
periodic tours of the institution to ensure safety and security and to make
themselves accessible to the staff.
Valley State Prison for Women reported that the employee advisory
committee meetings, the monthly facility captain tours of the facility, and the
periodic management tours of the institution improved employee morale and
did not compromise institutional security or agency policy.

As discussed above, Valley State Prison for Women reported that the
employee advisory committee has improved employee morale, trust, and
respect and has allowed managers to acknowledge important issues affecting
employees outside the scope of collective bargaining.

PAGE 214

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Conduct regular walking tours of the
institution, visiting all work sites to talk with
employees about the institution’s mission and
receiving information directly from employees
responsible for carrying out that mission.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that its facility captains tour their
respective facilities each month to monitor operations and to make
themselves accessible to the staff. In addition, all managers, including the
warden, chief deputy warden and associate wardens, conduct periodic tours of
the entire facility to ensure the safety and security of the institution and to
interact with staff. Finally, all managers are encouraged to have an “open
door policy.”

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institution’s Category I investigations were delayed unnecessarily and were
often inadequate.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Investigative Services
Unit at Valley State Prison for Women
carefully monitor the timeliness of its
investigations. Adding a separate column to
the incident tracking log for recording the
incident date would help to flag the approach
of the one-year deadline imposed by
Government Code section 3304(d).

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
NOT APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of Internal Affairs
has eliminated the differentiation between Category I and Category II
investigations. All requests for investigations are reviewed by a committee in
the central intake unit at Office of Internal Affairs headquarters. Accepted
cases are assigned to a senior special agent at a regional internal affairs office.
It is the option of the senior special agent to assign the case to an institution’s
Investigative Services Unit. If a case is assigned to the institution staff, it is
supervised by the senior special agent at the Office of Internal Affairs and
monitored on a new case management system. The case management system
produces a periodic case aging report that provides the senior special agent
with information on the age of a case. This feature helps prevent cases from
exceeding the statutory completion timeframes.

PAGE 215

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Investigative Services
Unit’s newly appointed lieutenant play a
strong role in monitoring the quality of every
investigation, ensuring that issues are fully
explored, relevant witnesses interviewed,
conflicting testimony evaluated, and findings
supported by sufficient facts and evidence.

NOT APPLICABLE

Refer to previous comment.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Valley State Prison for
Women warden exercise good judgment in
making the necessary distinctions between
Category I and Category II investigations. In
cases where the determination is open to
interpretation, the warden should consult with
the manager of the Office of Investigative
Services, Central Region, in making a
decision.

NOT APPLICABLE

Refer to previous comment.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that the inmate disciplinary process at Valley State Prison for Women was not
regularly meeting statutory mandates with respect to timeliness and documentation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 216

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden’s office
regularly review the disciplinary action logs
(CDC Form 1154) at each of the institution’s
four housing facilities to identify any
incomplete CDC Form 115s.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that facility captains review the
disciplinary action logs on at least a monthly basis. In addition, the associate
wardens and the chief disciplinary officer review the logs on a quarterly basis.

In addition, the warden’s office should
implement procedures requiring written
justification by any official voiding or
dismissing a CDC Form 115.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that all senior hearing officers
(lieutenants) are required to submit a memorandum to the chief disciplinary
officer documenting the reason a rules violation report (CDC 115) was
voided.
The Office of the Inspector General obtained and reviewed the institution’s
March 2005 institutional disciplinary register. As a result of the review, the
Office of the Inspector General identified a number of CDC 115s that
appeared to have been voided and requested copies of the memoranda
explaining the reason each of the CDC 115s was voided. The institution
provided the memoranda, which enabled the Office of the Inspector General
to verify that the senior hearing officers submit memoranda for voided CDC
115s to the chief disciplinary officer.

To facilitate proper monitoring and auditing,
copies of voided CDC 115s should be
provided to the chief disciplinary officer for
inclusion in the institutional register.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that all voided CDC 115s are
submitted to the chief disciplinary officer via memorandum and are recorded
in the institutional disciplinary register.
As mentioned previously, the Office of the Inspector General verified that the
voided CDC 115s are recorded on the institutional disciplinary register via
memorandum.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 217

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmate appeal forms (CDC Form 602) were not being processed within the
time limits required by Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, section 3084.6.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden’s office
implement effective monitoring processes to
ensure that inmate/parole appeals are
processed promptly.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that the appeals coordinator prepares
and submits an appeals report to the warden’s office for review every
Monday. The report details all of the first and second level appeals on file in
the appeals office, including the inmate’s name and location, the log number,
and the assignment and due dates. The warden and the warden’s executive
staff members review the report and discuss it during the weekly executive
staff meetings. The warden’s office informs the appeals coordinator of
discrepancies or questionable due dates.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed 26 warden’s executive staff
meeting minutes covering meetings held during January and June 2004 and
January, May, July, and August 2005. The Office of the Inspector General
verified that appeals were discussed during 24 of the 26 meetings. According
to the minutes, the appeals unit reported only one overdue appeal on May 16,
2005; three overdue appeals on July 25, 2005; one overdue appeal on August
15, 2005, and one overdue appeal on August 29, 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General also reviewed a copy of the institution’s
overdue appeals report dated August 29, 2005 and noted that the institution
had one overdue appeal pending that dealt with an Americans With
Disabilities Act issue. As of August 29, 2005, the appeal was five days
overdue.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 218

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the monitoring process be
combined with appropriate action to enforce
adherence to required deadlines in order to be
effective.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

As discussed above, Valley State Prison for Women reported that the
warden’s office has an active role in monitoring the status of appeals. The
warden’s office reviews the weekly appeals report, discusses the report at the
weekly executive staff meetings, and informs the appeals coordinator of any
discrepancies or questionable due dates. According to the institution, the
appeals coordinator addresses the warden’s concerns appropriately and
expediently.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden’s office
consider the necessity of providing additional
training on Valley State Prison for Women’s
policies and procedures for processing inmate
appeals.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the appeals office staff members
receive annual appeals training. In addition, the appeals coordinator develops
operational procedures and submits them to the warden’s office for review
and approval. According to the institution, the review process ensures strict
adherence to department policies and procedures. The institution reported that
the appeals coordinator has a good understanding of the policies and
procedures and implements them in an effective and efficient manner.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution’s appeals
coordinator begin filing completed CDC Form
602s in sequential order within the individual
appeals folders.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that it implemented a new filing
system in 2001. To ensure efficiency, appeals are filed in sequential order.
The system enables the appeals office staff to easily locate appeal documents
through individual log numbers.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 219

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women’s training records were inadequate to
document that staff members had attended mandatory training classes and completed the minimum hours of required annual
training.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that Valley State Prison for
Women and Department of Corrections
management place greater emphasis on
maintaining complete and accurate training
records for Valley State Prison for Women
staff.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that it tracks each employee’s inservice and on-the-job training through an automated system. According to
the institution, the training officer updates the record of any employee who
attends a training class upon receiving a CDC 844 sign-in form. The training
officer files and archives the form after completing the data entry.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden require the inservice training staff to provide training
printouts periodically to supervisors and
managers so that they can monitor staff
training status.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the institution monitors staff
training through supervisors and managers. Each employee’s training record
is audited annually and/or quarterly to ensure that employees are in
compliance.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the minutes of 26 of the
warden’s executive staff meetings held in January and June 2004 and in
January, May, July, and August 2005. The Office of the Inspector General
verified that staff training was a topic at 21 of the 26 meetings.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 220

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that employee probation and performance reports were not completed in a timely
manner.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden and his
management team emphasize the importance
of preparing employee performance and
probationary reports in a timely manner.

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it ensures that performance and
probationary reports are completed in a timely manner through the following
procedures:
The personnel specialist prepares a performance evaluation tracking card
when a new employee begins assignment at the institution. The card lists the
due dates of all required performance and probationary reports. The personnel
specialist sorts the cards numerically by the month due. Each month the
personnel specialist pulls the tracking cards for the next month’s performance
reports, prepares the performance reports, and distributes them to the
appropriate division head for disposition. On the 6th day of each month, a
personnel specialist prepares a past-due performance report and forwards it to
the warden. The warden uses the report to address delinquent performance
reports in the executive staff meetings.
Valley State Prison for Women also reported that it completes an average of
1,025 performance reports each year and that in 2004 it processed 94 percent
of the reports on time. According to the institution, from January through
August 2005, 93 percent of the performance reports were on time. The
institution reported that overdue performance reports were caused by staff
vacations, official business, extended sick leave, and absences.
The Office of the Inspector General compared the institution’s procedures for
preparing performance reports as described above to the procedures recounted
to the Office of the Inspector General during the 2001 review and found that
the procedures have not changed. The Office of the Inspector General also
noted that delinquent performance and probation reports were not included as

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 221

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

a topic in the minutes of any of the 26 executive staff meetings held in
January and June 2004 or in January, May, July, and August 2005.
Despite the institution’s statement that 93 percent of performance reports
were completed on time during the first eight months of 2005, the number of
overdue performance reports actually has been increasing since the 2001
review. In August 2000, the last month covered in the 2001 review, the
institution had 57 overdue performance reports. In August 2004, the number
was the same —57 overdue performance reports. In August 2005, the number
jumped to 64 overdue performance reports, and in the 13-month period from
August 2004 through August 2005, the institution averaged 72 overdue
performance reports and 24 overdue probation reports each month.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Valley State Prison for Women hold staff members with responsibility
for preparing performance and probation reports accountable for completing and submitting the reports on the required date
and use progressive discipline to ensure compliance.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that control over the storage and disposal of drugs at Valley State Prison for
Women was inadequate.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 222

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden of Valley State
Prison for Women implement the following
procedures:
Coordinate the destruction of drugs with local
law enforcement as required by the
Department of Corrections Operations
Manual. If this is not practical, Valley State
Prison for Women’s investigative services unit
should transport the drugs to the destruction
site in conjunction with Central California
Women’s Facility staff. Staff from the two
institutions should trade and inventory each
others’ drugs, and sign an acknowledgement
verifying counts or identifying discrepancies
immediately prior to destruction.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the institution’s investigative
services unit follows the guidelines for destruction of drugs required by the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual. The
institution reported that it shares the cost of destruction with the Central
California Women’s Facility and that the evidence officer of the investigative
services unit always signs an acknowledgment verifying counts.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the institution’s evidence
control procedure, operational procedure 83090.04, dated June 2005, and
found that the institution has updated its procedures to comply with
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual
requirements. To verify that the institution is following the procedures, the
Office of the Inspector General analyzed the supporting documentation from
the institution’s August 2005 drug destruction. The Office of the Inspector
General found that the institution failed to follow the updated procedures after
it obtained permission from the Madera County Superior Court to destroy
drugs no longer needed for evidence in court proceedings. Instead of
coordinating the drug destruction with local law enforcement in order to
provide independent verification as required by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual and the institution’s
operating procedures, the evidence officer along with another officer from the
investigative services unit, transported the drugs to Covanta Energy, which
operates a destruction site. Covanta Energy issued a certificate of disposal but
made no notation on the certificate describing what was destroyed. Without
this documentation or other independent verification there is no assurance
that the drugs were properly destroyed.

PAGE 223

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Appoint one correctional officer as Valley
State Prison for Women’s evidence officer and
restrict drug access to only that individual.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the investigative services unit
has one correctional officer designated as the evidence officer. According to
the institution, the evidence officer and his supervising sergeant are the only
staff members with access to the evidence locker where confiscated drugs are
stored.
The Office of the Inspector General verified that the investigative services
unit has one evidence officer and that the evidence officer and his supervising
sergeant are the only investigative services unit staff members with access to
the keys that unlock the evidence locker. The evidence officer is responsible
for entering information onto the evidence log and database.

Require that investigative services unit
supervisors conduct unannounced inventories
of the evidence room at least monthly. The
inventories should be documented and
maintained for review.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the investigative services unit
lieutenant and sergeant both conduct unannounced inventories of the evidence
room monthly. According to the institution, the lieutenant and sergeant sign
in on the log, pull inventory cards, and review the evidence with the officer.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the institution’s evidence
control procedure, operational procedure 83090.4, dated June 2005. Under the
procedure, the evidence officer is required to conduct regular inventories of
the evidence and document the inventory on the evidence room log-in sheet.
The investigative services unit sergeant is required to conduct an
unannounced inventory of the evidence room at least once a month. The
investigative services unit sergeant is also required to assist the evidence
officer with a complete inventory of all items in the evidence room quarterly.
The investigative services unit lieutenant is required to conduct periodic
inventories of all items in the evidence room to determine if they must be
maintained for an administrative hearing or criminal proceeding.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the evidence room
log-in sheets for the period November 29, 2004 to October 3, 2005 and found
that the evidence officer conducted eight inventories during the 10-month
period, with three of the eight inventories conducted in tandem with the
investigative services unit sergeant. The investigative services unit sergeant
conducted nine inventories during the 10-month period, including the three

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 224

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

inventories conducted in tandem with the evidence officer. The investigative
services unit lieutenant conducted two inventories during the 10-month
period. For two of the 10 months, however, neither the sergeant nor the
lieutenant conducted the required inventories.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Valley State Prison for Women follow its updated evidence control
procedure (operational procedure 83090.04) for the destruction of drugs.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women projected a budget deficit of $1.2 million for
the 2000-01 fiscal year.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden take immediate
action to control expenditures and eliminate
future budget deficits. The effort required
reducing expenditures by eliminating posts and
preparing budget change proposals to augment
the institution’s budget.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it received adequate funding
through the budget change process after the January 2001 review and ended
fiscal year 2000-01 with a $26,407 surplus. According to the institution, it is
operating in a fiscally conservative manner. For example, the managers
review custody overtime usage on a daily basis and closely monitor budget
allotments and expenditures each month. As a result, Valley State Prison for
Women ended fiscal years 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 with a
budget surplus.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the institution’s final budget
plan summary for fiscal year 2004-05 and verified that Valley State Prison for
Women ended fiscal year 2004-05 with a budget surplus.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 225

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 9
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women failed to respond expeditiously to an inmate’s
request under the Americans with Disabilities Act, thereby violating a court-ordered remedial plan and subjecting the
institution to potential civil liability.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden immediately
modify the institution's operational procedure
for assistive devices to correspond with the
departmentally issued remedial plan and its
own disability placement procedure.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it has modified its operational
procedures for assistive devices and has fully implemented all aspects of the
Armstrong Remedial Plan, which concerns Americans with Disabilities Act
issues. According to the institution, the appeals coordinator gives high
priority to all issues and appeals related to inmates with disabilities and
processes them in a timely and efficient manner. The institution reported that
the appeals coordinator also has attended Americans with Disabilities Act
training and fully understands the importance of efficiently processing these
documents.
Valley State Prison for Women also reported that the warden and the appeals
coordinator review appeals each week to ensure that time constraints are met.
According to the institution, Valley State Prison for Women staff members
meet with attorneys from both the Prison Law Office the department’s Legal
Affairs Division to resolve Americans with Disabilities Act issues and issues
related to the Armstrong litigation. In addition, the Prison Law Office tours
the institution as part of the Clark litigation, and the warden works with the
staff and the department’s Legal Affairs Division to resolve issues in that
case.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the institution’s operational
procedure for the issuance of wheelchairs and other assistive devices

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 226

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

(operational procedure 83080.08) and verified that the procedure corresponds
to the department’s remedial plan and its own disability placement
procedures.

In addition, the Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden thoroughly
investigate the incident and take steps to lessen
or eliminate the potential for any similar
incident to occur.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the appeals for the inmate
referred to in the finding have been resolved and the appeals coordinator
continues to follow established procedure to avoid similar incidents from
occurring.
Although Valley State Prison for Women modified its operational procedure
for assistive devices consistent with the department’s remedial plan and its
own disability placement procedures, the warden did not investigate the
incident beyond resolving the inmate’s appeals. The extreme delay in
resolving the inmate’s appeals was the issue that led to the finding. It is an
improvement that the status of appeals is now discussed at the weekly
executive staff meeting, however.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
No follow-up recommendations due to the length of time since the incident occurred in January 2000.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 10
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women’s quarterly tool audits did not accurately
reflect actual conditions at various inventory sites throughout the institution.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 227

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the tool control officer
document all corrective action taken during
tool audits and bring all serious policy
violations to the warden’s attention. Further,
any corrective action taken by the tool officer
should be summarized in the completed
quarterly tool audit report presented to the
warden.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that the tool control officer
documents and reports all tool control policy violations to the warden through
a quarterly tool audit report.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the tool control
officer’s second quarter 2005 audit tracking form and found that the officer
documented each discrepancy found along with its corresponding corrective
action on the report.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 11
The Office of the Inspector General found that adverse personnel action case files at Valley State Prison for Women were not
adequately monitored, tracked, or documented.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
To mitigate the potential for exposing the
institution and the department to civil liability,
as well as to lessen the possibility of having
cases unresolved for unacceptable periods of
time, the Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution’s employee
relations officer develop a system to track and
monitor adverse action cases.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it developed and uses a system
to track and monitor all sustained internal affairs investigations that result in
either corrective actions (handled administratively) or adverse personnel
actions. The institution also reported that its employee relations committee
meets once a month to discuss and review all potential adverse action cases.
According to the institution, the meetings, coupled with the tracking system,
ensure that each case is effectively monitored and addressed in a timely
manner. The employee relations committee is composed of the following staff

PAGE 228

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

members: the warden, the equal employment opportunity coordinator, the
investigative services unit lieutenant, the employee relations officer, the
return-to-work coordinator, and the personnel officer. The committee met
nine out of the twelve months ending July 30, 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the institution’s
employee relations office action log for the period January 1, 2005 to August
5, 2005. The log listed the cases in sequential order and provided essential
information, such as the discovery date, which is instrumental in ensuring that
a case is resolved within the required timeframes.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 12
The Office of the Inspector General found that equal employment opportunity complaint and investigation case files contained
inadequate documentation.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution’s equal
employment opportunity coordinator develop a
system to track and monitor equal employment
opportunity cases to ensure that cases are
resolved in a timely fashion and that all critical
documentation is complete.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it has developed a system to
track, monitor, and update case information. According to the institution,
equal employment opportunity office staff members update the tracking log at
least once a month. Valley State Prison for Women’s equal employment
opportunity coordinator contacts outside agencies for updates and meets with
the warden to inform her about new or existing cases at least once a month.
The institution reported that the coordinator monitors and evaluates all cases
within the appropriate guidelines and ensures that all cases are being
addressed and resolved in a timely manner.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed copies of the institution’s

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 229

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

discrimination complaint activity logs for calendar years 2004 and 2005
(through mid-August 2005), and determined that the logs contained the
necessary information, including the complaint’s receipt date, which would
facilitate the monitoring process and enable the coordinator to ensure the
timely resolution of each case.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 13
The Office of the Inspector General found a number of deficiencies in institutional security at Valley State Prison for Women.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution take the steps
listed below to improve institution security.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 230

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Have managers and supervisors conduct
periodic audits of training records for
employees assigned to armed posts to ensure
that those employees meet quarterly
proficiency requirements with the weapons
maintained in armed post positions.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the armory sergeant conducts
quarterly weapons qualifications for all staff members assigned to armed
posts. According to the institution, the in-service training manager conducts
an annual audit of each employee to ensure that weapons qualifications
requirements are met. To do so, the manager identifies individuals requiring
quarterly qualification and cross-references the names against the automated
in-service training records of staff members who have participated in the
quarterly and annual range qualifications. The in-service training manager
documents any deficiencies and forwards the names of the officers and
supervisors who have fallen out of compliance to the division head for
appropriate action. Valley State Prison for Women also reported that the
monthly in-service training bulletin identifies each post that requires quarterly
weapons qualification. The institution instructs its supervisors to periodically
inspect officer training cards (gold cards) to ensure that each officer has met
his or her quarterly qualification requirements.
The Office of the Inspector General found, however, that Valley State Prison
for Women personnel assigned to armed posts have not consistently met
quarterly range qualification requirements. The Office of the Inspector
General reviewed a list of Valley State Prison for Women personnel assigned
to armed posts and determined that 86 correctional officers were assigned to
armed posts as of August 11, 2005. The Office of the Inspector General also
obtained and analyzed automated training records for staff members who had
participated in annual and quarterly range qualifications during the sevenquarter period from January 1, 2004 to September 26, 2005. The Office of the
Inspector General verified the dates each of the 86 correctional officers was
assigned to an armed post and cross-referenced the names of the staff
members assigned to armed posts against the automated training records for
the seven-quarter period in question.
As a result of that review, the Office of the Inspector General determined that
only 58 (67 percent) of the 86 staff members assigned to armed posts had
completed all of the required quarterly range qualifications and training. As
of the end of the third quarter of 2005, the deficiencies consisted of the
following:

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 231

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Modify and expand the Valley State Prison for
Women Operations Manual, Supplement
55020 to require staff with take-home keys to
return those keys to the locksmith after
changes in their assignments eliminate the
necessity for such keys.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

•

Sixteen (33 percent) of the 49 staff members assigned to an armed
post in January 2005 had not completed the three required quarterly
range qualifications.

•

One (33 percent) of the three staff members assigned to an armed
post in June 2005 failed to complete the two required quarterly range
qualifications.

•

Ten (30 percent) of the 33 staff members assigned to an armed post in
July and August 2005 failed to complete the required range
qualification.

•

One staff member had been assigned to an armed post in 2002, but
had completed only three of the last seven quarterly range
qualifications.

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the institution locksmith does
not issue keys to an individual changing assignments until the person
previously holding the assignment returns the keys to the locksmith.
According to the institution, the locksmith also thoroughly reviews all key
request forms to verify the validity of the request and conducts biannual
audits of all take-home key sets.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the Valley State
Prison for Women Operations Manual, Supplement 55020, dated July 18,
2005. Although the institution had not modified the manual as recommended
by the Office of the Inspector General, the manual did include a blank copy of
the institution’s key request form, which specified that it is the employee’s
responsibility to return the keys to the key control officer or locksmith upon
job change, transfer, or termination.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 232

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

In conjunction with this, the institution’s
personnel office should provide a monthly list
of all assignment changes to the locksmith,
who would provide written notice to
employees assigned to posts not requiring
take-home keys to turn them in, and who
would distribute copies of such notification to
the employees’ supervisors.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women also provided the Office of the Inspector
General with copies of the July 1, July 8, July 15, July 22, and July 29, 2005,
personnel changes report. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the
reports and verified that the personnel office provides the lists to the
institution locksmith each week.

Modify and expand the Valley State Prison for
Women Operations Manual, Supplement
55080 to direct watch commanders to
complete the electrified fence log at the end of
each watch.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women should also
provide training on proper completion of the
electrified fence log for supervisors and
managers and should institute a policy of
having the security captain periodically review
the log for completeness and report any
problems to the warden.

FULLY

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the personnel office will not
finalize an employee’s separation, transfer, or retirement until a department
report of separation is completed. The form includes a section that must be
completed by the institution locksmith, who retrieves institution keys at that
time.

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the electrified fence log is
maintained in the watch commander’s office and is completed daily on all
watches by each watch commander on duty.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the Valley State
Prison for Women Operations Manual, Supplement 55080, dated November
3, 2004 and found that the institution modified the manual to require that
watch commanders make all appropriate entries on the electrified fence log
during their shift, noting any alarm or other activity related to the electric
fence.

IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that the correctional captain reviews
the electrified fence log monthly and provides on going training regarding the
log.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Valley State Prison for
Women Operations Manual, Supplement 55080 dated November 3, 2004
directs the correctional captain to review the electrified fence log during the
first week of each month for completeness. The Office of the Inspector
General also reviewed excerpts from the institution’s automated training
records and found that staff members received electrified fence training.

PAGE 233

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Valley State Prison for Women take the following additional actions
with respect to weapons qualifications:
•

Conduct a quarterly audit of staff members assigned to armed posts to ensure compliance with the quarterly range
qualifications.

•

Instruct armed post supervisors to ensure that their subordinates fulfill their quarterly range requirements.

•

Pursue progressive discipline against staff members and supervisors who are non-compliant with range qualification
requirements.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 14
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Valley State Prison for Women warden failed to purchase drug interdiction
equipment mandated by the Department of Corrections.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden comply with the
department directive to purchase the approved
security systems outlined in the March 23,
2000 memorandum from the deputy director of
the Department of Corrections Institutions
Division.

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
As of September 8, 2005, Valley State Prison for Women had not purchased
any of the mandated security systems and had not received a dispensation
from the department to disregard the mandate. According to the institution’s
associate warden for business services, the institution did prepare a purchase
order for some of the recommended equipment, but withdrew the purchase
order due to the lack of funds. The Office of the Inspector General contacted
the department to determine whether any institutions purchased the
equipment and found that the department staff member who drafted the
directive no longer worked at the department. Neither the Institutions
Division nor the Facilities Management Division had knowledge of the
outcome of the directive.
Valley State Prison for Women did report that it had purchased and was

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 234

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

operating an upgraded version of the Inmate Monitoring Activity Recording
System in use during the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2001
review.

The Office of the Inspector General also
recommended that Valley State Prison for
Women provide the necessary training to its
staff to enhance its current drug interdiction
efforts.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

Valley State Prison for Women reported that its employees receive on-going
training to enhance drug interdiction efforts.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed copies of the institution’s
automated training tracking system and verified that 295 employees received
drug interdiction training during the period August 29, 2003 to August 29.
2005, but that total amounted to less than one-third of the approximately 960
employees at the institution.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the institution ensure that all employees receive drug interdiction
training.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 15
The Office of the Inspector General found that Valley State Prison for Women’s emergency operations plan was not
submitted in a timely manner.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 235

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden implement
procedures to ensure that the emergency
operations plan was updated and ready for
submittal to the Department of Corrections for
review each January.

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Valley State Prison for Women reported that it updated its emergency
operations plan for 2005 and submitted it to headquarters in a timely manner.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the institution’s 2005
emergency operations plan and found that although the plan was dated
January 2005, the warden did not sign off until February 15, 2005. The
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations
Manual, section 55010.4 provides as follows:
[D]uring the first week of January, two copies of the Emergency Operations
Plan and any revised Resource Supplement pages shall be submitted to the
Deputy Director, Institutions, accompanied by a letter from the warden
indicating any previous revisions incorporated into the plan. The plan and any
revisions thereto shall be approved by the Director.

A representative from the Emergency Operations Unit told the Office of the
Inspector General that the institution’s emergency operations plan for 2004
was also received well after the first week of January 2004.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 236

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Sierra Conservation Center has successfully
addressed nearly all of the deficiencies identified in
a May 2001 management review audit. The
institution has enhanced the safety and security of
its physical plant and has improved procedures
relating to inmate appeals, the inmate disciplinary
process, staff training, adverse personnel actions,
employee grievances, equal employment
opportunity complaints, and the reporting of
inmate deaths.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 53
Fully implemented: 38 (71%)
Substantially implemented: 11 (21%)
Partially implemented: 1 (2%)
Not implemented: 1 (2%)
Not applicable: 2 (4%)

As a result of the May 2001 management review audit, the Office of the Inspector
General identified safety and security deficiencies related to gun coverage of a
recreational yard; physical deterioration of prison dormitories; the use of privacy curtains
in inmate living areas; control of flammable substances in a vocational education area;
the need for an additional strip search facility; and the securing of utility closets in the
administrative segregation unit. The audit also found deficiencies related to the
institution’s inmate appeals process; inmate disciplinary system; employee grievance
process; equal employment opportunity complaints, inmate death reporting, staff training,
and the tracking of adverse personnel actions.
BACKGROUND
Situated on 420 acres near Jamestown, California, the Sierra Conservation Center is one
of only two institutions in the state responsible for the training and placement of inmates
into the conservation camp program. The principal mission of the institution is to provide
housing, programs, and services for minimum and medium custody inmates. The
institution administers 22 conservation camps — 19 camps for male inmates and three
camps for female inmates — located in rural and wilderness areas extending from Central
California to the Mexican border. Camp inmates perform community service work,
including wild-land fire suppression, firebreak construction, flood abatement, and general
conservation projects to assist local government agencies. The institution also operates
academic and vocational education programs, as well as substance abuse treatment and
other inmate programs.
At present, the institution and the 22 conservation camps house approximately 6,180
minimum and high-medium custody inmates. The main institution includes more than
4,000 inmates in three facilities: the Calaveras and Mariposa dormitory units and
Tuolumne, a Level III (high-medium security) unit, which includes administrative
segregation housing. The remaining inmates are assigned to the conservation camps.
For fiscal year 2005-06, the institution has an operating budget of approximately $114
million and 1,100 staff positions, with 200 of the positions located at the conservation
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 237

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

camps. The camps are operated jointly with the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the May 2001 audit:
•

The administration failed to follow up on a mandated policy directive to place inmate
photographs outside each cell door in the administrative segregation unit. As a result,
an inmate was victimized and staff was placed at risk. No manager or supervisor was
held accountable for failing to implement the required changes.

•

Inmate and staff safety was jeopardized and illegal inmate activities may have gone
unnoticed because inmates were allowed to erect unauthorized privacy curtains within
the housing units.

•

Gun coverage for portions of the Level III yard continued to be inadequate.

•

Prison dormitories showed signs of significant deterioration, creating health and
safety risks.

•

Deficiencies were found in many of the internal affairs investigations reviewed.

•

Many of the inmate appeals at the Sierra Conservation Center were not processed
within prescribed time limits and numerous other deficiencies were noted in the
inmate appeals process.

•

In some instances, the inmate disciplinary system at the Sierra Conservation Center
was not meeting statutory, constitutional, or procedural mandates.

•

The Sierra Conservation Center seldom took disciplinary action against inmates who
violated state law and departmental policy by knowingly filing false allegations
against peace officers.

•

A strip search area was needed at the sally port gate for the Calaveras and Mariposa
facilities because of the large number of inmates processed through that entry each
day and the importance of institution security and drug interdiction.

•

Some vocational education inmates had access to unsecured flammable liquids and
chemicals, posing a security risk.

•

Utility closet doors in the administrative segregation building were unlocked,
jeopardizing institution safety.

•

The Tuolumne facility captain was circumventing key control by failing to retain
possession of his assigned metal key tag when he was not in the unit.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 238

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

•

Non-custody staff at the Sierra Conservation Center was not fulfilling training
requirements and completion of training courses could not be readily verified in the
training files.

•

Adverse personnel action case files at the Sierra Conservation Center were not
adequately monitored, tracked, or documented.

•

The institution did not have a process to adequately monitor or track employee
grievances and as a result, the institution may not have been in compliance with the
memorandum of understanding for each bargaining unit.

•

Equal employment opportunity complaint and investigation case files lacked a
standardized organizational format.

•

The process of and responsibilities for documenting and reporting an inmate’s death
were not clearly defined, making it difficult to determine if the Sierra Conservation
Center had adequately fulfilled its medical and legal responsibilities.

•

The controls governing the Sierra Conservation Center mailroom were inadequate.

The Office of the Inspector General made 53 recommendations to the management of the
Sierra Conservation Center as a result of the May 2001 management review audit. The
recommendations are shown in the table following the narrative portion of this report.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Sierra Conservation Center has implemented the 53 recommendations from the Office of
the Inspector General’s May 2001 audit. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of
the Inspector General provided the Sierra Conservation Center with a table listing the
May 2001 findings and recommendations and asked the institution to provide the
implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the institution, and
evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the recommendations.
Additional field work was also conducted in September 2005. The results are presented in
the tables following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the 53 recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the May
2001 management review audit, 38 recommendations have been fully implemented; 11
have been substantially implemented; one has been partially implemented; one has not
been implemented; and two are no longer applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Sierra Conservation Center has made
important improvements in its physical plant and operational procedures. The institution
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 239

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

has enhanced gun coverage of the recreational yard; constructed a needed strip search
area; enhanced controls in the mailroom; secured utility closets in the administrative
segregation unit; improved controls over hazardous substances in the vocational
education area; limited the use of privacy curtains in inmate living areas; and made
needed repairs to inmate dormitories. The institution has also developed monitoring tools
to ensure that inmate appeals and inmate disciplinary actions are processed in a timely
fashion; taken steps to ensure that staff training requirements are fulfilled; improved
monitoring and tracking of adverse personnel actions and employee grievances; improved
organization of equal employment opportunity complaints; and improved reporting of
inmate deaths.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden of the Sierra
Conservation Center take the following additional actions:
•

Hold managers and supervisors accountable for failure to follow through
with their responsibilities.

•

Ensure that letters of instruction are issued when merited.

•

Maintain a tracking log with complete and up-to-date information on the
disposition of letters of instruction.

•

Continue to enforce the order that the staff remove all sheets and makeshift
privacy curtains in housing units that would obstruct the view of officers.

The Office of the Inspector General also recommends that the form used for the
administrative officer of the day inspection sheets be revised to include a review of
the disciplinary logbooks.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 240

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the administration failed to follow up on a mandated policy directive and that
an inmate was victimized and staff was placed at risk as a result. No manager or supervisor was held accountable for failing to
implement the required changes.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden take appropriate
steps to ensure that policy directives are
appropriately implemented. The
recommendation specified that the actions
listed below should be taken.
Develop a system that (a) ensures that policy
directives are reviewed and read by all affected
employees and (b) provides follow-up from
managers and supervisors that the affected
employees have read or been made aware of
the policy directive. This could be
accomplished by (a) requiring employees to
sign off after reading or being advised of the
new policy and (b) setting a deadline for the
managers to certify that all affected employees
have signed off.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that policy directives
are reviewed by the warden and submitted to the appropriate division head
with specific instructions and a completion date for implementation. The Sierra
Conservation Center also conducts audits for compliance and training.
The administration also reported that managers are responsible for ensuring
that post orders are revised annually. Addenda to post orders are established
between annual revisions when necessary and are incorporated into post orders
upon revision. According to the administration, all employees are aware of
their responsibility to read the post orders upon assuming a post and are
required to sign CDC Form 1860, (post order acknowledgement) as
verification. These forms are submitted to the appropriate captain at the end of
each month for review and filing.
The administration also reported that the administrative officer of the day is
responsible for conducting audits to ensure that post orders are reviewed,
updated, and signed by employees. The officer reports deficiencies to the chief
deputy warden for review or corrective action.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed four administrative officer of the
day reports for the period July 7, 005 through August 4, 2005. The reports
require the administrative officer of the day to review five out of nine specified

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 241

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

operational areas. Two of the nine areas specified for review are post orders
and operational procedures. Three of the four reports reviewed by the Office of
the Inspector General covered the status of the institution’s operational
procedure supplements to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Operations Manual, and three of the four reports covered the
status of post orders. In one of the four reports, the administrative officer of the
day reported finding that operational procedure supplements needed revision
and in another report, the officer found that post orders had not been signed by
the supervisor.
Hold managers and supervisors accountable
for failure to follow through with their
responsibilities.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that managers and
supervisors are held accountable for failure to follow through with
responsibilities through counseling, letters of expectation, letters of instruction,
and adverse action.
The institution provided and the Office of the Inspector General reviewed a
tracking log for letters of instruction, but the review found the information to
be incomplete. The log lists the names of ten employees, the alleged
misconduct, and the dates the alleged misconduct occurred; but in eight of the
ten instances, the log does not include the date the letter of instruction was
issued. The information in the log, therefore, does not document that the letters
were issued.

Review the current status of inmate
identification photographs for the
administrative segregation unit to ensure that
there are no continuing security concerns.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution’s
Operational Procedure #119 requires staff to affix inmate photographs to the
outside of administrative segregation unit cell doors to ensure that inmates are
placed in the proper cells. The administration reported that photographs are
taken of every inmate upon arrival at the institution and that four photographs
must accompany all inmates placed in the administrative segregation unit.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of Operational Procedure
#119 and noted that page 6, paragraph F, states: “Inmates housed in the ASU
will have their identification photograph affixed to the outside of their cell door
within 72 hours.”
The Office of the Inspector General toured the administrative segregation unit
and confirmed that inmate photographs were placed outside the cells.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 242

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Ensure that administrative segregation
procedures are revised to include the directive
in question.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that Operational
Procedure #119 has been revised to incorporate the Office of the Inspector
General’s recommendations and findings.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that Operational Procedure
#119 includes the directive.

Enhance training and modify post orders of
staff assigned to the administrative segregation
unit to incorporate unit procedures.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that all staff members
assigned to the administrative segregation unit completed training on
administrative segregation procedures as detailed in Operational Procedure
#119. It also reported that the post orders reference Operational Procedure
#119. The unit sergeant forwards on-the-job training sign-in sheets to the
facility captain for review following the implementation of a new policy or
directive.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed three copies of the in-service
training sign-in sheets for classes addressing Operational Procedure #119 and
determined that 38 administrative segregation unit staff members attended the
classes from July 3, 2003 to September 14, 2004.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden of the Sierra Conservation Center take the following
additional actions:
•

Hold managers and supervisors accountable for failure to follow through with their responsibilities.

•

Ensure that letters of instruction are issued when merited.

•

Maintain a tracking log with complete and up-to-date information on the disposition of letters of instruction.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 243

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmate and staff safety was jeopardized and illegal inmate activities may have
gone unnoticed because inmates were allowed to erect unauthorized privacy curtains within the housing units.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden issue and
enforce an order that staff remove all sheets
and other makeshift privacy curtains from
showers, bunks, and other areas that would
obstruct the view of officers within the housing
units.

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that Warden Kramer
issued an order dated March 28, 2001, directing staff to remove sheets and
other makeshift privacy curtains that obstructed the view of staff from showers,
bunks, and other areas. The administration noted, however, that inmates
continue to erect privacy curtains and that the staff continues to enforce the
order through the disciplinary process.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed the contents of the warden’s
March 28, 2001 order and also reviewed a memorandum dated February 3,
2003 from a Tuolumne Building correctional sergeant reminding the staff of
the requirement to conduct at least five cell searches during each shift and to
remove any contraband, including window coverings.
The Office of the Inspector General toured several dormitories in September
2005 and found several instances where inmates had hung privacy curtains
from upper bunk beds and other instances where privacy curtains had been
erected between the shower areas and general sleeping areas.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the warden continue to enforce the order that the staff remove all sheets
and makeshift privacy curtains in housing units that would obstruct the view of officers.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 244

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that gun coverage for portions of the Level III yard continued to be inadequate.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections seek additional funding to move
the substance abuse program building, the
improper siting of which prevented the control
staff from fully observing the yard and the
entrance to dining hall 5.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that it did not pursue a
formal request for funds to move the substance abuse program building
because a review by the regional administrator determined that modification of
the fence line and construction of a catwalk would resolve the issue. The
modification and catwalk were subsequently completed. The administration
reported that the changes appear to have resolved the gun coverage
inadequacy, since there have been no incidents to indicate otherwise and the
area adjacent to the dining rooms is visible from tower #9.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed documents requesting approval
for construction of a catwalk on top of the gym, which the institution had
proposed so as to allow the Tower 15 officer to view the dining hall entrance
and exit. At the time of the proposal, the cost of moving the substance abuse
program building was estimated to be $94,000, while construction of the
catwalk could be completed with existing institution funds and labor.
The Office of the Inspector General toured the site and found that gun
coverage appears to be adequate with the erection of the catwalk. The post
orders for the gun officer require routine tours of the roof to provide adequate
security. Although the Office of the Inspector General’s recommendation was
not implemented, it appears that the problem was solved through alternative
means.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 245

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that prison dormitories showed signs of significant deterioration, creating health
and safety risks.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution temporarily
cover the holes in the ceiling to prevent
inmates from hiding themselves or concealing
contraband. The recommendation noted that
the warden should direct staff to monitor the
repairs to ensure they remain in place.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that as of April 2001,
all holes in the ceilings in the dormitories in the Calaveras and the Mariposa
units were temporarily sealed with painted marine plywood. The
administration also reported that in April 2000, a capital outlay budget change
proposal for a major renovation of all dormitories was approved but was not
funded. The administration reported that the institution is continuing to
perform repairs as time and money permit.
The Office of the Inspector General toured several dormitories, including the
Mariposa unit, and found no holes in the ceilings or other significant
deficiencies. Copies of budget requests were also verified.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections consider using a portion of its
allotted $10 million special repair budget to
correct this immediate threat to institutional
health and safety.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the department
has a $10 million budget to cover special repair projects at the institutions. The
$10 million funding level has been the same since fiscal year 1990-91, and
there is currently a backlog of $137 million in special repair projects. Because
of the limited funding, the department has had to defer some special repair
projects and this project has not yet received priority for funding.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed department documents
approving the project, which demonstrated that the project has received
consideration, although it has not been funded.

As an alternative, the Office of the Inspector
General recommended that the institution
proceed with a separate budget change
proposal to fix the problem. The
recommendation noted that although the
request is in the department’s five-year major
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that it submitted a
major capital outlay budget change proposal and a special repair request for
this purpose, but that neither has been funded. In the interim, the institution has
identified dormitories with leaks emanating from the shower area and is
gradually making necessary repairs. The repairs necessitate moving inmates
from one dormitory at a time and housing them elsewhere for two or three
PAGE 246

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

capital outlay plan, the department should
address the security and housing risks sooner.

weeks to allow time for the epoxy used in the repairs to cure. To date, repairs
to 26 of the dormitories with the worst problems have been completed. The
process will continue until the capital outlay budget change proposal or special
repair budget is funded.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a fiscal year 2002-03 budget
request that was approved by the Department of General Services to correct
infrastructure problems in the housing units. The project was approved as a
major capital outlay project scheduled to be completed in 2007, but there is no
evidence that it has been approved for funding through the budgetary process.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found deficiencies in many of the internal affairs investigations reviewed.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended` that the Sierra Conservation
Center investigative services unit take
appropriate steps to prevent deficiencies in
future investigations. To correct the
deficiencies, the recommendation noted that
investigative services unit should take the
actions listed below.
Play a strong role in monitoring the quality of
every investigation, ensuring that the issues are
fully explored, relevant witnesses are
interviewed, conflicting testimony is
evaluated, evidence is complete, and findings
are supported by the facts.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

NOT APPLICABLE

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has made significant
changes to its investigative process including the elimination of category I
investigations, which were previously performed by the institutions. The new
process requires the Office of Internal Affairs to perform or oversee all formal
investigations. Therefore, this recommendation is no longer applicable.

PAGE 247

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Carefully monitor the timeliness of
investigations. One method would be to add a
separate column to its investigation tracking
log to identify the incident date.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
NOT APPLICABLE

See previous comment.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that many of the inmate appeals at the Sierra Conservation Center were not being
processed within prescribed time limits and noted numerous other deficiencies in the Sierra Conservation Center’s inmate
appeals process.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Sierra Conservation
Center take immediate steps to remedy the
deficiencies identified in the inmate appeals
process. The recommendation specified that
the actions listed below should be taken.
The warden’s office should implement
monitoring tools to ensure that inmate appeals
are processed promptly at the formal levels. At
least weekly, either the warden or the chief
deputy warden should review the status of the
reports with the facilities and, if necessary,
take appropriate action to ensure proper
resolution.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the warden has
monitoring tools in place to ensure that appeals are processed promptly.
According to the administration, the warden and chief deputy warden receive a
report each week listing the status of overdue appeals and the warden reviews
the report at a weekly associate wardens’ meeting chaired by the chief deputy
warden.
The administration also reported that some appeals that had appeared to be
overdue in the past actually were not overdue. According to the administration,
the problem occurred because due dates for appeals that had been granted
extensions under California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3084.6 (5)
(A) (B) (C) (6), had not been changed on the forms. The administration noted
PAGE 248

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

that it has corrected the problem by requiring the staff to change due dates
when extensions are granted.
The administration reported that the medical department has now hired a
medical appeals coordinator, which has improved the content and timeliness of
medical appeals.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a memorandum dated August
20, 2004 from the institution’s chief deputy warden, instructing division heads
to complete and return overdue appeals to the appeals coordinator within the
next three working days. A document attached to the memorandum listed two
overdue appeals and included assigned dates and due dates. The Office of the
Inspector General noted that the memorandum was written within a week of
the due dates. Data obtained from the Sierra Conservation Center identified
only 12 appeals originating from the institution as overdue, representing an
improvement over the 25 appeals found to be overdue at the time of the
original audit.
The appeals coordinator should receive
comprehensive training in the appeals process
and the rules and regulations governing inmate
appeals.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the department
provides one week of training for appeals coordinators each year and that those
employees are required to complete an additional 52 hours a year of training at
the institution. According to the administration, the appeals coordinator
receives two hours of training per month through a headquarters conference
call.
The institution provided the in-service training records for the appeals
coordinator for the period August 18, 2004 through August 5, 2005, showing
that she received a total of 87 hours of training, including 25.5 hours covering
the inmate appeals process. The institution also provided fax cover sheets from
the department’s Institution Standards and Operations Section advising staff of
scheduled conference calls during which specialized training would be
provided.

Staff should properly complete and date the
appeal forms.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the appeals
coordinator has been reviewing the appeals and that staff members are
completing and dating appeals properly.

PAGE 249

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

The Office of the Inspector General also
recommended the actions listed below to
improve tracking and monitoring of staff
complaints.
The institution should create a form to enable
the chief deputy warden to document the
review, assignment, and disposition of staff
complaint appeals.

The institution should create a log of staff
complaints as a management tool, possibly
using computer spreadsheet software that
identifies the staff person and the appellant.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that an Allegation of
Staff Misconduct Form for inmate appeals has been developed to enable the
chief deputy warden to document the review, assignment, and disposition of
staff complaint appeals.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the form and found it to be
adequate.
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that since the Office of
the Inspector General’s review, the appeals office has instituted an appeals
tracking system program that enables staff to produce various reports,
including staff complaints.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that in some instances the inmate disciplinary system at Sierra Conservation
Center was not regularly meeting statutory, constitutional, or procedural mandates.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden implement
policies and procedures to remedy the
deficiencies in the inmate disciplinary system.
The recommendation specified that the warden
should ensure that the actions listed below take
place.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 250

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CDC Form 115s are processed promptly. On a
regular basis, either the warden or the chief
deputy warden should review the status of the
reports with the facilities and, if necessary,
take appropriate action to ensure proper
resolution.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution is in
compliance with this recommendation. According to the administration, the
chief deputy warden reviews all CDC Form 115 second-level appeals.
Administrative officers of the day periodically review disciplinary logbooks
during their tours and report findings to the warden through weekly reports.
Corrective action is taken if disciplinary logbooks are not complete. CDC
Form 115s are continually tracked to ensure that they are processed promptly.
The unit sergeant, unit lieutenant, unit captain, and chief disciplinary officer
review the CDC Form 115s to ensure that due process time constraints are met.
In addition, the unit lieutenant checks the disciplinary logbook daily, and at
least on a monthly basis, the facility captain reviews and signs the logbook to
ensure compliance.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed administrative officer of the day
inspection sheets provided by the institution and noted that although an older
version of the form provides for a review of disciplinary logbooks, a new
version of the form does not.

A written explanation is required of the official
authorizing the voiding or dismissal of a CDC
Form 115. Furthermore, for proper monitoring
and auditing purposes, a copy of the voided
and dismissed CDC Form 115 should be
included in the chief disciplinary officer’s
institutional registers and files.

The institutional registers are completed
promptly and properly.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution is in
compliance with this recommendation. According to the administration, voided
CDC Form 115s are signed off at the associate warden’s level and copies of
voided CDC Form 115s are maintained in the unit. The person voiding a CDC
Form 115 is required to document the reason for voiding in the disciplinary
logbook.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a sample of a voided CDC Form
115 and found it to be adequate, but noted that the institution has elected to
maintain a copy of the form in the unit rather than in the chief disciplinary
officer’s files.
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution is in
compliance with this recommendation. According to the administration, the
staff has been directed to complete institutional registers promptly and properly
and the chief disciplinary officer is responsible for reviewing registers to make
sure they are properly completed and for reporting the findings to the warden.

PAGE 251

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

Reporting employees and hearing officers sign
the CDC Form 115 to authenticate the reports.
In the rare instances in which the employee is
not available, the signed draft reports should
be attached to the completed CDC Form 115
for verification of authenticity. [The
recommendation noted that before the audit
report was released, the associate wardens
issued a joint memorandum establishing the
appropriate policy, but that the Camp
Operations Division should have been included
in the directive.]

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

A copy of the completed CDC Form 115 and
115-A is delivered to the inmate within five
working days of audit by the chief disciplinary
officer.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that reporting
employees sign 98 percent of CDC Form 115s and that in order to conform to
CDC Form 115 time limits, supervisors sign the remaining 2 percent in the
absence of the reporting employee. According to the administration, in such
instances, the supervisor must review the CDC Form 115 Employee’s Rough
Draft Report to ensure it is true and correct before signing. The administration
reported that the Legal Affairs Division advised the Sierra Conservation Center
that signing for another employee does not violate inmates’ due process rights,
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations
Manual, or California Code of Regulations, Title 15.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the Reporting Employee’s
Rough Draft and noted that it includes a signature space for both the reporting
and the reviewing employee.
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution is in
compliance with this recommendation, with the exception that an inmate who
transfers or paroles following the disciplinary hearing may not receive the final
copy of the CDC Form 115 within five days of review by the chief disciplinary
officer. The date the inmate receives the final copy is recorded on the
disciplinary action log, CDC Form 1154 for review and audit purposes.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed five months of disciplinary
action logs provided by the administration and found that in 92 percent of the
cases (380 of 412) the final copy of the CDC Form 115 was provided to the
inmate within the five-day requirement.

The disciplinary actions logs (CDC Form
1154) at all facilities are completed properly
and contain all necessary dates and signatures.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that it is in compliance
with California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation Operations
Manual requirements governing completion of the disciplinary action logs. The
administration reported that each unit technician or office assistant ensures
compliance by monitoring the CDC Form 1154 disciplinary action log and that
facility captains conduct follow-up audits.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed five months of disciplinary
action logs provided by the administration and found that 91 percent (373 of
412) of the inmate disciplinary action records were properly completed with

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 252

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

the necessary dates and signatures.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the form used for the administrative officer of the day inspection sheets
be revised to include a review of the disciplinary logbooks.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Sierra Conservation Center seldom took disciplinary action against
inmates who violated both state law and departmental policy by knowingly filing false allegations against a peace officer.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution take steps to
ensure that allegations of staff misconduct are
handled appropriately. The recommendation
specified that the institution take the actions
listed below.

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that rule violation
reports are rarely written for the specific charge of filing a false complaint
against a peace officer because it is difficult to determine whether an inmate
“knowingly” filed a false complaint or whether the inmate’s perception was
simply inaccurate.

Ensure that inmates filing staff complaints sign
the standard CDC Form 1858.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The administration reported that the appeals coordinator and the investigative
services unit lieutenant ensure that inmates properly complete complaint forms.

Develop a tracking system to follow up on
inmate staff complaints.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution’s
appeals office uses an appeals tracking program to track inmate staff
complaints.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed supporting documentation
submitted by the administration and determined that the institution uses a
computer program entitled “Inmate/Parolee Appeals Tracking System – Level
I & II.” to track inmate staff complaints.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 253

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

Assign responsibility to the investigative
services unit to review the findings of all staff
misconduct investigations and issue rule
violations against inmates who knowingly file
false complaints against a peace officer.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General further
recommended that the Department of
Corrections consider issuing statewide policies
and procedures to ensure that every institution
adheres to the recommendations noted above.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution’s
investigative services unit reviews all staff misconduct investigations. The
administration also reported that although rule violation reports are issued to
inmates who blatantly file false allegations against peace officers, the district
attorney rarely accepts these misdemeanor cases for criminal filings and
routinely refers them back to the institution to be handled administratively.
In response to this finding, the Sierra Conservation Center administration
reported that Administrative Bulletin 98-10, issued by the department, defines
specific procedures for processing inmate/parolee appeals alleging staff
misconduct. The administration also noted that the hiring authority is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the procedures at each institution and
that the inmate appeals coordinator at each institution tracks the appeals
generated by inmate allegations of staff misconduct.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of Administrative
Bulletin 98-10 and found that it does prescribe procedures for processing
inmate/parolee appeals alleging staff misconduct.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 9
The Office of the Inspector General found that a strip search area was needed at the sally port gate for the Calaveras and
Mariposa facilities because of the large number of inmates processed through that entry each day and the importance of
institution security and drug interdiction.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution continue its
effort to acquire a building for conducting
unclothed body searches at the sally port gate.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that in 2003 two
family visiting units located adjacent to the main vehicle sally port pedestrian
gate were retrofitted. The retrofit facilitates the searches of Calaveras and
Mariposa unit inmates returning from work sites outside the security perimeter.
PAGE 254

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

The Office of the Inspector General toured the building that was retrofitted to
for processing inmates as they enter the facility and found that it is sufficient to
conduct the unclothed body searches of the work crews.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 10
The Office of the Inspector General found that some vocational education inmates had access to unsecured flammable liquids
and chemicals, posing a security risk.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden implement
monitoring procedures to ensure that managers
and supervisors follow departmental policy
controlling inmate access to dangerous and
toxic substances.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that supervisors and
managers have been instructed to make regular tours of the areas to ensure
compliance. According to the administration, the supervisor of vocational
instruction inspects the vocational areas to ensure that flammable liquids and
chemicals are properly controlled and secured. The fire chief, the investigative
services unit, and the Environmental Health Services Section of the California
Department of Health Services conduct independent audits. The fire chief
conducts audits twice a year, the investigative services unit conducts quarterly
audits, and the Environmental Health Services Section conducts an annual
audit.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the fire chief’s audit report for
the period January 2003 through July 2005 and found no recent violations in
the vocational shops. A June 2004 report of the Department of Health Services
identified only one minor infraction in the vocational shops — the absence of a
date on waste thinner. The Office of the Inspector General also reviewed the
duty statement for the supervisor of vocational instruction and found that it
includes responsibility for ensuring that safety hazards and unsafe operations
are reported and corrected.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 255

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 11
The Office of the Inspector General found that utility closet doors in the administrative segregation building were unlocked,
jeopardizing institution safety.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that staff continue to keep the
utility closet doors in the administrative
segregation unit locked.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that all utility doors in
the administrative segregation unit have been and continue to be secured. The
administration reported that the administrative segregation unit staff is required
to check all cells, locks, doors, and windows each day and has received on-thejob training on keeping utility doors locked.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed documents provided by the
institution and found that the recommendation was implemented on August 13,
2004 — approximately three years and three months after the recommendation
was issued and fifteen days after the institution was notified of the present
follow-up review. The Office of the Inspector General toured the administrative
segregation building and found that the utility closet doors were locked.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 12
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Tuolumne facility captain was circumventing key control by failing to
retain possession of his assigned metal key tag when he was not in the unit.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 256

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the warden enforce
adherence to the key control policies, requiring
employees to exchange assigned metal key
tags for the keys issued.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Sierra Conservation Center administration noted that this finding
concerned only one employee who was not checking out keys properly and
reported that corrective action was taken to ensure that the staff follows proper
key control policies. The administration also reported that control room
officers inventory and properly account for all keys, and that the investigative
services unit staff reviews the inventories as part of their quarterly audits and
reports discrepancies to the warden and division heads.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed an “inventory listing and
adjustment log” provided by the administration covering security equipment
and keys. The administration did not provide written evidence that corrective
action was taken against the Tuolumne facility captain, but reported that the
action consisted of verbal counseling.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 13
The Office of the Inspector General found that the non-custody staff at Sierra Conservation Center was not fulfilling training
requirements and that completion of training courses could not be readily verified in the training files:
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution take
appropriate steps to ensure that non-custody
staff fulfill training requirements. The
recommendation specified that the actions
listed below should take place.
The warden should take steps to emphasize the
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the in-service
PAGE 257

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

importance of non-custody staff fulfilling
mandatory training requirements.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
IMPLEMENTED

training department offers mandatory classes for non-custody staff in block
training every year. The administration reported that the 40-hour mandated
block-training schedule is published monthly along with the non-custody
block-training schedule. Employees are noticed that they must attend in the inservice training department bulletin approximately three months before their
birth month. They are also noticed at the same time to complete the six
mandatory training modules. The Sierra Conservation Center reported that the
training has improved considerably since the original audit.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a recent in-service training
department bulletin and verified that employees are noticed ahead of time to
complete the required training.

Supervisors should use the rating guide
published in the monthly training bulletin
when completing an employee’s annual
performance evaluation. If employees fail to
comply with training requirements, supervisors
should issue a poor evaluation in the area of
training.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution will
continue to publish the rating guidelines in the in-service training department
bulletin and will instruct supervisors to use the guide when completing annual
performance evaluations. The administration reported it will also continue to
instruct supervisors to address non-compliance with training requirements in
annual evaluations and to note that employees who do not complete mandatory
training classes must be given a less than standard evaluation. According to the
administration, the in-service training staff and the employee relations officer
will continue to audit performance reports to ensure that ratings are correct.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a recent in-service training
bulletin and rating guide and found that in addition to listing the names of staff
members required to attend training, the bulletin advises the staff that training
classes accumulated will be included in performance evaluations.

The in-service training staff should ensure that
quizzes for all mandatory courses are dated
and documented in the training files.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that quizzes for all
mandatory classes are dated and placed in employees’ training files. The
administration also reported that employee attendance is documented on
attendance sheets and that information is entered onto the in-service training
computer.

The Department of Corrections should
consider issuing a certificate, as proposed by

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that completion of
sexual harassment prevention training is documented in the employee’s

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 258

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

Sierra Conservation Center, or some other
means of documenting completion of sexual
harassment prevention training.

training file and entered into the in-service training computer.
The administration provided the Office of the Inspector General with a sample
copy of an automated “IST Staff Report,” containing a comprehensive listing
of the training completed by the staff. The list included “EEO & Sexual
Harassment” training.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 14
The Office of the Inspector General found that adverse personnel action case files at Sierra Conservation Center were not
adequately monitored, tracked, or documented:
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution take steps to
improve the monitoring, tracking, and
documentation of adverse personnel action
cases. Specifically, the Office of the Inspector
General recommended the actions listed
below.
The employee relations officer should receive
immediate training to allow the officer to
better manage the caseload.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the employee
relations officer did not receive training immediately after the audit, but that
the present employee relations officer, who assumed the position on May 15,
2004, received employee relations officer training and training related to the
Madrid requirements between June 1 and June 11, 2004. The administration
noted that the employee relations officer’s caseload is large because that
person also has responsibilities related to litigation.
PAGE 259

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the training records of the
employee relations officer and confirmed that the training described was
provided less than a month after the incumbent assumed the position.
The warden should ensure that the employee
relations officer receives adequate clerical
support.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that an office
technician is assigned full time to assist the employee relations officer.

The employee relations officer should assign
sequential case numbers by year for all
incoming adverse actions.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that as of September 1,
2004, it intended to have the employee relations officer log adverse actions in
sequential order.

FULLY

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that as of September 1,
2004 it intended to have the employee relations officer ensure that all
necessary documents are included in the same general order. The
administration reported that the employee relations officer would accomplish
that task by using an adverse action checklist and a chronological case log.

The employee relations officer should
reorganize the files to ensure that all necessary
documents are included in the same general
order. Every effort should be made to complete
the adverse action checklist and a case
chronology log to note any significant changes,
directives, or actions taken on a case.

IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed samples of an adverse action
checklist and activity chronology sheet and found that the forms allow the
employee relations officer to document the key information necessary to track
cases.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 15
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institution did not have a process to adequately monitor or track employee
grievances and that, as a result, the institution might not be in compliance with the memorandum of understanding for each
bargaining unit.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 260

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the employee relations
officer improve the system for logging and
tracking employee grievances by taking the
measures listed below.
Computerize the log and add columns
indicating response due dates for each level of
grievance and the name of the staff person
assigned to respond.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the employee
relations officer has transferred the grievance log for 2004 and 2005 to a
computer database.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed an automated report of
grievances and confirmed that the 2004 and 2005 data was transferred to an
automated report. The report includes columns for the due dates but does not
include columns for the name of the person assigned to respond.

Prepare a matrix identifying the submission
and response time frames and key provisions
related to employee grievances for each
bargaining unit.
Reorganize the employee grievance files,
purging outdated files, organizing the
remaining files by log number, and ensuring
that documentation is complete and accurate.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a matrix provided by the Sierra
Conservation Center administration and found that it provides for the necessary
information. The matrix includes spaces for the bargaining unit number, the
grievance issue, the date received, the dates responses were rendered, and the
date the response was received by the grievant.
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that as of November 1,
2004, employee grievances would be organized by log number order, outdated
files would be purged, and remaining files would be reorganized.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 16
The Office of the Inspector General found that equal employment opportunity complaint and investigation case files lacked a
standardized organizational format.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 261

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution’s equal
employment opportunity coordinator develop a
standardized filing system for equal
employment opportunity complaints that
includes a case diary to document all contacts,
documents received, and documents prepared.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that all informal equal
employment opportunity case files include a case diary documenting contacts
received and documents prepared.

The Office of the Inspector General further
recommended that the equal employment
opportunity files be organized and that
documents in the file include the case number,
be marked confidential, and be bound into the
file to prevent accidental loss.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that all equal
employment opportunity files are organized and contain a case number and
that all documents are marked confidential. According to the administration,
the documents are filed under lock and key and are accessible only to the equal
employment opportunity coordinator, the equal employment opportunity
assistant, and the equal employment opportunity office technician. The
administration’s response was silent on the binding of the case files.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 17
The Office of the Inspector General found that the process of and responsibilities for documenting and reporting an inmate’s
death were not clearly defined, making it difficult to determine if the Sierra Conservation Center had adequately fulfilled its
medical and legal responsibilities.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the institution improve its
process for documenting and reporting inmate
deaths. The recommendation specified that the
institution take the actions listed below.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 262

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Clearly outline the steps and requirements
related to an inmate’s death, noting who is
responsible and indicating when and by whom
each step is to be completed. Affix the outline
to each file as a checklist to ensure that all
necessary steps have been taken.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution’s
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual
supplement, Chapter 5, Article 7 (Deaths), clearly outlines the steps and
requirements relating to an inmate’s death, including those responsible for
accomplishing the requirements. A death worksheet and checklist are used to
ensure that all necessary steps are taken.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the inmate death worksheet, the
medical emergency response timeline checklist, and the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual supplement, Chapter 5,
Article 7 regarding inmate deaths and determined that the supplement clearly
outlines the steps, requirements, and responsibilities related to an inmate’s
death. All three documents were last revised in March 2003.

Organize each file so that reports and
documents are readily accessible.

Modify the medical emergency response
timeline and inmate death worksheet to include
the inmate’s name, number, and date and time
of death as well as the name, title, and
signature, with date, of the employee
completing the form.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution’s
coordinator for use of force matters and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual reviews inmate death cases
and ensures that the case files are complete and readily available.
The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the staff has
revised the medical emergency response timeline and the inmate death
worksheet to include the Office of the Inspector General’s recommendations.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the documents submitted by the
administration and determined that the worksheet entitled “Medical Emergency
Response Timeline” includes a space for the name of the “Incident/Camp
Commander.” The worksheet entitled “Inmate Death Worksheet” includes
spaces for the name, classification, and signature of the person completing the
form, a space for the inmate’s name and number, and a space entitled
“Pronouncement of death [Who/Date/Time].” The worksheets were last
revised in March 2003. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed inmate
death worksheets for two recent deaths and found that one of the worksheets
did not include the date and time of death or the name of the person who
pronounced the death.

PAGE 263

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Work with the chief medical officer and
relevant staff at headquarters to incorporate the
recommended changes into an up-to-date
Department of Corrections Operations Manual
supplement.

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that it is in compliance
with this recommendation and referenced the institution’s California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual
Supplement, Chapter 5, Custody/Security Operations, as verification. The
Office of the Inspector General reviewed the supplement and confirmed the
institution’s compliance.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 18
The Office of the Inspector General found that the controls governing the Sierra Conservation Center mailroom were
inadequate.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Sierra Conservation
Center make alterations as necessary to
enhance accountability and control access to
the mailroom. Suggested improvements
included those listed below.
Reconfigure the mailroom so that nonmailroom staff members have access only to a
designated area. The designated area could
allow officers access to a specific box to pick
up or drop off mail for only their specific
living units. An officer who delivers mail on
Saturdays could have access only to a box that
contains the outgoing mail for that day.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Require every staff person opening mail to log
all checks and money orders.

FULLY

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the institution has
installed a chain link fence sally port at the mailroom entrance accessible only
to mailroom staff. The administration also reported that the mailroom was
secured after hours, weekends, and holidays.
The Office of the Inspector General toured the mail room and found that the
alterations were adequate to improve controls and operations. The institution
no longer has a post office box; therefore, all mail is delivered and picked up
by the U. S. Postal Service. Only mailroom employees are allowed in the
mailroom.

IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that the mailroom staff
is maintaining a log for checks and cash. It also reported that partitions in the
PAGE 264

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER

mailroom have been removed. According to the administration, the current
mailroom configuration allows for acceptable supervision and is open,
allowing constant visual observation by all mailroom employees.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that the partitions have been
removed, which allows for improved supervision of employees.
Require all cash, checks, and money orders to
be delivered to the accounting office on a daily
basis.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that cash is taken to
accounting on a daily basis, while checks and money orders are stored in the
mailroom safe and taken to accounting the following day.

Install a video camera in the mailroom over the
area where the mail is opened to discourage
theft and monitor activity and access.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that this
recommendation was not implemented, but removing the partitions from the
mailroom has allowed for improved supervision of the mailroom staff,
eliminating the need for video surveillance. Although a video camera was not
installed in the mailroom, removal of the partitions appears to have resolved
the potential problem.

Have mailroom staff work as partners in close
proximity to one another as a check on cash
receipts.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The Sierra Conservation Center administration reported that mailroom staff
members do not work as partners, but do work in close proximity to one
another, and are easily supervised now that the partitions have been removed.
Removal of the partitions appears to have resolved the problem. The
administration noted that the institution is in compliance with state procedures.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 265

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The Office of the Inspector General found that
most of the recommendations from a 2001 audit of
the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility
have been fully implemented, but that the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has
not addressed deficiencies identified in the audit
relating to the need for written policies governing
investigations into alleged misconduct at
community correctional facilities by nondepartment employees.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 22
Fully implemented: 15 (68%)
Substantially implemented: 1 (5%)
Partially implemented: 2 (9%)
Not implemented: 1 (5%)
Not applicable: 3 (13%)

In 2001, the Office of the Inspector General conducted an audit of the Leo Chesney
Community Correctional Facility, which is operated by Cornell Corrections of California,
Inc. under a contract with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The audit
report was issued in October 2001. The audit identified numerous problems with the
facility’s operation and with the department’s management of the facility. Some of the
most significant problems included an absence of formal policies and procedures for
investigating allegations of inmate and staff misconduct; failure by the department’s
Office of Investigative Services to adequately respond to allegations of sexual
misconduct; the contractor’s use of inmate welfare funds to purchase non-allowable items
and subsidize its budget; and a lack of clear guidelines governing the use of revenues
generated from inmate telephone calls.
BACKGROUND
California Penal Code sections 2910 and 6250 authorize the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation to establish, operate, and contract for “community
correctional centers” for the housing, supervision, and counseling of inmates.
Twelve community correctional facilities presently exist statewide. Six are public
facilities operated by cities and counties and six are private facilities operated by private
entities. One additional private facility is expected to be opened in 2006. Contract
management is the responsibility of the Community Correctional Facility Administration,
which is within Adult Operations of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Appended to the contract between the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and
the private community correctional facilities are the California Department of
Corrections Statement of Work for Private Community Correctional Facilities and the
Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities, both
of which provide specific guidelines and state requirements for operating private
community correctional facilities under the department contracts.
The Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility is one of six privately operated
community correctional facilities. It was constructed in the late 1980s and received its
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 267

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

first inmates in May 1989. The facility is operated by Cornell Corrections of California,
Inc., a subsidiary of Cornell Companies Inc., and is the only facility for female inmates in
the community correctional facility program. The Leo Chesney Community Correctional
Facility is located in the community of Live Oak, California, approximately 50 miles
north of Sacramento.
The contract between the department and Cornell Corrections of California, Inc. expired
on September 30, 2005. The department notified Cornell on June 14, 2005 of its intent to
award the company the new contract, but the contract had not been finalized by the end
of the Inspector General’s audit fieldwork on October 21, 2005. The original contract
gave the official name of the facility as the Leo Chesney Center, while the new contract
refers to the facility as the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility. These names
are used interchangeably in this report.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the October 2001 audit:
•

Allegations of misconduct by staff and inmates at the Leo Chesney Center were not
adequately investigated.

•

The Leo Chesney Center used monies from the inmate welfare fund to subsidize its
budget and to purchase unallowable items.

•

The Leo Chesney Center was using revenues generated from inmate telephone calls
to make capital improvements.

•

Despite the overwhelming percentage of inmates incarcerated for drug-related
offenses at the Leo Chesney Center, the institution did not have a mandatory
substance abuse program.

•

The California Department of Corrections staff member assigned to the Leo Chesney
Center had a practice of cashing inmate trust account checks and release checks for
inmates paroling from the institution.

•

The Leo Chesney Center did not have an adequate system to ensure that inmate
appeals are processed promptly and properly.

•

Cornell Corrections was not forwarding unclaimed trust funds to the California
Department of Corrections.

•

Cornell Corrections was not preparing annual budgets for inmate welfare fund
operations and was not preparing and submitting quarterly inmate welfare fund
financial statements in a timely manner to the Leo Chesney Center or the Department
of Corrections Community Correctional Facility Administration.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 268

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

•

Cornell Corrections was not properly managing the lease payments for the Leo
Chesney Center.

•

Staff duties for the management of inmate trust accounts at the Leo Chesney Center
were not properly segregated.

•

The Leo Chesney Center was not processing incident reports properly.

•

Leo Chesney Center’s inmate disciplinary reports contained inaccuracies.

•

A significant number of staff performance appraisals and probationary reports for
employees at the Leo Chesney Center were overdue.

•

Some Leo Chesney Center employees had not attended mandatory training classes or
met the minimum hours of annual training, and the facility training files contained
errors and lacked adequate documentation.

•

The invoice form used by the California Department of Corrections for community
correctional facility reimbursement was outdated, and the department had not
provided guidance to the facilities on claiming payment for beds when they exceed
the monthly maximum reimbursement amount.

•

Inmates assigned to the administrative unit of the Leo Chesney Center had access to
performance information pertaining to other inmates, even though that access is
specifically prohibited by state regulations.

•

Inmates assigned to the adult basic education program were not receiving the required
number of education hours.

•

Floor tiles in the kitchen were cracked, creating a safety hazard.

The Office of the Inspector General issued 22 recommendations as a result of the 2001
audit.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Cornell Corrections have implemented
the 22 recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General’s October 2001 audit
of the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility. To conduct the follow-up review,
the Office of the Inspector General provided the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation with a table listing the October 2001 findings and recommendations and
asked the department to provide the implementation status of each recommendation. The
Office of the Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with documentation
provided by the department, and evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance
with the recommendations. The fieldwork for the follow-up audit was completed on
October 21, 2005. The results are presented in the tables following this narrative.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 269

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the 22 recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in October
2001, 15 recommendations have been fully implemented; one has been substantially
implemented; two have been partially implemented; one has not been implemented, and
three are no longer applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections has improved the
investigative process by developing procedures for investigating allegations of inmate or
employee misconduct. These procedures provide for investigations involving inmates to
be conducted jointly with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Office of
Internal Affairs. But the department does not have clear policies to guide the investigative
process when the alleged misconduct involves individuals employed by the contractor.
The Office of the Inspector General also found that the Community Correctional Facility
Administration provided for better approval and control of inmate telephone revenues
earned by the contractor by negotiating a contract amendment executed in May 2004. The
amendment addressed the spending of the revenues, but it did not address the ownership
of any remaining balance at the end of the contract. The department reported that this
important issue will be addressed in an arrangement that will cover all future contracts.
Under that arrangement, inmate telephone services will be provided through a statewide
contract that will result in the revenues generated from the contracts being paid to the
state general fund. The new arrangement will completely eliminate the problems
identified by the Office of the Inspector General in the handling of inmate telephone
revenues.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation take the following additional actions:
•

Develop and implement clear policies to guide the investigative process
related to investigations into alleged misconduct by individuals at
community correctional facilities who are not employed by the
department.

•

Continue to use the new statewide Inmate Telephone System agreement
to provide inmate telephone services for all future community
correctional facility contracts.

•

Continue efforts to implement a program that provides inmates with
release monies at the time of parole, but eliminates the need for
department employees to cash inmate checks.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 270

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that allegations of misconduct by staff and inmates at the Leo Chesney Center were
not adequately investigated.

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
develop formal policies and procedures for
investigating allegations of inmate or
employee misconduct not of a sexual nature.
The recommendation noted that the procedures
should set investigation parameters and
guidelines and establish timeframes for
completion.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The department provided the Office of the Inspector General with a copy of
written Operational Procedure #208-1 of Cornell Corrections, which was
developed in response to the recommendation. The procedure addresses
investigations into allegations of employee misconduct, including claims of
sexual or other types of harassment, claims of discrimination in any form, acts
of violence in any form, and misappropriation of company or state property.
The procedure specifically provides that investigations that involve inmates
will be conducted jointly with the department’s Office of Investigative
Services (now known as the Office of Internal Affairs).

The Office of the Inspector General also
recommended that the Department of
Corrections Office of Investigative Services
conduct a thorough investigation of the
allegations described in the report involving
possible sexual misconduct between Leo
Chesney Center staff and inmates.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The department reported that in February 2001, the Office of Investigative
Services reviewed an investigation conducted by the Leo Chesney
Community Correctional Facility into rumors of criminal and non-criminal
misconduct between staff and inmates at the facility. Based upon conflicting
statements and a lack of substantive information, the Office of Investigative
Services found no evidence to either prove or disprove the rumors. No victims
of sexual misconduct were identified and there were no witnesses to provide
credible evidence of any criminal violation. The allegations were received on
February 14, 2001, and the male staff member rumored to be the subject was
terminated by the facility director on February 16, 2001 for unrelated reasons.
That action removed the alleged threat, which contributed to the finding of
lack of cause to warrant a formal investigation.
The Office of the Inspector General noted in the October 2001 audit report
that the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility lacked a formal
investigative process to guide investigations and that its investigation into this

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 271

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

matter, therefore, may have been inadequate.
In its response, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation further
noted that under section 289.6 of the California Penal Code, it is a crime for a
staff member, including an employee of a private correctional facility, to
engage in sexual activity with inmates and parolees. Accordingly, alleged
sexual conduct by employees (including contract employees) with an inmate,
parolee, or family or friends of an inmate or a parolee, under department
policy, is a Category II offense mandated to be investigated by the Office of
Investigative Services.
The Office of Investigative Services, therefore, should have conducted a
criminal investigation into the allegations of sexual misconduct between Leo
Chesney Center staff and inmates in the matter referred to the Office of
Investigative Services by the Leo Chesney facility director in 2001. The fact
that the employee had been terminated by the facility did not relieve the
department from a responsibility to investigate the matter.
As a result of the follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector General found
that the department does not have a written policy governing investigations of
alleged misconduct with inmates at community correctional facilities by nondepartment employees and non-peace officers.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation develop and
implement clear policies to guide investigations into alleged misconduct by individuals at community correctional facilities
who are not employed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center used monies from the inmate welfare fund to
subsidize its budget and to purchase non-allowable items.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 272

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections revise the Financial
Management Handbook for Private
Community Correctional Facilities to provide
clear guidelines defining allowable
expenditures from the inmate welfare fund.
The recommendations specified that the
guidelines should be consistent with existing
statutory requirements.

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

STATUS
NOT APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The department reported that the Financial Management Handbook for
Private Community Correctional Facilities requires the contractor to comply
with California Penal Code section 6006 and Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Operations Manual sections 54070, 53080, 23020.6.2, and
23010.8, which define allowable and unallowable inmate welfare fund
expenditures. Accordingly, the Community Correctional Facility
Administration maintains that revision of the handbook is unnecessary.
As a preliminary matter, the Office of the Inspector General reviewed the
code and policy sections cited by the department and found the references to
be in error. The relevant California Penal Code section is 5006, and the
relevant section of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual is 23010.6.2. Section 23020.6.2 of the manual does not
exist.
Based on additional action taken by the department, the Office of the
Inspector General has determined that the original recommendation is not
necessary as stated.
In response to the issues raised by the Office of the Inspector General in its
original report, the department took the following action:
The original report issued by the Office of the Inspector General identified a
number of different types of expenditures that had been made from the inmate
welfare fund. The most significant item identified was $3,524 spent on
textbooks, which were specifically prohibited. In response, the department
agreed that textbooks are an unauthorized expenditure was the result of a data
coding error. The department stated that the error was corrected and the
money was returned to the inmate welfare fund.
The department also told the Office of the Inspector General that effective
September 2001, Cornell Corrections discontinued the practice of purchasing
household items, such as curling irons and blow dryers, with inmate welfare

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 273

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

funds.
However, the department told the Office of the Inspector General that
personal care products such as shampoo and soap are used for prizes during
special events and are still purchased with inmate welfare funds in accordance
with Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual
section 23010.6.1. As discussed in the original Office of the Inspector
General audit report, the Financial Management Handbook for Private
Community Correctional Facilities, section 23010.6.2 prohibits inmate
welfare fund expenditures for items already funded in the community
correctional facility contract. The determination of what is specifically
funded in the contract is subject to interpretation. The Financial Management
Handbook provides in section IV.C.8 that operating expenses, including
personal supplies, are funded in the contract. Confusion arises when the
contractor buys products that fall into these categories but are in excess of the
minimum required to be provided to the inmates, such as hair dryers, curling
irons, or name brand toiletries. The Office of the Inspector General has
concluded, however, that this purchase is so small that it does not create
concern over subsidizing the budget of the contractor for non-allowable items.
Lastly, the Office of the Inspector General questioned amounts charged to the
inmate welfare fund for an allocated amount of the facility’s monthly charges
for computer telephone lines and computer services. While the nature of the
expenditure was allowable, the facility was unable to explain how it had
arrived at the allocated amount at the time of the original audit. However,
subsequent to the audit the facility provided a reasonable explanation of the
allocated amount.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 274

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center was using revenues generated from inmate telephone
calls to make capital improvements.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections clearly define the ownership and
use of telephone commission revenues in
contracts with community correctional facility
operators, in the California Department of
Corrections Statement of Work for Private
Community Correctional Facilities, and in the
Financial Management Handbook for Private
Community Correctional Facilities. The
recommendation noted that the documents
should address the following issues:
•

•

•

The ownership of the revenues, including
whether the funds revert to the California
Department of Corrections or the state
general fund or remain with the
community correctional facility operator
upon termination of the contract;
Whether the funds can be used for the
operating expenses of community
correctional facilities; and
What expenditures are allowable from
inmate telephone revenues.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The misuse of inmate telephone revenues was first reported by the Office of
the Inspector General in the October 2001 audit of the Leo Chesney
Community Correctional Facility. The Office of the Inspector General
brought the issue to the attention of the director of the Department of
Corrections again in correspondence dated March 25, 2002 and September
30, 2003. In those communications, the Office of the Inspector General noted
that improper use of inmate telephone revenues obtained by the community
correctional facilities through subcontracts with telecommunications service
providers enables the contractor to increase profits by offsetting costs or
obtaining unbudgeted augmentations to the program. The Office of the
Inspector General advised the director that this practice circumvents state
budget control and oversight since neither the Governor nor the Legislature
has considered and approved these funds through the budget process. The
practice also distorts the true cost of operating the community correctional
facilities. In September 2003 the annual revenues collected by all community
correctional facilities was estimated at more than $2.7 million.
Inmate telephone revenues are earned by the state-operated prisons and youth
correctional facilities as well as community correctional facilities. Such
revenues collected by state-operated facilities are paid to the state general
fund. In 2004, inmate telephone revenues paid to the state general fund
totaled approximately $26 million.
The issue of inmate telephone revenues received by the community
correctional facilities was most recently reported to the department director in
a report issued by the Office of the Inspector General in November 2004
entitled Review of Inmate Telephone Revenues at the Victor Valley Modified
Community Correctional Facility. The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that all future contracts or contract renewals include language

PAGE 275

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

specifically addressing the disposition of inmate telephone revenues received
by the community correctional facilities. The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that such disposition include one of the following options:
•

Remitting inmate telephone revenues to the state general fund, consistent
with the disposition of revenues received through contracts for inmate
telephone services provided at state-operated prisons and youth
correctional facilities, or

•

Including inmate telephone revenues as a source of funding for the
operation of community correctional facilities through the state budget
process.

In a September 2004 response to this finding, the department told the Office
of the Inspector General its legal counsel had determined that inmate
telephone revenue funds are program income that belongs to the state and that
the funds may be retained and used within the program for specified purposes
at the facility. According to the department, when the contract is terminated,
the inmate telephone revenue fund balance is forwarded to the state or offset
against contract payments. The department also told the Office of the
Inspector General that the Community Correctional Facility Administration
initiated negotiations with its contractors to include new inmate telephone
revenue fund language in each of the community correctional facility
contracts. The new language requires contractors to submit annual budgets for
the inmate telephone revenue fund. Fund beginning balance, revenues,
expenditures, and ending balance also must be included in quarterly cost
reports.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed Amendment 11 to the Leo
Chesney Center contract dated May 24, 2004, which addresses inmate
telephone revenues, and found that while the new contract language controls
approval and spending of the funds, it is silent on the ownership of the
balance that may exist at the termination of the contract.
The Office of the Inspector General made additional inquiries to the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 276

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Community Correctional Facility Administration to determine whether the
revenues are currently being reported through the state budget process.
The administration told the Office of the Inspector General that under all new
contracts, inmate telephone services will no longer be provided through a
contract initiated by the facility contractor. Instead, the services will be
provided through a statewide contract known as the Inmate Ward Telephone
System agreement between the Department of General Services and the
telephone service provider. The revenues generated from these contracts will
be paid to the state general fund, consistent with the arrangement in effect for
state-operated facilities.
As of October 2005, that new arrangement was in effect for only one of the
12 contracted facilities — the McFarland Community Correctional Facility.
Contracts for two other existing facilities and for one new facility are
expected to include that provision as new contracts are completed. The
department reported it expected the contracts, all with Cornell Corrections of
California, Inc. to be finalized by January 2006.
The department told the Office of the Inspector General that eight of the nine
remaining contracts include signed contract amendments covering approval
and spending of telephone revenue funds similar to that of the Leo Chesney
amendment discussed above. The department will amend the provision
covering telephone services as each facility contract expires. The department
told the Office of the Inspector General that three of the nine contracts will
expire in 2007; three will expire in 2009; one will expire in 2011; and the last
two will expire in 2017.
The department is pursuing legal remedies against one contractor who
disputes the state’s ownership of the inmate telephone revenues. That dispute
was the subject of the review issued by the Office of the Inspector General in
November 2004: Review of Inmate Telephone Revenues at the Victor Valley
Modified Community Correctional Facility.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation continue to use the
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 277

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

new statewide Inmate Telephone System agreement to provide inmate telephone services for all future community
correctional facility contracts.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that despite the overwhelming percentage of inmates incarcerated for drug-related
offenses at the Leo Chesney Center, the institution did not have a mandatory substance abuse program.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections consider implementing a
mandatory substance abuse program at the Leo
Chesney Center giving consideration to the
implications of Proposition 36. The
recommendation noted that the program
should emphasize the treatment of alcohol and
controlled substance addiction to help inmates
reintegrate into society.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that the facility has a voluntary substance abuse
program and that the Community Correctional Facility Administration has
explored the possibility of implementing a mandatory substance abuse
program, but that program costs, facility design, department needs, and
contractual issues have precluded implementation. Mandatory substance
abuse programs are available at each of the four women’s prisons when an
inmate's case factors require such placement. The department can assign the
inmate to the programs through the normal classification process, but the
department noted that it attempts to secure voluntary placement in substance
abuse programs.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found that a California Department of Corrections staff member assigned to the Leo
Chesney Center had a practice of cashing inmate trust account checks and release checks for inmates paroling from the
institution.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 278

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections take the steps listed below to
end the practice of department employees
cashing inmate trust fund and release checks.
Issue a policy memorandum directing
employees to stop cashing trust fund and
release checks for inmates.

Explore other methods of addressing the need
of paroling inmates for cash, such as
establishing a revolving fund or petty cash
fund. Internal control procedures should be
designed for the custody and issuance of cash
from the fund.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The department told the Office of the Inspector General that the practice of
employees cashing inmate trust account checks was discontinued immediately
upon discovery and will not be resumed. The Community Correctional
Facility Administration issued a policy memorandum to all community
correctional facilities to this effect, but until the department implements
another method for providing cash to paroling inmates, it cannot direct the
staff to stop cashing release fund checks.
According to the department, it has explored two options since the original
audit to address the need of paroling inmates for cash. The department first
developed a proposed policy (draft dated December 2, 2004) for the use of a
petty cash fund. Implementation of that policy was placed on hold to explore
the possibility of providing debit cards to inmates who will be released.
Neither proposal has been implemented. The Community Correctional
Facility Administration told the Office of the Inspector General that it
recently learned that the Parole and Community Services Division (now
known as the Division of Adult Parole Operations) will be the first to
implement the debit card program, but that it is not expected to be
implemented for another year.
It has been more that four years since the Office of the Inspector General
made this recommendation, and although the department has considered
options to address the need of paroling inmates for cash, it has not taken
corrective action.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 279

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The department should continue its efforts to implement a program that provides inmates with release monies at the time of
parole, but eliminates the need for department employees to cash inmate checks.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center did not have an adequate system to ensure that inmate
appeals were processed promptly and properly.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections require the Leo Chesney Center to
establish procedures for the inmate appeals
process to ensure the accuracy of the inmate
appeals log and timely processing of appeals.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that the local inmate appeals coordinator, a
department employee at the correctional counselor II level, is charged with
ensuring that logging requirements and time constraints for processing inmate
appeals are in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 15,
section 3084 and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual, sections 54100.12 and 54100.9.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections
Operational Procedure 246-1 concerning inmate grievance procedures, which
was updated in August 2004, addresses this finding.
The department also reported that to ensure compliance, the inmate appeals
process is audited at least annually during Community Correctional Facility
Administration’s Internal Quarterly Audits. The Office of the Inspector
General confirmed that the Community Correctional Administration reviewed
the inmate appeals process in its third quarter 2005 internal audit and found
full compliance.
In addition, the department reported that its Program and Fiscal Audits
Branch conducted a program compliance audit of the facility’s operations in
August 2004 and found the facility to be in full compliance in this area. The

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 280

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Office of the Inspector General reviewed the August 2004 report issued by the
Program and Fiscal Audits Branch and confirmed that the audit reviewed all
levels of the inmate appeals process, as well as the tracking and monitoring
system, and found full compliance with department regulations.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections was not forwarding unclaimed trust funds to the
California Department of Corrections.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections institute procedures to ensure that
community correctional facility operators
credit each inmate’s trust account for the
amount of any unclaimed checks at the end of
each quarter. The recommendation also noted
that at the end of each quarter, community
correctional facilities should send to the
Department of Corrections a check for all
unclaimed trust funds held for more than seven
months and a list of inmates whose accounts
have been credited.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Community Correctional Facility Administration reported that it has
advised each contractor of requirements provided in the Financial
Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities
regarding unclaimed trust funds. The administration further told the Office of
the Inspector General that the Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility
contractor paid all unclaimed trust fund amounts identified by the Office of
the Inspector General in the 2001 audit and is in compliance with the
requirements for identifying and forwarding all unclaimed trust funds.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the facility’s report for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 and determined that the facility is current with
the required reporting for unclaimed trust fund checks.

PAGE 281

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections was not preparing annual budgets for inmate welfare fund
operations and was not preparing and submitting quarterly inmate welfare fund financial statements in a timely manner to
the Leo Chesney Center or the Department of Corrections Community Correctional Facility Administration.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections take steps to ensure that
community correctional facility operators
prepare and submit quarterly financial
statements and annual budgets for inmate
welfare fund operations in a timely manner.
The recommendation noted that the financial
statements should be sent to both the
California Department of Corrections and the
community correctional facility and should be
posted in the inmate canteen and the law
library.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that it monitors the receipt of quarterly inmate
welfare fund cost reports and follows up if the reports are not received. The
department told the Office of the Inspector General that Leo Chesney has
corrected this problem and that quarterly reports are submitted as required.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a report issued by the
Department of Finance in May 2002 that found the facility did not meet
inmate welfare fund annual and quarterly reporting requirements. In July
2003, the Department of Finance issued a report of a follow-up review in
which it reported that the facility had taken corrective action and had prepared
the required report for 2003-04, which was submitted to the Department of
Corrections. The Department of Finance also observed that the facility posts
the current Inmate Welfare Fund Statement of Operations in the canteen and
the library.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 282

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 9
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections had not properly managed the lease payments for the Leo
Chesney Center.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections direct Cornell Corrections to
calculate the amount of the potential liability
for uncollected lease payments and determine
whether these amounts are within the
reimbursement contract amount. The
recommendation specified that the department
should review all future scheduled lease
adjustments to ensure that lease payments are
accurately reported in the monthly invoices
submitted to department for reimbursement.

STATUS
NOT APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The department reported that Cornell Corrections has purchased the property,
which was previously leased from a third party. As a result, the
recommendation is no longer applicable.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 10
The Office of the Inspector General found that staff duties for the management of inmate trust accounts at the Leo Chesney
Center were not properly segregated.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 283

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
administration reevaluate the inmate
management system access assigned to
administrative assistants. The recommendation
noted that system access should be limited to
screens necessary to complete assigned duties.
Reconciliation and supervisory review
procedures should be established to eliminate
internal control weaknesses.

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that the facility management re-evaluated the access
of administrative assistants to the inmate management system and made the
following changes:
•

The administrative assistants have access to all screens but do not have
the capability to initiate inmate files.

•

The intake counselor has been assigned the responsibility of initiating
inmate files within the system.

The department also reported that the trust accounts are reconciled by the
administrative assistant II and that the fiscal officer reviews the reconciliation
and the work of administrative assistants I and II.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 11
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center did not process incident reports properly.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center log
all incidents in the incident log book and
ensure that they are reported to the California
Department of Corrections Community
Correctional Facility Administration

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that the department’s inmate disciplinary
coordinator, a correctional lieutenant who works at the facility, is charged
with ensuring that incidents, events, and activities that occur within the
jurisdiction of the facility that are of immediate interest to the department,
other governmental agencies, or the news media are properly reported to the
department in accordance with current policies and procedures. Applicable

PAGE 284

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

headquarters in a timely manner.

policies and procedures are described in California Code of Regulations, Title
15, section 3382 and California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation Operations Manual, section 51030.1.
The department also reported that to ensure compliance, the incident reporting
process is audited at least annually during quarterly internal audits performed
by the Community Correctional Facility Administration. The department
reported that the Program and Fiscal Audits Branch of the Department of
Corrections conducted a program compliance audit of the facility’s operations
in August 2004 and found the facility to be in full compliance in this area.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the August 2004 report issued
by the Program and Fiscal Audits Branch and confirmed that the audit
examined the facility’s incident report procedures and found that the facility
experienced no reportable incidents in the year preceding the audit
The Office of the Inspector General also confirmed that the Community
Correctional Facility Administration reviewed the logging of incident reports
in its third quarter 2005 internal audit and found full compliance.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 12
The Office of the Inspector General found inaccuracies in the Leo Chesney Center’s inmate disciplinary reports.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
disciplinary officer ensure that all disciplinary

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department told the Office of the Inspector General that the department’s
inmate disciplinary coordinator is charged with ensuring that all disciplinary
actions occurring within the jurisdiction of the facility are properly recorded

PAGE 285

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

actions are properly recorded in the incident
log.1 The recommendation specified that the
facility director should request periodic status
reports on inmate disciplinary activity so that
she can be fully informed about inmate
disciplinary activity.

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

in accordance with the policy and procedures outlined in the California Code
of Regulations, Title 15 section 3310, et seq., and the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual, section 52080.1, et
seq.
The department also reported that the inmate disciplinary processes are
audited at least annually during the Community Correctional Facility
Administration’s quarterly audits. In addition, the program compliance audit
conducted by the Program and Fiscal Audits Branch in August 2004 found the
facility to be in full compliance in this area.
The department further reported that periodic status reports regarding inmate
disciplinary activity are addressed in monthly management meetings attended
by facility management and local department staff.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that the Community
Correctional Administration reviewed the logging of disciplinary actions in its
third quarter 2005 internal audit and found full compliance.
The Office of the Inspector General also reviewed the August 2004 report
issued by the Program and Fiscal Audits Branch and confirmed that the audit
examined the facility’s inmate discipline process and procedures and found
full compliance in all areas reviewed relating to discipline.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 13
The Office of the Inspector General found that a significant number of staff performance appraisals and probationary reports
for employees at the Leo Chesney Center were overdue.

1

“Incident log” should have read “disciplinary log.”

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 286

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
director take the actions listed below to ensure
the timely evaluation of employee
performance.
Notify all staff members of the importance of
performance appraisals and probation reports
to the mission of the Leo Chesney Center.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Instruct the personnel officer to log all
delinquent appraisals and reports. The log
should be submitted to the facility director
each month and made a topic of management
meeting discussions.

FULLY

Hold supervisors accountable for completing
timely performance appraisals and
probationary reports.

IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The department told the Office of the Inspector General that Cornell
Corrections employees are aware of the importance of submitting
performance appraisals in a timely manner, and that this is reiterated during
the facility’s weekly meetings for department heads.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed minutes of meetings that
documented discussion of performance reports.
The department reported that the administrative assistant III maintains a
tickler file on all appraisals and probation reports and, as noted above,
reported that appraisal and probation reports are distributed and discussed
during the weekly department head meetings.

The department stated that the facility director or assistant director ensures
that supervisors clearly understand they are held accountable if performance
appraisals and probationary reports are not submitted in a timely manner. The
department reported that all performance evaluations have been completed for
2005.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the signature pages of the
performance reports completed for facility staff during 2005 and found that
they were prepared on time.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 287

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 14
The Office of the Inspector General found that some Leo Chesney Center employees had not attended mandatory training
classes or met the minimum hours of annual training and that the facility training files contained errors and lacked adequate
documentation.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections and Cornell Corrections ensure
that employees at the Leo Chesney Center
adhere to required training hours and attend
mandatory training courses. In addition, the
recommendation specified that the Department
of Corrections and Cornell Corrections should
take the steps necessary to ensure that
employee training records are complete and
accurate.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that facility management conducts audits of training
files on a quarterly basis. According to the department, the training records
are also audited at least annually during internal quarterly audits performed by
the Community Correctional Facility Administration. The department also
said the training records are audited on an annual basis by the Board of
Corrections and were audited by the department’s Program and Fiscal Audit
Branch in August 2004. The department stated that all mandatory training and
requirements have been met.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed documentation to support each
of the audits referred to by the department and found that all audits reported
full compliance with the training requirements reviewed.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 15
The Office of the Inspector General found that the invoice form used by the California Department of Corrections for
community correctional facility reimbursement was outdated and that the department had not provided guidance to the
facilities on claiming payment for beds when they exceed the monthly maximum reimbursement amount.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 288

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections revise the monthly participant
usage invoice and the related instructions in
the Financial Management Handbook for
Private Community Correctional Facilities to
ensure accurate reporting by facilities.

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that it revised the monthly participant usage invoice
and that the revised form would be incorporated into all new contract awards
after September 13, 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a copy of the revised invoice
form and found that the department simplified the form and addressed the
issues identified in the finding.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 16
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates assigned to the administrative unit of the Leo Chesney Center had
access to performance information pertaining to other inmates, even though that access is specifically prohibited by state
regulations.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
change its procedures to retain CDC 1697
forms in a locked compartment; prohibit
inmate access to CDC 1697 forms; and
provide for the forms to be filed by the facility
staff.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department told the Office of the Inspector General that all CDC 1697
forms are now kept in a locked cabinet and that inmates no longer file the
forms.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 289

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 17
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates assigned to the adult basic education program were not receiving the
required number of education hours.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections require the Leo Chesney Center to
adhere to its contract requirement of offering a
minimum of six hours a day of adult basic
education unless or until the contract is
modified by the department.

STATUS
NOT APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The Office of the Inspector General reevaluated the provision in the
California Department of Corrections Statement of Work pertaining to
required hours of education and concluded that the provision may not refer to
the number of hours required to be provided to each student. The provision in
question, section III.E.6, reads: “Educational programs shall be conducted…a
minimum of six hours daily.” The Office of the Inspector General found that
the provision may refer to the total number of hours of education the facility
is required to provide each day rather than to the number of hours the facility
must provide to each student. The department furnished documentation
showing that the facility conducts seven hours per day of adult education. The
Office of the Inspector General therefore has determined that the
recommendation is not relevant.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 18
The Office of the Inspector General found that floor tiles in the kitchen were cracked, creating a safety hazard.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Leo Chesney Center
replace the kitchen floor in the dining hall.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The department reported that the kitchen floor in the dining hall has been
replaced.

PAGE 290

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 291

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Parole and Community Services Division has made
significant improvements in its oversight of the
Local Assistance Program.

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 6
Fully implemented: 4 (66 %)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 0 (0%)

In January 2002, the Office of the Inspector General
conducted a special review of the Parole and
Not implemented: 1 (17%)
Community Services Division’s Local Assistance
Not applicable: 1 (17%)
Program, which reimburses local jurisdictions for the
costs of detaining state parolees in local facilities. The
review determined that the program had overpaid local
jurisdictions $8.2 million in the previous two fiscal years by reimbursing for services at
rates that exceeded the maximum daily rate allowed under the State Budget Act. The
review also found that the program did not adequately monitor non-routine medical
services provided to state parolees in Los Angeles County and that the department’s
procedures for processing invoices from local jurisdictions were deficient.
BACKGROUND

California Penal Code section 4016.5 was enacted on July 1, 1975 to relieve cities and
counties of the cost of detaining state parolees held for parole violations. Under its
provisions, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reimburses local
jurisdictions for costs incurred as a result of detaining state parolees when the detention
relates only to parole violations and does not involve new criminal charges. Beginning in
the 1990s, the Department of Corrections supplemented the local assistance payments by
negotiating contracts with certain counties to set aside beds for state inmates and parolees
under the authority of California Penal Code section 2910. The state has such contracts
with three local entities: Santa Rita Jail in Alameda County, Peter Pitchess Detention
Center in Los Angeles County, and Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Sacramento
County.
The State Budget Act of 2005 includes $32.1 million for local assistance payments and
$49.4 million for contract payments. The Parole and Community Services Division of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for managing the Local
Assistance Program, and cities and counties submit invoices to regional parole offices for
local assistance and contract reimbursements. The Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation supplies sheriff and police departments with a manual that sets forth
guidelines and procedures for calculating costs related to state prisoner and parolee
detention and revocation proceedings — termed the “daily jail rate.” Beginning in 1993,
State Budget Acts have restricted local jurisdictions from recovering detention costs of
more than $59 per day per parolee.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 293

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the January 2002 review of the Local Assistance Program:
•

The Department of Corrections overpaid local jurisdictions by more than $8.2 million
over a two-year period by reimbursing for services provided to state parolees at rates
that exceeded the maximum daily amount allowed under the State Budget Act. A
large share of the overpayments was made to Parole Region III, which covers Los
Angeles County. The overpayments occurred because the department paid local
jurisdictions separately for non-routine medical care provided to state parolees and
those costs were not included in the maximum daily rate for reimbursement.

•

The Department of Corrections did not adequately monitor non-routine medical care
provided to state parolees in Los Angeles County. As a result, parolees received
costly medical services that may have been inappropriate under the circumstances.

•

The Department of Corrections had not established standard written procedures to
ensure that invoices from local jurisdictions were accurate and were processed
consistently.

•

The Department of Corrections lacked an information system capable of efficiently
validating information reported on invoices submitted by local jurisdictions.

As a result of the January 2002 review, the Office of the Inspector General provided the
following six recommendations to the Department of Corrections:
•

Limit reimbursement to the maximum daily rate allowed in the State Budget Act.

•

Amend the Daily Jail Rate Manual to include non-routine medical costs in the daily
jail rate calculation.

•

Include in the 2002 State Budget Act and future budget acts the actual cost of
prisoner care in state correctional facilities.

•

Establish a process to more closely monitor cases involving non-routine medical care
for state parolees in Los Angeles County. The process should include consulting with
the department’s medical personnel to evaluate treatment options for state parolees.
Consideration should also be given to transporting state parolees requiring long-term
medical care to state correctional medical facilities.

•

Develop written statewide procedures for administering and monitoring the Local
Assistance Program.

•

Develop enhancements to the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System to allow
reports to be generated to help parole staff fully verify invoices submitted by cities
and counties for reimbursement of parole retention services.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 294

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented the six
recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General’s January 2002 review of the
Local Assistance Program. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector
General provided the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with a table listing
the January 2002 findings and recommendations and asked the department to provide the
implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the department, and
evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the recommendations.
Review fieldwork was completed in August 2005. The results are presented in the tables
following this section.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the six recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in January
2002 concerning the Local Assistance Program, four recommendations have been fully
implemented, one has not been implemented, and one is no longer applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Parole and Community Services
Division has improved its monitoring of the Local Assistance Program. The Department
of Corrections worked with the Department of Finance and the California Sheriffs’
Association to revise the methodology for calculating the daily jail rate and to amend the
state budget act language for reimbursement to local jurisdictions. The resulting
agreement excludes non-routine medical costs from the daily jail rate calculation. The
amended state budget act language resolves previous confusion over the interpretation of
California Penal Code requirements for calculating reimbursement to local jurisdictions.
The Parole and Community Services Division has also improved its procedures and
monitoring efforts to reduce the non-routine medical costs associated with the Local
Assistance Program. The Parole and Community Services Division’s information system,
however, needs further improvement to more efficiently verify and process invoices
submitted by local jurisdictions.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation continue to pursue developing an
information system to improve the Local Assistance Program invoice
verification process.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 295

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Department of Corrections had overpaid local jurisdictions more than $8.2
million in the previous two fiscal years by reimbursing for detention services provided to state parolees at rates that exceed
the maximum amount allowed under the State Budget Acts.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections take the actions listed below:
Limit reimbursements to the maximum daily
rate allowed in the State Budget Act.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General’s original recommendation addressed the fact
that reimbursements to local jurisdictions exceeded the $59 maximum daily rate
allowed in the State Budget Act because the local entities were paid separately for
non-routine medical costs and were not required to include those costs in
calculating the daily jail rate — the maximum daily rate for reimbursement. The
Office of the Inspector General recommended that the Department of Corrections
include all costs, including the costs of non-routine medical care, in its daily jail
rate calculation and limit local jurisdictions to the maximum daily rate allowed in
the State Budget Act.
In response to the Office of the Inspector General’s review, the Department of
Corrections Legal Affairs Division reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and
policies and concluded that the department is both permitted and obligated to
reimburse local jurisdictions for non-routine medical costs independent of Penal
Code section 4016.5. Although the Office of the Inspector General does not
concur with the Legal Affairs Division’s opinion, the budget act language has
since been amended to resolve the issue. The 2005 State Budget Act language
increases the maximum daily jail rate, and the methodology adopted by the
Department of Finance specifically excludes non-routine medical costs from the
calculation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 296

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Amend the Daily Jail Rate Manual to include
non routine medical costs in the daily jail rate
calculation.

NO LONGER
APPLICABLE

As stated above, the methodology adopted by the Department of Finance and
included in the State Budget Act of 2005 now excludes non-routine medical costs
from the daily jail rate calculation. Therefore, this recommendation is no longer
applicable.

Include in the 2002 State Budget Act and
future Budget Acts the actual cost of prisoner
care in state correctional facilities.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The 2005 Budget Act methodology for calculating the maximum is predicated on
95 percent of the state’s average cost for housing inmates in similar state
facilities, excluding the cost of non-routine medical care. However, the state will
continue to reimburse local entities for the cost of non-routine medical care on a
case-by-case basis, consistent with current practice. Based on this revised
methodology, the Department of Finance approved a maximum Daily Jail Rate
for fiscal year 2005-06 of $68.22 per inmate.
The Department of Corrections will submit future adjustments to the Daily Jail
Rate to the Department of Finance in the spring, before each new fiscal year, to
reflect any changes related to the state’s cost for housing inmates in similar
facilities.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Department of Corrections did not adequately monitor non-routine
medical care provided to state parolees in Los Angeles County, resulting in parolees receiving costly medical services that may
have been inappropriate under the circumstances.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections establish a process to more
closely monitor cases involving non-routine
medical care in Los Angeles County. The
process should include consulting with the
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Parole and Community Services Division, in conjunction with the Fiscal and
Business Management Audits Unit of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation, revised the Daily Jail Rate Manual by delineating allowable and
unallowable costs, expanding the definition of non-routine medical care, and
effective July 1, 2002, instituted notification requirements when parolees in local
detention require non-emergency medical care. Under the revised policies and
PAGE 297

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

department’s medical personnel to evaluate
treatment options for state parolees in Los
Angeles County. Consideration should also be
given to transporting state parolees requiring
long-term medical care to state correctional
medical facilities.

procedures, once a parole unit is notified by a local jurisdiction of a nonemergency medical need, the Parole and Community Services Division will use
medical expertise from the department’s Health Administration Unit to assist in
evaluating individual cases and recommending appropriate disposition, including
when it would be acceptable to release a parole hold or transfer parolees to a state
facility.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the medical expenditures for fiscal
year 2004-05 and found that expenditures were about the same as those of the
previous year, but were significantly less than the total in fiscal year 2002-03. In
fiscal year 2002-03, medical expenditures were $10.3 million. Fiscal year 2004-05
medical expenditures were $6.4 million, or 38 percent less than fiscal year 200203. The department reports that it anticipates non-routine medical expenditures to
flatten out and even decline in fiscal year 2005-06 as a result of the new
notification procedures.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Department of Corrections lacked established written procedures and
managerial oversight to ensure that invoices from local jurisdictions are accurate and were processed consistently.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Parole and Community
Services Division develop written statewide
procedures for administering and monitoring
the Local Assistance Program.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Parole and Community Services Division has developed and distributed the
Local Assistance Program, Contract & Daily Jail Rate Reimbursements Program
Guide. The program guide provides consistent procedures for reconciliation,
approval, and payment of jail detention, revocation hearings, and medical care
invoices, including documentation, tracking, and prescribed timelines.

PAGE 298

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

LOCAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that Department of Corrections had not established an information system
adequate to verify information reported on invoices submitted by local jurisdictions.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections develop enhancements to the
Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System
to allow reports to be generated to help the
parole staff fully verify invoices submitted by
cities and counties for reimbursement of parole
retention services.

STATUS
NOT
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
To verify that invoices are accurate, the parole staff must confirm that a parolee
was detained at the local jurisdiction on an active parole hold during the period
claimed and that no local charges were pending at the time. The department
reported that the Revocation Scheduling and Tracking System cannot be
programmed to allow continuous tracking of individual parolee movements.
Instead, the department said it is continuing to use a tracking system developed
only for Parole Region III (Los Angeles County). The department did not provide
a timetable for when a tracking system will be available statewide.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should continue to pursue developing an information system to assist
with the Local Assistance Program invoice verification process.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 299

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INMATE APPEALS BRANCH
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Inmate Appeals Branch has made efforts to
enhance its inmate appeals tracking system to
integrate appeals at the third-level review but other
departmental priorities have hampered its efforts.

INMATE APPEALS BRANCH

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 1
Fully implemented: 0 (0 %)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 0 (0%)
Not implemented: 1 (100%)

A special review of the Department of Corrections
Not applicable: 0 (0%)
Inmate Appeals Branch, issued by the Office of the
Inspector General in February 2001, identified serious
deficiencies in the third-level inmate appeals process.
The problems had caused unacceptable delays in the processing of inmate appeals and
had created a significant and growing backlog of appeals that had not been completed
within the 60-day time frame required by California Code of Regulations, Title 15.
In September 2004, the Office of the Inspector General conducted a follow-up review
that determined the Inmate Appeals Branch had made significant progress in addressing
the deficiencies identified in the February 2001 review. In particular, the follow-up
review found that the Inmate Appeals Branch was meeting required deadlines in
responding to third-level appeals; had virtually eliminated its former backlog of overdue
appeals; and had developed a formal training manual and written guidelines for new
appeals examiners. The Inmate Appeals Branch also had developed a system for tracking
inmate appeals for use at all institutions, but at the time of the follow-up review, online
interconnectivity between the prisons and the Inmate Appeals Branch was still in the
planning stages. The Inmate Appeals Branch reported that it would begin improvements
by November 2004 that would allow the system to be used as a tool for identifying
systemic problems, including policies and procedures needing revision.
BACKGROUND
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Operations Manual, section
54100.2 declares that the purpose of the inmate appeals process is to provide for
resolution of inmate grievances in a timely manner and at the lowest possible level. The
process directs inmate complaints through one informal and two formal levels of appeal
at the institution and a final third-level review at the director’s office. In addition, the
inmate appeals process is intended to serve as a vehicle for improving department
policies and procedures. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Operations Manual specifies that the appeals process is designed to audit the internal
practices and operation of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to “identify,
modify, or eliminate practices which may not be necessary or may impede the
accomplishment of correctional goals.” The Inmate Appeals Branch is responsible for
oversight of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s inmate appeal process.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 301

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INMATE APPEALS BRANCH

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the September 2004 follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector General
found that integration of the inmate appeals tracking system with third-level appeals still
had not been accomplished and remained in the planning stages because other department
technology projects had been given higher priority.
The Office of the Inspector General recommended that the Inmate Appeals Branch
continue to work with the Information Systems Division to develop and enhance the new
inmate appeals tracking system to include third-level appeals and statewide reporting of
first- and second-level appeals and also to allow review of appeals granted and partially
granted as a vehicle for identifying policies and procedures needing revision.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented the recommendation
from the Office of the Inspector General’s September 2004 follow-up review of the
Inmate Appeals Branch. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector
General provided the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation with a table listing
the September 2004 finding and recommendation and asked the department to provide
the implementation status of the recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the response, along with documentation provided by the department, and
evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the recommendation. The
fieldwork for the follow-up review was completed during December 2005. The results
are presented in the table following this section.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Inmate Appeals Branch has made
continuous efforts to enhance its inmate appeals tracking system. However,
notwithstanding the passage of six years, the Information Systems Division continues to
assign a low priority to this project.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation require the Information Systems Division to
either integrate the inmate appeals tracking system with the third-level
appeals or contract with a private firm to do so.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 302

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

INMATE APPEALS BRANCH

ORIGINAL FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that integration of the inmate appeals tracking system with third-level appeals was
still in the planning stage.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Inmate Appeals Branch
continue to work with the Information
Systems Division to develop and enhance the
new inmate appeals tracking system.

STATUS
NOT
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Inmate Appeals Branch reported that it has continued to work with the
Information Systems Division to complete the Inmate Appeals Tracking System
improvements. According to the department, the scope of the project now requires
the Inmate Appeals Branch to complete a feasibility study to justify the need for
the project. The department originally scheduled the enhancements to take place
in November 2004 but other department priorities delayed the project. The Inmate
Appeals Branch informed the Office of the Inspector General in December 2005
that it was working with the Information Services Division to complete the
feasibility study by December 21, 2005. The department had not completed the
feasibility study at the close of the Office of the Inspector General’s fieldwork.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation require the
Information Systems Division to either integrate the inmate appeals tracking system with the third-level appeals or
contract with a private firm to do so.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 303

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND
DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
number of overdue inmate appeals at Salinas
Valley State Prison has increased since a
September 2003 review, primarily because of a
significantly higher volume of appeals from
inmates. In addition, although the institution has
improved its inmate disciplinary process, it has not
developed a corrective action plan to address
deficiencies in the process identified in the
September 2003 review.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 7
Fully implemented: 3 (44%)
Substantially implemented: 1 (14%)
Partially implemented: 1 (14%)
Not implemented: 1 (14%)
Not applicable: 1 (14%)

In September 2003, the Office of the Inspector General conducted a follow-up review of
the inmate appeals and disciplinary processes at Salinas Valley State Prison. The purpose
of the review was to assess the institution’s progress in addressing the findings of a
March 2000 audit of the inmate appeals and disciplinary processes. The September 2003
review found that the institution had significantly improved the inmate appeals process
since the earlier audit, but that problems remained in the inmate disciplinary process. The
Office of the Inspector General made seven recommendations to the management of
Salinas Valley State Prison for improving the inmate disciplinary process as a result of
the September 2003 follow-up review.
BACKGROUND
Salinas Valley State Prison, located in Soledad, California, opened in May 1996 as a
Level IV (maximum security) prison designed to house 2,024 inmates in four facilities
located in Complex I and Complex II. Complex I contains Facilities A and B, while
Complex II contains Facilities C and D. Since its opening, the institution has had
problems with staff turnover and inmate unrest. Problems with inmates have led to a
significant number of total or partial lockdowns, impairing the institution’s ability to
provide academic and vocational programs. In response to the problems, the Office of the
Inspector General conducted an audit of the inmate appeals and inmate disciplinary
processes at the institution in March 2000. The audit found significant deficiencies in
both processes and made recommendations to correct the problems.
In response to an inmate’s complaint, the Office of the Inspector General returned to
Salinas Valley State Prison during January 2003 to initiate an investigation of certain
aspects of the inmate disciplinary process. As a result of that investigation, the Office of
the Inspector General found that the prison had violated the rights of more than 80
inmates in administering the inmate disciplinary process following an inmate work
stoppage in October 2002. The Office of the Inspector General subsequently conducted a
follow-up review of the March 2000 audit to assess the institution’s progress in
addressing the earlier findings. The results of the follow-up review were published in
September 2003.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 305

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the September 2003 follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector General
found that Salinas Valley State Prison had developed a corrective action plan to address
the deficiencies identified in the 2000 audit and had significantly improved its inmate
appeals process. Inmate appeals processing times had improved and there was no longer a
backlog of appeals waiting to be addressed. The inmate disciplinary process, however,
continued to be deficient.
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the September 2003 follow-up review:
•

The inmate appeals process had significantly improved.

•

Salinas Valley State Prison had made little progress in improving its inmate
disciplinary process.

The Office of the Inspector General made the following seven recommendations to the
Salinas Valley State Prison management as a result of the September 2003 follow-up
review:
•

Continue using the current inmate appeals process, including the logging of all
informal appeals.

•

Require chief disciplinary officers to develop their own independent registry logs in
lieu of relying on the information provided by the facilities.

•

Regularly audit the registry logs, the disciplinary action logs, and the register of
institution violations to ensure they comply with the requirements of Penal Code
section 2081, the California Code of Regulations, and the Department of Corrections
Operations Manual.

•

Hold staff members with responsibility for the inmate disciplinary system, including
chief disciplinary officers, accountable for the quality of their work. Use progressive
discipline if necessary to ensure compliance with the requirements of the California
Code of Regulations and the Department of Corrections Operations Manual.

•

Use the automated disciplinary management system to monitor performance
indicators associated with the inmate disciplinary process, including compliance with
timeliness criteria.

•

Continue providing periodic training to staff on the inmate appeals and inmate
disciplinary processes.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 306

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

•

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

Modify the corrective action plan to incorporate these recommendations, and specify
completion dates rather than notations such as “ongoing” for implementing each
recommendation.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which Salinas
Valley State Prison has implemented the seven recommendations from the Office of the
Inspector General’s September 2003 follow-up review of the inmate appeals and
disciplinary processes at Salinas Valley State Prison. To conduct the follow-up review,
the Office of the Inspector General provided Salinas Valley State Prison with a table
listing the September 2003 findings and recommendations and asked Salinas Valley State
Prison to provide the implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the
Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the
institution, and evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the
recommendations. Fieldwork was completed during February 2006. The results are
presented in the tables following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the seven recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in
September 2003 concerning the institution’s inmate appeals and disciplinary processes,
three have been fully implemented; one has been substantially implemented; one has
been partially implemented; one has not been implemented; and one is no longer
applicable.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Salinas Valley State Prison has improved
its inmate disciplinary process by requiring chief disciplinary officers to maintain
independent registry logs and to regularly audit the logs for compliance. However, the
institution has not developed a corrective action plan to address the deficiencies in the
disciplinary process identified in the September 2003 follow-up review, and the
disciplinary system procedures developed by the institution still fail to hold staff
members accountable for the quality of their work. Moreover, the Office of the Inspector
General found that the number of overdue appeals has increased since the March 2000
follow-up review. The rise in the number of overdue appeals is attributable to a
significantly higher volume of appeals from inmates, the process of logging informal
appeals, and a lack of staffing to handle the increase in appeals.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Salinas Valley State
Prison take the following additional actions:
•

Develop an alternative method of tracking informal inmate appeals instead
of logging each informal appeal in the appeals tracking system.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 307

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

•

Provide for staff accountability in the inmate disciplinary system
procedures.

•

Prepare and execute a corrective action plan to address deficiencies in the
inmate disciplinary process.

The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 308

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the inmate appeals process had significantly improved.
FOLLOW-UP FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that Salinas Valley State Prison had made little progress in improving its inmate
disciplinary process.
RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that Salinas Valley State Prison
management take the actions listed below to
improve the inmate appeals and inmate
disciplinary processes.
Continue using the current inmate appeals
process including the logging of all informal
appeals.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Salinas Valley State Prison reported that although appeals were significantly
backlogged at the time of the March 2000 review, the inmate appeals process has
improved to the point that informal appeals are no longer a significant problem.
The institution also reported, however, that the logging of informal appeals has
placed an additional unfunded workload on an already depleted staff and violates
section 3084 of the California Code of Regulations. Tracking informal appeals
requires two additional staff members, but because additional staff is not
available, the existing staff has assumed that function, which has contributed to an
appeals backlog. As a result, the institution is requesting that the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation release it from this recommendation
and allow the appeals unit to comply with section 3084 of the California Code of
Regulations. If the request is approved, the institution will revise Operational
Procedure 48 to include the change. Until then, the appeals staff will continue to
log the informal appeals.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed Salinas Valley State Prison
Operational Procedure 48 covering inmate/parolee appeals, which was developed
in November 1997 and revised in July 2004, and found that the procedure clearly
outlines the inmate/parolee appeals process for staff and inmates, including

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 309

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

entering informal appeals into the appeals tracking system. The Office of the
Inspector General reviewed several appeals tracking system reports provided by
the institution and verified that informal level appeals are entered into the appeals
tracking system.
The Office of the Inspector General also found, however, that the appeals backlog
has returned since the September 2003 follow-up review. As reported in the
September 2003 review, the backlog of appeals had been entirely eliminated as of
July 2003. But according to information provided by Salinas Valley State Prison,
the backlog of overdue informal appeals totaled 228 as of September 25, 2004 and
had increased to 251 as of February 11, 2006. Meanwhile, the backlog of overdue
Level I and II appeals totaled 154 as of September 25, 2004, but had decreased to
39 by February 11, 2006.
The Office of the Inspector General noted that Salinas Valley State Prison inmates
submit a significantly higher number of appeals now than they did at the time of
the March 2000 review. At that time, inmates at the prison typically submitted
approximately 3,300 appeals requiring formal action each year. (The number of
informal appeals filed is unknown because the institution did not track informal
appeals at that time.) In comparison, inmates filed 19,068 appeals in 2005, with
6,356 requiring formal action, 5,456 requiring informal action, and 7,256 screened
out because they did not meet appeal criteria. According to a Salinas Valley State
Prison official, staffing in the Inmate Appeals Office has remained at four
employees since March 2000, contributing to the increase in overdue appeals.
Require chief disciplinary officers to develop
their own independent registry logs in lieu of
relying on the information provided by the
facilities.

Regularly audit the registry logs, the
disciplinary action logs (CDC-Form 1154s),

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

Salinas Valley State Prison reported that the chief disciplinary officers for
Complex I and II maintain a separate registry log that is independent of the
facilities. According to the institution, a register clerk inputs and maintains the
data and attests to the accuracy of the information on a weekly basis. The
institution reported that Complex I does not have an appeals backlog and that
Complex II has a backlog that it is addressing.
The Office of the Inspector General verified the existence of the logs.
Salinas Valley State Prison reported that its desk procedures for register clerks
require each chief disciplinary officer to audit the registry logs, disciplinary action

PAGE 310

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

and the register of institution violations (and
the rules violation reports therein) to ensure
that they comply with the requirements of
Penal Code section 2081, the California Code
of Regulations, and the Department of
Corrections Operations Manual.

logs, and the register of institution violations. Furthermore, the chief disciplinary
officer is required to conduct monthly reviews of the register of institution
violations and confirm the review by signing the register audit log. The institution
also reported that the chief disciplinary officer is required to compare the register
of institution violations against the registry and disciplinary action logs from each
facility to ensure accuracy and completeness.
Salinas Valley State Prison provided copies of each chief disciplinary officer’s
most recent audit reports. The Office of the Inspector General noted that as of
September 27, 2005, the chief disciplinary officer for Complex I had completed
audits from January to August 2005 for Facilities A and B. As of October 19,
2005, however, the chief disciplinary officer for Complex II had completed only
the March 2005 audit for Facility C and the January through March 2005 audits
for Facility D. Institution officials said they are addressing this backlog.

Hold staff with responsibility for the inmate
disciplinary system, including chief
disciplinary officers, accountable for the
quality of their work. Use progressive
discipline if necessary to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the California Code
of Regulations and the Department of
Corrections Operations Manual.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

Use the automated disciplinary management
system to monitor performance indicators,
including compliance with timeliness criteria,
associated with the inmate disciplinary
process.

NOT

Salinas Valley State Prison reported that the primary source of accountability for
the disciplinary process is the independent tracking system used by the register
clerk, the facility logs, and the register of institution violations.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the desk procedures for register
clerks and concluded that although the procedures delineate the chief disciplinary
officer’s responsibilities with respect to the disciplinary system, the procedures do
not address staff accountability.

APPLICABLE

Salinas Valley State Prison reported that the automated disciplinary management
system is no longer available to all staff members involved in the review and
approval steps of the disciplinary process. According to the institution, when the
corrective action plan was developed in 2002 in response to the Office of the
Inspector General’s 2000 audit, the institution’s computers used an operating
system that was compatible with the automated disciplinary management system.
By late September 2004, however, most of the institution’s computers had been
converted to the Windows XP operating system, which is not compatible with the
automated disciplinary management system.
Salinas Valley State Prison reported that staff members monitor performance

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 311

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

indicators through the independent tracking system used by the register clerk, as
well as through the facility logs and the register of institution violations.
Continue providing periodic training to staff
on the inmate appeals and inmate disciplinary
processes.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

Salinas Valley State Prison reported that staff members involved with the inmate
appeals and disciplinary processes have received periodic training. For example,
the appeals unit conducted on-site training in both facilities during May 2003, and
the Inmate Appeals Board (third-level appeals) provided training related to staff
complaints during September and October 2004. Salinas Valley State Prison also
reported that register clerks received training between September 13, 2004 and
October 14, 2004. Senior hearing officers were required to complete a
certification process and received rules violation reports training on September 9
and November 5, 2005. According to the institution, appeals unit staff members
provided training to medical staff in July 2005 and to newly promoted sergeants
in September 2005.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed copies of the institution’s training
records for the period September 1, 2004 through October 27, 2005 and verified
that 818 staff members received inmate appeals process training during that 14month period. The Office of the Inspector General also verified that 147 staff
members received training on the disciplinary process during the same period.

Modify the corrective action plan to
incorporate these recommendations, and
specify completion dates rather than notations
such as “Ongoing” for implementing each
recommendation.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the corrective action plan for
overdue inmate appeals signed by the acting warden on October 27, 2005 and
verified that it addressed the Office of the Inspector General’s previous
recommendations relating to overdue appeals and specified completion dates. The
Office of the Inspector General determined, however, that the institution does not
have a corrective action plan to address previous recommendations relating to the
inmate disciplinary process.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Salinas Valley State Prison take the following additional actions:
•

Develop an alternative method of tracking informal inmate appeals instead of logging each informal appeal in

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 312

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON, INMATE APPEALS AND DISCIPLINARY PROCESSES

the appeals tracking system.
•

Provide for staff accountability in the inmate disciplinary system procedures.

•

Prepare and execute a corrective action plan to address deficiencies in the inmate disciplinary process.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 313

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER,
INMATE APPEALS PROCESS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
California Rehabilitation Center has improved its
process for handling inmate appeals by
maintaining adequate staffing in the inmate
appeals office, providing orientation on the appeals
process to new inmates, and having management
monitor inmate complaints against staff. The
institution continues to experience problems with
transferring inmate property.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 5
Fully implemented: 4 (80 %)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 1 (20%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)
Not applicable: 0 (0%)

In August 2000, the Office of the Inspector General completed its review of the inmate
appeals process at the California Rehabilitation Center. The review was prompted by a
letter from an inmate reporting a backlog in the inmate appeals process. The Office of the
Inspector General found that the institution had taken action to significantly reduce the
number of overdue appeals and that the backlog was manageable. The review also
identified several issues that could be addressed to further improve the institution’s
inmate appeals process.
BACKGROUND
Located in Norco, California, the California Rehabilitation Center is the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitations Level II, medium-security state prison for both male and
female felons and for addicts convicted of civil drug offenses. The primary mission of
the facility is to maintain the secure housing of inmates, protect the safety of the public,
and provide a substance abuse treatment program. The California Rehabilitation Center
is the only California prison that houses both male and female inmates within a shared
exterior perimeter.
The inmate appeals process is prescribed under Title 15 of the California Code of
Regulations to provide inmates with a system and process for filing complaints. Inmates
file complaints by filling out and submitting a CDC-602 inmate/parolee appeals form.
The process usually begins with an attempt to resolve at an informal level the issue
between the appellant and staff involved in the incident prompting the complaint.
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3084 specifies that staff respond to
informal-level appeals within ten working days.
If the complaint is not resolved at the informal level, or if the nature of the complaint
requires waiving the informal level, the complaint moves to the formal appeals process,
which encompasses three appeal levels.
At the first level of appeal, form CDC-602 appeals are filed, screened, and logged into
the appeals database by the institution’s appeals office. The appeals coordinator is
responsible for assigning appeals to appropriate staff members and for monitoring the
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 315

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

status of appeals to ensure that they are processed in a timely and appropriate manner.
The decision to grant, partially grant, or deny an appeal is rendered by the staff person
assigned to the case.
If the first level is waived under California Code of Regulations, Title 15, or if the inmate
is dissatisfied with the response at the first level, the appeal moves to the second level.
Decisions on the appeal at this level are typically made by the warden or the chief
medical officer of the institution based on staff recommendations. These appeals are also
logged into the appeals database.
If the inmate is dissatisfied with the second-level response, the inmate may appeal to the
Inmate Appeals Branch in Sacramento for a third and final review. The Inmate Appeals
Branch is responsible for overseeing the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
inmate appeals process and its review is the final administrative remedy available for
inmate grievances.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the August 2000 review, the Office of the Inspector General made the
following specific findings:
•

The California Rehabilitation Center had reduced the appeals backlog to a
manageable level by devoting additional staff resources to the appeals office.

•

Inmates appeared to be unfamiliar with the appeals process, causing a high
percentage of claims to be rejected during the screening process.

•

A high percentage of the inmate appeals at the California Rehabilitation Center
concerned the forwarding of inmate property and trust funds to other institutions.

•

A high percentage of inmate appeals at the California Rehabilitation Center
concerned complaints against staff.

In addressing these findings, the Office of the Inspector General recommended that the
California Rehabilitation Center take the following five actions:
•

Maintain the present level of re-directed staffing in the appeals office to ensure that
the backlog is eliminated entirely and remains at a manageable level in the future.

•

Incorporate into the inmate orientation program an explanation of the inmate appeals
process.

•

Discontinue the practice of waiting for an inmate appeal from a transferred inmate
before sending property to the new institution.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 316

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

•

Investigate the need for increased staffing in the inmate trust fund accounting office
so that trust funds belonging to inmates transferring to other institutions are
forwarded more than once or twice a month.

•

Review and analyze a representative sample of appeals categorized as complaints
against staff to determine the cause of their frequency and implement corrective
action.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
California Rehabilitation Center has implemented the five recommendations from the
Office of the Inspector General’s August 2000 review. To conduct the follow-up review,
the Office of the Inspector General provided the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation with a table listing the August 2000 findings and recommendations
and requested the implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the
Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the
California Rehabilitation Center, and evaluated the degree of compliance or
noncompliance with the recommendations. The Office of the Inspector General also
conducted additional fieldwork to verify various elements of the California Rehabilitation
Center’s responses. Fieldwork was concluded in February 2006. The results are
presented in the table following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the five recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in August
2000, four have been fully implemented and one has been partially implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the California Rehabilitation Center has
fully implemented the recommendations to adequately staff the inmate appeals office,
incorporate inmate appeals information in its orientation process, investigate increased
staffing for the inmate trust fund office, and review and analyze staff complaints to
identify systemic problems. The Office of the Inspector General found, however, that the
California Rehabilitation Center has not adequately addressed the timely transfer of
inmate property when an inmate is transferred to another institution.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California
Rehabilitation Center consider initiating procedures to transfer inmate
property at the time of the inmate’s relocation rather than waiting for the
inmate to return a form once he or she is permanently housed at another
institution.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 317

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The California Rehabilitation Center had reduced the appeals backlog to a manageable level by devoting additional staff
resources to the appeals office.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California
Rehabilitation Center maintain the present
level of re-directed staffing in the appeals
office to ensure that the backlog is eliminated
entirely and remains at a manageable level in
the future.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Rehabilitation Center reported that two full-time staff
members are devoted to the inmate appeals office: one correctional counselor
II and one office assistant. This staffing level is consistent with the Office of
the Inspector General’s recommendation. The institution also reported that
the backlog has been eliminated but, if a backlog should occur, the appeals
coordinator immediately notifies management and appropriate action is taken.
The California Rehabilitation Center provided the Office of the Inspector
General with the February 27, 2006 overdue appeals report listing 12 overdue
appeals. Eleven of the 12 overdue appeals pertained to issues beyond the
institution’s control. Examples included inmate property and trust fund issues
that arose while the inmate was at other institutions and legal concerns during
a time when the individual was under parole jurisdiction. The remaining
appeal was a medical issue that was four days delinquent.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
Inmates appeared to be unfamiliar with the appeals process, causing a high percentage of claims to be rejected during the
screening process.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 318

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California
Rehabilitation Center incorporate into the
inmate orientation program an explanation of
the inmate appeals process.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the inmate orientation
document delineating the acceptable use of the form CDC-602 for inmate
appeals. The document clearly informs inmates about appeal preparation, the
screening process, time limits, system abuses, and Americans with
Disabilities Act-related appeals. Additionally, the California Rehabilitation
Center reported that it presents an orientation video for new inmates that
includes a segment on the inmate appeals process.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
A high percentage of the inmate appeals at the California Rehabilitation Center concerned the forwarding of inmate property
and trust funds to other institutions.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the receiving and release
unit of the California Rehabilitation Center
discontinue the practice of waiting for an
inmate appeal from a transferred inmate before
sending property to the new institution.

STATUS
PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Rehabilitation Center reported that, when an inmate is
transferred to another institution, the center’s receiving and release staff
provides the inmate with a form to be returned to the center once the inmate is
permanently housed at another institution. The returned form alerts the staff
to transfer the property to the inmate’s new location.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the new inmate property
transfer process simply traded the inmate appeals form with another form.
The effect is continued delays in transferring inmate property, as evidenced
by an increase in the property-related appeals. The percentage of propertyrelated inmate appeals filed in the first two quarters of 2004 increased to 23
percent from the 18 percent of such appeals filed in the first two quarters of
2000.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 319

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

The Office of the Inspector General also
recommended that the California
Rehabilitation Center administration
investigate the need for increased staffing in
the trust fund accounting office so that trust
funds belonging to inmates transferring to
other institutions are forwarded more than
once or twice a month.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to the California Rehabilitation Center, the number of trust office
staff positions is based on a ratio of one trust staff member per 691 inmates.
Since the inmate trust fund office has historically been staffed in accordance
with the staff-to-inmate ratio, no additional staffing has been allocated.
Because the inmate fund transfer process has been given increased priority,
however, the number of appeals in this category has been reduced by 6
percent. The institution affirms that it now processes inmate trust fund
transfers weekly.
The Office of the Inspector General found that appeals relative to inmate trust
funds have decreased since the original review. In the first two quarters of
2000, trust fund appeals represented 15 percent of total inmate appeals. In the
same two quarters of 2004, inmate trust fund appeals accounted for only 9
percent.
The Office of the Inspector General was also informed that an automated
inmate trust system is being developed and is projected to be implemented in
July 2007. This system will eliminate the need for fund transfers between
institutions and should result in fewer inmate appeals of this type.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The California Rehabilitation Center should consider initiating procedures to transfer inmate property at the time of the
inmate’s relocation rather than waiting for the inmate to return a form once he or she is permanently housed at another
institution.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
A high percentage of the inmate appeals at the California Rehabilitation Center concerned complaints against staff.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 320

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the management of the
California Rehabilitation Center review and
analyze a representative sample of appeals
categorized as complaints against staff to
determine the cause of their frequency and
implement corrective action.

CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Rehabilitation Center stated that it prepares a quarterly report
which management uses to assess the need for intervention, staff training, or
further investigation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 321

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS
PROCESS
The Office of the Inspector General found that Deuel
Vocational Institution has improved its inmate appeals
process by implementing both of the Office of the
Inspector General’s recommendations from a September
2000 review. Specifically, the institution upgraded the
software used for the inmate appeals tracking system and
began including informal level inmate appeals in the
tracking system.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 2
Fully implemented: 2 (100 %)
Substantially implemented:0 (0%)
Partially implemented:0 (0%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)
Not applicable: 0 (0%)

The September 2000 review of the inmate appeals process at
Deuel Vocational Institution by the Office of the Inspector General determined that the process
was generally efficient and well-run, but that the computer system in the inmate appeals office
needed to be upgraded with the most recent version of the inmate appeals tracking system
software. The Office of the Inspector General also noted that the institution was not tracking
informal inmate appeals.
BACKGROUND
Deuel Vocational Institution, located in Tracy, California, houses level I and level III inmates.
Opened in 1953, the institution serves as both a reception center for inmates from six northern
California counties and as a mainline institution providing educational opportunities and
vocational programming.
The inmate appeals process provides inmates with the opportunity to resolve grievances. The
process begins with the inmate’s submission of an inmate/parolee appeal form, CDC-Form 602.
Consideration of the appeal commences with an attempt to resolve the appeal at the informal
level. In general, appeals resolved at the informal level are not submitted to the inmate appeals
coordinator. Instead, they are handled directly between the inmate and the staff involved in the
action or decision. At the informal level of appeal, staff members interview the inmate, review
all pertinent documentation and information, and, if possible, resolve the issue. At the time of the
Office of the Inspector General’s September 2000 review, most informal level appeals at Deuel
Vocational Institution were not logged or tracked.
Most inmate appeals are initially filed and screened at the first formal level. The first formal
level requires the inmate appeals coordinator to log the appeal into the automated inmate appeals
tracking system. The inmate appeals tracking system automatically assigns a log number to each
appeal and calculates a due date for a response. The inmate appeals coordinator then assigns the
appeal to the appropriate staff for a response. If the inmate is not satisfied with the response at
the first formal level, the appeal goes to the second formal level (unless the first level of review
is waived under California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3084.7).
The second level of appeal is also logged into and tracked by the inmate appeals tracking system.
If not satisfied with the second formal level response, the inmate may appeal to a third formal

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 323

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

level by forwarding the appeal to the Inmate Appeals Branch in Sacramento. This review is
conducted under the supervision of the chief of the Inmate Appeals Branch and constitutes the
third and final formal appeal level decision.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of the
September 2000 review:
•

The computer system needed to be upgraded with the most recent version of the inmate
appeals tracking system software so that accurate quarterly reports and other program
statistics could be generated.

•

The institution was not tracking informal inmate appeals.

The Office of the Inspector General made the following two recommendations as a result of the
September 2000 findings:
•

The California Department of Corrections should consider upgrading the computer system
used by the institution’s inmate appeals office with the most recent version of the inmate
appeals tracking system software. The inmate appeals office staff also should be provided
with training and manuals for the new version of the software.

•

Although the institution had strong management controls that mitigated the need for a
tracking system for informal appeals, the inmate appeals staff and the warden should
continue to diligently monitor all informal appeals to ensure that the informal process works
as designed and that a tracking system remains unnecessary.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which Deuel
Vocational Institution has implemented the two recommendations from the Office of the
Inspector General’s September 2000 review. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the
Inspector General provided Deuel Vocational Institution with a table listing the September 2000
findings and recommendations and requested the implementation status of each
recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with
documentation provided by Deuel Vocational Institution and evaluated the degree of compliance
or noncompliance with the recommendations. Fieldwork for the follow-up review concluded in
November 2005. The results are presented in the tables following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Both of the recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in September 2000
concerning the Deuel Vocational Institution’s inmate appeals process have been fully
implemented. The institution upgraded the inmate appeals tracking system software to the most
recent version and now includes informal inmate appeals in the tracking system.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 324

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
The following table presents the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 325

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the computer system in the inmate appeals office needed to be upgraded with
the most recent version of the inmate appeals tracking system software so that accurate quarterly reports and other program
statistics could be generated.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections consider upgrading the computer
system used by the inmate appeals office at the
Deuel Vocational Institution inmate appeals
office by installing the most recent version of
the inmate appeals tracking system software
and providing the inmate appeals staff with
training and manuals on the new software
version.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to Deuel Vocational Institution, version 2.02 (Build 7) of the
inmate appeals tracking system was installed at the institution in February
2004. The institution reported that the system was installed statewide and
represented the most recent version as of July 2005.
The institution reported that in conjunction with the implementation of the
new tracking system, the inmate appeals office staff attended training on the
use of the new system at the Correctional Training Center in February 2004.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the inmate appeals tracking
system manual for the new software, which was also used for the training,
and found it had been installed and was in use.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institution was not tracking informal inmate appeals.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 326

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General noted that
the institution had strong management controls
that mitigated the need for a tracking system
for informal appeals, but recommended that
the inmate appeals staff and the warden
continue to diligently monitor informal appeals
to ensure that the informal process is working
as designed and that a tracking system remains
unnecessary.

DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION, INMATE APPEALS PROCESS

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
Deuel Vocational Institution reported that the inmate appeals office began
posting informal inmate appeals to the inmate appeals tracking system in
September 2004. According to the institution, informal appeals are assigned
to the appropriate division head for consideration and, when completed, are
returned to the appeals coordinator for final quality control review;
compliance with rules, regulations, and policies; and disposition.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed sample inmate appeals reports
and confirmed that informal inmate appeals are now included in the inmate
appeals tracking system.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 327

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation has reported making significant
progress in implementing the recommendations
from the July 2002 review of correctional facility
mail processing. Eighty-eight percent of the
recommendations have been reported as either
fully or substantially implemented.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 27
Fully implemented: 14 (51%)
Substantially implemented: 10 (37%)
Partially implemented: 1 (4%)
Not implemented: 1 (4%)
Not applicable: 1 (4%)

In July 2002, the Office of the Inspector General
conducted a review to determine whether mail
handling procedures and processes could be changed to improve efficiency and reduce
costs while maintaining mandated service levels and institution security. In addition to
reviewing the California Code of Regulations, Title 15 and the correctional facility plans
of operations for mail handling for nine institutions, the Office of the Inspector General
conducted in-depth site visits to the California State Prison, Solano; the California
Institution for Men; and the California Institution for Women. The Office of the Inspector
General estimated that implementing the recommendations at all of the department’s
institutions could generate $1.3 million in operational savings and provide timelier mail
delivery.
BACKGROUND
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation inmates and staff send and receive millions
of pieces of mail through the U.S. Postal Service each year. At each of the department’s
33 institutions, mail is processed through the mailroom before it is sent to the postal
service or after it comes from the postal service for delivery to inmates and staff. Inmates
consider mail a vital link to family, friends, and the outside world, as well as a vehicle for
communicating with legal advisers, government officials, and clergy. Recognizing the
important role that mail plays in inmate attitude and behavior, California Code of
Regulations, Title 15, Division 3, sections 3130 through 3147 and section 3165 mandate
how the department handles and processes mail. Wardens, superintendents, and other
heads of correctional facilities are also required to establish plans of operation for mail
processing at each facility. Through its plan of operations, each correctional facility
establishes mail-processing procedures that must be approved by the Director of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Typically, these operational plans include
such elements as establishing a seven-calendar-day mail delivery standard, processing
certified and registered mail on the day received, and recording legal and confidential
mail in approved mailroom logs.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the July 2002 review:

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 329

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

•

State prisons were not taking effective advantage of the services provided by the U.S.
Postal Service.

•

Some of the state prisons made inadequate use of correctional officers for mail
processing duties.

•

Institutions were often inefficient in conducting the initial search of incoming mail.

•

The processing of standard mail was often delayed by mail requiring special
handling.

•

Procedures for handling cash found in inmate mail differed at each facility and the
mailroom process for handling checks and money orders was inefficient.

•

Some of the selected institutions had inefficient processes for handling unstamped
mail.

•

The prisons reviewed spent significant amounts of time creating duplicate logs when
processing legal mail.

•

Some of the selected institutions did not fully comply with California Code of
Regulations, Title 15 requirements.

•

The Office of the Inspector General was unable to determine whether the prisons
reviewed complied with delivery standards for regular inmate mail.

•

The Office of the Inspector General found no first-class mail designated for disposal
at the prisons reviewed.

The Office of the Inspector General issued 27 recommendations as a result of the July
2002 review.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has implemented the 27
recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General’s July 2002 review of
correctional facility mail processing. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the
Inspector General provided the department with a table listing the July 2002 findings and
recommendations and asked the department to provide the implementation status of each
recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with
documentation provided by the department, and evaluated the degree of compliance or
noncompliance with the recommendations. Fieldwork was completed during January
2006. The results are presented in the table following this narrative.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 330

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the 27 recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in July 2002,
14 recommendations have been fully implemented; 10 have been substantially
implemented; one has been partially implemented; one has not been implemented; and
one is no longer applicable (based on a review of the corrective action plans provided by
each of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 33 institutions).
The Office of the Inspector General found that implementation of the recommendations
had been delayed because the previous departmental administration neglected to provide
direction to the institutions on implementing the needed improvements. It was only after
the Office of the Inspector General’s follow-up audit that instructions and guidelines
were issued to the institutions.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation take the following additional actions:
•

Ensure that the California State Prison, Sacramento has implemented
the recommendation to use automatic letter openers.

•

Ensure that the California Institution for Men and Salinas Valley
State Prison have implemented the recommendation to develop a list
of acceptable publications that employees can immediately place in
housing unit mailbags.

•

Ensure that the California Institution for Men eliminates the practice
of verifying all inmate addresses.

•

Ensure that Salinas Valley State Prison fully implements the
recommendation to standardize the process for handling cash to
conform to the process for handling other contraband.

•

Ensure that the California Correctional Institution fully implement
the recommendation to rely on accounting personnel to monitor
inmate trust accounts for sufficient funds to pay postage on outgoing
mail and provide pre-stamped envelopes to indigent inmates.

•

Develop the standard checklist for reviewing mail operation plans
submitted by the prisons.

•

Provide an updated list of courts to all 33 institutions.

•

Ensure that the California Medical Facility and the Correctional
Training Facility fully implement the recommendation to institute a

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 331

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

modified tracking system based on mail trays and bins rather than
stamping or logging each piece of first-class mail.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 332

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that the state prisons were not taking effective advantage of the services provided
by the U.S. Postal Service.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that state correctional facilities
take the actions listed below.

Rent post office boxes for each housing unit
and at least one box for administrative mail.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
most of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation. Those
facilities that have not instituted post office boxes indicated that post office
boxes were either unavailable at their local post office or did not appear to be
cost-effective.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 21 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 333

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Evaluate either having the U.S. Postal Service
deliver and pick up mail at the sally port or
having a correctional officer escort the mail
truck from the entrance gate to the mailroom.
Mail room employees could reject damaged or
torn packages when the U.S. Postal Services
truck is unloaded.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that the
recommendation was implemented at institutions where the U.S. Postal
Service provides the level of service described in the recommendation.
According to the department, however, the recommendation could not be
implemented at institutions in certain rural locations, where postal services
are not necessarily timely. Moreover, some rural post offices are not even
staffed to deliver mail to the institutions.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that six of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that some of the state prisons made inadequate use of correctional officers for mail
processing duties.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the prisons use correctional
officers, perhaps those who are on “light
duty,” for the following mail processing
purposes:
•

Helping search mail for contraband.

•

Segregating legal, certified, and rerouted mail; and searching incoming

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
NOT APPLICABLE

COMMENTS
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation is no longer applicable in light of various labor relations
issues associated with the issuance of California Code of Regulations, Title
15, Division 3, section 3436. This new regulation, effective January 31, 2005,
restricts the placement of employees designated for light duty assignments in
vacant positions outside the employee’s bargaining unit. Because correctional
officer positions are not budgeted within the mailroom, the institution cannot
assign a correctional officer to perform a mailroom function.

PAGE 334

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

mail when schedules permit to save
time of mailroom employees.
•

Setting aside items received from
inmates requiring special handling.

•

Re-routing mail for inmates who have
moved.

•

Helping search incoming and outgoing
mail.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institutions were often inefficient in conducting the initial search of
incoming mail.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that correctional facilities
improve the efficiency of the initial search of
incoming mail by taking the actions listed
below.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 335

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Require mailroom employees to use automatic
letter openers to ensure full use of available
equipment and save time.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 32 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.
California State Prison, Sacramento reported that it did not implement this
recommendation.

Develop a list of acceptable publications that
employees can immediately place in the
housing unit mailbags when publications are
reviewed.

Designate a specific staff member to review all
publications because of the nature of some of
the publications.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 31 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation. The
California Institution for Men and Salinas Valley State Prison reported that
they did not implement the recommendation.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

Eliminate the practice of verifying all inmate
addresses. Mailrooms should verify inmate
addresses only when inmate mail is returned
for an incorrect address.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that,
except for the California Institution for Men, all of its institutions have
incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by the institutions and found that 32 of the 33 institutions
stated they had implemented the recommendation. The California Institution
for Men reported that it did not implement the recommendation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 336

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Provide mailrooms with direct access to the
Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS)
and the Offender Based Information System
(OBIS) to verify inmate addresses more
quickly.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
some of its institutions were unable to incorporate this recommendation.
Institutions with the ability to provide direct Distributed Data Processing
System and Offender Based Information System access to mailroom staff
have implemented the recommendation. Some, however, cannot directly
access the Offender Based Information System because of physical plant
differences and telephone line capabilities. In those cases, institutions have
been directed to provide mailroom staff access to the Offender Based
Information System terminals in alternate locations, unless calling for
verification is more expedient.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 32 of
the 33 institutions stated they that had implemented the recommendation.
Salinas Valley State Prison reported that it has Distributed Data Processing
System capabilities but contacts the institution’s records department to locate
inmates who have left the institution. According to Salinas Valley State
Prison, the physical plant prohibits the outlay of fiber optics to facilitate the
use of the Offender Based Information System in the mailroom.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation take the following
additional actions:
•

Ensure that the California State Prison, Sacramento has implemented the recommendation to use automatic letter
openers.

•

Ensure that the California Institution for Men and Salinas Valley State Prison have implemented the
recommendation to develop a list of acceptable publications that employees can immediately place in housing unit
mailbags.

•

Ensure that the California Institution for Men eliminates the practice of verifying all inmate addresses.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 337

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that the processing of standard mail was often delayed by mail requiring special
handling.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the prisons take the actions
listed below.

Set up mailroom procedures to enable
employees to process standard mail without
interruption.

Have employees first sort properly addressed
mail from mail with problems, then search and
process the “good” mail, and last, locate the
correct addresses on misaddressed mail.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

PAGE 338

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Handling of mail containing contraband should
not delay other mail processing.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

Provide mailroom employees with tools and
materials acceptable for use within the facility.
If inmates are allowed to receive staples or
stickers, facilities should provide staplers and
stickers to the mailroom for re-sealing inmate
mail.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found that procedures for handling cash found in inmate mail differed at each facility and
that the mailroom process for handling checks and money orders was inefficient.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 339

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections take the actions listed below.

Standardize the process for handling cash to
conform to the process for handling other
contraband. The process should include a
special “cash as contraband” form, giving the
inmate the option of donating the cash to a
predetermined charity or returning it at the
inmate’s expense.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation. The department
also reported that, according to departmental policy, inmates are not
permitted to donate cash. Therefore, the cash is returned by check to the
sender. Finally, the department reported that it will develop a triplicate form
that verifies the receipt of cash as contraband as of March 1, 2006. A copy of
the form will be issued to the inmate, accounting, and the sender.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 32 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.
Salinas Valley State Prison reported that it had not fully implemented the
recommendation.

Set up a standard procedure for handling
money orders and checks sent to inmates to
limit the handling of money orders and checks
by mailroom employees while retaining staff
accountability.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

PAGE 340

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Establish procedures for institution mailrooms
in which, upon receiving a check or money
order, mailroom employees would ensure that
the item includes all required information,
including the inmate’s name and number.
Employees would then add any additional
information required, stamp the envelope to
verify receipt, and write the date and amount
on the envelope for delivery to the inmate. The
envelope becomes the inmate’s receipt and the
check or money order is held for delivery to
accounting.
Create a standard “funds received” form, in
triplicate, for the mailroom staff to use to list
all money orders and checks received each
day.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ensure that Salinas
Valley State Prison fully implements the recommendation to standardize the process for handling cash to conform to the
process for handling other contraband.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that some of the selected institutions had inefficient processes for handling
unstamped mail.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 341

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the facilities rely on
accounting personnel to monitor inmate trust
accounts for sufficient funds to pay postage on
outgoing mail and provide pre-stamped
envelopes to indigent inmates.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 32 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation. The
California Correctional Institution reported that it had not fully implemented
the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ensure that the
California Correctional Institution fully implement the recommendation to rely on accounting personnel to monitor inmate
trust accounts for sufficient funds to pay postage on outgoing mail and provide pre-stamped envelopes to indigent inmates.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that the prisons reviewed spent significant amounts of time creating duplicate logs
when processing legal mail.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections establish standard procedures for
processing legal mail. Facilities should use the
“proof of service” form presently used at the
California Institution for Men to track
outgoing legal mail. Since the inmate fills out
the form, the mailroom could simply verify the
information and file the mailroom copy for

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
most of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation. Some
institutions, however, have developed a computerized database to track all
incoming and outgoing legal mail as opposed to the “proof of service”
method cited in the recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 21 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation

PAGE 342

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

future reference. This would greatly reduce the
time spent creating duplicate logs.

through the “proof of service” form. The remaining 12 institutions indicated
that they had implemented this recommendation through a computerized
database.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that some of the selected institutions did not fully comply with California Code of
Regulations, Title 15 requirements.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections and the institutions reviewed take
the actions listed below.

The Department of Corrections should develop
a standard checklist for reviewing mail
operation plans submitted by the prisons.

NOT
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by the institutions and found, however, that the department
had not yet provided a standard checklist for reviewing mail operation plans.
Further, the Office of the Inspector General contacted the department and
verified that, in lieu of developing a standard checklist, the department had
compared the contents of each institution’s revised operation plan against the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 343

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

recommendations listed in the Office of the Inspector General’s July 2002
review.

The California Institution for Men should
implement procedures to inform new inmates
of department regulations and institution-level
procedures governing inmate mail.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Department of Corrections should
periodically provide all 33 facilities with an
updated list of courts and require that each
facility keep its lists available for inmate use.

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Institution for Women should
search all returned inmate mail as required by
California Code of Regulations, Title 15.

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the California Institution for
Men’s corrective action plan and found that the California Institution for Men
stated that it had implemented the recommendation.

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 32 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had received an updated list of courts. The
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran indicated that
it had not received an updated list of courts.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the California Institution for
Women’s corrective action plan and found that the California Institution for
Women stated that it had implemented the recommendation.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 344

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

The California Institution for Men’s mailroom
should process all identified contraband items
using the established CDC Form 1819,
Notification of Disapproval of Mail-PackagesPublications, and all forms should be provided
to the facility captain for review and approval.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the California Institution for
Men’s corrective action plan and found that the California Institution for Men
stated that it had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation take the following
additional actions:
•

Develop the standard checklist for reviewing mail operation plans submitted by the prisons.

•

Provide an updated list of courts to all 33 institutions.

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 9
The Office of the Inspector General was unable to determine whether the prisons reviewed complied with delivery standards
for regular inmate mail.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

STATUS

COMMENTS

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections either establish the procedures
described below for tracking first-class mail or
explore other ways to show compliance with
established standards.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 345

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Institute a modified tracking system based on
mail trays and bins rather than stamping or
logging each piece of first-class mail. At the
beginning and end of the workday, the
mailroom supervisor should enter into a log
(preferably an automated spreadsheet) the
following information for first class mail:
•

For regular envelopes and post cards
in all mail trays: At the beginning of
each workday, record the time and
date of entry and supervisor’s name;
date the mail was received; and
number of inches of mail in each dated
tray (normal trays contain
approximately 850 letters when full).
At the end of each workday, record the
time and date of entry and supervisor’s
name; the date the mail in the tray was
received; and the number of inches of
mail in each dated tray.

•

For large envelopes in mail bins: Use
the same process, except that, because
of their irregular size, envelopes
should be counted rather than
measured.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

SUBSTANTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that 31 of
the 33 institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation. The
California Medical Facility and the Correctional Training Facility reported
that they did not fully implement the recommendation.

PAGE 346

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

Require the correctional officer responsible for
mailroom operations to review the daily logs at
least three times a week to ensure that they are
promptly and accurately prepared and to
determine whether extraordinary
circumstances may have affected mail
processing and to annotate evidence of the
review.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ensure that the
California Medical Facility and the Correctional Training Facility fully implement the recommendation to institute a modified
tracking system based on mail trays and bins rather than stamping or logging each piece of first-class mail.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 10
The Office of the Inspector General found no first-class mail designated for disposal at the prisons reviewed.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that correctional facilities limit
how mailroom employees are allowed to
dispose of mail. Mailroom supervisors should
periodically review the type of mail being
discarded to prevent mail from being
inappropriately thrown away.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that all
of its institutions have incorporated this recommendation.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the individual corrective action
plans provided by each of the department’s institutions and found that all 33
institutions stated that they had implemented the recommendation.

PAGE 347

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Institution
for Women discard fourth-class and
undeliverable mail instead of returning it to the
post office, using appropriate controls for
disposal.

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY MAIL PROCESSING

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that
this recommendation was fully implemented.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the California Institution for
Women’s corrective action plan and found that the California Institution for
Women stated that it had implemented the recommendation.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 348

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PIA OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

PRISON INDUSTRY AUTHORITY OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE
RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
The Office of the Inspector General found that the
optical program laboratory at the Richard J.
Donovan Correctional Facility resumed operations
during August 2000. The Prison Industry
Authority also implemented a process to confirm
that inmates applying for jobs in the optical
laboratory meet the eligibility requirements set
forth in Penal Code section 5071.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD
Previous recommendations: 2
Fully implemented: 2 (100 %)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 0 (0%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)
Not applicable: 0 (0%)

The Office of the Inspector General’s May 2000 audit
of the Prison Industry Authority optical program at the
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility was conducted in response to a request from the
Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, now known as the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. In May 1999, the California Department
of Corrections closed the optical laboratory operation at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility because inmate workers had gained access to the personal
information of Medi-Cal beneficiaries. The department also closed the remaining optical
laboratories until corrective action was taken to eliminate future problems. The
department authorized the re-opening of each optical laboratory, except the Richard J.
Donovan optical laboratory, soon after the Prison Industry Authority developed new
policies and procedures to prevent inmate access to sensitive information. The Office of
the Inspector General evaluated the corrective action taken by the Prison Industry
Authority in its optical program to determine whether the new policies and procedures
could prevent inmate access to sensitive information and whether the optical laboratory at
the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility should be re-opened. Because the Richard
J. Donovan optical laboratory operation was closed, the Office of the Inspector General
evaluated the implementation of the new policies and procedures of the optical laboratory
at the California State Prison, Solano. The Office of the Inspector General found that the
new policies and procedures could effectively prevent inmate access to Medi-Cal
beneficiary information in all areas of the optical program and recommended that the
optical laboratory at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility resume full operation.
BACKGROUND
The Prison Industry Authority is a semi-autonomous, fiscally self-supporting entity
within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, whose mission is to
use inmate labor to operate California’s prison industries in a manner similar to that of
private industry. The Prison Industry Authority was established to develop and operate
manufacturing, agricultural, and service enterprises that provide work opportunities for
inmates under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation. Prison Industry Authority work assignments support prison safety, help
reduce violence, reimburse victims, provide career training, and offer productive activity
for inmates. The Prison Industry Authority operates over 60 programs at 22 correctional
facilities statewide and employs approximately 6,000 inmates in various industries such

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 349

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PIA OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

as license plate production, eyewear production, office furniture manufacturing, and food
and printing services.
Through an interagency agreement, the Department of Health Services has contracted
with the Prison Industry Authority since 1988 to furnish and fabricate optical eyewear for
the California Medical Assistance Program (Medi-Cal). The term of the current
interagency agreement is July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2006, with expenditures not to
exceed $61,200,000.
Statewide, the Prison Industry Authority optical program has invested over $10 million in
buildings and state-of-the-art optical equipment in its four optical laboratory facilities at
the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility, Pelican Bay State Prison, Valley State
Prison for Women, and the California State Prison, Solano. In total, the Prison Industry
Authority optical program employs 391 inmates, including 110 inmates at the Richard J.
Donovan Correctional Facility. The laboratories fill approximately 860,000 prescriptions
annually and ship them to about 2,400 providers. Finally, the Prison Industry Authority
services about 754,602 Medi-Cal beneficiaries in all of California’s 58 counties through
such providers as optometrists and opticians.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the May 2000 review, the Office of the Inspector General made the
following specific findings:
•
•
•

Prison Industry Authority-prescribed internal controls are in place at the California
State Prison, Solano.
Stronger controls are needed for the Richard J. Donovan optical program.
Inmates working in the optical laboratory program must be properly screened.

As a result of the May 2000 review, the Office of the Inspector General made the
following recommendations to the Prison Industry Authority management team:
•
•

The California Department of Corrections should re-open the optical program
laboratory at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.
Prison Industry Authority management at all California Department of Corrections
institutions should continuously screen all inmates applying for job assignments in
the optical laboratories. The screening process should confirm that inmates meet the
eligibility requirements set forth in Penal Code section 5071.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Prison Industry Authority has implemented the two recommendations from the Office of
the Inspector General’s May 2000 audit of the optical program at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility. To conduct the follow-up review, the Office of the Inspector
General provided the Prison Industry Authority with a table listing the May 2000 findings
and recommendations and asked the Prison Industry Authority to provide the

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 350

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PIA OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the Inspector General
reviewed the responses, along with documentation provided by the Prison Industry
Authority, and evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the
recommendations. Fieldwork was completed during January 2006. The results are
summarized in the table following this narrative.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Both of the recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in May 2000
have been fully implemented. The Office of the Inspector General found that the optical
laboratory program at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility re-opened during
August 2000. Furthermore, the Prison Industry Authority verifies that inmates assigned
to work in the optical laboratories are in compliance with Penal Code section 5071. The
California Department of Heath Services audits each optical laboratory annually for
compliance. According to the Prison Industry Authority, the aforementioned measures
have been successful because the Department of Health Services has verified that
procedures are now in place to ensure that confidential information does not enter the
optical laboratory.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 351

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PIA OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that Prison Industry Authority-prescribed internal controls and procedures were in
place at California State Prison, Solano.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that stronger controls were needed for the Richard J. Donovan optical program.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates working in the optical laboratory program must be properly screened.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections re-open the optical program
laboratory at the Richard J. Donovan
Correctional Facility.

The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that Prison Industry Authority
management at all California Department of
Corrections institutions continuously screen all
inmates applying for job assignments in the
optical laboratories. The process should
confirm that inmates meet the eligibility
requirements set forth in Penal Code section
5071.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Prison Industry Authority reported that the optical program laboratory at
the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility resumed full operation during
August 2000.

The Prison Industry Authority reported that it verifies inmates assigned to the
optical laboratory program are in compliance with Penal Code section 5071.
Further, the interagency agreement between the Prison Industry Authority and
the Department of Health Services for the period July 1, 2003 through June
30, 2006 stipulates that the optical laboratories must have a copy of each
inmate’s Classification Chrono (CDC Form 128G) available for Department
of Health Services and other authorized agency inspection. The Department
of Health Services performs annual compliance audits of all optical
laboratory programs. A Prison Industry Authority Optical Specialist reviews
inmate files on an annual basis to validate assignments to the Prison Industry
PAGE 352

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

PIA OPTICAL PROGRAM AT THE RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Authority program. Finally, the Prison Industry Authority reported that the
aforementioned measures have proven to be successful because the
Department of Health Services has verified that procedures are now in place
to ensure that confidential information does not enter the optical laboratory.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the current Interagency
Agreement between the Prison Industry Authority and the Department of
Health Services and verified that the agreement requires optical laboratories
to keep a copy of an inmate’s Classification Chrono on file and available for
inspection. In addition, the agreement also stipulates that the Prison Industry
Authority shall not assign any inmate who has been convicted of an offense
involving forgery or fraud, misuse of a computer, or the misuse of another
person’s personal or financial information. The agreement also prohibits the
hiring of any inmate who is required to register as a sex offender pursuant to
Penal Code section 290.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 353

(Blank page)

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NUMBER 27

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT CARD

The Office of the Inspector General found that the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has
clarified rules and procedures governing the use of
inmate labor for conservation camp work projects;
has improved accountability over reimbursements
for work projects; and has instituted limits on
reimbursement amounts.

Previous recommendations: 8
Fully implemented: 5 (63%)
Substantially implemented: 0 (0%)
Partially implemented: 2 (25%)
Not implemented: 0 (0%)

Not applicable: 1 (12%)
In April 2001, the Office of the Inspector General
conducted a special review into allegations of
misappropriation of state funds and inappropriate use
of inmates on work projects and in the vocational auto body program at the Konocti
Conservation Camp, which was operated by the former Department of Corrections. As a
result of that review, the Office of the Inspector General found that some of the work
projects conducted by the Konocti Conservation Camp violated state laws, regulations,
and department policy and that the camp had received inappropriate reimbursements for
those projects. The review also determined that the management of the Konocti
Conservation Camp circumvented fiscal controls, failed to maintain proper accounting
for reimbursements obtained through inmate labor, and failed to observe requirements
governing the vocational auto body program.

BACKGROUND
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation jointly operates 31 firefighting conservation camps with the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection. Sixteen of the camps, including Konocti, are under the direct supervision of
the California Correctional Center in Susanville, which receives, houses, and trains
minimum-custody inmates for placement into one of the Northern California
conservation camps.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection is responsible for using inmate
work crews for fire-fighting and conservation projects, while the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for providing inmates for the projects. To
perform their respective functions, the two departments enter into interagency
agreements, under which each department agrees to be responsible for ensuring that camp
operations are conducted in accordance with applicable state and federal laws, state
regulations, and department policies. Camp Operations Handbook 6400 defines each
department’s specific duties under the agreements.
California Penal Code section 270l provides that state prison inmates may be employed
in the rendering of services for public use. Section 6522 of Camp Operations Handbook
6400 specifies that conservation work projects “must be sponsored by a government
agency and must be of a nature that would not normally be performed by private industry
or citizen labor.” Section 6522 of Camp Operations Handbook 6400 provides that camps
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 355

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

may not charge for inmate labor or base pay, but may recover standard reimbursements
such as the cost of fuel and equipment incurred as a result of participation in conservation
projects.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of the April 2001 special review, the Office of the Inspector General found
that the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection had inappropriately used inmate work
crews on work projects undertaken for private sponsors under a scheme that
circumvented the state prohibition against charging for inmate labor on conservation
projects. Under the arrangement, Konocti Conservation Camp Number 27 inappropriately
received reimbursements unrelated to standard reimbursements for fuel, mileage, and
equipment.
The Office of the Inspector General made the following specific findings as a result of
the April 2001 review:
•

Konocti Conservation Camp engaged in work projects involving inmate labor to
perform work that would normally be performed by private industry or citizen labor,
thereby violating state law and department policy.

•

Konocti Conservation Camp collected reimbursements in excess of actual costs for
projects performed with inmate labor, used the excess reimbursements to augment its
budget, and failed to properly account for the reimbursements.

•

Konocti Conservation Camp failed to observe requirements for the vocational auto
body program by allowing inmates to perform work outside the scope of the approved
curriculum and exceeding the 60-day limitation on projects.

•

Konocti Conservation Camp failed to maintain proper supervision over camp
operations. Site visits by supervisors were infrequent, and training and monitoring
were inadequate.

As a result of the review, the Office of the Inspector General made the following
recommendations to the Department of Corrections and the Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection:
•

Discontinue the practice of providing inmate labor to non-governmental entities and
using inmates for work normally provided by private industry or citizen labor.

•

Develop guidelines for allowable standard reimbursements for projects involving
inmate labor and ensure proper accountability for those reimbursements.

•

Assess the advisability of continuing the vocational auto body program in camp
settings.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 356

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

•

Improve supervision over the Konocti Conservation Camp to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.

•

Develop a training plan to assess training needs and deliver needed training to camp
commanders and employees.

•

Develop a plan to provide for regular review or audit of the state’s fire-fighting
conservation camps on a cyclical basis.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
The purpose of the 2006 follow-up review was to determine the extent to which the
Konocti Conservation Camp has implemented the recommendations from the Office of
the Inspector General’s April 2001 special review. To conduct the follow-up review, the
Office of the Inspector General provided the management of Konocti Conservation Camp
with a table listing the April 2001 findings and recommendations and asked management
to provide the implementation status of each recommendation. The Office of the
Inspector General reviewed the responses, along with supplementary documentation
provided, and evaluated the degree of compliance or noncompliance with the
recommendations. The fieldwork for the follow-up review was completing during
September 2004. The results are presented in the table following this narrative and reflect
the department’s responses as of September 2004.
SUMMARY OF THE 2006 FOLLOW-UP RESULTS
Of the eight recommendations issued by the Office of the Inspector General in the April
2001 special review of the Konocti Conservation Camp, five recommendations have been
fully implemented, two have been partially implemented, and one is no longer applicable.
The follow-up review determined that Camp Operations Handbook 6400 was revised in
November 2002 and that the revisions address the problems identified in the review.
Section 6522.5 of the handbook now provides that conservation camp work projects must
have a clear and direct public benefit. Similarly, section 6531.1.4 of the handbook now
limits reimbursement amounts and specifies that reimbursements must be directly related
to project operation or crew availability. Training of supervisors at the Konocti
Conservation Camp has improved management’s awareness of regulations and statutes
governing the use of inmate workers on private land; reimbursement limitations on
inmate labor; and accountability for reimbursements. Deficiencies related to the
vocational auto body program at the camp are no longer applicable because the program
has been eliminated.
FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
The following table summarizes the results of the follow-up review.
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 357

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 1
The Office of the Inspector General found substantial and credible evidence that some of the Konocti Conservation Camp
work projects violated applicable state law, state regulations, and departmental policies.

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection discontinue the
practice of providing inmate labor to nongovernmental entities and using inmates for
work normally performed by private industry
or citizen labor.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
In response to this recommendation, the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation reported that Camp Operations Handbook 6400 section 6522.1
requires conservation camp commanders to review all inmate work projects as
part of the joint California Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention/Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation approval process. The
department said that the requirement provides checks and balances to ensure that
inmate work projects are consistent with applicable state law.
The department also reported that in addition to approval by the camp
commander, the management of the California Correctional Center must now
approve projects that include work on private land before the work begins.
The Office of the Inspector General notes, however, that section 6522.1 of Camp
Operations Handbook 6400 was in effect in its present form at the time of the
April 2001 administrative review and did not prevent the deficiencies identified
in the review.
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention reported that it has
clarified policy with respect to using inmate labor on private property. Section
6522.5 of Camp Operations Handbook 6400, which was revised in November
2002, now states that crews will work on private property only when the project
will have a clear and direct public benefit. Section 6522 of the handbook, which
was in effect at the time of the 2001 review, further provides that conservation
camp projects must be “of a nature that would not normally be performed by
private industry or citizen labor.”

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 358

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the revisions to Camp Operations
Handbook 6400 and confirmed that the management of the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of Forestry and Fire
Prevention are aware of the new provisions. The Office of the Inspector General
also confirmed that management of the California Correctional Center now must
approve projects that include work on private land.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 2
The Office of the Inspector General found substantial and credible evidence that the Konocti Conservation Camp improperly
charged for inmate labor by collecting reimbursements beyond out-of-pocket costs and used the reimbursements to augment
its budget. This practice appears to have afforded preferential treatment to a non-governmental entity to the possible
detriment of legitimate fire protection and conservation efforts.

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection and the
California Department of Corrections jointly
develop guidelines for allowable standard
reimbursements on projects involving the use
of inmate labor. Guidelines should also be
developed to ensure proper accountability over
the standard reimbursements.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that the California
Correctional Center has established standards and methods for seeking
reimbursement for work projects involving inmate labor. The standards are
applicable to projects involving the department as either the lead agency or as the
agency with reimbursement authority under the terms of a project agreement.
Neither the California Correctional Center nor department staff assigned to the
California Correctional Center is involved in the reimbursement process when
the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention is the lead agency.
According to the associate warden of the California Correctional Center’s Camp
Division, the California Correctional Center and Northern California
conservation camps follow applicable state and department rules when seeking
reimbursement from other governmental agencies for inmate work projects.
Applicable state rules are provided in sections 6463 and 8752 of the State

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 359

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

Administrative Manual. The associate warden informed the Office of the
Inspector General that the management of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation is aware of the limitations on reimbursement for inmate labor
services.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 3
The Office of the Inspector General found substantial and credible evidence that the Konocti Conservation Camp
circumvented state controls and failed to maintain proper accounting for the reimbursement of items obtained through
inmate labor.
ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Forestry and Fire Protection and the
California Department of Corrections jointly
develop guidelines for allowable standard
reimbursements on projects involving the use
of inmate labor. Guidelines should also be
developed to ensure proper accountability over
the standard reimbursements.

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
[For the response of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the
California Correctional Center to this recommendation, see Finding 2, above.]
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention reported that its
policy was revised in November 2002 to identify an acceptable reimbursement
for conservation camps. The policy, delineated in section 6531.1.4 of the Camp
Operations Handbook 6400, limits the amount of any reimbursement, requires
that reimbursement items be directly related to the project in question, and
requires that all reimbursements be strictly accounted for. The Office of the
Inspector General confirmed that the recent revision of the handbook addresses
the recommendation and that managers of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation and of the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention are aware
of its provisions.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 360

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 4
The Office of the Inspector General found substantial and credible evidence that the Konocti Conservation Camp staff failed
to observe the requirements of the vocational auto body program. Moreover, some of the work performed appears to have
violated the intended purpose and scope of the program.

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections assess the advisability of
continuing the vocational auto body program
in camp settings.
In the event the program continues, the Office
of the Inspector General recommended that the
department impose controls and reporting
requirements to ensure that the program
complies with legal mandates, policies, and
procedures.

STATUS

COMMENTS

FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, all vocational
programs in Northern California conservation camps were discontinued in 2001.

NOT
APPLICABLE

According to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, all vocational
programs in Northern California conservation camps were discontinued in 2001.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.
ORIGINAL FINDING NUMBER 5
The Office of the Inspector General found substantial and credible evidence that the California Department of Corrections
and the California Correctional Center had failed to maintain proper supervision of Konocti Conservation Camp operations:

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 361

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the California Department
of Corrections develop a training plan to assess
training needs and provide such training to
camp commanders and employees.

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

STATUS
FULLY
IMPLEMENTED

COMMENTS
According to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a comprehensive
training plan, the Camp Commander Orientation and Training Guidelines
Manual, was developed in 2001 to provide conservation camp-specific
orientation and training to camp commanders. At the time of the manual’s
completion, all camp commanders were given training, with the training manual
as a guide. All new camp commanders receive the same training before reporting
to their camp. Refresher training is provided periodically.
The Office of the Inspector General confirmed the existence of the training
manual.

In addition, the Office of the Inspector General
recommended that the Department of
Corrections and the California Correctional
Center improve supervision over the Konocti
Conservation Camp to ensure compliance with
state laws and regulations.

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

According to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a joint
management audit tool for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and
the Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention was developed in the 1980s and
was revised in 1999 to ensure that both agencies would comply with applicable
laws, policies, procedures, and regulations. Joint department management audits
are conducted cyclically and each conservation camp is audited at least once
every two years. As a result of the management audits, the Camp Commander
Orientation and Training Guidelines Manual was developed to assist camp
management. The California Conservation Center camp management staff also
performs periodic inspections of camps and related projects.
The Office of the Inspector General examined a January 2004 audit conducted by
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the Department of Forestry
and Fire Prevention management teams and found that the intent of the
recommendation has been met. Yet, the guidelines, manuals, and audit process
described here existed before the April 2001 administrative review and did not
provide the administrative controls needed to prevent abuse of state assets or
improper use of work crews identified in that review.

As part of that improved supervision, the
Office of the Inspector General recommended
that the California Department of Corrections
develop a plan to provide for regular review or
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PARTIALLY
IMPLEMENTED

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that each camp
receives periodic inspections by the California Correctional Center’s Camp
Division facility captain, warden, and associate warden in addition to scheduled
management audits.
PAGE 362

2006 ACCOUNTABILITY AUDIT

audit of the state’s fire-fighting conservation
camps on a cyclical basis.

KONOCTI CONSERVATION CAMP NO. 27

The Office of the Inspector General confirmed that section 6440.6 of Camp
Operations Handbook 6400 requires camps to be inspected at least biannually,
but noted that the requirement also was in place at the time of the April 2001
administrative review.

FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATIONS
None.

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

PAGE 363

(Blank page)

ATTACHMENT

RESPONSE FROM THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

(Blank page)