Agenda	
  
	
  
February	
  11,	
  2014;	
  9:30	
  a.m.	
  –	
  Noon	
  State	
  Capitol,	
  Room	
  4202	
  
	
  
CDCR’S	
  Proposed	
  New	
  Policies	
  on	
  Inmate	
  Segregation:	
  The	
  Promise	
  and	
  Imperative	
  of	
  Real	
  Reform	
  
	
  
I)	
  	
  	
  	
  
Welcome	
  and	
  Introductions	
  
Assembly	
  Member	
  Tom	
  Ammiano,	
  Chair,	
  Assembly	
  Public	
  Safety	
  Committee	
  
Senator	
  Loni	
  Hancock,	
  Chair,	
  Senate	
  Public	
  Safety	
  Committee	
  
Other	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  Committees	
  	
  
	
  
II)	
  	
  	
  
The	
  New	
  CDCR	
  “Security	
  Threat	
  Group	
  Policy”:	
  	
  Presentation	
  by	
  California	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  
Rehabilitation	
  (40	
  minutes)	
  
Department	
  witnesses	
  will	
  describe	
  the	
  difference	
  between	
  CDCR’s	
  new	
  “Security	
  Threat	
  Group	
  Policy”	
  and	
  the	
  
policy	
  it	
  is	
  replacing.	
  Specifically,	
  witnesses	
  will	
  explain	
  the	
  key	
  differences	
  between	
  the	
  old	
  and	
  new	
  policies,	
  
including	
  1)	
  how	
  inmates	
  are	
  determined	
  to	
  be	
  subject	
  to	
  SHU	
  (“Security	
  Housing	
  Unit”)	
  placement;	
  2)	
  how	
  inmates	
  
can	
  be	
  released	
  or	
  “stepped	
  down”	
  from	
  the	
  SHU;	
  3)	
  how	
  inmates	
  can	
  contest	
  a	
  SHU	
  placement;	
  and	
  4)	
  the	
  
conditions	
  of	
  confinement	
  in	
  the	
  SHU.	
  	
  CDCR	
  also	
  will	
  describe	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  the	
  new	
  policies,	
  which	
  were	
  
introduced	
  in	
  2012	
  as	
  a	
  pilot.	
  	
  	
  	
  
George	
  Giurbino,	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrator,	
  Special	
  Project	
  Team,	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions	
  
Suzan	
  Hubbard,	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrator,	
  Special	
  Project	
  Team,	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions	
  
	
  
III)	
  	
  
The	
  Continuing	
  National	
  Dialogue:	
  	
  Expert	
  Discussion	
  of	
  State	
  and	
  Federal	
  Prison	
  Policies	
  on	
  How,	
  When	
  and	
  If	
  
Segregation	
  and	
  Isolation	
  should	
  be	
  Used	
  as	
  a	
  Prison	
  Management	
  Tool	
  (50	
  minutes)	
  
National	
  experts	
  will	
  discuss	
  prison	
  segregation	
  and	
  isolation	
  policies	
  in	
  other	
  states	
  and	
  federal	
  prisons,	
  and	
  assist	
  
Committee	
  members	
  with	
  understanding	
  California’s	
  past	
  and	
  proposed	
  policies	
  in	
  the	
  broader	
  context	
  of	
  effective	
  
approaches	
  undertaken	
  in	
  other	
  jurisdictions.	
  	
  	
  	
  
	
  
Hope	
  R.	
  Metcalf,	
  Associate	
  Research	
  Scholar	
  in	
  Law;	
  Director,	
  Arthur	
  Liman	
  Program;	
  and	
  Lecturer	
  in	
  Law,	
  Yale	
  Law	
  
School	
  
Professor	
  Craig	
  Haney,	
  University	
  of	
  California,	
  Santa	
  Cruz	
  	
  
	
  
	
  IV)	
  
The	
  CA	
  Inmate	
  Experience	
  Today:	
  	
  Observations	
  and	
  Perspectives	
  of	
  Attorneys	
  Representing	
  Prison	
  Inmates	
  
(30	
  minutes)	
  
Prisoner	
  rights	
  and	
  civil	
  rights	
  attorneys	
  will	
  provide	
  testimony	
  about	
  their	
  experiences	
  representing	
  inmates	
  
under	
  the	
  new	
  Security	
  Threat	
  Group	
  policy	
  and	
  the	
  Step	
  Down	
  Program.	
  	
  The	
  speakers	
  will	
  offer	
  alternatives	
  to	
  the	
  
program	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  best	
  practices	
  from	
  other	
  states.	
  
Anne	
  Weills,	
  Esq.,	
  Civil	
  Rights	
  Attorney	
  	
  
Charles	
  Carbone,	
  Esq.,	
  Prisoner	
  Rights	
  Attorney	
  
	
  	
  
	
  	
  
V)	
  
Final	
  Remarks	
  Regarding	
  the	
  New	
  Security	
  Threat	
  Group	
  Policy:	
  California	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  
Rehabilitation	
  (10	
  minutes)	
  
	
  
VI)	
  
Public	
  Comment	
  (20	
  minutes)	
  
	
  

ASSEMBLYMAN	
  TOM	
  AMMIANO	
  (D-­‐San	
  Francisco)	
  Opening	
  remarks	
  on	
  CDCR’s	
  proposed	
  
new	
  policies	
  on	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  and	
  prison	
  gang	
  or	
  “security	
  threat	
  group”	
  
management.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

Good	
  morning,	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  welcome	
  you	
  today	
  to	
  this	
  very	
  important	
  hearing	
  that	
  we’re	
  having	
  today.	
  A	
  couple	
  of	
  
heads-­‐up:	
  We	
  all	
  have	
  limited	
  time,	
  and	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  assure	
  everybody	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  long	
  conversation.	
  We	
  had	
  
a	
  hearing	
  or	
  two,	
  visitations	
  to	
  various	
  prisons,	
  lots	
  of	
  meetings,	
  lots	
  of	
  ideas	
  for	
  legislation.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  Sen.	
  
Hancock	
  and	
  her	
  office	
  for	
  co-­‐chairing	
  and	
  co-­‐lifting	
  this	
  event.	
  We	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  sure	
  that	
  when	
  we	
  leave	
  next	
  
November	
  that	
  the	
  torch	
  is	
  carried	
  by	
  other	
  members	
  who	
  are	
  gonna	
  be	
  here,	
  some	
  of	
  them	
  for	
  12	
  years.	
  So	
  we’re	
  
not	
  trying	
  to	
  be	
  disrespectful	
  when	
  we	
  say	
  during	
  public	
  comment	
  we	
  only	
  have	
  a	
  minute	
  for	
  each	
  person,	
  and	
  I	
  
know	
  some	
  of	
  you	
  have	
  come	
  far	
  –	
  and	
  that	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  the	
  case,	
  there	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  little	
  more	
  time,	
  we	
  are	
  flexible,	
  we	
  
also	
  have	
  logistics,	
  people	
  have	
  to	
  come	
  in	
  and	
  use	
  the	
  room	
  by	
  12:30	
  or	
  so.	
  We’ll	
  do	
  our	
  best	
  to	
  keep	
  presentations	
  
brief	
  and	
  to	
  ask	
  the	
  questions	
  that	
  I	
  know	
  you	
  want	
  asked	
  and	
  let	
  you	
  have	
  opportunities.	
  We’ve	
  had	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  
requests	
  can	
  you	
  record	
  this,	
  and	
  can	
  you	
  film	
  this,	
  and	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  you	
  get	
  my	
  good	
  side	
  I	
  don’t	
  care.	
  I	
  will	
  turn	
  this	
  
over	
  to	
  Sen.	
  Hancock	
  and	
  then	
  we’ll	
  continue	
  with	
  the	
  hearing.	
  
	
  
	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

1

SEN.	
  LONI	
  HANCOCK	
  (D-­‐Berkeley)	
  opening	
  remarks	
  on	
  CDCR’s	
  proposed	
  new	
  policies	
  on	
  
solitary	
  confinement	
  	
  

	
  
Good	
  morning	
  and	
  welcome	
  to	
  everybody.	
  	
  You	
  know,	
  nearly	
  six	
  months	
  have	
  passed	
  since	
  the	
  inmate	
  hunger	
  strike	
  
that	
  drew	
  the	
  attention	
  of	
  California	
  to	
  the	
  conditions	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  Six	
  months	
  later,	
  I,	
  Assemblyman	
  
Ammiano,	
  and	
  many	
  others	
  continue	
  to	
  have	
  great	
  concerns	
  about	
  the	
  use	
  and	
  conditions	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  in	
  
California’s	
  prisons.	
  While	
  I	
  understand	
  that	
  CDCR	
  is	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  changing	
  its	
  SHU	
  policy,	
  my	
  initial	
  reading	
  of	
  
the	
  new	
  policy	
  left	
  many	
  questions	
  unanswered.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  a	
  hearing	
  from	
  the	
  department	
  about	
  the	
  effectiveness	
  of	
  its	
  pilot	
  program,	
  what	
  they	
  have	
  
learned,	
  and	
  any	
  suggestions	
  about	
  how	
  policy	
  and	
  practice	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  more	
  realistic	
  and	
  effective,	
  meaning	
  	
  -­‐	
  
leading	
  to	
  re-­‐socialization	
  and	
  rehabilitation	
  and	
  return	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  appreciate	
  this	
  opportunity	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  my	
  colleague,	
  Assemblymember	
  Ammiano.	
  I	
  just	
  have	
  to	
  –	
  for	
  the	
  record	
  
–	
  say	
  I’ve	
  got	
  two	
  years	
  after	
  you’re	
  termed	
  out.	
  [Laughter…overlapping	
  audio]	
  But	
  our	
  intent	
  is	
  to	
  open	
  these	
  issues	
  
for	
  informed	
  public	
  discussion	
  and	
  examinations	
  leading	
  to	
  positive,	
  lasting	
  change.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  also	
  greatly	
  appreciate	
  our	
  panelists	
  today	
  who	
  will	
  help	
  us	
  understand	
  the	
  current	
  conditions	
  of	
  isolation	
  housing	
  
in	
  California’s	
  prisons	
  and	
  also	
  what	
  is	
  happening	
  across	
  the	
  nation	
  as	
  other	
  states	
  confront	
  challenges	
  of	
  reform	
  
similar	
  to	
  those	
  we	
  now	
  face.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  all	
  of	
  you	
  for	
  coming	
  today	
  and	
  for	
  your	
  commitment	
  to	
  ensure	
  that	
  the	
  conditions	
  of	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  are	
  not	
  hidden	
  from	
  public	
  scrutiny.	
  I	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  working	
  with	
  you,	
  with	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  
Corrections,	
  with	
  both	
  houses	
  of	
  the	
  legislature	
  to	
  achieve	
  meaningful	
  reform.	
  	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much,	
  I	
  wanted	
  to	
  begin	
  now,	
  I	
  wanted	
  to	
  know	
  of	
  there	
  are	
  any	
  other	
  members	
  with	
  
comments,	
  we	
  have	
  Sen.	
  Anderson	
  and	
  Assemblywoman	
  Melendez,	
  and	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  joined	
  by	
  other	
  Public	
  Safety	
  
Committee	
  members.	
  	
  
	
  
SEN.	
  JOEL	
  ANDERSON	
  (El	
  Cajon):	
  	
  I’d	
  like	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  few	
  remarks	
  …	
  this	
  issue	
  is	
  exceptionally	
  important,	
  and	
  I’m	
  
pleased	
  to	
  be	
  here,	
  I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  important,	
  and	
  the	
  welfare	
  of	
  the	
  folks	
  in	
  our	
  prisons	
  is	
  important,	
  and	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  
balance	
  that	
  against	
  the	
  correctional	
  officers	
  that	
  see	
  them.	
  	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  As	
  Sen.	
  Hancock	
  mentioned,	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  follow-­‐up	
  to	
  previous	
  hearings	
  about	
  the	
  SHU	
  [Security	
  Housing	
  
Units].	
  We’re	
  very,	
  very	
  concerned	
  about	
  practices	
  here	
  in	
  California	
  not	
  meeting	
  Amnesty	
  International’s	
  
standards.	
  There	
  are	
  other	
  states	
  who	
  have	
  better	
  practices	
  than	
  we	
  do	
  -­‐	
  reduced	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  the	
  SHU	
  to	
  the	
  most	
  
minimal	
  and	
  have	
  no	
  recidivism,	
  and	
  there’s	
  no	
  reason	
  that	
  the	
  great	
  state	
  of	
  California	
  cannot	
  be	
  embracing	
  these	
  
ideas	
  that	
  maybe	
  100	
  years	
  ago	
  were	
  enlightened,	
  but	
  now	
  we’re	
  very	
  …	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  way	
  it	
  should	
  be	
  –	
  the	
  way	
  we	
  
should	
  be	
  handling	
  our	
  criminal	
  justice	
  problems	
  and	
  particularly	
  emphasis	
  on	
  rehabilitation.	
  	
  
	
  
So,	
  CDCR	
  did	
  come	
  up	
  with	
  some	
  pilot	
  program	
  changes	
  to	
  how	
  inmates	
  can	
  end	
  up	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  can	
  get	
  
out.	
  We’re	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  discussing	
  those	
  regulations	
  today.	
  We	
  think	
  that	
  they	
  don’t	
  go	
  far	
  enough	
  and	
  it	
  doesn’t	
  
really	
  address	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  deficiencies	
  in	
  CDCR’s	
  gang	
  policy.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  we	
  will	
  also	
  be	
  considering	
  all	
  of	
  us,	
  legislative	
  fixes.	
  And	
  I	
  have	
  some	
  legislation	
  in	
  the	
  hopper.	
  I’m	
  sure	
  Sen.	
  
Hancock	
  does.	
  Can’t	
  speak	
  for	
  my	
  other	
  colleagues.	
  But	
  there	
  will	
  be	
  legislation	
  introduced	
  around	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  
some	
  of	
  its	
  practices,	
  including	
  putting	
  a	
  cap	
  on	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  years.	
  So	
  our	
  first	
  panel	
  we	
  will	
  hear	
  from,	
  now	
  that	
  I	
  
put	
  them	
  on	
  the	
  spot,	
  is	
  the	
  CDCR	
  representatives,	
  George	
  Giurbino	
  and	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard.	
  And	
  they’re	
  going	
  to	
  
describe	
  the	
  new	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  policy,	
  discuss	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  differences	
  between	
  the	
  new	
  policy	
  and	
  the	
  old	
  
policy.	
  
	
  
Good	
  morning.	
  Welcome	
  to	
  the	
  Olympics.	
  [laughter]	
  You’ll	
  get	
  the	
  gold	
  …	
  [laughter]	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  George	
  Giurbino,	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrator	
  of	
  the	
  Special	
  Project	
  Team	
  
at	
  CDCR’s	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions	
  
	
  
I’ve	
  prepared	
  an	
  opening	
  statement	
  if	
  that’s	
  okay.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  provide	
  brief	
  introductions	
  and	
  say	
  good	
  morning	
  to	
  the	
  
co-­‐chairs,	
  the	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  joint	
  legislative	
  public	
  safety	
  committee	
  today.	
  	
  
	
  
My	
  name	
  is	
  George	
  Giurbino.	
  I’m	
  a	
  retired	
  annuitant	
  with	
  the	
  California	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  
Rehabilitation.	
  I’ve	
  been	
  assigned	
  to	
  the	
  Special	
  Project	
  Team	
  that’s	
  governing	
  the	
  Security	
  Threat	
  Group	
  
management	
  policy	
  for	
  about	
  24	
  months	
  now	
  within	
  the	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions.	
  And	
  I’ve	
  been	
  employed	
  with	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

2

the	
  department	
  for	
  about	
  33	
  years.	
  Where	
  I’ve	
  worked	
  –	
  I	
  was	
  in	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  assignments	
  from	
  rank-­‐and-­‐file	
  
custody	
  operations	
  to	
  supervisory	
  to	
  management	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  departmental	
  administration.	
  I’ve	
  served	
  as	
  a	
  warden	
  
at	
  two	
  state	
  correctional	
  facilities	
  –	
  Centinela	
  and	
  Calipatria	
  state	
  prisons.	
  	
  
	
  
I’ve	
  also	
  been	
  assigned	
  within	
  the	
  department’s	
  headquarters	
  as	
  an	
  associate	
  director	
  [of]	
  high	
  security,	
  of	
  
transitional	
  housing,	
  deputy	
  director,	
  and	
  director	
  of	
  division	
  of	
  adult	
  institutions,	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  final	
  position	
  held	
  
until	
  my	
  retirement	
  in	
  December	
  of	
  2011.	
  	
  
	
  
While	
  employed	
  by	
  the	
  department,	
  I	
  continued	
  with	
  my	
  personal	
  education	
  in	
  the	
  field	
  of	
  law	
  enforcement	
  and	
  
criminology	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  –	
  Cal	
  State	
  University	
  at	
  Fullerton	
  where	
  I	
  earned	
  a	
  bachelor’s	
  degree.	
  	
  
In	
  addition	
  to	
  my	
  work	
  as	
  a	
  retired	
  annuitant	
  during	
  the	
  past	
  two	
  years,	
  I’ve	
  also	
  been	
  enlisted	
  by	
  the	
  National	
  
Institute	
  of	
  Corrections	
  as	
  a	
  national	
  instructor	
  and	
  facilitator	
  regarding	
  prison	
  operations,	
  security	
  audits,	
  security	
  
threat	
  group	
  management,	
  emergency	
  operations,	
  and	
  security	
  housing	
  operations.	
  	
  
	
  
When	
  I	
  was	
  asked	
  if	
  I	
  would	
  be	
  interested	
  in	
  being	
  involved	
  in	
  this	
  project,	
  I	
  provided	
  one	
  conditional	
  request	
  to	
  the	
  
Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  that	
  was	
  to	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  retired	
  Director	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard,	
  who	
  is	
  my	
  
partner	
  here	
  today,	
  who	
  brings	
  forth	
  with	
  her	
  much	
  department	
  history,	
  practical	
  knowledge,	
  a	
  forward-­‐thinking	
  
approach,	
  and	
  sound	
  counsel	
  to	
  our	
  team’s	
  daily	
  efforts.	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard,	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrator	
  of	
  the	
  Special	
  Project	
  Team	
  at	
  
CDCR’s	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions	
  	
  	
  
	
  	
  
Thank	
  you.	
  Good	
  morning.	
  I,	
  too,	
  have	
  been	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  department	
  for	
  more	
  than	
  33	
  years.	
  I	
  graduated	
  from	
  the	
  
University	
  of	
  California	
  Berkeley	
  in	
  social	
  welfare	
  and	
  criminology	
  and	
  did	
  field	
  work	
  with	
  the	
  department,	
  and	
  
joining	
  the	
  department	
  as	
  a	
  correctional	
  officer	
  at	
  San	
  Quentin	
  –	
  worked	
  for	
  the	
  next	
  30	
  years	
  through	
  various	
  	
  
correctional	
  officer	
  counseling	
  series	
  and	
  served	
  as	
  a	
  warden	
  –	
  or	
  acting	
  warden	
  –	
  at	
  several	
  different	
  prisons.	
  Part	
  
of	
  activating	
  our	
  state’s	
  first	
  mental	
  health	
  program	
  within	
  a	
  Level	
  4	
  prison,	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  responsible	
  at	
  two	
  
prisons	
  for	
  our	
  female	
  offenders.	
  I	
  eventually	
  became	
  director	
  also	
  and	
  retired	
  in	
  2009	
  as	
  the	
  Director	
  of	
  Adult	
  
Institutions.	
  	
  
	
  
After	
  my	
  retirement,	
  continued	
  to	
  work	
  in	
  prisons,	
  mentoring	
  and	
  guiding	
  wardens,	
  and	
  then	
  joined	
  the	
  Special	
  
Project	
  Team	
  in	
  2011,	
  being	
  part	
  of	
  developing	
  the	
  regulations	
  –	
  new	
  regulations	
  –	
  for	
  our	
  department,	
  and	
  also	
  
being	
  part	
  of	
  conducting	
  the	
  reviews	
  of	
  the	
  offenders	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  within	
  our	
  security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
Thank	
  you.	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you	
  both	
  very	
  much.	
  I	
  really	
  have	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  respect	
  for	
  your	
  credentials	
  and	
  your	
  experience,	
  so	
  
now	
  we’re	
  looking	
  forward	
  to	
  your	
  presenting	
  the	
  “new	
  regulations.”	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Did	
  you	
  write	
  and	
  develop	
  the	
  new	
  regulations	
  or	
  are	
  you	
  mainly	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  evaluating	
  whether	
  under	
  
the	
  new	
  policies	
  individuals	
  will	
  be	
  returned	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population?	
  	
  
	
  
GIURBINO:	
  We’ve	
  been	
  directly	
  involved	
  in	
  assessing	
  and	
  developing	
  the	
  revised	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  policy	
  for	
  
the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections,	
  which	
  includes	
  the	
  writing	
  of	
  it	
  and	
  working	
  with	
  external	
  stakeholders	
  in	
  taking	
  a	
  
look	
  at	
  it	
  and	
  taking	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  their	
  feedbacks	
  as	
  well.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  OK	
  good,	
  so	
  we	
  can	
  ask	
  you	
  questions	
  going	
  right	
  to	
  that	
  thank	
  you.	
  
GIURBINO:	
  And	
  we	
  think	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  it’s	
  good	
  to	
  understand	
  what	
  the	
  pre-­‐existing	
  policy	
  was	
  for	
  security	
  
threat	
  group	
  management	
  or	
  prison	
  gang	
  management	
  within	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  for	
  several	
  decades,	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  has	
  had	
  a	
  policy	
  where	
  we	
  had	
  a	
  validation	
  process	
  where	
  
individuals	
  based	
  upon	
  activities	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  involved	
  in	
  within	
  the	
  prison	
  system	
  could	
  be	
  validated	
  
as	
  prison	
  gang	
  members.	
  Those	
  prison	
  gangs	
  went	
  through	
  a	
  process	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  be	
  identified	
  as	
  prison	
  gangs,	
  
which	
  required	
  certification	
  by	
  the	
  agency	
  secretary.	
  Up	
  until	
  most	
  recently,	
  there	
  were	
  seven	
  prison	
  gangs	
  that	
  
were	
  certified	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  California.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  validation	
  process,	
  individuals	
  had	
  to	
  be	
  actual	
  members	
  or	
  associates	
  of	
  these	
  particular	
  prison	
  
gangs	
  and	
  they	
  had	
  to	
  be	
  validated.	
  They	
  were	
  validated	
  based	
  upon	
  several	
  different	
  types	
  of	
  source	
  items	
  in	
  which	
  
an	
  individual	
  could	
  become	
  validated.	
  It	
  could	
  be	
  their	
  own	
  self-­‐admission.	
  It	
  could	
  have	
  been	
  a	
  tattoo	
  that	
  they	
  may	
  
have	
  had.	
  It	
  may	
  have	
  been	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  commitment	
  offense.	
  Could	
  have	
  been	
  information	
  that	
  was	
  specifically	
  
located	
  in	
  their	
  probation	
  officer’s	
  report.	
  Could	
  have	
  been	
  gang	
  symbolism	
  that	
  they	
  had.	
  But	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  variety	
  of	
  
sources.	
  	
  
	
  
An	
  individual	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  have	
  been	
  validated	
  had	
  to	
  have	
  three	
  of	
  these	
  source	
  items.	
  And	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  having	
  
three	
  of	
  these	
  source	
  items	
  affirmed	
  that	
  that	
  individual	
  also	
  had	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  direct	
  link	
  with	
  a	
  validated	
  prison	
  gang	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

3

associate.	
  And	
  upon	
  completion	
  of	
  that	
  information	
  being	
  attained,	
  one	
  of	
  our	
  investigative	
  services	
  unit	
  agent	
  
would	
  provide	
  that	
  individual	
  with	
  a	
  face-­‐to-­‐face	
  discussion	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  would	
  share	
  the	
  information	
  that	
  was	
  
going	
  to	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  validate	
  that	
  individual.	
  	
  
	
  
That	
  information	
  subsequently	
  would	
  be	
  forwarded	
  off	
  to	
  the	
  Office	
  of	
  Correctional	
  Safety	
  within	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  
Corrections	
  headquarters	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  would	
  do	
  an	
  assessment	
  of	
  that	
  information	
  and	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  
assessment	
  they	
  would	
  affirm	
  that	
  individual	
  or	
  not	
  affirm	
  that	
  individual	
  as	
  a	
  prison	
  gang	
  member	
  or	
  associate.	
  	
  
	
  
Based	
  upon	
  those	
  individuals’	
  validations,	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  placed	
  into	
  segregation	
  within	
  the	
  department,	
  and	
  then	
  
they	
  would	
  be	
  transferred	
  to	
  an	
  institution	
  by	
  the	
  institution’s	
  classification	
  committee	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  validation.	
  
And	
  they	
  would	
  remain	
  within	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  for	
  an	
  indeterminate	
  period	
  of	
  time.	
  	
  
	
  
Subsequent	
  to	
  various	
  forms	
  of	
  litigation	
  that	
  had	
  occurred	
  over	
  the	
  years,	
  around	
  2000,	
  2011,	
  the	
  department	
  
revised	
  those	
  policies	
  and	
  incorporated	
  a	
  six-­‐year	
  review	
  period,	
  which	
  then	
  required	
  the	
  department	
  for	
  each	
  six	
  
years	
  at	
  minimum	
  that	
  they	
  do	
  an	
  analysis	
  and	
  review	
  of	
  individuals	
  that	
  were	
  validated	
  as	
  prison	
  gang	
  affiliates	
  
that	
  were	
  housed	
  within	
  the	
  SHU.	
  And	
  if	
  those	
  individuals	
  were	
  not	
  involved	
  and	
  didn’t	
  demonstrate	
  any	
  type	
  of	
  
activity,	
  then	
  those	
  individuals	
  would	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  release	
  out	
  to	
  a	
  general	
  population	
  facility.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  again,	
  these	
  are	
  pre-­‐existing	
  policies.	
  	
  
	
  
Such	
  items	
  that	
  would	
  include	
  an	
  individual	
  being	
  retained	
  beyond	
  that	
  six-­‐year	
  time	
  frame	
  would	
  be	
  one	
  element	
  
of	
  activity.	
  And	
  therefore,	
  if	
  an	
  individual	
  was	
  in	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  and	
  they	
  were	
  programming	
  and	
  they’d	
  
been	
  there	
  for	
  six	
  years	
  and	
  they	
  had	
  an	
  inactive	
  review	
  period,	
  and	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  search	
  done	
  on	
  a	
  cell	
  200	
  miles	
  
away	
  from	
  that	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  and	
  that	
  individual’s	
  name	
  was	
  found	
  on	
  a	
  list	
  of	
  other	
  individuals	
  that	
  said	
  
“good	
  guys”	
  and	
  “bad	
  guys”,	
  that	
  that	
  information	
  –	
  because	
  they	
  were	
  on	
  that	
  list	
  –	
  would	
  be	
  and	
  could	
  be	
  used	
  to	
  
retain	
  that	
  individual	
  within	
  a	
  segregated	
  housing	
  unit	
  for	
  six	
  additional	
  years.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  what	
  we’ve	
  tried	
  to	
  do	
  and	
  in	
  recognition	
  of	
  those	
  policies	
  that	
  were	
  pre-­‐existing,	
  we’ve	
  kind	
  of	
  done	
  an	
  
extended	
  effort	
  and	
  even	
  with	
  the	
  assistance	
  of	
  the	
  legislature	
  in	
  2007	
  with	
  special	
  funding	
  that	
  was	
  provided	
  –	
  
there	
  was	
  a	
  2007	
  expert	
  panel	
  report	
  that	
  actually	
  took	
  into	
  account	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  other	
  systems	
  throughout	
  the	
  country	
  
and	
  provided	
  significant	
  recommendations	
  for	
  change.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  even	
  upon	
  receipt	
  of	
  this	
  information	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  the	
  information	
  itself	
  and	
  the	
  changes	
  and	
  the	
  recommendations	
  
that	
  was	
  in	
  the	
  report	
  was	
  good	
  insights	
  and	
  it	
  was	
  somewhat	
  progressive	
  and	
  moving	
  in	
  a	
  direction	
  that	
  was	
  
consistent	
  with	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  national	
  best	
  practices.	
  In	
  our	
  taking	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  it	
  relative	
  to	
  how	
  we	
  were	
  developing	
  the	
  
policy,	
  there	
  were	
  several	
  modifications	
  to	
  it	
  that	
  we	
  may	
  have	
  felt	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  been	
  progressive	
  quite	
  enough	
  in	
  
our	
  evaluation	
  of	
  it	
  and	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  the	
  policy.	
  	
  
	
  
Not	
  only	
  did	
  we	
  take	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  that	
  2007	
  report,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  that,	
  we	
  worked	
  closely	
  with	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  individuals	
  and	
  
read	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  other	
  recommendations.	
  We	
  took	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  several	
  reports	
  written	
  by	
  Dr.	
  James	
  Austin	
  and	
  his	
  efforts	
  at	
  
Mississippi.	
  We	
  worked	
  with	
  Mr.	
  [Christopher]	
  Epps’	
  staff	
  in	
  Mississippi,	
  Mr.	
  Ken	
  North,	
  who’s	
  in	
  charge	
  of	
  their	
  
security	
  threat	
  groups	
  in	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Mississippi.	
  We	
  also	
  spoke	
  with	
  John	
  Aldi	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  Connecticut,	
  got	
  
copies	
  of	
  their	
  policies.	
  We	
  received	
  copies	
  of	
  policies	
  in	
  working	
  with	
  the	
  Federal	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Prisons	
  from	
  most	
  of	
  
the	
  states	
  throughout	
  the	
  country	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  their	
  policies.	
  	
  
	
  
As	
  probably	
  would	
  be	
  understood,	
  not	
  every	
  state	
  in	
  the	
  country	
  has	
  nearly	
  the	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  or	
  prison	
  gang	
  
issues	
  that	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  California	
  had.	
  But	
  they	
  all	
  –	
  by	
  and	
  large,	
  I	
  would	
  say	
  that	
  about	
  75%	
  of	
  them	
  -­‐-­‐	
  have	
  local	
  
policies	
  that	
  they	
  use	
  to	
  manage	
  segments	
  of	
  their	
  population.	
  Upon	
  receiving	
  that	
  information	
  and	
  speaking	
  with	
  
several	
  of	
  these	
  individuals,	
  we	
  ended	
  up	
  working	
  with	
  a	
  select	
  warden’s	
  advisory	
  group	
  within	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  
Corrections	
  as	
  well	
  and	
  we	
  began	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  drafting	
  the	
  policy	
  for	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  –	
  a	
  revised	
  
policy,	
  if	
  you	
  will.

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

4

	
  
	
  
And	
  in	
  doing	
  that,	
  took	
  several	
  efforts.	
  There	
  were	
  some	
  confusion.	
  Even	
  as	
  I	
  read	
  on	
  the	
  Internet,	
  people	
  didn’t	
  
know	
  which	
  volume	
  of	
  it	
  that	
  they	
  should	
  take	
  into	
  consideration.	
  And	
  in	
  part	
  because	
  this	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  very	
  dynamic	
  
process	
  that	
  we’ve	
  been	
  going	
  through,	
  information	
  that	
  we	
  received	
  not	
  only	
  from	
  internal	
  stakeholders	
  within	
  the	
  
California	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  but	
  from	
  outside	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  as	
  well	
  –	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  
associated	
  with	
  Prison	
  Focus,	
  the	
  PLO,	
  the	
  Inspector	
  General’s	
  office,	
  the	
  Attorney	
  General’s	
  office,	
  family	
  members	
  
who	
  have	
  corresponded	
  with	
  us	
  and	
  sent	
  information	
  –	
  we’ve	
  taken	
  that	
  information	
  into	
  account.	
  And	
  we’ve	
  kind	
  
of	
  pooled	
  it	
  and	
  used	
  that	
  in	
  developing	
  our	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  management	
  policy	
  that	
  ultimately	
  has	
  been	
  
recently	
  put	
  forward	
  to	
  the	
  Office	
  of	
  Administrative	
  Law	
  for	
  promulgation.	
  	
  
	
  
Prior	
  to	
  that,	
  we	
  created	
  what	
  was	
  referred	
  to	
  as	
  an	
  instructional	
  memorandum.	
  This	
  instructional	
  memorandum	
  
and	
  the	
  reason	
  why	
  it	
  was	
  developed	
  was	
  we	
  developed	
  the	
  policy	
  –	
  it	
  was	
  a	
  very	
  complex	
  policy	
  as	
  we	
  developed	
  it,	
  
and	
  it	
  changed	
  and	
  impacts	
  several	
  different	
  areas	
  of	
  the	
  California	
  Code	
  of	
  Regulations.	
  And	
  because	
  of	
  all	
  these	
  
significant	
  changes	
  that	
  were	
  taking	
  place,	
  we	
  felt	
  that	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  the	
  inmates	
  and	
  the	
  staff	
  
would	
  be	
  very	
  challenged	
  in	
  implementing	
  this.	
  And	
  in	
  addition,	
  we	
  wanted	
  to	
  move	
  forward,	
  and	
  the	
  agency	
  
secretary	
  at	
  that	
  point	
  and	
  time	
  wanted	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  in	
  a	
  rapid	
  process	
  and	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  start	
  taking	
  effect.	
  	
  
The	
  Office	
  of	
  Administrative	
  Law	
  process	
  can	
  often	
  be	
  somewhat	
  a	
  little	
  bit	
  cumbersome	
  or	
  time-­‐consuming	
  in	
  
moving	
  through	
  that	
  process.	
  And	
  so	
  we	
  created	
  an	
  instructional	
  memorandum	
  and	
  used	
  the	
  Penal	
  Code	
  statute	
  
that	
  authorized	
  us	
  to	
  develop	
  a	
  pilot	
  program.	
  	
  
And	
  for	
  that	
  pilot	
  program,	
  we	
  used	
  this	
  instructional	
  memorandum	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  relate	
  the	
  information	
  on	
  how	
  that	
  
process	
  would	
  take	
  place.	
  And	
  the	
  pilot	
  program	
  began	
  on	
  Oct.	
  18	
  of	
  	
  2012	
  and	
  it	
  would	
  conclude	
  on	
  Oct.	
  18	
  of	
  the	
  
year	
  2014.	
  	
  
The	
  department’s	
  ongoing	
  efforts	
  at	
  this	
  point	
  and	
  time	
  based	
  upon	
  other	
  activities	
  and	
  litigations	
  taking	
  place	
  is	
  
wanting	
  to	
  and	
  having	
  a	
  desire	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  with	
  those	
  regulations	
  in	
  a	
  time-­‐expedient	
  fashion	
  if	
  at	
  all	
  possible.	
  	
  
	
  
At	
  the	
  same	
  time	
  –	
  and	
  what’s	
  become	
  challenging	
  for	
  our	
  efforts	
  in	
  promulgating	
  these	
  policies	
  –	
  is	
  they’re	
  
prospective	
  in	
  nature,	
  as	
  you’ve	
  taken	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  them,	
  where	
  they	
  were	
  developed	
  for	
  individuals	
  that	
  may	
  become	
  
newly	
  validated.	
  What’s	
  become	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  challenge	
  is	
  we	
  have	
  3,200	
  individuals	
  within	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  units	
  
and	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  units	
  throughout	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  California	
  that	
  were	
  previously	
  validated.	
  And	
  it	
  was	
  
our	
  goal	
  and	
  our	
  intent	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  take	
  these	
  new	
  policies	
  that	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  revised	
  and	
  pilot	
  as	
  they	
  may,	
  but	
  
overlay	
  with	
  those	
  3,200	
  inmates	
  that	
  are	
  within	
  our	
  security	
  housing	
  units,	
  and	
  not	
  only	
  overlay	
  them	
  with	
  the	
  
inmates	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  previously	
  validated,	
  but	
  also	
  overlay	
  those	
  with	
  those	
  that	
  were	
  tentatively	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  
of	
  being	
  validated	
  as	
  well.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  we	
  developed	
  a	
  process	
  similar	
  to	
  what	
  was	
  used	
  in	
  other	
  states	
  like	
  Colorado	
  and	
  Mississippi	
  to	
  conduct	
  an	
  
evaluation	
  and	
  review	
  of	
  those	
  in	
  our	
  security	
  housing	
  units.	
  However,	
  in	
  those	
  states,	
  it	
  was	
  primarily	
  a	
  summary	
  
review	
  of	
  documents.	
  We	
  felt	
  it	
  was	
  very	
  important	
  and	
  necessary	
  to	
  have	
  interactions	
  with	
  the	
  inmates	
  as	
  well	
  
during	
  this	
  process.	
  And	
  so,	
  we	
  began	
  a	
  process	
  of	
  actually	
  scheduling	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  reviews	
  with	
  that	
  segment	
  of	
  
the	
  population	
  so	
  that	
  we	
  can	
  overlay	
  the	
  new	
  policy	
  and	
  conduct	
  a	
  review	
  and	
  make	
  an	
  assessment	
  and	
  
determination	
  if	
  these	
  individuals	
  who	
  were	
  previously	
  validated	
  warranted	
  further	
  retention	
  within	
  the	
  SHU	
  or	
  if	
  
they	
  could	
  be	
  released	
  out	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  
	
  
To	
  date,	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  these	
  reviews	
  that	
  we’ve	
  been	
  doing,	
  and	
  we’ve	
  completed	
  632	
  reviews	
  of	
  individuals	
  throughout	
  
the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  to	
  date.	
  Included	
  within	
  that	
  632	
  number	
  are	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  within	
  security	
  
housing	
  units	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  those	
  that	
  are	
  confined	
  within	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  units.	
  The	
  difference	
  between	
  
these	
  two	
  types	
  of	
  facilities	
  is	
  security	
  housing	
  units	
  are	
  determined	
  and	
  they’re	
  used	
  for	
  long-­‐term	
  segregation	
  
whereas	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  units,	
  which	
  exist	
  in	
  nearly	
  every	
  prison	
  in	
  the	
  department	
  in	
  the	
  state,	
  are	
  
designed	
  for	
  temporary	
  segregation	
  based	
  upon	
  the	
  processing	
  of	
  an	
  individual	
  who	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  ultimately	
  
transferred	
  to	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  our	
  goal	
  in	
  this	
  process	
  and	
  conducting	
  these	
  reviews	
  was	
  to	
  review	
  not	
  only	
  those	
  that	
  are	
  currently	
  within	
  
the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  but	
  also	
  those	
  that	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  process,	
  that	
  are	
  in	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  units.	
  	
  
As	
  we	
  developed	
  a	
  protocol	
  for	
  making	
  decision	
  on	
  prioritization	
  of	
  these	
  individuals	
  to	
  be	
  reviewed,	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  key	
  
elements	
  of	
  change	
  within	
  our	
  policy	
  had	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  those	
  individuals	
  and	
  the	
  basis	
  for	
  their	
  placement	
  within	
  the	
  
security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
We	
  separated	
  out	
  the	
  validation	
  process	
  from	
  the	
  segregation	
  process.	
  And	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  that,	
  the	
  policy	
  -­‐probably	
  
one	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  significant	
  changes	
  made	
  was	
  -­‐	
  that	
  individuals	
  previously	
  validated	
  as	
  associates	
  they	
  were	
  placed	
  
into	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  validation	
  alone.	
  The	
  new	
  policy	
  does	
  not	
  have	
  that	
  provision	
  in	
  it.	
  As	
  a	
  
matter	
  fact,	
  an	
  individual	
  that	
  is	
  validated	
  as	
  an	
  associate,	
  their	
  housing	
  will	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  based	
  
upon	
  their	
  validation.	
  Those	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  validated	
  as	
  associates	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  commit	
  additional	
  significant	
  
behavior	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  be	
  considered	
  for	
  placement	
  within	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

5

And	
  because	
  of	
  that	
  significant	
  change	
  in	
  our	
  policy,	
  and	
  there	
  are	
  several	
  other	
  significant	
  changes,	
  but	
  because	
  of	
  
that	
  one	
  as	
  we	
  developed	
  our	
  prioritization	
  on	
  how	
  these	
  reviews	
  will	
  take	
  place,	
  we	
  elevated	
  the	
  associates	
  –	
  the	
  
individuals	
  that	
  were	
  previously	
  validated	
  as	
  associates	
  –	
  to	
  review	
  those	
  individuals	
  first	
  primarily	
  because	
  they	
  
had	
  a	
  significant	
  liberty	
  interest	
  involved.	
  Recognizing	
  that	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  inmates	
  within	
  SHU	
  have	
  a	
  liberty	
  interest	
  
involved,	
  but	
  these	
  particular	
  individuals	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  validation	
  as	
  an	
  associate	
  had	
  an	
  interest	
  in	
  that	
  they	
  
didn’t	
  belong	
  in	
  SHU	
  unless	
  they	
  had	
  committed	
  some	
  type	
  of	
  significant	
  behavior.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  we	
  started	
  off	
  in	
  our	
  process	
  of	
  reviewing	
  associates.	
  	
  However,	
  while	
  we	
  initiated	
  this	
  and	
  we	
  began	
  conducting	
  
reviews	
  of	
  associates,	
  the	
  secretary,	
  Dr.	
  Beard,	
  asked	
  and	
  had	
  concern	
  as	
  well	
  that	
  we’re	
  reviewing	
  associates	
  –	
  and	
  
I	
  understand	
  we’re	
  prioritizing	
  that	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  liberty	
  interest	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  time	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  have	
  
been	
  validated	
  –	
  he	
  asked	
  if	
  we	
  would	
  also	
  consider,	
  if	
  we	
  could	
  build	
  into	
  it,	
  a	
  review	
  of	
  our	
  members	
  that	
  had	
  been	
  
validated.	
  
So,	
  more	
  recently,	
  since	
  October,	
  November	
  of	
  this	
  past	
  year,	
  we	
  began	
  a	
  review	
  and	
  incorporated	
  a	
  review	
  of	
  those	
  
inmates	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  validated	
  as	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  members	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  this	
  process	
  as	
  well.	
  Again,	
  as	
  I	
  stated,	
  
there	
  has	
  been	
  about	
  632	
  individuals	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  reviewed	
  and	
  received	
  a	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  review	
  to	
  date.	
  	
  
Although	
  we	
  can	
  go	
  further	
  into	
  it	
  as	
  you	
  may	
  request,	
  but	
  as	
  we	
  conducted	
  these	
  reviews,	
  another	
  significant	
  
component	
  that	
  the	
  new	
  policy	
  has	
  in	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  that	
  has	
  four	
  steps	
  associated	
  with	
  it	
  with	
  a	
  fifth	
  
step	
  that	
  releases	
  an	
  individual	
  out	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  As	
  we	
  conducted	
  these	
  individual	
  reviews,	
  what	
  we	
  
did	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  that	
  is	
  we	
  set	
  up	
  a	
  method	
  in	
  which	
  if	
  an	
  individual	
  had	
  committed	
  serious	
  …	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  	
  Excuse	
  me,	
  sir?	
  I	
  don’t	
  mean	
  to	
  interrupt	
  but	
  we	
  do	
  have	
  a	
  member	
  …	
  and	
  can	
  I	
  say	
  amazing?	
  Can	
  we	
  
take	
  a	
  breath?	
  Pretty	
  good	
  man.	
  [Laughter]	
  You	
  do	
  get	
  the	
  gold,	
  really.	
  That’s	
  quite	
  a	
  presentation.	
  Miss	
  Melendez	
  
has	
  to	
  leave	
  but	
  she	
  does	
  have	
  a	
  question,	
  and	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  allow	
  that	
  because	
  the	
  more	
  information	
  we	
  
[legislators]	
  share,	
  the	
  stronger	
  the	
  legislation	
  will	
  be.	
  	
  
	
  

Assemblywoman	
  Melissa	
  Melendez’s	
  Q&A	
  with	
  CDCR	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrators	
  George	
  
Giurbino	
  and	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard	
  

	
  
Assemblywoman	
  Melissa	
  Melendez	
  (R-­‐Lake	
  Elsinore):	
  Thank	
  you	
  Mr.	
  Chairman.	
  George,	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  very	
  
detailed	
  presentation.	
  There’s	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  information	
  to	
  digest	
  but	
  good	
  information.	
  I	
  just	
  have	
  one	
  question.	
  I’m	
  
reading	
  an	
  article	
  here	
  from	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  the	
  Sac	
  Bee	
  which	
  was	
  dated	
  Jan.	
  31st	
  specifically	
  talking	
  about	
  how	
  gang	
  
members	
  would	
  qualify	
  for	
  being	
  taken	
  off	
  this	
  particular	
  status.	
  And	
  it	
  does	
  say	
  that	
  gang	
  associates	
  would	
  have	
  to	
  
steer	
  clear	
  of	
  gang	
  activities	
  for	
  about	
  10	
  years	
  to	
  qualify;	
  gang	
  leaders	
  about	
  14	
  years.	
  And	
  I’m	
  assuming	
  that	
  that	
  is	
  
based	
  on	
  recommendations	
  from	
  CDCR,	
  is	
  that	
  correct?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Correct.	
  Yes,	
  ma’am.	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  And	
  so,	
  I’m	
  just	
  –	
  a	
  decade	
  seems	
  like	
  a	
  really	
  long	
  time,	
  and	
  so	
  I’m	
  …	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Let	
  me	
  –	
  let	
  me	
  kind	
  of	
  help	
  because	
  there’s	
  two	
  different	
  things	
  that	
  we’re	
  talking	
  about	
  here.	
  One	
  of	
  
those	
  is	
  individuals	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  released	
  from	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  validation	
  –	
  it’s	
  in	
  a	
  much	
  
quicker	
  time	
  frame.	
  Those	
  individuals	
  would	
  be	
  within	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  for	
  three	
  years.	
  	
  
[What]	
  you’re	
  talking	
  about	
  is	
  something	
  new	
  that	
  was	
  just	
  recently	
  added	
  to	
  the	
  policy	
  and	
  something	
  in	
  doing	
  
research	
  on	
  a	
  national	
  perspective,	
  taking	
  a	
  look	
  nationwide,	
  most	
  states	
  and	
  the	
  federal	
  bureau	
  of	
  prisons,	
  and	
  I	
  
could	
  find	
  a	
  single	
  one	
  that	
  had	
  a	
  provision	
  for	
  this.	
  	
  And	
  what	
  this	
  is	
  when	
  individuals	
  are	
  validated,	
  they	
  get	
  a	
  label	
  
that’s	
  associated	
  with	
  that	
  in	
  places	
  inside	
  their	
  central	
  file.	
  Validations	
  throughout	
  the	
  country,	
  that	
  label	
  stays	
  with	
  
an	
  individual	
  from	
  cradle	
  to	
  grave.	
  They	
  have	
  that	
  label	
  of	
  that	
  gang	
  their	
  entire	
  life.	
  	
  What	
  we	
  elected	
  to	
  do	
  in	
  this	
  
process	
  was	
  to	
  create	
  our	
  policy	
  so	
  we	
  go	
  full-­‐cycle	
  and	
  give	
  the	
  individual	
  the	
  ability	
  to	
  have	
  that	
  label	
  ultimately	
  
removed.	
  	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  	
  So	
  what	
  you’re	
  saying	
  is	
  then	
  it	
  would	
  take	
  them	
  a	
  decade	
  approximately	
  to	
  have	
  that	
  label	
  removed?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  It	
  would	
  take	
  three	
  years	
  within	
  a	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  and	
  then	
  upon	
  their	
  release,	
  if	
  they’re	
  
associates	
  six	
  years.	
  Again,	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  provision	
  that	
  no	
  other	
  state	
  that	
  I	
  can	
  find	
  has	
  currently.	
  They	
  retain	
  their	
  label	
  
in	
  other	
  states.	
  This	
  is	
  something	
  new	
  that	
  assists	
  an	
  individual	
  so	
  that	
  perhaps	
  when	
  they	
  go	
  to	
  a	
  board	
  hearing	
  
that	
  they	
  can	
  say	
  that	
  “No,	
  that’s	
  been	
  completely	
  redacted	
  from	
  my	
  file,	
  my	
  history.”	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  Okay,	
  so	
  let	
  me	
  ask	
  you	
  this	
  then:	
  In	
  other	
  states	
  that	
  you’ve	
  looked	
  at,	
  are	
  you	
  talking	
  about	
  inmates	
  
who	
  have	
  been	
  removed	
  from	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  put	
  into	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  that	
  they	
  still	
  maintain	
  their	
  gang	
  status?	
  
Is	
  that	
  what	
  you’re	
  saying?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Correct.	
  That	
  validation	
  is	
  retained	
  with	
  an	
  individual	
  in	
  ….	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  Despite	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  they’re	
  in	
  the	
  SHU?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  …in	
  the	
  SHU	
  or	
  not.	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  Okay,	
  so	
  it	
  remains	
  with	
  them.	
  And	
  you’re	
  suggesting	
  that	
  that	
  title,	
  if	
  you	
  will,	
  be	
  removed	
  after	
  a	
  
period	
  of	
  time?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Correct.	
  And	
  again,	
  taking	
  a	
  look	
  nationwide,	
  could	
  not	
  find	
  another	
  policy	
  that	
  provided	
  that	
  provision.	
  
But	
  in	
  working	
  with	
  these	
  inmates	
  in	
  conducting	
  these	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  reviews,	
  that	
  was	
  information	
  that	
  was	
  shared	
  
with	
  us	
  that	
  the	
  inmates	
  were	
  interested	
  in	
  doing	
  was	
  having	
  some	
  method	
  at	
  some	
  point	
  in	
  their	
  career,	
  in	
  their	
  life	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

6

where	
  they	
  can	
  have	
  that	
  redacted.	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  Can	
  you	
  just	
  explain	
  to	
  me	
  in	
  a	
  very	
  basic	
  way	
  the	
  value	
  in	
  what	
  you’re	
  suggesting?	
  Because	
  you’ve	
  had	
  
inmates	
  in	
  other	
  states	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  released	
  into	
  the	
  general	
  populations	
  but	
  still	
  maintain	
  gang	
  status	
  title,	
  and	
  
you’re	
  suggesting	
  that	
  that	
  is	
  removed.	
  I’m	
  just	
  –	
  where’s	
  the	
  value?	
  If	
  you’re	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population,	
  isn’t	
  that	
  the	
  
ultimate	
  goal	
  aside	
  from	
  being	
  released	
  from	
  prison?	
  But	
  …	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  	
  The	
  stigma	
  of	
  an	
  individual	
  having	
  that	
  gang	
  title	
  will	
  affect	
  them.	
  People	
  make	
  perceptions	
  and	
  have	
  
prejudices	
  upon	
  individuals.	
  Could	
  potentially	
  impact	
  the	
  hearing	
  the	
  individual	
  may	
  be	
  involved	
  in	
  as	
  well	
  and	
  
being	
  able	
  to	
  remove	
  that.	
  There	
  are	
  some	
  assignment	
  in	
  housing	
  occurrences	
  where	
  an	
  individual	
  based	
  upon	
  that	
  
validation	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  occurred	
  20	
  years	
  ago	
  but	
  because	
  of	
  that	
  validation	
  existing	
  may	
  impact	
  the	
  job	
  
assignment	
  that	
  that	
  individual	
  may	
  have.	
  	
  
MELENDEZ:	
  OK,	
  thank	
  you.	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much.	
  We’d	
  like	
  to	
  more	
  or	
  less	
  like	
  to	
  wrap	
  up	
  this	
  part	
  by	
  10:30ish,	
  so	
  I’ll	
  ask	
  you	
  to	
  
conclude	
  your	
  very	
  well	
  pronounced	
  presentation	
  and	
  then	
  Ms.	
  Hubbard,	
  and	
  then	
  we’ll	
  have	
  some	
  questions	
  for	
  
you.	
  
	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  We’ve	
  covered	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  key	
  points	
  through	
  your	
  questions	
  and	
  observations	
  and	
  
mentioned	
  something	
  very	
  important	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  we	
  began	
  the	
  reviews	
  of	
  those	
  associates	
  and	
  now	
  members.	
  	
  
Our	
  validation	
  process	
  has	
  been	
  changed	
  dramatically.	
  Previous	
  in	
  the	
  validation	
  process,	
  there	
  was	
  a	
  interview	
  
with	
  the	
  local	
  investigative	
  staff	
  between	
  the	
  inmate	
  and	
  the	
  investigative	
  staff	
  and	
  then	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  validation	
  
and	
  approval	
  or	
  disapproval	
  of	
  the	
  investigation	
  by	
  our	
  office	
  of	
  correctional	
  safety.	
  	
  
Now,	
  major	
  change	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  investigative	
  staff	
  at	
  the	
  local	
  level	
  conduct	
  that	
  interaction	
  still.	
  Our	
  Office	
  of	
  
Correctional	
  Safety	
  in	
  headquarters	
  reviews	
  that,	
  but	
  the	
  inmate	
  before	
  his	
  validation	
  is	
  finalized	
  goes	
  to	
  a	
  security	
  
threat	
  group	
  unit	
  classification	
  committee.	
  So	
  instead	
  of	
  one	
  person	
  or	
  entity	
  reviewing	
  and	
  approving	
  the	
  
validation,	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  committee	
  process.	
  The	
  inmate	
  will	
  be	
  assigned	
  an	
  investigative	
  employee	
  that	
  serves	
  to	
  assist	
  him	
  
in	
  gathering	
  evidence	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  needed	
  to	
  support	
  or	
  not	
  support	
  the	
  validation.	
  So	
  that	
  alone	
  is	
  a	
  very	
  different	
  
part	
  of	
  our	
  new	
  policy.	
  	
  
George	
  has	
  already	
  mentioned	
  the	
  issue	
  about	
  whether	
  an	
  inmate	
  would	
  be	
  housed	
  in	
  segregation	
  or	
  not.	
  For	
  
associates,	
  it	
  would	
  only	
  be	
  if	
  they	
  have	
  additional	
  gang-­‐related	
  behavior.	
  	
  We	
  have	
  added	
  for	
  members	
  another	
  
level	
  of	
  review	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  done	
  at	
  the	
  warden’s	
  level	
  committee.	
  If	
  a	
  member	
  had	
  been	
  validated,	
  instead	
  of	
  just	
  
moving	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  another	
  level	
  of	
  review	
  would	
  be	
  done	
  by	
  the	
  warden’s	
  committee	
  and	
  
potentially	
  the	
  Departmental	
  Review	
  Board.	
  	
  
We’ve	
  talked	
  a	
  bit	
  about	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  being	
  a	
  program	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  done	
  within	
  for	
  those	
  inmates	
  that	
  
have	
  been	
  retained	
  in	
  segregation	
  or	
  would	
  later	
  be	
  placed	
  in	
  segregation	
  –	
  instead	
  of	
  a	
  six-­‐year	
  review	
  for	
  inmates	
  
previously,	
  they	
  can	
  participate	
  and	
  take	
  part	
  in	
  that	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  a	
  minimum	
  of	
  three	
  years	
  based	
  upon	
  
their	
  taking	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  program.	
  	
  
So	
  those	
  are	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  highlights	
  as	
  we	
  continue	
  in	
  the	
  new	
  policy	
  and	
  the	
  reviews	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  done.	
  	
  
We	
  have	
  also	
  increased	
  the	
  privileges	
  for	
  those	
  inmates	
  that	
  are	
  taking	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  And	
  George	
  
mentioned	
  many	
  stakeholders	
  that	
  we	
  talked	
  to	
  both	
  internal	
  and	
  external,	
  but	
  we	
  also	
  met	
  with	
  inmates,	
  both	
  
inmates	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  validated	
  for	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  years	
  that	
  were	
  within	
  our	
  secure	
  housing	
  units	
  and	
  those	
  
inmates	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  released.	
  And	
  privileges	
  and	
  their	
  conditions	
  that	
  they	
  live	
  in	
  and	
  property	
  that	
  they	
  have	
  
access	
  to	
  is	
  extremely	
  important.	
  So,	
  we	
  have	
  increased	
  the	
  amount	
  of	
  canteen	
  and	
  packages	
  and	
  phone	
  calls	
  and	
  
personal	
  photographs.	
  	
  
So,	
  those	
  are	
  major	
  changes	
  within	
  our	
  secure	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
We’ve	
  also	
  created	
  a	
  disciplinary	
  matrix.	
  The	
  inmates	
  asked	
  that	
  they	
  be	
  held	
  individually	
  accountable	
  for	
  any	
  of	
  
their	
  behavior,	
  not	
  just	
  confidential	
  information	
  used	
  or	
  some	
  other	
  low-­‐level	
  documents.	
  So	
  we	
  have	
  built	
  a	
  
process	
  for	
  a	
  disciplinary	
  to	
  be	
  issued	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  gang-­‐related	
  behavior.	
  And	
  already	
  existing	
  within	
  our	
  disciplinary	
  
system	
  is	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  due	
  process	
  both	
  for	
  a	
  staff	
  assistant	
  and	
  investigative	
  employee	
  on	
  behalf	
  of	
  an	
  inmate.	
  
Those	
  are	
  major	
  changes	
  that	
  go	
  along	
  with	
  our	
  new	
  policy.	
  
GIURBINO:	
  We	
  think	
  that	
  it’s	
  important	
  and	
  critical	
  to	
  understand	
  too	
  as	
  we	
  overlay	
  this	
  policy,	
  to	
  understand	
  
again	
  about	
  the	
  associates	
  that	
  are	
  being	
  reviewed.	
  Again,	
  we	
  started	
  with	
  3200	
  individuals,	
  and	
  based	
  on	
  our	
  new	
  
policy,	
  associates	
  won’t	
  be	
  placed	
  into	
  segregation	
  unless	
  they’ve	
  committed	
  some	
  type	
  of	
  new	
  serious	
  behavior	
  
with	
  a	
  gang	
  nexus.	
  It’s	
  good	
  to	
  know	
  that	
  of	
  that	
  3200	
  inmates,	
  80	
  percent	
  of	
  that	
  population	
  are	
  validated	
  
associates.	
  80	
  percent.	
  So	
  as	
  we	
  conduct	
  reviews,	
  that’s	
  a	
  significant	
  portion	
  of	
  those	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  within	
  a	
  
security	
  housing	
  unit	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  eligible	
  for	
  release	
  out	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  OK	
  I	
  think	
  we’ll	
  have	
  some	
  questions.	
  	
  
	
  

Assemblyman	
  Tom	
  Ammiano’s	
  Q&A	
  with	
  CDCR	
  Chief	
  Deputy	
  Administrators	
  George	
  
Giurbino	
  and	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  was	
  thinking	
  if	
  the	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  Assembly,	
  we’d	
  all	
  be	
  gang	
  members.	
  I	
  don’t	
  know	
  how	
  you	
  avoid	
  
not	
  associating.	
  [Laughter]	
  A	
  lot	
  of	
  them	
  try	
  not	
  to	
  associate	
  with	
  me	
  [laughter]	
  OK.	
  Here’s	
  what	
  we’re	
  gonna	
  do,	
  let	
  
me	
  preface	
  this	
  by	
  saying	
  the	
  scale	
  of	
  dedication	
  to	
  this	
  project	
  is	
  duly	
  noted	
  by	
  this	
  committee,	
  so	
  none	
  of	
  this	
  is	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

7

personal,	
  not	
  of	
  this	
  visciates.	
  Think	
  of	
  me	
  as	
  a	
  space	
  alien	
  ‘cuz	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  do	
  some	
  probing	
  now.	
  also	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  heads-­‐
up,	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  preface,	
  so	
  we’ll	
  try	
  to	
  keep	
  the	
  answers	
  brief	
  because	
  there’s	
  gonna	
  be	
  more,	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  meet	
  with	
  you	
  
more,	
  this	
  is	
  kind	
  of	
  	
  the	
  areas	
  we	
  might	
  do	
  some	
  work	
  on	
  together.	
  So.	
  In	
  and	
  around	
  validation,	
  and	
  then	
  the	
  step	
  
down,	
  and	
  then	
  I’m	
  gonna	
  ask	
  about	
  the	
  process	
  itself,	
  and	
  the	
  conditions	
  in	
  the	
  SHU.	
  	
  
So	
  under	
  the	
  draft	
  regulations	
  –	
  this	
  concerns	
  the	
  validation	
  –	
  aren’t	
  you	
  using	
  the	
  exact	
  same	
  kinds	
  of	
  evidence	
  or	
  
information	
  to	
  validate	
  an	
  inmate	
  as	
  you	
  did	
  under	
  the	
  old	
  rules?	
  For	
  instance,	
  books,	
  tattoos,	
  confidential	
  
informants?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Some	
  of	
  that	
  information	
  correct,	
  that	
  was	
  incorporated.	
  We	
  revised	
  some	
  of	
  that	
  information	
  on	
  
sources	
  to	
  make	
  it	
  more	
  specific	
  based	
  upon	
  recommendations	
  from	
  external	
  stakeholder	
  groups.	
  But	
  probably	
  the	
  
thing	
  that	
  becomes	
  very	
  important	
  as	
  you	
  say	
  that,	
  sir,	
  is	
  that	
  we’ve	
  separated	
  the	
  validation	
  process	
  from	
  the	
  SHU	
  
process	
  –	
  something	
  that	
  didn’t	
  exist	
  previously.	
  So	
  an	
  individual	
  validated	
  as	
  a	
  SHU	
  doesn’t	
  necessarily	
  go	
  to	
  a	
  
security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  right.	
  We’ll	
  develop	
  that	
  with	
  you.	
  And	
  then	
  I’m	
  also	
  concerned	
  about	
  the	
  vagueness	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  
source	
  items,	
  particularly	
  being	
  in	
  possession	
  of	
  someone	
  else’s	
  legal	
  documents	
  to	
  validate	
  an	
  inmate.	
  Should	
  an	
  
inmate	
  be	
  punished	
  for	
  helping	
  another	
  inmate	
  to	
  file	
  a	
  legal	
  brief	
  or	
  an	
  appeal?	
  Hypothetically?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Absolutely	
  not,	
  and	
  that’s	
  why	
  the	
  policy	
  itself	
  doesn’t	
  provide,	
  as	
  it	
  does	
  in	
  many	
  states,	
  only	
  one	
  
source	
  item	
  is	
  required	
  to	
  validate	
  an	
  individual.	
  The	
  state	
  of	
  California	
  requires	
  three	
  separate	
  source	
  items	
  and	
  
we’ve	
  incorporated	
  a	
  weighted	
  point	
  structure	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  that	
  and	
  established	
  that	
  there	
  must	
  be	
  a	
  direct	
  link	
  
with	
  an	
  active	
  individual	
  that’s	
  validated.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  right.	
  Again,	
  to	
  this	
  eye,	
  there’s	
  a	
  vagueness.	
  But	
  we	
  can	
  get	
  that	
  more	
  precise.	
  	
  
And	
  then	
  the	
  draft	
  regulations	
  are	
  supposed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  move	
  towards	
  punishing	
  behavior,	
  as	
  you’ve	
  mentioned,	
  rather	
  
than	
  mere	
  gang	
  or	
  STG	
  validation.	
  But	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  distinction	
  between	
  how	
  associates	
  and	
  members	
  are	
  placed	
  in	
  the	
  
SHU,	
  and	
  why	
  shouldn’t	
  everyone	
  with	
  the	
  same	
  behavior-­‐based	
  reason	
  to	
  be	
  placed	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  rather	
  than	
  just	
  –	
  ?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Well,	
  not	
  completely,	
  sir.	
  I	
  understand	
  your	
  question,	
  but	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  validated	
  as	
  members,	
  if	
  
you’ve	
  done	
  research	
  or	
  kind	
  of	
  done	
  information	
  relative	
  to	
  these	
  individuals,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  blood-­‐in	
  blood-­‐out	
  
philosophy	
  that’s	
  associated	
  with	
  it,	
  where	
  individuals	
  that	
  are	
  sworn	
  into	
  a	
  gang	
  as	
  a	
  member,	
  there’s	
  only	
  one	
  way	
  
to	
  come	
  back	
  out	
  of	
  that	
  gang.	
  Individuals	
  that	
  are	
  associates	
  to	
  that	
  gang	
  don’t	
  have	
  that	
  same	
  tie,	
  that	
  same	
  level.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Yeah.	
  I’ve	
  just	
  –	
  I	
  understand	
  the	
  complexity	
  here	
  and	
  I’m	
  sorry	
  I	
  wasn’t	
  clear	
  but	
  it	
  just	
  seems	
  there’s	
  a	
  
double	
  standard,	
  and	
  again,	
  we	
  can	
  explore	
  that	
  too.	
  In	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  is	
  there	
  any	
  real	
  limitation	
  
to	
  how	
  long	
  someone	
  can	
  remain	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  during	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program?	
  Is	
  there	
  anything	
  codified?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  No,	
  there’s	
  not	
  because	
  we	
  feel	
  that	
  the	
  individual	
  inmate	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  making	
  decisions	
  about	
  
whether	
  they	
  move	
  forward	
  through	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Important	
  to	
  note	
  that	
  the	
  step	
  down	
  program	
  is	
  set	
  up	
  in	
  four	
  different	
  portions.	
  Each	
  one	
  of	
  those	
  
portions,	
  although	
  it	
  has	
  12	
  months	
  within	
  that	
  step,	
  the	
  individual	
  based	
  upon	
  their	
  behavior	
  and	
  not	
  receiving	
  a	
  
Rules	
  Violation	
  Report	
  with	
  a	
  gang	
  	
  nexus	
  can	
  be	
  accelerated	
  in	
  both	
  Steps	
  1	
  and	
  2,	
  reducing	
  the	
  time	
  within	
  the	
  
Security	
  Housing	
  Unit	
  to	
  three	
  years.	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  that,	
  if	
  they	
  complete	
  that	
  first	
  portion	
  of	
  the	
  step	
  down	
  program	
  
at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  State	
  Prison	
  SHU,	
  that	
  individual	
  then	
  becomes	
  eligible	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  either	
  to	
  Tehachapi	
  or	
  
Corcoran,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  different	
  environment.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  appreciate	
  that.	
  The	
  question	
  was	
  directed	
  to	
  Ms.	
  Hubbard.	
  	
  Number	
  two,	
  the	
  self-­‐directed	
  journaling	
  
is	
  required	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program:	
  What	
  if	
  an	
  inmate	
  decides	
  not	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  the	
  journaling?	
  Would	
  that	
  be	
  
a	
  reason	
  to	
  prevent	
  the	
  inmate	
  from	
  progressing	
  to	
  the	
  next	
  step	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Eventually,	
  it	
  would	
  be,	
  yes.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  And	
  then	
  in	
  the	
  third	
  and	
  fourth	
  steps	
  of	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  there	
  is	
  some	
  programming	
  allowed	
  
for	
  the	
  inmates.	
  How	
  is	
  the	
  programming	
  administered	
  –	
  alone	
  in	
  their	
  SHU	
  cells	
  or	
  in	
  a	
  limited	
  group	
  setting?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  In	
  steps	
  three	
  and	
  four,	
  we	
  move	
  towards	
  being	
  in	
  more	
  of	
  a	
  limited	
  group	
  setting,	
  and	
  we’re	
  having	
  
very	
  good	
  successes	
  with	
  that.	
  Most	
  of	
  our	
  step	
  three	
  and	
  four	
  inmates	
  are	
  at	
  Tehachapi	
  and	
  they	
  are	
  taking	
  part	
  in	
  
small	
  group	
  settings.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  And	
  not	
  in	
  cages?	
  Not	
  like	
  they’re	
  in	
  therapy?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Therapeutic	
  modules,	
  currently,	
  yes.	
  [Jeers]	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  That	
  would	
  be	
  one	
  portion	
  of	
  it,	
  sir.	
  But	
  they’re	
  also	
  going	
  to	
  come	
  outside	
  …	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Sir,	
  All	
  right,	
  sir.	
  Sir,	
  please.	
  You’re	
  over-­‐answering	
  a	
  little	
  bit,	
  given	
  the	
  time	
  limits.	
  Believe	
  me,	
  we’ll	
  get	
  
to	
  all	
  this.	
  On	
  the	
  process,	
  even	
  though	
  the	
  draft	
  regulations	
  provide	
  additional	
  hearings	
  in	
  order	
  to	
  validate	
  an	
  
inmate,	
  is	
  there	
  any	
  independent	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  decisions	
  made	
  at	
  these	
  hearings?	
  In	
  other	
  words,	
  someone	
  outside	
  
the	
  CDCR?	
  Yes	
  or	
  no?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  No.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  What	
  avenues	
  do	
  STG	
  members	
  have	
  to	
  challenge	
  the	
  validation	
  and	
  SHU	
  placement?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  The	
  inmates	
  have	
  an	
  appeal	
  process	
  towards	
  their	
  validation	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  can	
  move	
  forward	
  for	
  three	
  
different	
  levels	
  of	
  review	
  within	
  our	
  department.	
  And	
  of	
  course,	
  if	
  not	
  pleased	
  with	
  the	
  director’s	
  level	
  decision	
  at	
  
the	
  third	
  level,	
  they	
  can	
  file	
  a	
  writ	
  to	
  contest	
  the	
  validation.	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  And	
  probably	
  just	
  as	
  important,	
  sir,	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  now	
  have	
  a	
  rules	
  violation	
  report	
  as	
  part	
  of	
  their	
  
validation	
  process	
  that	
  provides	
  a	
  more	
  elevated	
  level	
  of	
  appeal	
  as	
  well,	
  in	
  addition	
  to	
  their	
  classification	
  by	
  the	
  
classification	
  committee.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Let	
  me	
  ask	
  you	
  this,	
  George.	
  You	
  do	
  all	
  the	
  case	
  reviews	
  for	
  the	
  current	
  inmates	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  your	
  co-­‐

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

8

presenter	
  is	
  doing	
  them	
  with	
  you.	
  Do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  discretion	
  in	
  that	
  process?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Discretion,	
  yes,	
  but	
  the	
  policies	
  are	
  pretty	
  much	
  our	
  guiding	
  principles.	
  We	
  take	
  a	
  look	
  at	
  it.	
  But	
  both	
  Ms.	
  
Hubbard	
  and	
  myself	
  have	
  been	
  doing	
  those	
  reviews.	
  Yes,	
  sir.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  And	
  then	
  what	
  kind	
  of	
  surety	
  can	
  we	
  have	
  that	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  come	
  in	
  after	
  you	
  will	
  make	
  the	
  
appropriate	
  decisions	
  on	
  validation?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  I	
  think	
  what	
  becomes	
  important	
  is	
  what	
  we’re	
  doing	
  is	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  reviews	
  for	
  those	
  individuals	
  that	
  
were	
  previously	
  validated.	
  That	
  group	
  was	
  3,200.	
  Prospectively	
  moving	
  forward,	
  that	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  review	
  will	
  no	
  
longer	
  become	
  necessary.	
  The	
  review	
  itself	
  will	
  incorporate	
  three	
  additional	
  levels	
  of	
  review	
  –	
  the	
  rules	
  violation	
  
report,	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  classification,	
  and	
  an	
  institution’s	
  classification	
  committee	
  that	
  will	
  provide	
  three	
  
levels	
  of	
  review	
  plus	
  appeal	
  process	
  that	
  goes	
  along	
  with	
  that.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  right.	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much.	
  Just	
  to	
  end	
  up	
  my	
  questioning	
  just	
  briefly.	
  Conditions	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  
public	
  safety.	
  The	
  regulations	
  concerning	
  the	
  conditions	
  do	
  not	
  specify	
  how	
  many	
  non-­‐contact	
  visits	
  an	
  inmate	
  can	
  
get	
  in	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  So	
  who	
  decides	
  that?	
  	
  
And	
  then	
  on	
  public	
  safety,	
  under	
  the	
  old	
  policy,	
  there	
  were	
  concerns	
  that	
  people	
  who	
  were	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  for	
  many	
  
years	
  who	
  are	
  then	
  paroled	
  directly	
  into	
  the	
  general	
  public.	
  	
  And	
  sre	
  we	
  doing	
  anything	
  about	
  that	
  so	
  they’re	
  
allowed	
  some	
  period	
  of	
  time	
  with	
  other	
  inmates	
  before	
  just	
  direct	
  release	
  to	
  the	
  public?	
  	
  
Either	
  of	
  you	
  [answer]	
  …	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  If	
  I’m	
  understanding,	
  the	
  first	
  comment	
  was	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  new	
  regulations,	
  you	
  don’t	
  see	
  that	
  there’s	
  a	
  	
  …	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Yeah,	
  you’re	
  not	
  specifying	
  the	
  …	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Number	
  of	
  visits.	
  And	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  an	
  oversight,	
  but	
  the	
  intent	
  –	
  and	
  this	
  is	
  that	
  time	
  period	
  while	
  we’re	
  
in	
  this	
  public	
  comment	
  period	
  to	
  tighten	
  up	
  those	
  regulations	
  –	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  would	
  have	
  the,	
  	
  they	
  would	
  be	
  guided	
  
by	
  the	
  same	
  regulations	
  as	
  other	
  inmates	
  that	
  are	
  in	
  segregation	
  so	
  that	
  that’s	
  generally	
  visits	
  on	
  the	
  weekend.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  think	
  the	
  concern	
  here	
  is	
  retaliation,	
  that	
  it’s	
  not	
  used	
  in	
  a	
  retaliatory	
  manner.	
  Uh	
  …	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  I’m	
  not	
  understanding	
  that.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Well,	
  if	
  you’re	
  denied	
  visits	
  or	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  visits,	
  that	
  if	
  you	
  want	
  to	
  do	
  something	
  punitive	
  or	
  
retaliatory	
  to	
  the	
  inmate,	
  you	
  can	
  restrict	
  those.	
  And	
  we’re	
  wondering	
  in	
  this	
  process	
  how	
  does	
  one	
  prevent	
  that	
  
and	
  identify.	
  But	
  that’s	
  for	
  later.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  All	
  right.	
  We’ll	
  work	
  on	
  that.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  And	
  just	
  the	
  public	
  safety	
  in	
  general,	
  the	
  direct	
  expulsion	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  inmate	
  right	
  into	
  the	
  general	
  
public.	
  Are	
  we	
  looking	
  at	
  ways	
  to	
  buffer	
  that?	
  	
  
[Hubbard	
  nods	
  yes]	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Absolutely.	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  important	
  to	
  understand	
  within	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  that	
  we’ve	
  built	
  
elements	
  into	
  it	
  which	
  are	
  also	
  being	
  expanded	
  to	
  include	
  academic	
  testing,	
  vocational	
  CASAS	
  testing.	
  In	
  addition	
  to	
  
that,	
  it	
  provides	
  academic	
  programming	
  education	
  now	
  with	
  educational	
  facilitators	
  within	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  
facilities.	
  Also	
  the	
  inmates	
  can	
  continue	
  to	
  be	
  provided	
  with	
  college	
  class	
  programs	
  within	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  units	
  
as	
  well.	
  And	
  we’re	
  looking	
  towards	
  introducing	
  and	
  working	
  with	
  a	
  group	
  in	
  providing	
  alternatives	
  to	
  violence	
  
program,	
  which	
  is	
  an	
  interactive	
  program	
  with	
  individuals	
  of	
  diverse	
  backgrounds	
  to	
  become	
  more	
  accustomed	
  to	
  
each	
  other	
  in	
  going	
  either	
  back	
  out	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  …	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Just	
  a	
  practical	
  question.	
  What	
  if	
  your	
  time	
  is	
  up	
  and	
  you’ve	
  only	
  done	
  step	
  1?	
  Then	
  you	
  don’t	
  get	
  all	
  of	
  
the	
  “benefits”	
  et	
  cetera.	
  I	
  mean,	
  you’re	
  still	
  …	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Correct.	
  That’s	
  why	
  it’s	
  important	
  for	
  that	
  journaling	
  program	
  that	
  we	
  discussed.	
  That	
  journaling	
  
program	
  helps	
  the	
  individual	
  to	
  learn	
  about	
  their	
  behaviors	
  in	
  advance	
  of	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  parole.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Yeah,	
  but	
  I	
  don’t	
  really	
  see	
  it	
  as	
  a	
  solution	
  to	
  what	
  I’m	
  talking	
  about…	
  OK	
  Listen	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  
both,	
  and	
  Committee	
  members	
  didn’t	
  mean	
  to	
  take	
  up	
  all	
  the	
  time,	
  but	
  these	
  were	
  burning	
  questions	
  and	
  we	
  need	
  
the	
  answers.	
  Senator	
  Hancock.	
  	
  
	
  

Sen.	
  Loni	
  Hancock’s	
  Q&A	
  w/	
  CDCR	
  administrators	
  George	
  Giurbino	
  &	
  Suzan	
  Hubbard	
  
	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much.	
  First	
  of	
  all,	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  very	
  hard	
  work.	
  I	
  know	
  you	
  guys	
  have	
  

been	
  doing	
  this	
  for	
  many,	
  many	
  months.	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  it’s	
  very	
  good	
  that	
  we’re	
  giving	
  people	
  an	
  opportunity	
  to	
  be	
  
removed	
  completely	
  from	
  the	
  validated	
  list.	
  I	
  am	
  concerned	
  about	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  things	
  because	
  I	
  had	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
same	
  questions	
  as	
  Assemblyman	
  Ammiano.	
  	
  
I	
  think	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  define	
  “serious	
  behavior”	
  so	
  that	
  it	
  does	
  not	
  include	
  things	
  like	
  photos	
  and	
  drawings	
  and	
  other	
  
things	
  that	
  are	
  not	
  in	
  fact	
  behavior,	
  but	
  other	
  things.	
  
I	
  was	
  interested,	
  in	
  my	
  reading	
  of	
  this	
  about	
  the	
  point	
  system.	
  I	
  noticed	
  there	
  are	
  14	
  criteria	
  for	
  designating	
  people	
  
as	
  being	
  validated	
  or	
  in	
  opposition	
  to	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  Some	
  of	
  them	
  have	
  as	
  many	
  as	
  six	
  points	
  attached	
  to	
  
them,	
  and	
  it	
  only	
  takes	
  12	
  points	
  to	
  set	
  you	
  back	
  in	
  the	
  process.	
  That	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  very	
  difficult	
  hurdle	
  for	
  
individuals	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  in	
  isolation	
  for	
  a	
  long	
  time	
  and	
  they	
  have	
  trouble	
  planning	
  ahead	
  or	
  other	
  things.	
  Was	
  
that	
  taken	
  into	
  account?	
  	
  It	
  seemed	
  actually	
  almost	
  impossible	
  to	
  me,	
  	
  given	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  …	
  
GIURBINO:	
  I	
  think	
  –I	
  apologize.	
  I	
  think	
  what	
  the	
  policy	
  has	
  done	
  is,	
  in	
  prior	
  policy	
  all	
  it	
  took	
  was	
  one	
  activity.	
  If	
  an	
  
individual’s	
  name	
  was	
  found	
  underneath	
  an	
  inmate’s	
  pillow	
  200	
  miles	
  away,	
  that	
  would	
  bring	
  him	
  back	
  to	
  a	
  security	
  
housing	
  unit.	
  What	
  the	
  new	
  policy	
  does	
  is	
  it	
  creates	
  serious	
  behavior	
  definitions	
  where	
  it	
  would	
  take	
  two	
  due	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

9

process	
  hearings	
  where	
  an	
  individual	
  was	
  found	
  guilty	
  of	
  an	
  administrative	
  behavior	
  or	
  one	
  serious	
  one.	
  But	
  the	
  
more	
  important	
  component	
  is,	
  they	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  related	
  to	
  gang	
  activities	
  –	
  gang	
  behaviors.	
  And	
  if	
  they	
  don’t	
  have	
  
that,	
  if	
  they	
  receive	
  a	
  rules	
  violation	
  report	
  and	
  there’s	
  not	
  a	
  gang	
  nexus,	
  then	
  that	
  individual	
  stays	
  out	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  
population.	
  	
  
In	
  the	
  validation	
  component	
  you	
  mentioned	
  about	
  six	
  points	
  for	
  those	
  validation	
  source	
  items,	
  in	
  checking	
  across	
  
the	
  country,	
  we	
  found	
  states	
  that	
  used	
  one	
  item	
  worth	
  10	
  points	
  and	
  they	
  were	
  putting	
  them	
  into	
  their	
  segregation	
  
units	
  based	
  upon	
  just	
  one	
  item	
  alone.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Yeah,	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  good	
  that	
  we’re	
  not	
  using	
  one-­‐item	
  alone.	
  [laughter]	
  I	
  think	
  what	
  we’re	
  looking	
  at	
  today	
  
is	
  –	
  I	
  am	
  sure	
  it	
  is	
  better	
  -­‐-­‐Is	
  it	
  enough	
  better?	
  Okay,	
  I	
  mean,	
  we	
  could	
  say	
  Mississippi	
  did	
  away	
  with	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  so	
  why	
  aren’t	
  we	
  doing	
  that.	
  You	
  know?	
  [Applause]	
  I	
  mean,	
  we’re	
  trying	
  to	
  –	
  no,	
  no,	
  no,	
  actually	
  we	
  
don’t	
  allow	
  that	
  and	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  have	
  to	
  clear	
  the	
  chamber	
  if	
  it	
  happens,	
  so	
  please	
  don’t	
  do	
  that.	
  So	
  I’m,	
  I	
  really	
  
feel	
  the	
  need	
  for	
  a	
  conversation	
  about	
  how	
  this	
  does	
  not	
  become	
  an	
  impossible	
  hurdle,	
  and,	
  because	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  
things	
  are	
  fairly	
  technical	
  –	
  the	
  12,	
  the	
  14	
  different	
  ways	
  a	
  person	
  could	
  be	
  sent	
  back.	
  	
  Now,	
  if	
  they	
  are,	
  let’s	
  say,	
  on	
  
step	
  4,	
  and	
  they	
  achieved	
  12	
  points	
  or	
  something,	
  do	
  they	
  get	
  sent	
  back	
  to	
  step	
  1?	
  Do	
  they	
  stay	
  in	
  step	
  4	
  longer?	
  
What	
  happens?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Perhaps	
  on	
  the	
  point	
  issue,	
  we	
  refer	
  to	
  those	
  as	
  source	
  items	
  that	
  have	
  a	
  different	
  point	
  value.	
  And	
  
we’re	
  looking	
  at	
  those	
  items	
  more	
  at	
  offender’s	
  initial	
  –	
  when	
  they’re	
  first	
  validated.	
  So	
  the	
  way	
  we	
  gave	
  different	
  
point	
  value	
  was,	
  such	
  as	
  probation	
  officer’s	
  report,	
  that	
  there	
  would	
  be	
  information	
  within	
  a	
  probation	
  officer’s	
  
report,	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  sentencing,	
  that	
  may	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  gangs.	
  And	
  if	
  we	
  use	
  that,	
  then	
  we	
  felt	
  that	
  the	
  inmate	
  out	
  in	
  
community	
  court	
  –	
  in	
  superior	
  court	
  –	
  had	
  had	
  an	
  attorney	
  and	
  had	
  been	
  able	
  to	
  contest	
  that	
  information	
  in	
  the	
  
probation	
  officer’s	
  report.	
  So	
  we	
  felt	
  that	
  if	
  information	
  was	
  in	
  that	
  probation	
  officer’s	
  report,	
  we	
  gave	
  it	
  a	
  higher	
  
value.	
  So	
  there	
  were	
  different	
  point	
  items	
  given	
  towards	
  initial	
  validation.	
  Once	
  an	
  inmate	
  is	
  initially	
  validated	
  as	
  an	
  
associate	
  or	
  a	
  member,	
  he	
  or	
  she	
  may	
  change	
  their	
  level	
  of	
  membership	
  within	
  the	
  gang,	
  but	
  they’re	
  validated	
  other	
  
than	
  the	
  new	
  process	
  that	
  we’ve	
  developed.	
  	
  
Separate	
  is,	
  inmates	
  if	
  they	
  are	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  and	
  some	
  new	
  offense	
  comes	
  up,	
  it’s	
  not	
  so	
  much	
  that	
  
we’re	
  going	
  to	
  give	
  new	
  points	
  or	
  new	
  source	
  items	
  towards	
  validation,	
  because	
  they’re	
  already	
  validated.	
  We’re	
  
going	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  what	
  that	
  behavior	
  is	
  and	
  is	
  it	
  gang-­‐related	
  or	
  not	
  or	
  STG-­‐related,	
  and	
  we	
  have	
  that	
  disciplinary	
  
matrix	
  which	
  defines	
  what	
  is	
  gang-­‐related	
  behavior.	
  So	
  an	
  inmate	
  might	
  receive	
  a	
  115,	
  and	
  if	
  it	
  were	
  a	
  gang-­‐related	
  
behavior,	
  that	
  is	
  where	
  going	
  through	
  his	
  or	
  her	
  hearing	
  with	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  due	
  process,	
  the	
  conclusion	
  of	
  –	
  if	
  he	
  were	
  
found	
  guilty	
  -­‐-­‐then	
  a	
  classification	
  committee	
  within	
  the	
  secure	
  housing	
  unit	
  would	
  	
  determine	
  based	
  upon	
  the	
  
serious	
  –	
  would	
  he	
  move	
  from	
  step	
  4,	
  would	
  he	
  move	
  to	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  step	
  4.	
  He	
  might	
  not	
  move	
  at	
  all.	
  Or	
  
depending	
  upon	
  the	
  seriousness	
  of	
  the	
  offense,	
  such	
  as	
  we	
  have	
  –	
  if	
  it	
  were	
  a	
  stabbing	
  assault	
  or	
  something	
  at	
  that	
  
extreme	
  of	
  seriousness	
  -­‐-­‐	
  yes	
  the	
  inmate	
  could	
  be	
  moved	
  from	
  step	
  4	
  all	
  the	
  way	
  back	
  to	
  step	
  1,	
  again,	
  if	
  that	
  were	
  a	
  
gang-­‐related	
  offense.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  we	
  all	
  understand	
  that	
  if	
  somebody	
  assaults	
  somebody,	
  we’re	
  dealing	
  with	
  a	
  different	
  thing.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Yes.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  You	
  know,	
  because	
  here	
  I	
  notice	
  that	
  informants	
  and	
  other	
  things	
  are	
  given	
  points	
  in	
  the	
  initial	
  
valuation.	
  So	
  it	
  seems	
  like	
  we	
  haven’t	
  stopped	
  the	
  business	
  of	
  indicating	
  that	
  people	
  need	
  to	
  name	
  other	
  people	
  in	
  
order	
  to	
  be	
  considered	
  …	
  
HUBBARD:	
  We	
  continue	
  to	
  use	
  confidential	
  information	
  within	
  our	
  new	
  policy.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Do	
  you	
  see	
  personally	
  any	
  problem	
  with	
  using	
  informant	
  information	
  when	
  it	
  could	
  so	
  easily	
  be	
  a	
  trade-­‐
off	
  for	
  getting	
  out	
  yourself	
  to	
  name	
  other	
  people?	
  I	
  mean,	
  that	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  to	
  be	
  having	
  been	
  documented	
  in	
  a	
  
variety	
  of	
  studies	
  that	
  informant	
  information	
  is	
  intrinsically	
  untrustworthy.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  George	
  and	
  I	
  before	
  we	
  began	
  this	
  project,	
  we	
  had	
  done	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  classification	
  reviews	
  over	
  the	
  
years.	
  But	
  in	
  focused	
  on	
  this	
  project	
  for	
  the	
  past	
  18	
  months,	
  Senator,	
  we	
  have	
  learned	
  a	
  tremendous	
  amount.	
  So,	
  of	
  
course,	
  at	
  one	
  hand	
  there	
  may	
  always	
  be	
  a	
  concern	
  about	
  the	
  reliability	
  of	
  that	
  information.	
  But	
  in	
  conducting	
  our	
  
reviews	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  done,	
  more	
  than	
  600	
  cases,	
  we’re	
  looking	
  at	
  information	
  for	
  the	
  past	
  four	
  years,	
  and	
  we	
  are	
  
sharing	
  in	
  great	
  detail	
  that	
  confidential	
  information	
  with	
  the	
  inmates	
  that	
  we	
  are	
  seeing.	
  Greater	
  detail	
  than	
  they	
  
have	
  ever	
  been	
  given	
  before.	
  And	
  in	
  many,	
  many	
  cases,	
  the	
  inmates,	
  are	
  atoning	
  or	
  agreeing	
  that	
  yes	
  they	
  were	
  
taking	
  part	
  in	
  that	
  information	
  –	
  “That	
  letter	
  that	
  you	
  have,	
  Ms.	
  Hubbard.	
  Yes,	
  that	
  is	
  my	
  handwriting.”	
  	
  
At	
  the	
  other	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  scale,	
  we	
  during	
  our	
  reviews	
  have	
  proven	
  that	
  information	
  was	
  inaccurate.	
  We	
  may	
  have	
  had	
  
a	
  wrong	
  nickname	
  or	
  a	
  wrong	
  street	
  gang	
  that	
  an	
  inmate	
  had	
  grown	
  up	
  in,	
  and	
  we	
  are	
  moving	
  to	
  correct	
  that	
  
information	
  either	
  through	
  deleting	
  the	
  validation;	
  we	
  have	
  been	
  part	
  of	
  totally	
  doing	
  away	
  of	
  validations	
  of	
  
offenders	
  because	
  of	
  errors	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  found,	
  or	
  considering	
  the	
  information	
  and	
  moving	
  the	
  inmate	
  to	
  the	
  
general	
  population	
  because	
  the	
  information	
  was	
  so	
  old	
  and	
  so	
  dated.	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  	
  But	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  also	
  important	
  to	
  realize,	
  Senator,	
  that	
  you	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  to	
  debrief,	
  you	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  to	
  
give	
  confidential	
  information	
  to	
  move	
  through	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  This	
  is	
  a	
  whole	
  new	
  process.	
  The	
  debrief	
  
process	
  is	
  there	
  because	
  there	
  are	
  some	
  inmates	
  that	
  want	
  to	
  exercise	
  it.	
  The	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  doesn’t	
  require	
  
anybody	
  to	
  provide	
  any	
  information	
  at	
  all.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Okay.	
  Let	
  me	
  say	
  I	
  appreciate	
  very	
  much	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  the	
  last	
  time	
  I	
  looked	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  reviews	
  you	
  
have	
  conducted	
  sent	
  62%	
  	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  general	
  population,	
  indicating	
  that	
  perhaps	
  they	
  did	
  not	
  need	
  to	
  
be	
  in	
  SHU	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  With	
  the	
  new	
  criteria,	
  they	
  no	
  longer	
  met	
  the	
  criteria	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  SHU.	
  	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

10

HANCOCK:	
  I’m	
  wondering	
  is	
  there	
  any	
  re-­‐socialization	
  programming	
  that	
  goes	
  on?	
  Because	
  if	
  a	
  person	
  under	
  the	
  
new	
  criteria	
  doesn’t	
  fit	
  but	
  if	
  they’ve	
  been	
  in	
  isolation	
  for	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  years	
  …	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Yes,	
  that’s	
  a	
  concern	
  of	
  ours	
  too	
  and	
  also	
  in	
  talking	
  to	
  inmates	
  that	
  we’ve	
  done	
  reviews	
  on.	
  So	
  first	
  thing	
  
that	
  we’ve	
  done	
  –	
  and	
  it’s	
  just	
  a	
  beginning	
  –	
  is	
  that	
  we	
  ensure	
  that	
  mental	
  health	
  staff	
  at	
  the	
  new	
  facility	
  or	
  the	
  
facility	
  that	
  they’re	
  being	
  released	
  at	
  are	
  meeting	
  with	
  the	
  inmate.	
  We	
  also	
  in	
  part	
  of	
  our	
  reviews,	
  we	
  have	
  gone	
  and	
  
met	
  –	
  we	
  have	
  gone	
  to	
  institutions	
  where	
  inmates	
  have	
  been	
  released	
  and	
  met	
  with	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  inmates	
  to	
  see	
  what	
  
we	
  could	
  have	
  done	
  to	
  better	
  prepare	
  them	
  to	
  return	
  from	
  a	
  segregation	
  setting	
  to	
  a	
  general	
  population,	
  and	
  they’ve	
  
given	
  us	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  very,	
  very	
  good	
  ideas	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  they	
  could	
  help	
  integrate	
  better	
  within	
  that	
  general	
  
population.	
  So	
  that’s	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  development	
  of	
  our	
  program	
  right	
  now.	
  Very	
  important.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Good.	
  Thank	
  you.	
  And	
  I	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  following	
  that.	
  It	
  is	
  now	
  10:30	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  move	
  on.	
  
But	
  There	
  are	
  some	
  information	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  ask	
  you	
  for	
  and	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  why.	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  know	
  the	
  
education	
  level	
  and	
  the	
  training	
  of	
  the	
  correctional	
  officers	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  investigative	
  units.	
  And	
  also	
  the	
  
number	
  of	
  times	
  –	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  third	
  level	
  director’s	
  reviews	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  requested	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  outcome	
  of	
  
those	
  reviews	
  was?	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Reviews	
  of	
  validations	
  or	
  what?	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Well,	
  you	
  said	
  that,	
  you	
  know,	
  if	
  the	
  committee	
  reviews	
  and	
  you	
  get	
  validated,	
  and	
  then	
  in	
  the	
  end	
  it	
  can	
  
go	
  to	
  the	
  third	
  level	
  director.	
  I’m	
  not	
  actually	
  sure	
  who	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  –	
  if	
  that’s	
  the	
  secretary,	
  if	
  it’s	
  the	
  warden,	
  if	
  it’s	
  
somebody	
  else.	
  But	
  who	
  it	
  is	
  and	
  how	
  many	
  times	
  the	
  decision	
  has	
  changed	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  that?	
  	
  
I	
  will	
  tell	
  you	
  I’m	
  very	
  concerned	
  about	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  outside	
  personnel	
  involved	
  at	
  all	
  and	
  especially	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
someone	
  outside	
  the	
  institution	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  advocate	
  or	
  a	
  helper	
  for	
  the	
  inmate.	
  And	
  also,	
  my	
  reading	
  of	
  the	
  policy	
  was	
  
that	
  people	
  are	
  still	
  only	
  allowed	
  things	
  like	
  one	
  photograph	
  or	
  one	
  phone	
  call	
  during	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  period?	
  Okay,	
  
well,	
  I’m	
  glad	
  to	
  be	
  wrong	
  and	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  ask	
  you	
  to	
  point	
  that	
  out	
  to	
  me	
  or	
  think	
  about	
  ways	
  it	
  could	
  change	
  if	
  I’m	
  
accurate	
  about	
  that.	
  It’s	
  a,	
  as	
  you	
  know,	
  a	
  fairly	
  long	
  and	
  complicated	
  document.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  Yes,	
  yes.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Finally,	
  what	
  I	
  really	
  am	
  interested	
  in	
  is	
  this	
  great	
  emphasis	
  on	
  gang	
  affiliation	
  and	
  membership.	
  We’ve	
  
been	
  doing	
  this	
  in	
  California	
  for	
  many	
  years.	
  I’m	
  still	
  told	
  that	
  gangs	
  are	
  the	
  reason	
  that	
  nothing	
  can	
  change	
  in	
  CDCR.	
  
Do	
  you	
  think	
  this	
  …	
  	
  our	
  SHU	
  policy	
  has	
  been	
  effective?	
  	
  
GIURBINO:	
  Are	
  you	
  referring	
  to	
  the	
  pre-­‐existing	
  SHU	
  policy	
  for	
  gang	
  affiliates	
  [laughter]	
  or	
  are	
  you	
  talking	
  about	
  
the	
  submitted	
  policy?	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Okay.	
  Let’s	
  say	
  the	
  pre-­‐existing	
  policy.	
  Because	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  what	
  we’ve	
  set	
  up	
  here	
  is	
  something	
  
that’s	
  more	
  complicated	
  than	
  the	
  existing	
  policy.	
  It	
  changes	
  some	
  names.	
  Security	
  threat	
  group	
  and	
  street	
  gangs	
  and	
  
prison	
  gangs.	
  It’s	
  gotten	
  more	
  subdivisions.	
  I	
  am	
  not	
  sure	
  it	
  changes	
  the	
  general	
  thrust	
  of	
  what’s	
  happening,	
  and	
  I	
  
don’t	
  know	
  if	
  we	
  might	
  not	
  need	
  something	
  stronger.	
  That’s	
  why	
  I	
  asked	
  if	
  you	
  thought	
  that	
  this	
  general	
  approach	
  
had	
  been	
  useful	
  in	
  stopping	
  or	
  containing	
  gang	
  activity.	
  	
  
HUBBARD:	
  It	
  served	
  its	
  purpose	
  at	
  the	
  time.	
  I	
  consider	
  that	
  while	
  I	
  was	
  an	
  adult	
  as	
  I	
  joined	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  
Corrections,	
  I	
  spent	
  my	
  first	
  10	
  years	
  at	
  San	
  Quentin,	
  which	
  was	
  a	
  very	
  violent	
  time,	
  and	
  I	
  worked	
  within	
  what	
  was	
  
known	
  then	
  as	
  the	
  management	
  control	
  unit,	
  and	
  that	
  is	
  how	
  in	
  1980s	
  that	
  we	
  managed	
  our	
  gang	
  population.	
  With	
  
new	
  design	
  of	
  prisons,	
  we	
  came	
  to	
  have	
  a	
  new	
  policy.	
  So	
  it	
  served	
  its	
  purpose	
  at	
  the	
  time.	
  	
  
	
  
But	
  we,	
  through	
  these	
  changes	
  and	
  recommendations,	
  we	
  think	
  that	
  there’s	
  farther	
  to	
  go	
  and	
  consideration	
  to	
  be	
  
given	
  to	
  for	
  credit-­‐earning	
  status.	
  That	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  Penal	
  Code	
  change.	
  For	
  us,	
  our	
  recommendation	
  would	
  be	
  within	
  
those	
  steps	
  3	
  and	
  4,	
  as	
  those	
  inmates	
  are	
  really	
  beginning	
  to	
  interact	
  with	
  others,	
  that	
  there	
  should	
  be	
  some	
  
consideration	
  for	
  credit-­‐earning	
  status.	
  Many,	
  many	
  people	
  think	
  that	
  it’s	
  only	
  lifers	
  that	
  are	
  within	
  our	
  secure	
  
housing	
  units,	
  but	
  that	
  is	
  not	
  accurate,	
  and	
  many,	
  many	
  inmates	
  –	
  that	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  very	
  first	
  questions	
  of	
  a	
  young	
  
man	
  I	
  saw	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  when	
  we	
  began	
  our	
  reviews	
  was	
  the	
  credit	
  earning	
  status.	
  So	
  we	
  would	
  seek	
  your	
  support	
  
in	
  credit	
  earning	
  status	
  penal	
  code	
  change	
  and	
  our	
  recommendation	
  would	
  be	
  within	
  steps	
  3	
  and	
  4	
  for	
  our	
  step-­‐
down	
  program.	
  So	
  there’s	
  many	
  opportunities	
  for	
  furtherance.	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  working	
  with	
  you	
  on	
  those	
  and	
  we’ll	
  definitely	
  continue	
  the	
  discussion.	
  Thank	
  you	
  
both	
  very	
  very	
  much,	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  move	
  on	
  to	
  our	
  second	
  panel.	
  And	
  we’re	
  asking	
  you	
  to	
  stay	
  and	
  perhaps	
  
comment	
  at	
  the	
  end.	
  I	
  do	
  want	
  to	
  say	
  to	
  the	
  audience,	
  please	
  don’t	
  respond	
  to	
  things,	
  clap	
  or	
  make	
  noise.	
  We	
  respect	
  
and	
  appreciate	
  your	
  attendance	
  so	
  much,	
  but	
  this	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  rally,	
  and	
  disruption	
  actually	
  hurts	
  our	
  efforts	
  to	
  move	
  
forward	
  on	
  these	
  issues.	
  So	
  please,	
  we	
  just	
  need	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  listen	
  to	
  the	
  testimony,	
  and	
  Assemblyman	
  
Ammiano	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  many	
  many	
  questions	
  to	
  ask.	
  So	
  we	
  have	
  two	
  –	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  continuing	
  national	
  dialogue,	
  a	
  
discussion	
  of	
  state	
  and	
  federal	
  policies,	
  when	
  and	
  indeed	
  if	
  segregation	
  and	
  isolation	
  are	
  effective	
  prison	
  	
  
management	
  techniques.	
  
We	
  have	
  with	
  with	
  us	
  today	
  Hope	
  Metcalf,	
  a	
  research	
  scholar	
  in	
  law	
  at	
  Yale	
  Law	
  School,	
  and	
  Professor	
  Craig	
  Haney,	
  
professor	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  at	
  Santa	
  Cruz.	
  Thank	
  you	
  both	
  for	
  being	
  here,	
  and	
  welcome	
  to	
  the	
  
committee.	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  Dr.	
  Craig	
  Haney,	
  Professor	
  at	
  UC	
  Santa	
  Cruz	
  
	
  
Sen.	
  Hancock,	
  Assemblyman	
  Ammiano,	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  public	
  safety	
  committee,	
  my	
  name	
  is	
  Craig	
  Haney.	
  I’m	
  a	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

11

professor	
  of	
  psychology,	
  director	
  of	
  the	
  legal	
  studies	
  program	
  at	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  California	
  Santa	
  Cruz.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  
thank	
  you	
  for	
  this	
  opportunity	
  to	
  address	
  you	
  and	
  also	
  to	
  thank	
  your	
  staffs	
  for	
  working	
  so	
  hard	
  to	
  organize	
  this	
  
important	
  hearing.	
  I’ve	
  been	
  studying	
  the	
  effects	
  –	
  the	
  psychological	
  effects	
  -­‐-­‐	
  of	
  imprisonment	
  since	
  1971	
  when	
  
Philip	
  Zimbardo	
  and	
  Curtis	
  Banks	
  and	
  I	
  put	
  a	
  group	
  of	
  volunteer	
  college	
  students	
  in	
  a	
  simulated	
  prison	
  
environment,	
  randomly	
  assigned	
  some	
  to	
  be	
  prisoners	
  and	
  others	
  to	
  be	
  guards,	
  and	
  watched	
  with	
  shock	
  and	
  dismay	
  
at	
  how	
  badly	
  they	
  were	
  affected	
  after	
  six	
  short	
  days	
  in	
  what	
  came	
  to	
  be	
  known	
  as	
  the	
  Stanford	
  Prison	
  Experiment.	
  	
  
I’ve	
  been	
  studying	
  real	
  and	
  much	
  more	
  powerful	
  prisons	
  ever	
  since,	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  last	
  several	
  decades,	
  much	
  of	
  my	
  
research	
  has	
  focused	
  on	
  conditions	
  of	
  confinement	
  in	
  isolated,	
  solitary	
  or	
  supermax	
  type	
  prisons.	
  (47m)	
  
My	
  research	
  has	
  taken	
  me	
  all	
  over	
  the	
  country,	
  to	
  dozens	
  of	
  isolation	
  units,	
  prison	
  systems	
  in	
  many	
  states	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
the	
  federal	
  bureau	
  of	
  prisons	
  –	
  places	
  where	
  I’ve	
  conducted	
  interviews	
  with	
  prison	
  staff	
  members	
  and	
  officials	
  and	
  
by	
  now	
  also	
  have	
  interviewed	
  in	
  the	
  neighborhood	
  of	
  thousands	
  of	
  prisoners	
  living	
  in	
  some	
  form	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  while	
  attempting	
  to	
  understand	
  how	
  these	
  places	
  work,	
  the	
  unique	
  mentality	
  that	
  is	
  created	
  and	
  
operates	
  on	
  both	
  sides	
  of	
  the	
  bars	
  inside,	
  and	
  how	
  prisoners	
  are	
  psychologically	
  changed	
  and	
  affected	
  by	
  the	
  
isolation	
  and	
  deprivation	
  to	
  which	
  they’re	
  subjected	
  there.	
  	
  
Because	
  I	
  live	
  and	
  work	
  in	
  California,	
  much	
  of	
  my	
  work	
  on	
  these	
  issues	
  has	
  been	
  concentrated	
  on	
  prisons	
  in	
  our	
  
state,	
  including	
  the	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  Security	
  Housing	
  Unit,	
  and	
  I’ve	
  testified	
  as	
  an	
  expert	
  witness	
  in	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  major	
  
prison	
  conditions	
  lawsuits	
  that	
  have	
  occurred	
  in	
  California,	
  including	
  Toussaint	
  v.	
  McCarthy,	
  which	
  looked	
  at	
  lock-­‐
up	
  units	
  in	
  the	
  1980s;	
  Madrid	
  v.	
  Gomez,	
  when	
  Judge	
  Henderson	
  shown	
  a	
  light	
  on	
  conditions	
  inside	
  Pelican	
  Bay;	
  and	
  
Brown	
  v.	
  Plata,	
  which	
  addressed	
  unconstitutionally	
  severe	
  conditions	
  of	
  overcrowded	
  confinement.	
  	
  
These	
  and	
  other	
  cases	
  –	
  especially	
  the	
  Plata	
  -­‐-­‐	
  ordered	
  reduction	
  in	
  overcrowding	
  and	
  the	
  historic	
  legislative	
  
realignment	
  that’s	
  followed	
  –	
  have	
  given	
  us	
  –	
  you	
  [legislators]–	
  the	
  unique	
  opportunity	
  to	
  get	
  our	
  prison	
  house	
  in	
  
order	
  in	
  California.	
  Other	
  problematic	
  aspects	
  of	
  the	
  prison	
  system	
  that	
  severe	
  overcrowding	
  not	
  only	
  helped	
  to	
  
cause	
  but	
  also	
  simultaneously	
  made	
  impossible	
  to	
  meaningfully	
  address,	
  are	
  now	
  within	
  our	
  grasp	
  to	
  identify	
  and	
  
hopefully	
  to	
  solve.	
  	
  
Prison	
  isolation	
  policy	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  them.	
  	
  
I	
  want	
  to	
  begin	
  with	
  the	
  observation	
  that	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  is	
  an	
  outlier	
  in	
  the	
  extent	
  to	
  which	
  it	
  isolates	
  its	
  
prisoners,	
  and	
  within	
  the	
  United	
  States,	
  California	
  is	
  an	
  outlier	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  its	
  extreme	
  isolation	
  policies	
  and	
  
practices.	
  The	
  sheer	
  numbers	
  of	
  prisoners	
  that	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  holds	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement,	
  and	
  the	
  
extraordinary	
  lengths	
  of	
  time	
  that	
  we	
  keep	
  them	
  there,	
  are	
  shocking	
  and	
  unprecedented	
  by	
  international	
  standards.	
  	
  
One	
  can	
  debate	
  -­‐-­‐	
  and	
  we	
  probably	
  should	
  at	
  some	
  point	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  debate	
  -­‐-­‐	
  whether	
  long-­‐term	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  constitutes	
  torture.	
  But	
  that	
  debate	
  has	
  long	
  since	
  been	
  settled	
  in	
  the	
  international	
  human	
  rights	
  
community.	
  	
  
Juan	
  Mendez,	
  the	
  United	
  [Nations]	
  Special	
  Rapporteur	
  on	
  Torture,	
  has	
  labeled	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  lasting	
  for	
  
longer	
  than	
  15	
  days	
  as	
  “prolonged	
  solitary	
  confinement”	
  and	
  called	
  for	
  its	
  abolition.	
  Numerous	
  other	
  international	
  
human	
  rights	
  organizations	
  have	
  echoed	
  his	
  sentiments.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  question	
  that	
  measured	
  by	
  these	
  standards,	
  the	
  
United	
  States	
  is	
  wildly	
  and	
  unsettlingly	
  out	
  of	
  sync	
  with	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  world	
  on	
  this	
  issue.	
  	
  
But	
  within	
  our	
  already	
  out	
  of	
  sync	
  U.S.	
  context,	
  California	
  is	
  itself	
  an	
  outlier.	
  There	
  is	
  simply	
  no	
  other	
  prison	
  system	
  
in	
  the	
  country	
  that	
  I	
  know	
  of	
  that	
  places	
  so	
  many	
  prisoners	
  in	
  isolation,	
  and	
  no	
  other	
  state	
  that	
  places	
  them	
  
remotely	
  for	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  we	
  do.	
  To	
  give	
  you	
  just	
  one	
  benchmark	
  –	
  and	
  it’s	
  difficult	
  not	
  to	
  compare	
  apples	
  with	
  
oranges	
  –	
  the	
  federal	
  supermax	
  prison,	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  ADX	
  in	
  Florence,	
  Colorado,	
  which	
  serves	
  as	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  the	
  line	
  
for	
  the	
  entire	
  Federal	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Prisons,	
  or	
  BOP,	
  houses	
  approximately	
  400	
  prisoners.	
  That	
  is	
  less	
  than	
  half	
  the	
  
population	
  of	
  the	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  SHU.	
  Yet,	
  there	
  are	
  well	
  over	
  200,000	
  federal	
  prisoners	
  –	
  almost	
  twice	
  the	
  number	
  
that	
  we	
  have	
  in	
  California.	
  Moreover,	
  notwithstanding	
  this	
  much	
  more	
  favorable	
  ratio,	
  the	
  BOP	
  last	
  year	
  was	
  the	
  
focus	
  of	
  a	
  critical	
  Government	
  Accountability	
  Office	
  report	
  –	
  one	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  were	
  told	
  to	
  “consider	
  lessons	
  
learned	
  from	
  some	
  state	
  initiatives	
  that	
  reduce	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  inmates	
  held	
  in	
  segregation	
  without	
  significant	
  
adverse	
  impacts	
  on	
  violence	
  or	
  assault	
  rates.”	
  	
  
As	
  I	
  say,	
  California	
  is	
  an	
  outlier	
  by	
  any	
  measure,	
  even	
  measured	
  against	
  the	
  prison	
  system	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  cited	
  for	
  its	
  
apparent	
  overuse	
  of	
  isolated	
  or	
  restricted	
  housing.	
  With	
  these	
  things	
  in	
  mind,	
  whatever	
  reforms	
  are	
  being	
  proposed	
  
and	
  implemented	
  in	
  California	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  prison	
  isolation	
  must	
  be	
  judged	
  in	
  light	
  of	
  how	
  far	
  back	
  we	
  are	
  
compared	
  to	
  the	
  rest	
  of	
  the	
  country	
  and	
  the	
  world.	
  	
  
A	
  little	
  bit	
  of	
  slowly	
  implemented	
  reform	
  is	
  frankly	
  not	
  going	
  to	
  make	
  much	
  of	
  a	
  difference.	
  	
  
I’m	
  sure	
  it	
  will	
  come	
  as	
  no	
  surprise	
  to	
  any	
  of	
  you	
  if	
  I	
  say	
  that	
  we	
  know	
  that	
  long-­‐term	
  isolation	
  can	
  have	
  terrible	
  
consequences	
  for	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  persons	
  subjected	
  to	
  it.	
  This	
  borders	
  on	
  common	
  sense.	
  It	
  is	
  why	
  harsh	
  prison	
  
systems	
  and	
  torture	
  regimes	
  alike	
  regularly	
  and	
  routinely	
  resort	
  to	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  as	
  severe	
  punishment	
  and	
  
why	
  none	
  of	
  us	
  would	
  tolerate	
  having	
  a	
  loved	
  one,	
  a	
  child,	
  or	
  a	
  parent	
  locked	
  alone	
  in	
  a	
  closet-­‐like	
  space	
  for	
  days	
  or	
  
weeks,	
  let	
  alone	
  years	
  or	
  decades.	
  	
  
In	
  our	
  studies	
  of	
  prisoners	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  elsewhere,	
  we	
  have	
  documented	
  the	
  multiple	
  ways	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  
suffer	
  and	
  are	
  changed	
  by	
  this	
  experience.	
  The	
  list	
  of	
  symptoms	
  is	
  far	
  too	
  long	
  for	
  me	
  to	
  recite	
  or	
  explain	
  in	
  detail	
  in	
  
the	
  short	
  time	
  available,	
  but	
  to	
  briefly	
  summarize:	
  prisoners	
  in	
  isolation	
  suffer	
  chronic	
  and	
  overwhelming	
  feelings	
  
of	
  sadness,	
  hopelessness,	
  and	
  depression.	
  Many	
  SHU	
  inmates	
  become	
  deeply	
  and	
  unshakably	
  paranoid	
  and	
  are	
  
profoundly	
  anxious	
  around	
  and	
  afraid	
  of	
  people	
  on	
  those	
  rare	
  occasions	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  allowed	
  any	
  contact	
  with	
  
them.	
  Some	
  begin	
  to	
  lose	
  their	
  grasp	
  on	
  sanity	
  and	
  many	
  others	
  report	
  struggling	
  with	
  this	
  on	
  a	
  daily	
  basis.	
  Many	
  
prisoners	
  are	
  certain	
  that	
  they	
  will	
  never	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  live	
  normally	
  among	
  people	
  again	
  and	
  are	
  consumed	
  by	
  this	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

12

fear.	
  Too	
  many	
  do	
  actually	
  deteriorate	
  mentally	
  and	
  emotionally	
  and	
  their	
  capacity	
  to	
  function	
  as	
  remotely	
  effective	
  
feeling	
  social	
  beings	
  atrophies.	
  	
  
We	
  knew	
  these	
  facts	
  and	
  I	
  testified	
  to	
  many	
  of	
  them	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  the	
  Madrid	
  case	
  was	
  decided	
  in	
  1995,	
  the	
  last	
  time	
  a	
  
very	
  bright	
  light,	
  public	
  light,	
  was	
  really	
  shined	
  on	
  policies	
  and	
  practices	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  notwithstanding	
  the	
  current	
  
hearings	
  which	
  have	
  taken	
  place.	
  	
  
But	
  two	
  things	
  have	
  changed	
  since	
  then	
  to	
  make	
  these	
  concerns	
  more	
  grave.	
  For	
  one,	
  we	
  now	
  know	
  from	
  extensive	
  
research	
  from	
  other	
  context	
  that	
  social	
  isolation,	
  loneliness,	
  and	
  social	
  exclusion,	
  which	
  prisoners	
  in	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  experience	
  in	
  abundance,	
  are	
  not	
  just	
  painful	
  but	
  can,	
  as	
  one	
  social	
  science	
  writer	
  recently	
  put	
  it,	
  
“ravage	
  the	
  body	
  and	
  the	
  brain.”	
  Another	
  prominent	
  scientific	
  review	
  put	
  it	
  more	
  judiciously,	
  noting	
  that	
  “social	
  
neuroscience	
  has	
  witnessed	
  an	
  incredible	
  rise	
  in	
  the	
  number	
  of	
  studies	
  demonstrating	
  the	
  effects	
  of	
  perceived	
  
isolation	
  on	
  mental	
  and	
  physical	
  health.”	
  However	
  you	
  express	
  it,	
  we	
  now	
  know	
  that	
  prolonged	
  social	
  deprivation	
  
has	
  the	
  capacity	
  to	
  literally	
  change	
  who	
  we	
  are	
  physically	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  mentally.	
  	
  
The	
  second	
  significant	
  change	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  deprived	
  and	
  punishing	
  environment	
  that	
  was	
  created	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay,	
  
which	
  was	
  originally	
  intended	
  for	
  no	
  more	
  than	
  a	
  short-­‐term	
  stay	
  of	
  a	
  few	
  years	
  at	
  most,	
  has	
  morphed	
  into	
  
something	
  very	
  different	
  and	
  far	
  more	
  dangerous.	
  In	
  a	
  turn	
  of	
  events	
  that	
  would	
  have	
  been	
  regarded	
  as	
  unthinkable	
  
at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  Madrid,	
  in	
  1995,	
  some	
  of	
  stark	
  and	
  barren	
  place	
  in	
  the	
  late	
  1980s	
  are	
  still	
  there,	
  never	
  having	
  left.	
  	
  
Nearly	
  100	
  have	
  been	
  there,	
  as	
  you	
  know,	
  for	
  20	
  years;	
  over	
  500	
  for	
  10	
  years	
  or	
  more.	
  In	
  the	
  hearing	
  that	
  	
  
Assembylman	
  Ammiano	
  ..	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Professor	
  Haney?	
  You	
  know,	
  we	
  heard	
  at	
  our	
  last	
  hearing	
  how	
  detrimental	
  isolation	
  can	
  be	
  for	
  people	
  
and	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  issues	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay.	
  We’re	
  hoping	
  that	
  you	
  can	
  help	
  us	
  a	
  little	
  bit	
  with	
  what	
  you	
  think	
  should	
  
change	
  in	
  this	
  policy	
  based	
  on	
  maybe	
  what’s	
  done	
  in	
  other	
  places	
  and	
  any	
  examples	
  of	
  that	
  that	
  you	
  might	
  have.	
  	
  
HANEY:	
  There	
  are	
  two	
  interrelated	
  things	
  that	
  make	
  the	
  already-­‐destructive	
  aspects	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  even	
  
worse	
  –	
  its	
  uncertain	
  duration	
  and	
  the	
  sense	
  among	
  prisoners	
  that	
  they	
  lack	
  any	
  realistic	
  means	
  with	
  which	
  they	
  
can	
  end	
  their	
  isolation.	
  	
  
For	
  this	
  reason,	
  from	
  a	
  psychological	
  rather	
  than	
  a	
  legal	
  perspective,	
  I	
  regard	
  the	
  newly	
  proposed	
  and	
  implemented	
  
isolation	
  policies	
  as	
  a	
  modest	
  step	
  in	
  the	
  right	
  direction	
  but	
  a	
  step	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  go	
  nearly	
  far	
  enough.	
  	
  
I	
  say	
  this	
  because	
  they	
  failed	
  to	
  offer	
  all	
  prisoners	
  a	
  realistic	
  objective	
  pathway	
  by	
  which	
  they	
  can	
  work	
  their	
  way	
  
out	
  of	
  isolation	
  in	
  a	
  reasonable	
  amount	
  of	
  time	
  –	
  a	
  pathway	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  continue	
  to	
  invest	
  significant	
  discretion	
  in	
  
the	
  hands	
  of	
  correctional	
  decision-­‐makers	
  who,	
  for	
  intents	
  and	
  purposes	
  are	
  beyond	
  challenge	
  or	
  meaningful	
  
redress	
  or	
  appeal.	
  	
  
Moreover,	
  a	
  four	
  year	
  normative	
  timeframe	
  for	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  is	
  longer	
  than	
  most	
  prisoners	
  in	
  most	
  prison	
  
systems	
  ever	
  spend	
  in	
  isolation,	
  and	
  here	
  it	
  comes	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  what	
  already	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  decade	
  or	
  more	
  of	
  such	
  
confinement.	
  There	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  more	
  humane	
  time	
  limits,	
  ones	
  that	
  are	
  realistic	
  and	
  potentially	
  achievable	
  by	
  all	
  
prisoners,	
  with	
  presumptive	
  release	
  dates	
  that	
  are	
  met	
  on	
  the	
  basis	
  of	
  objective	
  criteria	
  that	
  focus	
  on	
  overt	
  
behavioral	
  infractions.	
  A	
  system	
  which	
  makes	
  release	
  contingent	
  on	
  a	
  record	
  of	
  compliant	
  behavior	
  for	
  a	
  certain	
  
amount	
  of	
  time	
  is	
  preferable	
  to	
  one	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  invalidated	
  by	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  wholly	
  subjective	
  judgments	
  that	
  in	
  most	
  
instances	
  are	
  neither	
  provable	
  nor	
  disprovable	
  and	
  in	
  which	
  the	
  prisoners	
  virtually	
  never	
  get	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  the	
  
doubt.	
  	
  
We	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  better.	
  Otherwise,	
  the	
  sense	
  of	
  helplessness	
  and	
  hopelessness	
  will	
  remain,	
  and	
  many	
  of	
  these	
  
prisoners	
  –	
  including	
  many	
  already	
  entering	
  old	
  age	
  –	
  who	
  have	
  no	
  violent	
  disciplinary	
  infractions	
  for	
  years	
  or	
  even	
  
decades	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  languish	
  and	
  end	
  their	
  lives	
  in	
  isolation.	
  	
  
The	
  only	
  additional	
  thing	
  I	
  would	
  add	
  to	
  that,	
  Senator,	
  is	
  that	
  as	
  a	
  veteran	
  observer	
  of	
  decades	
  of	
  efforts	
  to	
  improve	
  
prison	
  conditions	
  and	
  practices	
  in	
  California,	
  I	
  can’t	
  over-­‐emphasize	
  or	
  over-­‐state	
  how	
  important	
  it	
  is	
  for	
  legislative	
  
involvement	
  and	
  oversight	
  of	
  this	
  issue	
  to	
  be	
  consistent	
  and	
  persistent	
  and	
  longstanding.	
  That	
  involvement	
  needs	
  to	
  
include	
  not	
  just	
  providing	
  the	
  stimulus	
  for	
  the	
  implementation	
  of	
  these	
  new	
  policies,	
  as	
  you	
  have,	
  but	
  also	
  in	
  the	
  
drafting	
  of	
  tangible	
  and	
  enforceable	
  legal	
  mandates	
  to	
  control	
  the	
  manner	
  in	
  which	
  they	
  operate	
  and	
  are	
  judged,	
  and	
  
the	
  long-­‐term	
  auditing	
  of	
  how	
  well	
  they	
  are	
  working	
  or	
  not.	
  There	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  measurable	
  objective	
  outcomes	
  that	
  
are	
  written	
  into	
  law	
  rather	
  than	
  discretionary	
  promises	
  to	
  act	
  wisely	
  or	
  humanely	
  now	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  	
  
I’ve	
  watched	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  prison	
  reform	
  founder	
  again	
  and	
  again	
  when	
  such	
  promises	
  –	
  irrespective	
  of	
  the	
  
earnestness	
  and	
  good	
  will	
  of	
  the	
  participants	
  –	
  personnel	
  come	
  and	
  go,	
  institutional	
  memories	
  fade,	
  and	
  good	
  
intentions	
  invariably	
  dissipate	
  over	
  time.	
  We	
  cannot	
  depend	
  on	
  hunger	
  strikes,	
  grassroots	
  mobilization,	
  and	
  high	
  
visibility	
  hearings	
  from	
  time	
  to	
  time	
  to	
  bring	
  critical	
  scrutiny	
  and	
  change	
  to	
  policies	
  and	
  practices	
  that	
  have	
  gone	
  
substantially	
  unexamined	
  and	
  unrevised	
  for	
  decades.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  comment.	
  I	
  thought	
  it	
  was	
  a	
  very	
  astute	
  observation	
  you	
  made.	
  The	
  two	
  words	
  I	
  think	
  of	
  are	
  
“political	
  will,”	
  and	
  that	
  means	
  us,	
  and	
  it	
  means	
  them,	
  and	
  it	
  means	
  the	
  governor.	
  But	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  made	
  to	
  happen	
  
but	
  it	
  ain’t	
  going	
  to	
  happen	
  in	
  this	
  room.	
  But	
  I	
  really	
  appreciate	
  your	
  perspective	
  on	
  this.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  Professor	
  Metcalf.	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  Hope	
  R.	
  Metcalf,	
  Associate	
  Research	
  Scholar	
  in	
  Law;	
  Director,	
  Arthur	
  
Liman	
  Program;	
  and	
  lecturer	
  in	
  law,	
  Yale	
  Law	
  School	
  
	
  
(59m)	
  Good	
  morning.	
  It’s	
  my	
  great	
  pleasure	
  to	
  be	
  here.	
  I	
  really	
  appreciate	
  that	
  you,	
  Senator	
  Hancock,	
  and	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

13

Assemblyman	
  Ammiano	
  and	
  the	
  public	
  safety	
  committee	
  have	
  convened	
  not	
  just	
  this	
  hearing	
  but	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  
hearings	
  and	
  hard	
  work	
  that	
  I	
  know	
  is	
  ongoing	
  regarding	
  this	
  important	
  topic,	
  which	
  as	
  you	
  know	
  is	
  attracting	
  
national	
  attention	
  and	
  interest	
  across	
  the	
  country.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  important	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  given	
  California’s	
  national	
  
stature,	
  the	
  size	
  of	
  its	
  system,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  its	
  history,	
  it	
  is	
  especially	
  good	
  to	
  see	
  attention	
  paid	
  to	
  this	
  issue	
  by	
  this	
  
body.	
  So,	
  it’s	
  both	
  timely	
  and	
  important.	
  	
  
I	
  teach	
  at	
  Yale	
  Law	
  School.	
  I	
  direct	
  the	
  Liman	
  Public	
  Interest	
  Program	
  there,	
  and	
  I	
  co-­‐teach	
  the	
  Lowenstein	
  
International	
  Human	
  Rights	
  Clinic.	
  My	
  comments	
  today	
  do	
  not	
  necessarily	
  represent	
  those	
  institutions,	
  but	
  they	
  are	
  
drawn	
  from	
  my	
  experiences	
  both	
  as	
  a	
  lawyer	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  an	
  academic.	
  Over	
  the	
  last	
  four	
  years	
  –	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  the	
  
decades	
  of	
  experience	
  that	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  does	
  –	
  I	
  come	
  to	
  this	
  issue	
  with	
  about	
  four	
  years	
  of	
  experience,	
  first	
  
working	
  with	
  inmates	
  through	
  my	
  law	
  school	
  clinic.	
  And	
  we’ve	
  represented	
  individuals	
  in	
  Connecticut	
  who	
  are	
  at	
  
the	
  supermax	
  there	
  and	
  have	
  been	
  lucky	
  to	
  engage	
  in	
  very	
  productive	
  discussions	
  with	
  that	
  department	
  of	
  ongoing	
  
reforms.	
  And	
  then	
  in	
  my	
  capacity	
  through	
  the	
  Liman	
  program,	
  I	
  joined	
  a	
  team	
  of	
  students	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  my	
  colleague,	
  
Judith	
  Resnik,	
  in	
  producing	
  the	
  report	
  that	
  I	
  believe	
  you	
  have	
  in	
  the	
  materials,	
  where	
  we	
  tried	
  to	
  take	
  a	
  first	
  cut	
  to	
  
analyze	
  the	
  written	
  policies	
  of	
  48	
  jurisdictions,	
  which	
  are	
  the	
  47	
  states	
  and	
  the	
  Federal	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Prisons.	
  And	
  I’m	
  
happy	
  to	
  talk	
  more	
  about	
  that	
  report.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  acknowledge	
  that	
  the	
  findings	
  there	
  are	
  necessarily	
  limited	
  because,	
  
of	
  course,	
  practice	
  and	
  policy	
  do	
  not	
  always	
  match	
  up.	
  We	
  did	
  try	
  to	
  come	
  to	
  some	
  general	
  findings,	
  which	
  I’m	
  happy	
  
to	
  discuss.	
  	
  
The	
  other	
  thing	
  I’d	
  like	
  to	
  say	
  about	
  the	
  report	
  right	
  off	
  the	
  bat	
  is	
  that	
  we	
  did	
  not	
  study	
  gang	
  programs	
  specifically.	
  
So	
  I	
  noted	
  that	
  in	
  the	
  prior	
  testimony	
  by	
  Mr.	
  [George]	
  Giurbino.	
  He	
  did	
  appear	
  to	
  do	
  a	
  particularized	
  review	
  of	
  gang	
  
programs,	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  useful	
  to	
  do.	
  And	
  the	
  report	
  that	
  I	
  have,	
  unfortunately,	
  for	
  you	
  today	
  does	
  
not	
  do	
  that.	
  	
  
Nonetheless,	
  I	
  do	
  think	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  some	
  general	
  lessons	
  that	
  could	
  be	
  derived	
  from	
  understanding	
  how	
  
administrative	
  segregation	
  is	
  used	
  more	
  generally	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  and	
  how	
  efforts	
  in	
  particular	
  to	
  decrease	
  
reliance	
  on	
  isolation	
  might	
  be	
  captured	
  in	
  written	
  policies.	
  And	
  then	
  finally,	
  I	
  serve	
  as	
  co-­‐chair	
  of	
  the	
  ABA’s	
  
[American	
  Bar	
  Association]	
  subcommittee	
  on	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  	
  
My	
  basic	
  conclusion	
  echoes	
  much	
  of	
  what	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  has	
  already	
  said,	
  which	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  proposed	
  changes,	
  I	
  
think,	
  are	
  notable.	
  They	
  are	
  moving	
  in	
  the	
  right	
  direction.	
  But	
  I	
  don’t	
  believe	
  that	
  they	
  address	
  the	
  fundamental	
  
issues	
  that	
  has	
  resulted	
  in	
  the	
  situation	
  that	
  currently	
  exists	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay,	
  not	
  to	
  mention	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  isolation,	
  
whether	
  through	
  disciplinary	
  punishment	
  or	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  elsewhere	
  in	
  California’s	
  system.	
  	
  
And	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  something	
  that	
  this	
  committee	
  wishes	
  to	
  take	
  up	
  in	
  addition,	
  which	
  is	
  that,	
  of	
  course,	
  decades	
  of	
  
isolation	
  is	
  noteworthy	
  but	
  there	
  is	
  good	
  reason	
  to	
  think	
  that	
  even	
  six	
  months,	
  a	
  year,	
  two	
  years,	
  in	
  fact,	
  could	
  be	
  
detrimental	
  and	
  counter-­‐productive	
  to	
  the	
  corrections	
  goals.	
  	
  
So,	
  the	
  bottom	
  line	
  for	
  me	
  and	
  the	
  way	
  I’ve	
  come	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  this	
  based	
  on	
  my	
  own	
  work	
  and	
  through	
  conversations	
  
with	
  inmates	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  corrections	
  professionals	
  in	
  my	
  review	
  of	
  the	
  available	
  social	
  science	
  literature	
  is	
  that	
  long-­‐
term	
  isolation	
  essentially	
  just	
  postpones	
  but	
  does	
  not	
  solve	
  safety	
  issues.	
  So,	
  everyone	
  agrees	
  that	
  safety	
  in	
  prison	
  is	
  
paramount.	
  It’s	
  the	
  only	
  way	
  that	
  the	
  institutions	
  can	
  function,	
  and	
  everyone	
  who	
  works	
  and	
  lives	
  in	
  prisons	
  has	
  a	
  
right	
  to	
  feel	
  safe.	
  Period.	
  Full	
  stop.	
  	
  
However,	
  the	
  go-­‐to	
  response	
  that	
  was	
  developed	
  first	
  at	
  USP	
  Marion	
  and	
  later	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  the	
  supermaxes	
  
across	
  this	
  country	
  take	
  a	
  one	
  size	
  fits	
  all	
  solution	
  that	
  really	
  does	
  not	
  end	
  up	
  addressing	
  the	
  problems	
  that	
  it	
  seeks	
  
or	
  purports	
  to	
  solve.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  that’s	
  the	
  challenge.	
  And	
  to	
  really	
  do	
  that,	
  we	
  need	
  data.	
  We	
  need	
  creative	
  
thinking.	
  And	
  we	
  need	
  long-­‐term	
  commitments	
  by	
  people	
  in	
  the	
  corrections	
  profession,	
  by	
  the	
  many	
  stakeholders,	
  
including	
  inmates	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  their	
  families,	
  the	
  legal	
  community,	
  and	
  of	
  course	
  the	
  medical	
  and	
  social	
  science	
  
communities.	
  
So,	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  problem	
  of	
  our	
  own	
  making.	
  It’s	
  serious.	
  It’s	
  widespread.	
  But	
  it’s	
  also	
  something	
  that	
  many	
  people,	
  you	
  
know,	
  we’re	
  in	
  a	
  relatively	
  good	
  political	
  moment	
  in	
  the	
  country	
  generally	
  to	
  attack	
  these	
  issues,	
  and	
  it’s	
  exciting	
  to	
  
see	
  the	
  energy	
  and	
  attention	
  that’s	
  being	
  paid	
  to	
  this.	
  So,	
  I’m	
  both	
  here	
  to	
  underscore	
  the	
  seriousness	
  and	
  also	
  
hopefully	
  to	
  provide	
  some	
  sense	
  of	
  optimism	
  about	
  things	
  that	
  can	
  actually	
  be	
  done.	
  	
  
So,	
  as	
  a	
  quick	
  starting	
  point,	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  point	
  you	
  to	
  some	
  sources	
  for	
  principles	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  useful	
  to	
  this	
  
committee	
  as	
  you’re	
  considering	
  whether	
  and	
  how	
  to	
  measure	
  any	
  proposed	
  reforms.	
  So,	
  one	
  start	
  would	
  be	
  the	
  
American	
  Bar	
  Association	
  revised	
  its	
  standards	
  on	
  the	
  treatment	
  of	
  prisoners	
  in	
  2010.	
  Those	
  standards,	
  which	
  were	
  
promulgated	
  by	
  a	
  sort	
  of	
  multi-­‐disciplinary	
  team	
  that	
  included	
  current	
  and	
  former	
  corrections	
  officials	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  
obviously	
  lawyers	
  and	
  other	
  professionals.,	
  they	
  set	
  forth	
  in	
  some	
  detail	
  what	
  they	
  would	
  consider	
  to	
  be	
  best	
  
practices	
  and	
  might	
  be	
  a	
  useful	
  benchmark.	
  	
  
And	
  they	
  center	
  around	
  a	
  core	
  ideal	
  which	
  is	
  that	
  segregated	
  housing	
  should	
  be	
  for	
  the	
  briefest	
  term	
  and	
  under	
  the	
  
least	
  restrictive	
  conditions	
  practicable	
  and	
  consistent	
  with	
  the	
  rationale	
  for	
  placement	
  and	
  with	
  the	
  progress	
  
achieved	
  by	
  the	
  prisoner.	
  So,	
  in	
  yeoman’s	
  terms,	
  they	
  should	
  be	
  as	
  least	
  isolating	
  as	
  possible	
  and	
  they	
  should	
  also	
  
serve	
  the	
  purpose	
  –	
  they	
  should	
  actually	
  be	
  accomplishing	
  something.	
  So	
  in	
  other	
  words,	
  we	
  know	
  that	
  segregation	
  
costs	
  far,	
  far	
  more	
  than	
  an	
  average	
  maximum	
  security	
  prison,	
  for	
  example.	
  And	
  so	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  this	
  scarce	
  resource	
  
is	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  used,	
  we	
  should	
  know	
  that	
  it’s	
  actually	
  producing	
  results	
  that	
  are	
  beneficial	
  to	
  everyone	
  –	
  the	
  inmate,	
  
staff,	
  and	
  the	
  system	
  overall.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  the	
  standards	
  that	
  require	
  individual	
  placement	
  –	
  hearings,	
  continuing	
  review	
  with	
  neutral	
  parties	
  –	
  they	
  echo	
  
many	
  of	
  the	
  values	
  and	
  concerns	
  that	
  I’ve	
  heard	
  voiced	
  by	
  this	
  committee,	
  and	
  so	
  I	
  would	
  point	
  you	
  there.	
  	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

14

I	
  would	
  also	
  point	
  to	
  principles	
  that	
  were	
  recently	
  promulgated	
  on	
  August	
  2013	
  by	
  the	
  Association	
  of	
  State	
  
Corrections	
  Administrators	
  regarding	
  the	
  use	
  of	
  segregation.	
  These	
  principles	
  are	
  less	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  should	
  note	
  the	
  
association	
  or	
  ASCA	
  consists	
  of	
  the	
  heads	
  of	
  corrections	
  for	
  each	
  of	
  the	
  states	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  Federal	
  Bureau	
  of	
  
Prisons.	
  It’s	
  the	
  professional	
  association.	
  And	
  they	
  have	
  a	
  subcommittee	
  that	
  is	
  looking	
  into	
  this	
  issue,	
  and	
  as	
  a	
  first	
  
step,	
  they	
  created	
  some	
  principles	
  that	
  might	
  also	
  be	
  useful.	
  	
  And	
  they	
  have,	
  I	
  think,	
  a	
  slightly	
  –	
  understandably	
  a	
  
slightly	
  different	
  perspective	
  on	
  the	
  issue	
  of	
  segregation	
  than	
  the	
  ABA	
  or	
  certainly	
  the	
  U.N.	
  Special	
  Rapporteur.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  they	
  do	
  say	
  that	
  segregation	
  is	
  a	
  necessary	
  tool;	
  however,	
  they	
  echoed	
  the	
  ABA’s	
  standards	
  in	
  saying	
  that	
  it	
  
should	
  be	
  targeted	
  and	
  designed	
  to	
  change	
  behavior,	
  not	
  merely	
  just	
  a	
  warehouse	
  for	
  people	
  you	
  don’t	
  know	
  what	
  
to	
  do	
  with,	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  fear	
  and	
  what	
  we	
  see	
  in	
  sort	
  of	
  the	
  more	
  extreme	
  examples,	
  for	
  example,	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay.	
  
They	
  called	
  for	
  independent	
  and	
  regular	
  reviews,	
  rehabilitative	
  programming,	
  and	
  mental	
  health	
  treatment	
  as	
  well	
  
–	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  really	
  important	
  to	
  emphasize	
  –	
  ongoing	
  assessment	
  of	
  the	
  effects	
  and	
  the	
  outcomes.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  I	
  think	
  as	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  was	
  saying	
  towards	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  his	
  comments,	
  I	
  think	
  this	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  really	
  an	
  
ongoing	
  process,	
  and	
  those	
  external	
  reports,	
  benchmarks,	
  performance	
  measures	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  useful,	
  and	
  I’m	
  
happy	
  to	
  share	
  with	
  you	
  some	
  ideas	
  that	
  I’ve	
  developed	
  that	
  of	
  what	
  those	
  performance	
  measures	
  might	
  look	
  like.	
  	
  
I	
  did	
  want	
  to	
  echo	
  everything	
  that	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  said	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  being	
  an	
  outlier.	
  And	
  coming	
  
from	
  my	
  background	
  with	
  international	
  human	
  rights,	
  I	
  feel	
  it’s	
  important	
  to	
  say	
  that.	
  So	
  while	
  my	
  focus	
  today	
  is	
  on	
  
trying	
  to	
  give	
  you	
  a	
  sense	
  of	
  the	
  national	
  landscape,	
  I	
  do	
  recognize	
  that	
  it’s	
  still	
  a	
  pretty	
  constricted	
  landscape.	
  	
  
	
  
If	
  I	
  may	
  just	
  turn	
  to	
  some	
  general	
  observations	
  in	
  hopes	
  that	
  they	
  might	
  be	
  helpful	
  for	
  your	
  work.	
  So	
  as	
  I	
  mentioned:	
  
basic	
  bottom	
  line	
  is	
  that	
  staff	
  and	
  inmates	
  must	
  feel	
  safe,	
  and	
  prisons	
  do	
  need	
  tools	
  to	
  shape	
  behavior.	
  I	
  don’t	
  think	
  
that	
  there’s	
  much	
  dispute	
  about	
  that.	
  And	
  in	
  fact,	
  some	
  forms	
  of	
  short-­‐term	
  segregation	
  may	
  be	
  necessary,	
  and	
  there	
  
may	
  indeed	
  be	
  some	
  portions	
  of	
  the	
  population	
  for	
  whom	
  placement	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  is	
  not	
  appropriate.	
  
However,	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  translate	
  in	
  any	
  sense	
  to	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  long-­‐term	
  isolation	
  of	
  the	
  ilk	
  that	
  we	
  see	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  
is	
  in	
  fact	
  serving	
  sound	
  public	
  policy.	
  	
  
So,	
  given	
  the	
  over-­‐reliance	
  on	
  isolation,	
  many	
  prisons	
  are	
  at	
  best	
  delaying	
  problems	
  and,	
  in	
  fact,	
  may	
  be	
  aggravating	
  
them.	
  So	
  I	
  do	
  not	
  wish	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  most	
  people	
  released	
  from	
  long-­‐term	
  isolation	
  are	
  dangerous.	
  I	
  have	
  many,	
  many	
  
clients	
  who	
  have	
  left	
  isolation	
  and	
  they	
  have	
  gone	
  on	
  to	
  do	
  well.	
  However,	
  I	
  do	
  think	
  that	
  if	
  we’re	
  talking	
  about	
  
public	
  safety,	
  thinking	
  about	
  outcomes,	
  including	
  recidivism,	
  is	
  important.	
  Equally	
  important,	
  of	
  course,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
outcomes	
  is	
  not	
  just	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  someone	
  is	
  violent,	
  but	
  whether	
  they	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  flourish	
  and	
  become	
  
independent	
  once	
  they	
  leave.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  the	
  fear	
  is	
  –	
  one	
  fear	
  I’ve	
  had	
  -­‐-­‐	
  is	
  even	
  where	
  outcomes	
  don’t	
  show,	
  for	
  example,	
  violence,	
  is	
  that	
  person	
  able	
  to	
  
hold	
  a	
  job	
  or	
  are	
  they	
  now	
  so	
  debilitated	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  reduced	
  to	
  relying	
  on	
  state	
  support	
  once	
  they	
  leave	
  prison.	
  
Those	
  are	
  the	
  sorts	
  of	
  indicators	
  that	
  I	
  would	
  hope	
  that	
  you	
  would	
  look	
  at.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Well	
  …	
  They	
  get	
  the	
  double	
  whammy	
  because	
  the	
  way	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  now	
  for	
  any	
  prisoner,	
  there’s	
  no	
  
housing,	
  there’s	
  no	
  health	
  care,	
  et	
  cetera.	
  And	
  then	
  the	
  SHU	
  experience,	
  of	
  course	
  …	
  
METCALF:	
  	
  Right.	
  Of	
  course,	
  I	
  was	
  thinking	
  there	
  of	
  the	
  federal	
  Social	
  Security	
  disability,	
  which	
  at	
  least	
  I’ve	
  had	
  
some	
  clients	
  able	
  to	
  enter.	
  But	
  of	
  course,	
  absolutely.	
  	
  
So	
  I’m	
  unaware	
  of	
  evidence	
  that	
  isolation	
  succeeds	
  in	
  changing	
  behavior	
  for	
  the	
  better,	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  some	
  reason	
  to	
  
think	
  that	
  it	
  might	
  make	
  it	
  worse,	
  and	
  here	
  I	
  would	
  point	
  you	
  to	
  studies	
  out	
  of	
  Washington	
  state	
  by	
  a	
  professor,	
  a	
  
social	
  scientist	
  there	
  –	
  David	
  Lovell.	
  And	
  this	
  is	
  fairly	
  common	
  sense	
  given	
  what	
  we	
  know	
  that	
  isolation	
  does	
  one’s	
  
own	
  self	
  of	
  well-­‐being,	
  anger,	
  et	
  cetera.	
  	
  
Another	
  interesting	
  area	
  of	
  research	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  useful	
  is	
  something	
  called	
  procedural	
  justice,	
  which	
  is	
  an	
  area	
  of	
  
social	
  science	
  that	
  has	
  emerged	
  over	
  the	
  last	
  couple	
  of	
  decades.	
  It’s	
  led	
  by	
  a	
  professor	
  named	
  Tom	
  Tyler	
  at	
  Yale	
  Law	
  
School.	
  And	
  he	
  and	
  many	
  other	
  psychologists	
  have	
  studied	
  why	
  it	
  is	
  that	
  people	
  actually	
  obey	
  rules,	
  and	
  ….	
  because	
  
the	
  idea	
  that	
  punishment	
  and	
  deterrence	
  is	
  obviously	
  one	
  theory	
  about	
  why	
  people	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  behave	
  the	
  way	
  that	
  
we	
  want	
  them	
  to.	
  	
  
But	
  what	
  they’ve	
  found	
  is	
  in	
  fact	
  people	
  are	
  far	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  obey	
  rules	
  if	
  they	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  legitimate.	
  
And	
  they	
  have	
  tested	
  this	
  theory	
  in	
  courts,	
  in	
  policing,	
  and	
  now	
  they’re	
  starting	
  to	
  do	
  that	
  in	
  corrections.	
  There’s	
  a	
  
number	
  of	
  studies	
  that	
  are	
  out	
  from	
  the	
  United	
  Kingdom	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  worth	
  looking	
  at.	
  And	
  what	
  they	
  find	
  is	
  that	
  
everything	
  from	
  the	
  processes	
  –	
  like	
  we	
  were	
  hearing	
  about	
  today	
  –	
  to	
  interactions	
  with	
  corrections	
  staff,	
  where	
  
prisoners	
  believe	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  being	
  respected	
  and	
  they	
  believe	
  that	
  the	
  process	
  and	
  the	
  system	
  is	
  not	
  rigged	
  
against	
  them,	
  they	
  are	
  far	
  more	
  likely	
  to	
  obey	
  the	
  rules,	
  and	
  that	
  has	
  all	
  kinds	
  of	
  good	
  effects	
  –	
  for	
  example,	
  
decreased	
  violence.	
  	
  
So,	
  I	
  take	
  this	
  available	
  social	
  science	
  research	
  and	
  I	
  look	
  at	
  it	
  and	
  to	
  me,	
  it	
  suggests	
  a	
  few	
  things.	
  	
  
One	
  is,	
  as	
  has	
  already	
  been	
  mentioned,	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  segregation	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  used,	
  the	
  standard	
  should	
  be	
  clear	
  
and	
  fair.	
  The	
  process	
  should	
  be	
  credible,	
  and	
  that	
  means	
  really	
  that	
  it	
  should	
  turn	
  on	
  objective	
  observable	
  actions,	
  
not	
  suspicions.	
  And	
  I	
  will	
  say	
  that	
  as	
  is	
  noted	
  in	
  the	
  report,	
  that	
  many	
  state	
  systems	
  currently	
  in	
  their	
  standards,	
  this	
  
is	
  an	
  area	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  needs	
  improvement	
  kind	
  of	
  across-­‐the-­‐board.	
  You	
  see	
  nationally	
  very	
  broad	
  standards.	
  There	
  
are	
  some	
  systems,	
  like	
  Virginia,	
  that	
  are	
  starting	
  to	
  turn	
  towards	
  more	
  objective	
  standards.	
  	
  
	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

15

I	
  will	
  also	
  note	
  that	
  in	
  Connecticut	
  in	
  the	
  SRG	
  –	
  we	
  call	
  it	
  the	
  Secure	
  Risk	
  Group	
  –	
  SRG	
  program,	
  which	
  is	
  our	
  
equivalent	
  of	
  the	
  STG	
  here	
  in	
  California,	
  rather	
  than	
  relying	
  on	
  membership,	
  it’s	
  membership	
  plus	
  a	
  specific	
  set	
  of	
  
actions	
  that	
  would	
  include	
  things	
  like	
  assault.	
  So	
  the	
  committee	
  may	
  wish	
  to	
  look	
  to	
  examples	
  like	
  that	
  when	
  
thinking	
  about	
  the	
  proposed	
  revisions.	
  	
  
And	
  obviously,	
  the	
  sanction	
  must	
  be	
  proportionate	
  to	
  the	
  offense.	
  To	
  give	
  you	
  a	
  quick	
  example	
  of	
  this	
  matters	
  so	
  
much	
  is	
  that,	
  if	
  the	
  standards	
  –	
  it’s	
  one	
  thing	
  to	
  do	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  analysis	
  and	
  reviews	
  like	
  has	
  just	
  happened	
  here	
  in	
  
California.	
  That	
  is	
  terrific,	
  and	
  every	
  state	
  that	
  has	
  done	
  it	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  can	
  give	
  you	
  a	
  whole	
  list	
  –	
  they’ve	
  had	
  similar	
  
results,	
  where	
  anywhere	
  from	
  about	
  58%	
  upwards	
  of	
  90%	
  have	
  found	
  to	
  no	
  longer	
  –	
  either	
  they	
  never	
  needed	
  to	
  be	
  
in	
  seg	
  or	
  that	
  they	
  no	
  longer	
  needed	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  seg.	
  That’s	
  terrific	
  news.	
  	
  
The	
  downside	
  of	
  that	
  is	
  that	
  there	
  were	
  58%	
  to	
  90%	
  of	
  people	
  who	
  were	
  in	
  seg	
  who	
  didn’t	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  there.	
  And	
  
that	
  suggests	
  to	
  me	
  as	
  a	
  lawyer	
  that	
  whatever	
  that	
  standard	
  is	
  that	
  should	
  be	
  performing	
  that	
  gatekeeping	
  function,	
  
it’s	
  not	
  working.	
  So	
  that	
  needs	
  real	
  thought	
  and	
  careful	
  review.	
  And	
  I’m	
  hoping	
  that	
  that	
  will	
  be	
  an	
  area	
  that	
  systems	
  
across	
  the	
  board	
  will	
  not	
  rely	
  just	
  simply	
  on	
  ad	
  hoc	
  reviews	
  but	
  undertake	
  broader	
  reforms.	
  	
  
And	
  the	
  other	
  thing	
  I’ll	
  just	
  point	
  to	
  you,	
  that’s	
  happening	
  elsewhere	
  –	
  so	
  the	
  other	
  thing	
  I	
  would	
  just	
  say	
  about	
  the	
  
process	
  is	
  that	
  it	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  independent.	
  I’m	
  deeply	
  skeptical	
  of	
  any	
  process	
  that	
  happens	
  at	
  the	
  unit	
  level.	
  I	
  don’t	
  
think	
  that’s	
  the	
  place	
  where	
  these	
  hearings	
  should	
  be	
  happening.	
  And	
  if	
  you	
  look	
  at	
  states	
  that	
  have	
  undertaken	
  
serious	
  revisions	
  to	
  their	
  processes,	
  they	
  are	
  happening	
  at	
  the	
  first	
  instance	
  at	
  the	
  central	
  office,	
  not	
  at	
  the	
  unit	
  level.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  then	
  I	
  guess	
  just	
  lastly,	
  I	
  would	
  say	
  there’s	
  no	
  reason	
  I	
  don’t	
  think	
  that	
  programming	
  can’t	
  and	
  shouldn’t	
  happen	
  
earlier.	
  So	
  fewer	
  people	
  should	
  be	
  in	
  isolation	
  to	
  begin	
  with.	
  And	
  isolation	
  –	
  we	
  shouldn’t	
  even	
  be	
  calling	
  it	
  that	
  
anymore.	
  To	
  the	
  extent	
  they’re	
  separated	
  from	
  general	
  population,	
  it	
  need	
  not	
  be	
  so	
  isolating.	
  And	
  in	
  fact,	
  I	
  can	
  point	
  
you	
  to,	
  for	
  example,	
  Washington	
  state	
  that	
  has	
  recently	
  introduced	
  programming	
  far	
  earlier	
  into	
  its	
  process	
  and	
  has	
  
developed	
  a	
  classroom	
  setting	
  that’s	
  available	
  where	
  inmates	
  can	
  receive	
  programming	
  that	
  focuses	
  on	
  various	
  
sorts	
  of	
  behaviors.	
  Maybe	
  I’ll	
  leave	
  it	
  there,	
  I	
  imagine	
  you	
  have	
  questions,	
  and	
  I	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  your	
  time.	
  	
  
	
  

Sen.	
  Loni	
  Hancock’s	
  Q&A	
  with	
  Professor	
  Hope	
  Metcalf	
  and	
  Dr.	
  Craig	
  Haney	
  
	
  

HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you,	
  I	
  do	
  have	
  a	
  few	
  questions,	
  maybe	
  Assemblyman	
  Ammiano	
  does	
  too.	
  Do	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  
examples	
  of	
  what	
  outside	
  –	
  either	
  outside	
  independent	
  conducting	
  of	
  these	
  investigations	
  looks	
  like	
  in	
  some	
  states?	
  
Or,	
  you	
  know,	
  how	
  it	
  might	
  be	
  done?	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  So,	
  when	
  you	
  say	
  investigations,	
  do	
  you	
  mean	
  that	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  …	
  
HANCOCK:	
  For	
  validating,	
  the	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  reviews.	
  Yeah.	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  Sure.	
  So,	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  may	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  answer	
  this	
  as	
  well.	
  So	
  as	
  an	
  initial	
  matter,	
  I	
  think	
  these	
  
reviews	
  often	
  undertaken	
  by	
  outside	
  experts	
  such	
  as	
  James	
  Austin,	
  who	
  was	
  mentioned	
  earlier	
  during	
  the	
  hearing.	
  
And	
  that’s	
  where	
  it’s	
  a	
  one-­‐time	
  review	
  to	
  see	
  who’s	
  there	
  and	
  who	
  should	
  be	
  leaving	
  or	
  staying.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  on	
  a	
  
prospective	
  basis	
  though,	
  you	
  also	
  want	
  to	
  consider	
  what	
  the	
  process	
  looks	
  like.	
  And	
  that’s	
  where	
  my	
  comments	
  
about	
  the	
  unit	
  level	
  review	
  were	
  directed.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  OK.	
  I’d	
  be	
  more	
  interested	
  in	
  knowing	
  more	
  about	
  what	
  Washington	
  state	
  does	
  too,	
  because	
  I	
  
understand	
  that	
  they	
  do	
  focus	
  cost-­‐benefit	
  analyses	
  of	
  many	
  of	
  their	
  public	
  policies	
  but	
  definitely	
  in	
  regard	
  to	
  public	
  
safety	
  and	
  have	
  really	
  found	
  out	
  some	
  pretty	
  remarkable	
  things.	
  So,	
  you	
  know,	
  if	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  information	
  on	
  
exactly	
  what	
  they	
  do,	
  now	
  is	
  the	
  time	
  for	
  us	
  to	
  have	
  that	
  focused	
  information	
  because	
  we’re	
  going	
  into	
  budget	
  time	
  
and	
  we’re	
  also,	
  as	
  the	
  Assemblyman	
  said,	
  looking	
  at	
  what	
  might	
  need	
  to	
  be	
  placed	
  in	
  statute	
  that	
  could	
  change	
  the	
  
parameters	
  of	
  this,	
  so	
  either	
  one	
  of	
  you	
  have	
  any	
  thoughts	
  on	
  that?	
  
HANEY:	
  Well,	
  just	
  to	
  say	
  Senator	
  that	
  James	
  Austin	
  and	
  Angela	
  Browne	
  and	
  others	
  at	
  the	
  Vera	
  Institute	
  have	
  a	
  
protocol	
  that	
  they	
  use	
  and	
  that	
  they’ve	
  used	
  in	
  states	
  around	
  the	
  country,	
  where	
  they	
  have	
  successfully	
  reduced	
  the	
  
SHU	
  or	
  isolation	
  unit	
  housing	
  numbers	
  and	
  also	
  helped	
  states	
  to	
  devise	
  policies	
  to	
  keep	
  those	
  numbers	
  at	
  those	
  
reduced	
  levels.	
  So	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  good	
  place	
  to	
  look,	
  and	
  I’m	
  sure	
  we	
  can	
  provide	
  you	
  with	
  references	
  and	
  
information	
  about	
  what	
  they	
  do	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  do	
  it.	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  One	
  thing	
  I	
  can	
  say	
  about	
  –	
  on	
  Washington	
  state,	
  if	
  it’s	
  not	
  too	
  late,	
  I’d	
  be	
  happy	
  to	
  provide	
  some	
  
additional	
  information	
  that’s	
  publicly	
  available	
  on	
  Washington	
  state	
  if	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  helpful	
  to	
  this	
  committee	
  that	
  
would	
  kind	
  of	
  –	
  for	
  example,	
  there’s	
  a	
  chart	
  that	
  maps	
  out	
  the	
  various	
  programs	
  and	
  what	
  they	
  look	
  like.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Yes,	
  I’ve	
  seen	
  that,	
  and	
  it’s	
  amazing	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  some	
  programs	
  that	
  don’t	
  save	
  you	
  any	
  money	
  at	
  all.	
  
There	
  are	
  other	
  programs	
  even	
  if	
  they	
  may,	
  require	
  upfront	
  investments	
  that	
  pay	
  back	
  significantly,	
  and	
  most	
  of	
  
those	
  are	
  the	
  kinds	
  of	
  policies	
  you’ve	
  been	
  talking	
  about	
  that	
  make	
  a	
  more	
  humane	
  situation	
  as	
  opposed	
  to	
  a	
  more	
  
punitive	
  situation.	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  Right.	
  Just	
  two	
  quick	
  points	
  about	
  Washington	
  without	
  getting	
  into	
  too	
  much	
  detail.	
  One	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  
really	
  undertook	
  an	
  effort	
  with	
  the	
  help	
  of	
  the	
  Vera	
  Institute	
  and	
  in	
  collaboration	
  with	
  Disability	
  Rights	
  Washington	
  
to	
  come	
  up	
  with	
  very	
  targeted	
  programs,	
  and	
  so	
  they	
  did	
  not	
  take	
  a	
  one-­‐size	
  fits	
  all.	
  So	
  people	
  with	
  cognitive	
  
disabilities	
  are	
  different	
  than	
  people	
  with	
  personality	
  disorders,	
  are	
  different	
  than	
  probably	
  than	
  gang	
  members,	
  
although	
  gang	
  members	
  may	
  or	
  may	
  not	
  have	
  mental	
  health	
  or	
  other	
  issues	
  as	
  well.	
  So	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  that	
  focus	
  is	
  
really	
  important,	
  and	
  that’s	
  something	
  that	
  Colorado	
  is	
  also	
  doing.

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

16

	
  
	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  other	
  thing	
  that	
  they	
  did,	
  as	
  I	
  mentioned,	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  did	
  not,	
  they	
  do	
  no	
  longer	
  envision	
  this	
  sort	
  of,	
  they	
  do	
  
have	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  phased	
  program	
  but	
  no	
  longer	
  are	
  you	
  just	
  simply	
  left	
  to	
  your	
  own	
  devices	
  and	
  just	
  getting	
  a	
  
workbook	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  one	
  or	
  two	
  phases	
  of	
  that	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  And	
  they	
  have	
  figured	
  out	
  ways	
  to	
  deliver	
  
effective	
  programming	
  safely	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  that’s	
  worth	
  looking	
  at.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  	
  I’m	
  also	
  wondering	
  if	
  either	
  of	
  you	
  know	
  any	
  instances	
  where	
  there’s	
  specific	
  training	
  for	
  prison	
  
personnel	
  –	
  prison	
  guards	
  –	
  in	
  how	
  to	
  defuse	
  violence,	
  recognize	
  mental	
  health	
  problems	
  or	
  –	
  you	
  know,	
  in	
  
California,	
  you	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  GED	
  and	
  be	
  a	
  prison	
  guard.	
  And	
  it	
  troubles	
  me	
  that	
  we	
  may	
  not	
  be	
  giving	
  the	
  in-­‐service	
  
education	
  to	
  them,	
  so	
  that	
  they	
  know	
  something	
  other	
  than	
  what	
  has	
  seemed	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  rather	
  punitive	
  culture.	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  So,	
  I	
  think	
  staff	
  culture	
  is	
  absolutely	
  essential	
  to	
  this	
  working,	
  because	
  you	
  can	
  have	
  terrific	
  things	
  
written	
  on	
  paper,	
  you	
  can	
  have	
  wonderful	
  sounding	
  procedures,	
  but	
  what	
  really	
  matters	
  is	
  once	
  the	
  person	
  is	
  at	
  the	
  
facility.	
  So,	
  Virginia,	
  to	
  answer	
  your	
  question,	
  Virginia	
  has	
  invested	
  very	
  heavily	
  in	
  completely	
  re-­‐tooling	
  its	
  training	
  
for	
  corrections	
  officers	
  who	
  are	
  serving	
  at	
  their	
  supermax.	
  And	
  they	
  are	
  also	
  doing	
  a	
  rotation	
  of	
  staff	
  so	
  that	
  staff	
  are	
  
no	
  longer	
  at	
  a	
  supermax	
  facility	
  there	
  –	
  it’s	
  Red	
  Onion	
  -­‐-­‐	
  for	
  longer	
  than,	
  I	
  believe,	
  two	
  years	
  at	
  a	
  time.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Oh,	
  that’s	
  interesting.	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  And	
  they’ve	
  also	
  mixed	
  the	
  population.	
  Connecticut	
  is	
  also	
  doing	
  this	
  as	
  well.	
  So	
  Connecticut	
  was	
  able	
  to	
  
so	
  drastically	
  reduce	
  their	
  population	
  in	
  administrative	
  segregation	
  that	
  there	
  was	
  space	
  –	
  they	
  actually	
  have	
  
converted	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  units	
  to	
  house	
  high-­‐bond	
  pre-­‐trial	
  detainees.	
  And	
  the	
  idea	
  is	
  that	
  staff	
  then	
  are	
  able	
  –	
  even	
  if	
  
they’re	
  at	
  the	
  supermax,	
  they	
  are	
  not	
  just	
  working	
  with	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  some	
  describe	
  as	
  the	
  worst	
  of	
  the	
  worst.	
  
Rather,	
  they	
  are	
  in	
  an	
  environment	
  where	
  they	
  are	
  going	
  in	
  and	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  unit,	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  it’s	
  probably	
  a	
  healthier	
  
environment.	
  They	
  see	
  more	
  family	
  members	
  coming	
  to	
  visit	
  the	
  inmates.	
  I	
  just	
  think	
  it	
  disrupts	
  the	
  supermax	
  
culture	
  that	
  can	
  be	
  very	
  corrosive	
  for	
  staff	
  and	
  inmates	
  alike.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  Thank	
  you.	
  That’s	
  very	
  helpful.	
  At	
  some	
  point,	
  I	
  think	
  one	
  of	
  you	
  –	
  someone	
  had	
  mentioned	
  
transferring	
  gang	
  members	
  out	
  of	
  state?	
  Does	
  that	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  with	
  when	
  they	
  leave	
  prison	
  and	
  return	
  if	
  they	
  don’t	
  
want	
  to	
  go	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  neighborhood?	
  	
  
METCALF:	
  No,	
  I	
  mean,	
  that’s	
  a	
  solution	
  that	
  many	
  states	
  will	
  do.	
  So	
  if	
  they	
  have	
  a	
  person	
  who	
  they	
  believe	
  is	
  going	
  
to	
  be	
  dangerous	
  so	
  long	
  as	
  he	
  is	
  in	
  connection	
  with	
  fellow	
  gang	
  members,	
  perhaps	
  he’s	
  in	
  a	
  position	
  of	
  authority,	
  
based	
  on	
  my	
  conversations	
  with	
  other	
  corrections	
  officials,	
  I	
  understand	
  that	
  it	
  can	
  be	
  a	
  very	
  effective	
  tool	
  to	
  
negotiate	
  for	
  a	
  transfer	
  of	
  that	
  person	
  to	
  where	
  that	
  person	
  no	
  longer	
  has	
  a	
  power	
  base.	
  It	
  costs	
  nothing.	
  Although	
  it	
  
usually	
  means	
  obviously	
  taking	
  a	
  prisoner	
  in	
  exchange.	
  But	
  I	
  think	
  that’s	
  a	
  very	
  common	
  tool.	
  	
  
Something	
  else	
  I	
  would	
  mention	
  that	
  might	
  be	
  worth	
  looking	
  at	
  is	
  that	
  Washington	
  state	
  is	
  now	
  looking	
  at	
  front	
  end	
  
solutions	
  for	
  violence	
  control.	
  And	
  they	
  have,	
  I	
  believe	
  it’s	
  called	
  Operation	
  Safety	
  if	
  I’m	
  not	
  mistaken,	
  but	
  it’s	
  
modeled	
  on	
  the	
  Chicago	
  Cease	
  Fire	
  Project,	
  and	
  they’re	
  starting	
  to	
  implement	
  that	
  at	
  the	
  front	
  end	
  to	
  try	
  to	
  decrease	
  
incidents	
  of	
  violent	
  gang	
  activity.	
  	
  
HANEY:	
  Just	
  to	
  quickly	
  add	
  to	
  that,	
  Washington	
  state	
  has	
  come	
  up	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  times,	
  and	
  I	
  would	
  endorse	
  our	
  
referencing	
  it.	
  Because	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  they	
  do,	
  as	
  Sen.	
  Hancock	
  mentioned	
  earlier,	
  is	
  they	
  premise	
  many	
  of	
  their	
  
practices	
  and	
  procedures	
  on	
  evidence-­‐based	
  approaches,	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  do	
  well	
  to	
  emulate	
  that.	
  We’ve	
  heard	
  a	
  lot	
  
about	
  validation	
  procedures.	
  We’ve	
  heard	
  a	
  lot	
  about	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  but	
  not	
  a	
  whole	
  lot	
  about	
  whether	
  those	
  
validation	
  procedures	
  themselves	
  have	
  been	
  validated	
  and	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  that	
  step-­‐down	
  procedure	
  itself	
  is	
  based	
  
on	
  sound	
  psychological	
  science.	
  	
  
Washington	
  has	
  really	
  led	
  the	
  way	
  in	
  making	
  sure	
  that	
  they	
  do	
  things	
  that	
  are	
  based	
  on	
  evidence.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you,	
  and	
  I	
  thank	
  you	
  very	
  much	
  for	
  pointing	
  that	
  out,	
  because	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  looking	
  at	
  the	
  
program	
  issues	
  concerned	
  with	
  the	
  step	
  down.	
  And	
  also	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  reminding	
  me,	
  we	
  did	
  pass	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  state	
  
Senate,	
  and	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  coming	
  to	
  a	
  committee	
  near	
  you,	
  Assemblyman	
  Ammiano,	
  to	
  develop	
  something	
  like	
  the	
  
Washington	
  Institute	
  for	
  Public	
  Policy	
  here	
  in	
  California.	
  And	
  because	
  we	
  also	
  find	
  that	
  policymakers	
  like	
  ourselves	
  
really	
  need	
  data	
  that	
  will	
  inform	
  the	
  decisions	
  we	
  know	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  make,	
  and	
  sometimes	
  that	
  isn’t	
  always	
  data	
  that	
  
gets	
  collected	
  in	
  other	
  places	
  or	
  analyzed	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that’s	
  helpful	
  to	
  us.	
  So	
  I	
  hope	
  that	
  we	
  can	
  pick	
  up	
  on	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
good	
  things	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  done	
  there.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  echo	
  that	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  few	
  comments	
  you’ve	
  answered,	
  most	
  of	
  the	
  questions	
  I	
  would	
  have	
  had.	
  I’m	
  
going	
  to	
  suggest	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  things.	
  There	
  are	
  …	
  the	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  African	
  American	
  Caucus	
  could	
  not	
  be	
  here	
  
today,	
  there’s	
  three	
  of	
  them,	
  because	
  of	
  a	
  previous	
  commitment,	
  but	
  I	
  know	
  that	
  they	
  would	
  have	
  added	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  
content	
  and	
  experience	
  to	
  this	
  issue.	
  So	
  I’m	
  thinking	
  of	
  working	
  with	
  the	
  Chair	
  of	
  just	
  having	
  a	
  hearing	
  on	
  just	
  these	
  
programs	
  –	
  Washington,	
  Mississippi	
  –	
  because	
  we’re	
  getting	
  fragmented	
  things,	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  them	
  are	
  feel	
  good,	
  and	
  
the	
  frustrating	
  thing	
  is	
  some	
  of	
  them	
  are	
  so	
  common	
  sense.	
  In	
  fact	
  who	
  knows,	
  maybe	
  we’ll	
  visit	
  some,	
  maybe	
  we’ll	
  
go	
  to	
  Washington	
  State,	
  even	
  though	
  they	
  have	
  the	
  Seahawks,	
  I	
  do	
  commend	
  them	
  [laughter]	
  or	
  Mississippi	
  –	
  if	
  you	
  
could	
  see	
  Loni	
  and	
  I	
  in	
  Mississippi	
  –	
  (1h27m)	
  to	
  see	
  firsthand	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  programs.	
  So	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  my	
  
suggestion.	
  	
  
There	
  is	
  a	
  select	
  committee	
  that	
  I	
  chair	
  on	
  restorative	
  justice,	
  and	
  we’ve	
  heard	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  programs	
  that	
  reduce	
  
recidivism	
  and	
  so	
  forth,	
  and	
  that	
  was	
  very	
  helpful	
  to	
  other	
  members	
  on	
  this	
  select	
  committee,	
  so	
  maybe	
  we	
  can	
  have	
  
that	
  kind	
  of	
  hearing,	
  this	
  is	
  what	
  Washington	
  state	
  does,	
  this	
  is	
  what	
  Mississippi	
  has	
  done,	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  
states,	
  I	
  think	
  you	
  mentioned	
  Colorado.	
  By	
  the	
  way,	
  it	
  has	
  legalized	
  marijuana	
  and	
  so	
  has	
  Washington,	
  so	
  I	
  have	
  no	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

17

idea	
  if	
  that	
  influences	
  prison	
  policy	
  but	
  if	
  it	
  does	
  to	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  the	
  people,	
  why	
  the	
  hell	
  not.	
  [laughter]	
  So	
  I	
  thank	
  
you	
  very,	
  very	
  much.	
  
HANCOCK:	
  OK	
  we	
  are	
  now	
  moving	
  on	
  to	
  our	
  next	
  panel,	
  “The	
  inmate	
  experience	
  today,”	
  and	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  have	
  the	
  
observations,	
  perspectives	
  and	
  I	
  hope	
  suggestions	
  from	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  attorneys	
  who	
  have	
  represented	
  prisoners	
  in	
  
our	
  corrections	
  system.	
  And	
  then	
  we’re	
  gonna	
  ask	
  if	
  the	
  folks	
  from	
  CDCR	
  can	
  comment	
  back	
  on	
  what	
  they’ve	
  heard	
  
so	
  we	
  can	
  set	
  some	
  ways	
  to	
  move	
  forward	
  together.	
  
AMMIANO:	
  If	
  I	
  may	
  just	
  jump	
  in,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  housekeeping,	
  after	
  this	
  portion	
  and	
  to	
  see	
  the	
  response	
  if	
  they	
  have	
  
one,	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  get	
  to	
  public	
  comment.	
  The	
  way	
  the	
  sergeants	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  do	
  it	
  is	
  by	
  level,	
  so	
  people	
  who	
  want	
  to	
  
speak	
  who	
  are	
  sitting	
  on	
  the	
  lower	
  level	
  will	
  be	
  allowed	
  to	
  do	
  that,	
  and	
  then	
  people	
  from	
  the	
  upper	
  level,	
  the	
  
logistics	
  will	
  be	
  directed	
  by	
  our	
  staff	
  sergeants,	
  so	
  if	
  you	
  could	
  accommodate	
  them,	
  we’re	
  looking	
  at	
  a	
  noontime	
  
termination,	
  we	
  may	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  go	
  over	
  a	
  little,	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  talk	
  to	
  the	
  people	
  who	
  are	
  coming	
  in,	
  but	
  I’m	
  hoping	
  that	
  
you	
  will	
  all	
  be	
  heard	
  even	
  if	
  it’s	
  just	
  briefly,	
  I	
  wanted	
  to	
  give	
  you	
  a	
  heads-­‐up	
  on	
  that.	
  	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  Charles	
  Carbone,	
  Esq.,	
  prisoner	
  rights	
  attorney	
  
	
  
Good	
  morning,	
  and	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  present	
  before	
  this	
  committee.	
  I	
  believe	
  that	
  Dr.	
  Haney	
  talked	
  
about	
  the	
  necessity	
  of	
  the	
  legislature	
  to	
  be	
  “consistent,	
  persistent,	
  and	
  long-­‐standing”.And	
  having	
  personally	
  
participated	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  legislative	
  hearings,	
  I’m	
  proud	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  the	
  legislature	
  at	
  this	
  juncture	
  has	
  done	
  
just	
  that,	
  and	
  the	
  consistency	
  of	
  these	
  hearings	
  is	
  of	
  vital	
  importance,	
  and	
  to	
  both	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  issues	
  from	
  a	
  very	
  
specific	
  and	
  detailed	
  standpoint	
  and	
  also	
  be	
  very	
  detailed	
  summarily	
  in	
  the	
  legislative	
  relief	
  that	
  may	
  be	
  available	
  
here.	
  	
  
My	
  name	
  is	
  Charles	
  Carbone.	
  I’m	
  a	
  prisoner	
  rights	
  attorney.	
  I’ve	
  been	
  dealing	
  with	
  these	
  issues	
  for	
  about	
  15	
  years	
  
now.	
  I’ve	
  interviewed	
  probably	
  about	
  a	
  thousand	
  or	
  so	
  men	
  and	
  women	
  living	
  in	
  isolation,	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  arguably	
  
represented	
  in	
  a	
  legal	
  capacity	
  more	
  people	
  living	
  in	
  solitary	
  than	
  any	
  attorney	
  in	
  the	
  United	
  States.	
  	
  
The	
  focus	
  of	
  my	
  testimony	
  will	
  be	
  the	
  meat	
  of	
  the	
  criticisms	
  and	
  a	
  critique	
  of	
  the	
  programs	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  offered.	
  	
  
And	
  I	
  wanted	
  to	
  offer	
  that	
  in	
  a	
  non-­‐acrimonious	
  way,	
  shall	
  we	
  say,	
  because	
  I	
  am	
  actually	
  genuinely	
  enjoying	
  the	
  
spirit	
  of	
  the	
  dialogue	
  between	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  stakeholders	
  here.	
  	
  
I	
  have	
  sort	
  of	
  a	
  baker’s	
  dozen	
  in	
  front	
  of	
  you	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  major	
  criticisms,	
  and	
  I’ll	
  try	
  to	
  be	
  brief	
  in	
  walking	
  
through	
  them.	
  	
  
The	
  first	
  one	
  is	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  three	
  major	
  deprivations	
  that	
  remain	
  under	
  the	
  proposed	
  so-­‐called	
  reforms.	
  I	
  think	
  
everyone	
  has	
  said	
  that	
  they’re	
  modest;	
  they	
  don’t	
  go	
  far	
  enough.	
  But	
  let’s	
  be	
  specific	
  what	
  they	
  don’t	
  change.	
  	
  
*The	
  default	
  term	
  for	
  validated	
  inmates	
  in	
  California	
  is	
  “indefinite.”	
  It’s	
  an	
  indeterminate	
  SHU	
  term.	
  That	
  has	
  not	
  
changed.	
  	
  
*Secondly,	
  the	
  underlying	
  conditions	
  in	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  units,	
  and	
  the	
  deprivations	
  –	
  the	
  inability	
  to	
  have	
  direct	
  
sunlight,	
  the	
  lack	
  of	
  phone	
  calls,	
  et	
  cetera,	
  et	
  cetera	
  –	
  that	
  too	
  has	
  not	
  changed.	
  	
  
*And	
  then	
  specific	
  to	
  Madam	
  Chairwoman,	
  your	
  concern	
  about	
  the	
  debriefing	
  policy,	
  that	
  too	
  has	
  not	
  changed.	
  The	
  
coercive	
  qualities	
  of	
  that	
  debriefing	
  policy	
  have	
  not	
  changed,	
  and	
  the	
  unreliability	
  of	
  that	
  evidence	
  has	
  also	
  not	
  
changed.	
  	
  
Secondly:	
  Behavior	
  modification,	
  if	
  you	
  will,	
  is	
  now	
  the	
  only	
  way	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU.	
  The	
  department	
  did	
  not	
  tell	
  you	
  
today	
  that	
  they’ve	
  done	
  away	
  with	
  what	
  was	
  a	
  previous	
  avenue	
  out	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  or	
  isolation,	
  which	
  was	
  
the	
  six-­‐year	
  inactive	
  review	
  process.	
  That	
  process	
  was	
  important	
  because,	
  albeit	
  we	
  argued	
  over	
  the	
  length	
  of	
  time,	
  
the	
  prisoner	
  didn’t	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  anything;	
  they	
  just	
  had	
  to	
  prove	
  a	
  negative	
  –	
  “Hey,	
  I	
  haven’t	
  participated	
  in	
  gang	
  
activity”	
  for	
  six	
  years.	
  That	
  is	
  gone.	
  In	
  its	
  place	
  are	
  really	
  only	
  two	
  avenues	
  other	
  than	
  paroling	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU,	
  which	
  
is	
  a	
  rarity.	
  	
  One	
  avenue	
  is	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  and	
  there	
  are	
  certain	
  coercive	
  qualities	
  to	
  that	
  –	
  
the	
  journaling	
  and	
  et	
  cetera.	
  And	
  then	
  the	
  other	
  is	
  the	
  debriefing	
  program.	
  That’s	
  it.	
  	
  
And	
  so,	
  there	
  are	
  very	
  serious	
  questions	
  about	
  whether	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  limit	
  the	
  avenues	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  to	
  these	
  
behavior	
  modification	
  programs.	
  	
  
Third,	
  the	
  department	
  said	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  was	
  listening	
  carefully	
  to	
  Mr.	
  Giurbino’s	
  testimony	
  -­‐-­‐	
  he	
  said	
  that	
  this	
  one	
  
positive	
  change	
  of	
  associates	
  now	
  not	
  automatically	
  being	
  sent	
  to	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit,	
  that	
  that	
  has	
  never	
  
existed	
  before.	
  That’s	
  actually	
  wrong.	
  It	
  did	
  exist	
  up	
  until	
  the	
  1990s,	
  because	
  there	
  was	
  for	
  a	
  very	
  long	
  time	
  a	
  two-­‐
step	
  process	
  similar	
  to	
  the	
  one	
  that	
  they’re	
  proposing	
  now	
  of	
  first	
  validating	
  the	
  prisoner	
  and	
  then	
  deciding	
  whether	
  
that	
  validation	
  warrants	
  SHU	
  confinement.	
  Ironically,	
  that	
  past	
  policy	
  that	
  existed	
  up	
  until	
  the	
  1990s	
  applied	
  to	
  both	
  
associates	
  and	
  members.	
  So	
  what	
  is	
  being	
  offered	
  supposedly	
  for	
  the	
  very	
  first	
  time	
  is	
  actually	
  harkening	
  back	
  to	
  a	
  
worser	
  version	
  of	
  what	
  existed	
  up	
  until	
  the	
  mid-­‐1990s.	
  	
  
Fourth	
  point:	
  We	
  haven’t	
  really	
  talked	
  about	
  changing	
  who	
  could	
  be	
  capable	
  of	
  a	
  validation	
  from	
  simply	
  the	
  seven	
  
prison	
  gangs	
  to	
  now	
  this	
  model	
  of	
  anybody	
  who	
  qualifies	
  as	
  a	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  member.	
  I’m	
  very	
  sorry	
  to	
  
report	
  that	
  under	
  this	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  measure,	
  the	
  people	
  living	
  in	
  isolation	
  in	
  California	
  will	
  grow	
  -­‐-­‐	
  
significantly.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  question	
  –	
  if	
  our	
  goal	
  here	
  is	
  to	
  limit	
  people	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  or	
  segregated	
  housing	
  
both	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  numbers	
  and	
  the	
  duration	
  –	
  that	
  these	
  policies,	
  as	
  promulgated	
  and	
  promoted,	
  will	
  do	
  just	
  the	
  
opposite.	
  More	
  people	
  will	
  be	
  eligible	
  for	
  confinement	
  in	
  solitary	
  or	
  SHU-­‐like	
  facilities.	
  	
  
Fifth:	
  These	
  reforms	
  are	
  largely	
  based	
  on	
  what	
  is	
  being	
  done	
  in	
  the	
  Bureau	
  of	
  Prisons.	
  We	
  may	
  remember	
  that	
  that	
  
entire	
  set	
  of	
  policies	
  was	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  hearings	
  in	
  2012	
  before	
  the	
  U.S.	
  Congress	
  and	
  was	
  the	
  subject	
  of	
  great	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

18

consternation.	
  So	
  I	
  don’t	
  exactly	
  know	
  why	
  we	
  are	
  modeling	
  California	
  after	
  the	
  federal	
  system,	
  which	
  is	
  right	
  now	
  
under	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  of	
  scrutiny	
  and	
  criticism.	
  	
  
And	
  number	
  six,	
  which	
  also	
  goes	
  to	
  your	
  issue,	
  Madame	
  Chairwoman,	
  about	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  the	
  same	
  source	
  items	
  
can	
  still	
  be	
  used.	
  The	
  department	
  here	
  is	
  really	
  disingenuous	
  and	
  a	
  bit	
  tricky	
  in	
  this	
  capacity,	
  because	
  when	
  they	
  say	
  
“Now,	
  we	
  don’t	
  use	
  mere	
  associations,	
  like	
  talking	
  in	
  the	
  law	
  library	
  or	
  having	
  a	
  greeting	
  card	
  or	
  having	
  an	
  address	
  
in	
  an	
  address	
  book,”	
  they’re	
  actually	
  wrong.	
  What	
  they’re	
  doing	
  now	
  is	
  they’re	
  taking	
  that	
  same	
  old	
  association-­‐
based	
  source	
  item,	
  and	
  they’re	
  now	
  saying,	
  “Well,	
  that’s	
  possession	
  of	
  gang	
  contraband.”	
  So	
  not	
  only	
  are	
  we	
  going	
  to	
  
validate	
  you	
  for	
  that,	
  but	
  we’re	
  also	
  going	
  to	
  issue	
  you	
  a	
  rules	
  violation	
  for	
  possessing	
  that	
  item,	
  which	
  is	
  really	
  just	
  
evidence	
  of	
  association,	
  not	
  evidence	
  of	
  having	
  done	
  anything	
  wrong.	
  	
  
I	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  under	
  these	
  new	
  rules	
  then,	
  it’s	
  actually	
  worse	
  for	
  people	
  because	
  it	
  maintains	
  the	
  pure	
  
association-­‐based	
  validation	
  but	
  also	
  adds	
  another	
  layer	
  of	
  the	
  prisoner	
  being	
  given	
  a	
  rules	
  violation.	
  	
  
	
  
The	
  professor	
  from	
  Yale	
  talked	
  about	
  number	
  seven	
  a	
  bit,	
  which	
  is	
  at	
  the	
  time	
  of	
  the	
  records	
  that	
  I	
  had	
  it,	
  it	
  was	
  
almost	
  70%	
  of	
  these	
  audits	
  that	
  were	
  being	
  done	
  –	
  almost	
  70%	
  of	
  them	
  -­‐-­‐	
  resulted	
  in	
  the	
  prisoners	
  going	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  
mainline.	
  Although	
  that’s	
  a	
  good	
  thing	
  clearly,	
  it	
  does	
  raise	
  some	
  very	
  serious	
  concerns	
  about	
  the	
  “trustworthiness,“	
  
if	
  you	
  will,	
  of	
  the	
  department	
  when	
  they	
  are	
  left	
  to	
  their	
  own	
  devices	
  and	
  not	
  subject	
  to	
  independent	
  review.	
  
Because	
  for	
  decades	
  now	
  70%	
  –	
  by	
  their	
  own	
  admission	
  -­‐-­‐	
  70%	
  of	
  the	
  inmates	
  should	
  have	
  been	
  on	
  a	
  general	
  
population	
  yard.	
  	
  
Eight:	
  They’ve	
  talked	
  about	
  “Well,	
  there	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  a	
  nexus	
  between	
  the	
  gang	
  activity	
  or	
  association	
  and	
  the	
  gang.”	
  
Well,	
  the	
  only	
  nexus	
  I’ve	
  seen	
  thus	
  far	
  that’s	
  been	
  implemented	
  is	
  if	
  the	
  correctional	
  officer	
  looks	
  at	
  the	
  conduct	
  at	
  
issue	
  and	
  sees	
  the	
  presence	
  of	
  one	
  or	
  more	
  member	
  of	
  a	
  gang	
  –	
  street	
  gang,	
  security	
  threat	
  group	
  –	
  then	
  they	
  
automatically	
  assume	
  “Well,	
  that	
  activity	
  is	
  gang-­‐related.”	
  It’s	
  not	
  the	
  standard	
  in	
  the	
  legal	
  community,	
  and	
  I	
  would	
  
submit	
  that	
  that	
  nexus	
  standard	
  as	
  it’s	
  currently	
  articulated	
  is	
  very	
  arbitrary	
  and	
  will	
  be	
  prone	
  to	
  great	
  abuse.	
  	
  
Number	
  nine:	
  We	
  learned	
  at	
  the	
  last	
  legislative	
  hearing	
  that	
  inmates’	
  participation	
  in	
  the	
  hunger	
  strikes	
  and	
  
ironically	
  in	
  efforts	
  to	
  end	
  hostilities	
  among	
  prison	
  gangs	
  that	
  both	
  of	
  those	
  efforts	
  are	
  actually	
  being	
  used	
  to	
  
validate	
  inmates,	
  and	
  for	
  those	
  inmates	
  to	
  have	
  serious	
  rules	
  violations	
  tendered	
  as	
  a	
  consequence	
  of	
  them.	
  That	
  is	
  
extremely	
  counterproductive	
  to	
  the	
  peaceful	
  efforts	
  to	
  resolve	
  these	
  issues.	
  	
  
Again,	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  comment	
  on	
  your	
  comments,	
  Madame	
  Chairwoman,	
  because	
  there	
  was	
  another	
  issue	
  that	
  you	
  
astutely	
  raised,	
  which	
  was	
  the	
  (10)	
  incentives	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  This	
  is	
  the	
  carrot	
  that	
  they’re	
  offering	
  
inmates	
  who’ve	
  been	
  in	
  isolation	
  for	
  10	
  or	
  more	
  years,	
  and	
  I	
  would	
  submit	
  that	
  those	
  carrots	
  are	
  all	
  too	
  weak.	
  
Having	
  a	
  phone	
  call	
  per	
  year,	
  a	
  photograph,	
  or	
  slightly	
  greater	
  access	
  to	
  the	
  canteen	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  sufficient	
  incentive	
  for	
  a	
  
prisoner	
  to	
  disavow	
  their	
  gang	
  association	
  nor	
  to	
  feel,	
  as	
  the	
  professor	
  from	
  Yale	
  said,	
  that	
  they	
  were	
  being	
  treated	
  
fairly.	
  	
  
Number	
  eleven:	
  All	
  of	
  the	
  information	
  that’s	
  being	
  collected	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  much	
  of	
  which	
  is	
  
incriminating	
  information,	
  none	
  of	
  that	
  –	
  there	
  are	
  no	
  rules	
  or	
  procedural	
  safeguards	
  as	
  the	
  present	
  regulations	
  
stand	
  -­‐-­‐	
  to	
  decide	
  how	
  that	
  information	
  will	
  be	
  collected	
  or	
  used.	
  And	
  that	
  is	
  of	
  particular	
  concern	
  to	
  inmates	
  who	
  
will	
  later	
  go	
  before	
  parole	
  boards	
  or	
  different	
  classification	
  committees	
  and	
  et	
  cetera.	
  	
  
And	
  I	
  should	
  note	
  –	
  this	
  is	
  interesting.	
  The	
  department	
  has	
  contracted	
  with	
  a	
  company	
  called	
  The	
  Change	
  Company	
  
to	
  provide	
  these	
  workbooks.	
  It’s	
  astonishing	
  to	
  me	
  when	
  I	
  look	
  at	
  these	
  books,	
  because	
  there’s	
  not	
  a	
  single	
  
workbook	
  or	
  single	
  paragraph	
  in	
  the	
  books	
  that	
  is	
  devoted	
  to	
  gang	
  diversion.	
  So	
  if	
  the	
  goal	
  here	
  is	
  to	
  step	
  down	
  
these	
  inmates	
  away	
  from	
  the	
  gangs,	
  why	
  does	
  the	
  rehabilitative	
  programming	
  in	
  these	
  workbooks	
  fail	
  to	
  include	
  a	
  
single	
  specific	
  mention	
  to	
  gangs?	
  	
  
Twelve:	
  	
  Yes	
  this	
  is	
  the	
  last	
  –	
  in	
  fact,	
  I’ll	
  just	
  make	
  this	
  the	
  last	
  one.	
  The	
  last	
  one	
  is	
  that	
  the	
  department	
  has	
  told	
  the	
  
legislature	
  and	
  the	
  courts	
  for	
  many	
  years	
  that	
  the	
  purpose	
  of	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  is	
  not	
  for	
  punishment;	
  the	
  
purpose	
  is	
  actually	
  for	
  segregation.	
  The	
  rules	
  as	
  they’re	
  presently	
  designed	
  will	
  dramatically	
  change	
  that	
  because	
  if	
  
you’re	
  saying	
  to	
  prisoners	
  in	
  step	
  1	
  or	
  step	
  2	
  by	
  statute	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  deny	
  you	
  access	
  to	
  rehabilitative	
  
programming,	
  then	
  that	
  immediately	
  becomes	
  for	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  punishment,	
  not	
  solely	
  for	
  the	
  purposes	
  of	
  
segregation.	
  	
  
And	
  on	
  that	
  I	
  would	
  end	
  my	
  comments	
  and	
  turn	
  your	
  attention	
  to	
  my	
  astute	
  colleague.	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much	
  Mr.	
  Carbone,	
  you	
  are	
  very	
  enlightening	
  and	
  I	
  always	
  enjoy	
  hearing	
  your	
  
presentations.	
  We	
  are	
  a	
  bit	
  under	
  the	
  time	
  constraint,	
  so	
  just	
  a	
  caveat	
  to	
  our	
  next	
  speaker,	
  no	
  disrespect,	
  but	
  we’d	
  
like	
  to	
  get	
  their	
  response	
  and	
  also	
  get	
  to	
  public	
  comments.	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  ANNE	
  WEILLS,	
  civil	
  rights	
  attorney	
  
	
  

My	
  name	
  is	
  Anne	
  Weills.	
  I’m	
  a	
  civil	
  rights	
  lawyer.	
  Prior	
  to	
  working	
  on	
  our	
  –	
  with	
  my	
  co-­‐counsel	
  –	
  the	
  Ashker	
  v.	
  
Brown	
  –	
  the	
  litigation	
  where	
  we’re	
  trying	
  to	
  basically	
  stop	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  -­‐-­‐	
  I	
  litigated	
  for	
  over	
  20	
  
years	
  against	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  California,	
  Stanford,	
  and	
  other	
  academic	
  institutions	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  discrimination	
  in	
  
tenure	
  and	
  other	
  matters.	
  	
  
But	
  before	
  we	
  start,	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  read	
  a	
  statement	
  from	
  the	
  prisoners	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  who	
  are	
  not	
  allowed	
  to	
  be	
  
here,	
  either	
  audio	
  or	
  by	
  video.	
  And	
  along	
  with	
  myself,	
  they	
  want	
  to	
  send	
  their	
  high	
  regards	
  to	
  both	
  of	
  you	
  –	
  both	
  
Assemblyman	
  Ammiano	
  and	
  Sen.	
  Hancock	
  –	
  for	
  your	
  role,	
  your	
  very	
  committed	
  and	
  very	
  honorable	
  role,	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

19

ending	
  the	
  hunger	
  strike	
  in	
  September	
  this	
  year.	
  We	
  were	
  promised	
  these	
  hearings	
  and	
  obviously	
  this	
  ongoing	
  
process	
  is	
  extraordinary.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  are	
  in	
  2014	
  in	
  an	
  amazing	
  kind	
  of	
  synergy	
  between	
  the	
  litigation	
  that	
  we’re	
  
involved	
  in,	
  your	
  work	
  trying	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  conditions	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  solitary	
  in	
  California,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  all	
  the	
  ideas	
  
and	
  the	
  movement	
  we	
  have	
  in	
  California	
  –	
  family	
  members,	
  activists,	
  and	
  the	
  prisoners	
  themselves.	
  So,	
  we	
  are	
  very	
  
much	
  appreciative	
  and	
  we	
  really	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  part	
  of	
  that	
  process	
  and	
  appreciate	
  you	
  involving	
  us	
  in	
  that.	
  	
  
So	
  these	
  words	
  were	
  sent	
  to	
  me	
  by	
  Sitawa	
  Jamaa,	
  Todd	
  Ashker,	
  Arturo	
  Castellanos,	
  and	
  Antonio	
  Guillen,	
  who	
  are	
  the	
  
four	
  main	
  prisoner	
  hunger	
  strike	
  representatives	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  who	
  with	
  others	
  called	
  for	
  the	
  last	
  peaceful	
  protest	
  
and	
  starved	
  until	
  the	
  end.	
  That	
  was	
  almost	
  60	
  days.	
  	
  
“We	
  are	
  prisoners	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  State	
  Prison	
  who	
  have	
  all	
  lived	
  for	
  over	
  15	
  years	
  locked	
  23	
  hours	
  a	
  day	
  in	
  small	
  
windowless	
  cells	
  without	
  ever	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  hug	
  or	
  touch	
  our	
  families,	
  without	
  ever	
  seeing	
  birds,	
  trees	
  or	
  the	
  
outside	
  world,	
  with	
  no	
  programs	
  or	
  chance	
  for	
  parole.	
  	
  
California	
  keeps	
  us	
  in	
  these	
  torturous	
  conditions	
  not	
  because	
  of	
  any	
  violence	
  we	
  have	
  committed	
  but	
  because	
  it	
  
believes	
  we	
  are	
  affiliated	
  with	
  a	
  gang	
  often	
  based	
  on	
  art	
  work	
  or	
  photos	
  we	
  possessed,	
  tattoos	
  we	
  have,	
  literature	
  
we	
  read,	
  who	
  we	
  talk	
  to,	
  or	
  anonymous	
  informants	
  and	
  their	
  statements	
  we	
  have	
  no	
  way	
  of	
  challenging.	
  We	
  are	
  put	
  
in	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  not	
  for	
  any	
  specific	
  terms	
  of	
  months	
  or	
  years	
  for	
  misconduct	
  we	
  have	
  committed	
  but	
  indefinitely,	
  
which	
  in	
  practice	
  means	
  forever,	
  unless	
  we	
  become	
  informants.	
  Last	
  summer,	
  we	
  went	
  on	
  hunger	
  strike.	
  As	
  you	
  
know,	
  over	
  30,000	
  people	
  went	
  out.	
  We	
  were	
  willing	
  to	
  starve	
  ourselves	
  to	
  death	
  rather	
  than	
  continue	
  to	
  endure	
  
these	
  de-­‐humanizing	
  conditions	
  forever.	
  We	
  ended	
  this	
  strike	
  because	
  several	
  compassionate	
  legislators	
  promised	
  
to	
  call	
  the	
  hearings	
  that	
  are	
  taking	
  place	
  today.	
  	
  
Yet,	
  today	
  the	
  legislators	
  will	
  hear	
  from	
  psychologists,	
  lawyers,	
  other	
  experts,	
  corrections	
  officials,	
  but	
  not	
  from	
  us,	
  
who	
  have	
  the	
  most	
  experience	
  with	
  the	
  conditions	
  we	
  face	
  because	
  California	
  CDCR	
  prison	
  officials	
  refused	
  to	
  let	
  us	
  
testify	
  even	
  remotely	
  via	
  video	
  or	
  audio,	
  which	
  they	
  could	
  easily	
  do.	
  So	
  this	
  is	
  our	
  banned	
  testimony.	
  	
  
CDCR	
  claims	
  to	
  have	
  now	
  instituted	
  a	
  reform	
  program.	
  It	
  is	
  a	
  sham,	
  just	
  like	
  the	
  so-­‐called	
  reform	
  they	
  instituted	
  a	
  
decade	
  ago	
  after	
  a	
  court	
  settlement	
  which	
  resulted	
  in	
  no	
  real	
  change.	
  This	
  new	
  reform	
  effort	
  still	
  maintains	
  the	
  basic	
  
conditions	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  keep	
  prisoners	
  in	
  isolation	
  for	
  vague	
  gang	
  affiliation	
  based	
  on	
  art	
  
work,	
  literature,	
  communications,	
  or	
  informants’	
  testimony	
  that	
  does	
  not	
  meet	
  California’s	
  judicial	
  standards	
  for	
  
reliability	
  in	
  criminal	
  trials.	
  	
  
California’s	
  still	
  unwilling	
  to	
  move	
  to	
  a	
  real	
  behavior-­‐based	
  system	
  where	
  prisoners	
  are	
  given	
  determinate	
  terms	
  in	
  
solitary	
  after	
  due	
  process	
  hearings	
  at	
  which	
  they	
  are	
  found	
  guilty	
  of	
  some	
  serious	
  misconduct,	
  such	
  as	
  an	
  assault,	
  
murder,	
  rape,	
  or	
  drug	
  dealing.	
  Instead,	
  these	
  new	
  policies	
  widen	
  the	
  net	
  of	
  prisoners	
  who	
  can	
  be	
  labeled	
  as	
  gang	
  
affiliates	
  and	
  isolated	
  based	
  on	
  that	
  label.	
  These	
  unjust	
  and	
  ineffective	
  policies	
  are	
  very	
  expensive	
  and	
  have	
  already	
  
cost	
  our	
  state	
  millions	
  of	
  tax	
  dollars	
  which	
  could	
  be	
  put	
  to	
  better	
  use.	
  Moreover,	
  even	
  those	
  prisoners	
  who	
  need	
  to	
  
be	
  isolated	
  from	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  violence	
  they	
  have	
  committed	
  in	
  prison	
  ought	
  to	
  be	
  treated	
  
humanely.	
  	
  
There	
  is	
  no	
  reason	
  California	
  can’t	
  run	
  very	
  high-­‐security	
  prisons	
  that	
  allow	
  prisoners	
  held	
  in	
  segregation	
  to	
  have	
  
contact	
  visits	
  with	
  family,	
  phone	
  calls	
  to	
  family	
  and	
  friends,	
  educational	
  rehabilitation	
  programs,	
  more	
  out	
  of	
  cell	
  
times,	
  cells	
  with	
  windows,	
  recreational	
  yards	
  that	
  allow	
  for	
  small	
  groups	
  to	
  recreate	
  together	
  and	
  see	
  the	
  outside	
  
world.	
  In	
  short,	
  segregation	
  from	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  but	
  not	
  torture	
  or	
  de-­‐humanization.	
  	
  
We	
  have	
  written	
  letters	
  and	
  petitions	
  to	
  the	
  governor,	
  filed	
  a	
  class	
  action	
  federal	
  lawsuit,	
  and	
  gone	
  on	
  hunger	
  
strikes	
  seeking	
  real	
  reform,	
  not	
  the	
  bogus	
  reform	
  California	
  officials	
  now	
  propose.	
  It’s	
  time	
  for	
  California	
  to	
  do	
  the	
  
right	
  thing.	
  It’s	
  time	
  for	
  the	
  legislature	
  to	
  enact	
  meaningful	
  reforms.”	
  	
  
And	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  limits	
  and	
  given	
  –	
  I	
  don’t	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  redundant	
  given	
  what	
  Charles	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
speakers	
  have	
  said,	
  so	
  I	
  do	
  want	
  to	
  talk	
  though	
  about	
  rehabilitation,	
  because	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  is	
  where	
  we	
  are	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  
how	
  to	
  make	
  any	
  kind	
  of	
  transitional	
  program	
  from	
  people	
  being	
  isolated	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  for	
  decades	
  into	
  civil	
  society.	
  	
  
And	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  there’s	
  no	
  consistent	
  rehabilitation	
  or	
  education	
  integrated	
  into	
  this	
  program	
  
despite	
  CDCR’s	
  statement	
  of	
  commitment.	
  	
  
Recently,	
  two	
  older	
  men	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  were	
  transferred	
  directly	
  to	
  the	
  main	
  line	
  after	
  decades	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  with	
  no	
  
orientation	
  or	
  transitional	
  programming.	
  They	
  did	
  not	
  fare	
  well.	
  One	
  block	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  reported	
  their	
  GED	
  had	
  
been	
  on	
  hold	
  for	
  six	
  months.	
  Most	
  prisoners	
  cannot	
  afford	
  college	
  courses	
  even	
  if	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  proctor	
  to	
  monitor.	
  	
  
We	
  do	
  know	
  of	
  other	
  states	
  that	
  have	
  best	
  practices,	
  for	
  example.	
  The	
  model	
  Connecticut’s	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  
offers	
  anger	
  management,	
  life	
  skills,	
  and	
  ethics	
  education	
  plus	
  an	
  interactive	
  approach	
  over	
  a	
  year	
  through	
  service	
  
providers	
  who	
  are	
  dedicated	
  –	
  and	
  this	
  is	
  really	
  critical	
  –	
  to	
  bringing	
  a	
  prisoner	
  back	
  from	
  long-­‐term	
  solitary	
  to	
  their	
  
humanness.	
  I	
  mean,	
  you’ve	
  heard	
  already	
  today	
  Professor	
  Haney	
  and	
  others	
  talk	
  about	
  how	
  people	
  are	
  
fundamentally	
  changed	
  both	
  psychologically	
  and	
  physically	
  as	
  a	
  result	
  of	
  being	
  in	
  the	
  SHU.	
  And	
  at	
  least	
  Connecticut	
  
recognizes	
  that	
  and	
  attempts	
  to	
  begin	
  that	
  process	
  of	
  bringing	
  them	
  back	
  to	
  being	
  in	
  civil	
  society.	
  	
  
Yet	
  in	
  CDCR’s	
  pilot	
  program,	
  there’s	
  nothing	
  intended	
  for	
  the	
  first	
  two	
  steps	
  and	
  “this	
  idle	
  warehousing	
  is	
  a	
  numbing	
  
violence	
  against	
  the	
  human	
  spirit.”	
  (This	
  is	
  quoted	
  from	
  “Cruel	
  and	
  Unusual,”	
  a	
  book	
  by	
  Colin	
  Dayan.)	
  	
  
We	
  know	
  that	
  many	
  prisoners	
  are	
  refusing	
  to	
  do	
  the	
  self-­‐directed	
  journals	
  because	
  they	
  consider	
  them	
  a	
  self-­‐
incriminating	
  shame	
  and	
  blame	
  curriculum.	
  The	
  information	
  they	
  provide	
  will	
  go	
  into	
  their	
  central	
  files	
  and	
  can	
  be	
  
used	
  against	
  them.	
  	
  
In	
  fact,	
  CDCR	
  has	
  offered	
  contradictory	
  positions	
  as	
  to	
  whether	
  participating	
  in	
  this	
  self-­‐directed	
  journals	
  portion	
  of	
  
the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  is	
  mandatory.	
  Well,	
  actually,	
  you	
  know,	
  Ms.	
  Hubbard	
  said	
  it	
  was	
  mandatory	
  this	
  morning.	
  	
  
The	
  themes	
  in	
  this	
  program	
  deal	
  with	
  thinking	
  errors,	
  social	
  values,	
  and	
  peer	
  relationships	
  but	
  they	
  begin	
  with	
  an	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

20

assumption	
  of	
  guilt,	
  self-­‐loathing,	
  and	
  character	
  invalidation.	
  Prisoners	
  are	
  labeled	
  failures	
  if	
  they	
  do	
  not	
  program	
  
the	
  way	
  staff	
  wants	
  them	
  to.	
  This	
  is	
  not	
  rehabilitation,	
  which	
  requires	
  bringing	
  in	
  social	
  workers,	
  psychologists,	
  
teachers,	
  and	
  vocational	
  counselors	
  to	
  help	
  transition	
  these	
  men.	
  	
  
As	
  one	
  prisoner	
  says,	
  “In	
  order	
  to	
  successfully	
  complete	
  this	
  aspect	
  of	
  their	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  you	
  must	
  be	
  willing	
  
to	
  accept	
  and	
  believe	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  absolute	
  worst	
  things	
  that	
  the	
  state	
  has	
  said	
  about	
  us	
  all	
  and	
  continues	
  to	
  say	
  and	
  
invalidate	
  yourself	
  completely.	
  There	
  is	
  no	
  set	
  of	
  circumstances	
  in	
  which	
  any	
  principled	
  person	
  would	
  agree	
  to	
  aid	
  
the	
  state	
  in	
  carrying	
  out	
  such	
  an	
  insidious,	
  vile,	
  and	
  patently	
  evil	
  process.”	
  	
  
The	
  culture	
  of	
  those	
  who	
  control	
  SHU	
  placement	
  and	
  living	
  conditions	
  has	
  not	
  changed	
  in	
  the	
  new	
  regulations.	
  
CDCR	
  has	
  not	
  revealed	
  the	
  training	
  that	
  officers	
  are	
  receiving	
  for	
  the	
  new	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  so	
  it	
  is	
  feared	
  they	
  
will	
  continue	
  to	
  see	
  inmates	
  as	
  animals	
  and	
  unworthy	
  of	
  dignity	
  or	
  rehabilitation.	
  Then	
  why	
  should	
  inmates	
  trust	
  
this	
  new	
  program?	
  	
  
Again,	
  using	
  Connecticut	
  as	
  a	
  best	
  practices	
  example,	
  the	
  culture	
  was	
  changed	
  before	
  the	
  new	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  
was	
  initiated	
  –	
  a	
  program	
  that	
  has	
  seen	
  the	
  end	
  of	
  their	
  super	
  max,	
  a	
  substantive	
  and	
  substantial	
  drop	
  in	
  violence,	
  
and	
  great	
  cost	
  savings	
  to	
  the	
  state.	
  And	
  employees	
  who	
  were	
  asked	
  if	
  they	
  wanted	
  to	
  participate	
  in	
  this	
  new	
  culture	
  
and	
  you	
  know,	
  basically	
  sensitizing	
  them,	
  and	
  educating	
  them	
  as	
  to	
  how	
  to	
  inspire	
  these	
  prisoners	
  into	
  the	
  step-­‐
down	
  program,	
  the	
  officers	
  who	
  were	
  not	
  amenable	
  to	
  being	
  part	
  of	
  that	
  interaction	
  with	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  
were	
  transferred	
  to	
  other	
  jobs,	
  but	
  no	
  jobs	
  were	
  lost	
  to	
  personnel	
  in	
  Connecticut.	
  	
  
Now,	
  Norway	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  in	
  my	
  notes	
  a	
  longer	
  discussion	
  of	
  Norway.	
  Norway	
  is	
  a	
  state,	
  albeit	
  not	
  a	
  state	
  of	
  the	
  
United	
  States.	
  But	
  they	
  wrestled	
  with	
  this	
  issue	
  many,	
  many	
  decades	
  ago,	
  and	
  Norway,	
  you	
  know,	
  in	
  a	
  very	
  
conscious,	
  organized	
  way	
  moved	
  from	
  a	
  vengeance	
  model	
  to	
  a	
  philosophy	
  where	
  they	
  had	
  a	
  stake	
  in	
  advancing	
  the	
  
development	
  of	
  the	
  human	
  beings	
  that	
  they	
  had	
  in	
  their	
  custody,	
  even	
  their	
  so-­‐called	
  “worst	
  of	
  the	
  worst.”	
  They	
  
have	
  a	
  whole	
  long	
  developed	
  program	
  where	
  they	
  basically	
  put	
  them	
  in	
  a	
  natural	
  human	
  setting	
  where	
  they	
  have	
  …	
  	
  
anyway	
  I	
  don’t	
  have	
  time	
  to	
  go	
  into	
  it.	
  But	
  Norway	
  is	
  an	
  extraordinary	
  example	
  where	
  –	
  and	
  the	
  philosophy	
  is	
  not	
  
just	
  being	
  nice	
  guys;	
  it’s	
  they	
  think	
  that	
  if	
  they	
  improve	
  the	
  opportunities	
  for	
  the	
  prisoners	
  to	
  them	
  personally,	
  that	
  
would	
  help	
  them	
  contribute	
  to	
  the	
  society	
  because	
  once	
  they	
  come	
  out,	
  they’re	
  fuller	
  human	
  beings	
  and	
  able	
  to	
  cope	
  
and	
  respond,	
  you	
  know,	
  in	
  civilized	
  society,	
  become	
  good	
  parents,	
  fathers,	
  et	
  cetera.	
  	
  
We	
  destroy	
  people	
  in	
  this	
  system	
  right	
  now,	
  and	
  they	
  don’t	
  come	
  out	
  whole.	
  And	
  so	
  I	
  would	
  look	
  to	
  Norway	
  –	
  
although	
  that’s	
  probably	
  too	
  far	
  advanced	
  for	
  the	
  United	
  States	
  but	
  it’s	
  something	
  to	
  look	
  at	
  for	
  California.	
  
[Laughter]	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Follow	
  the	
  caribou.	
  	
  
WEILLS:	
  The	
  Virginia	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  has	
  developed	
  a	
  specific	
  model	
  for	
  prison	
  culture	
  change,	
  applying	
  
the	
  principles	
  of	
  evidence-­‐based	
  practices,	
  and	
  you	
  heard	
  about	
  that	
  with	
  a	
  former	
  speaker.	
  One	
  of	
  the	
  most	
  
compelling	
  aspects	
  about	
  this	
  program	
  and	
  that	
  of	
  Connecticut	
  is	
  that	
  they	
  see	
  their	
  success	
  as	
  tied	
  to	
  a	
  real	
  internal	
  
culture	
  change	
  in	
  raising	
  staff	
  consciousness	
  toward	
  a	
  more	
  positive	
  and	
  nurturing	
  attitude,	
  gaining	
  trust	
  –	
  and	
  
that’s	
  an	
  essential	
  aspect,	
  of	
  course	
  –	
  and	
  inspiring	
  inmates	
  to	
  succeed.	
  	
  
Without	
  humane	
  reframing,	
  California’s	
  SHU	
  prisoners	
  will	
  continue	
  to	
  suffer	
  the	
  constitutional	
  tortures	
  endemic	
  to	
  
a	
  corrections	
  culture	
  that	
  violates	
  human	
  dignity	
  and	
  self-­‐worth	
  because	
  there	
  is	
  no	
  outside	
  oversight,	
  little	
  
accountability	
  or	
  transparency.	
  	
  
And	
  although	
  I	
  had	
  it	
  in	
  my	
  formal	
  remarks,	
  I	
  absolutely	
  think	
  there	
  has	
  to	
  be	
  an	
  independent	
  neutral	
  person	
  
outside	
  CDCR	
  –	
  and	
  you	
  know,	
  an	
  administrative	
  law	
  judge,	
  somebody	
  where	
  there’s	
  evidence	
  produced,	
  where	
  
people	
  have	
  a	
  right	
  to	
  defend	
  themselves	
  against	
  the	
  charges,	
  the	
  secrets	
  they	
  have	
  held	
  against	
  them	
  all	
  these	
  years	
  
–	
  so	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  a	
  fair	
  hearing	
  process.	
  So	
  I	
  highly	
  recommend	
  that.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  
WEILLS:	
  I’ll	
  stop.	
  
	
  

Assemblyman	
  Tom	
  Ammiano’s	
  Q&A	
  with	
  Attorneys	
  Charles	
  Carbone	
  and	
  Anne	
  Weills	
  

	
  
Thank	
  you.	
  I	
  really	
  respect	
  and	
  appreciate	
  your	
  accommodation	
  and	
  all	
  your	
  hard	
  work.	
  All	
  your	
  hard	
  work.	
  For	
  
both	
  of	
  you,	
  it’s	
  just	
  kind	
  of	
  a	
  softball	
  question	
  but	
  –	
  devil	
  advocate	
  kind	
  of	
  question.	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  within	
  this	
  attempt	
  
from	
  the	
  CDCR,	
  there	
  might	
  be	
  some	
  good	
  direction	
  -­‐-­‐	
  occasionally.	
  And	
  if	
  there’s	
  anything	
  that’s	
  you	
  think	
  that	
  is	
  –	
  
and	
  we	
  could	
  amplify	
  with	
  them	
  –	
  maybe	
  you	
  could	
  tell	
  us	
  now.	
  	
  
I’ll	
  tell	
  you	
  full	
  disclosure	
  –	
  I	
  do	
  think	
  that	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  are,	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  it	
  is	
  lip	
  service.	
  There	
  may	
  be	
  a	
  trajectory	
  
or	
  two	
  that	
  we	
  would	
  –	
  might	
  embrace.	
  But	
  I	
  still	
  think	
  the	
  regulations	
  miss	
  the	
  point	
  of	
  the	
  context	
  of	
  what	
  we’re	
  
talking	
  about,	
  you	
  know,	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  whole	
  existence	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  Regulations	
  then	
  presume	
  that	
  
entity,	
  and	
  what	
  if	
  that	
  entity	
  isn’t	
  there,	
  particularly	
  in	
  the	
  form	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  now.	
  So,	
  it’s	
  kind	
  of	
  counterintuitive	
  to	
  me	
  
to	
  come	
  up	
  with	
  regulations	
  based	
  on	
  something	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  itself	
  that	
  is	
  highly	
  questionable.	
  	
  
WEILLS:	
  I	
  would	
  agree.	
  I	
  mean,	
  it’s	
  so	
  highly	
  flawed	
  –	
  the	
  whole	
  system	
  of	
  how	
  people	
  are	
  validated	
  and	
  how	
  they	
  
come	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  forever,	
  and	
  obviously	
  the	
  evidences	
  that	
  a	
  number	
  of	
  them	
  –	
  60,	
  how	
  many	
  percent	
  –	
  should	
  
have	
  never	
  been	
  in	
  there	
  in	
  the	
  first	
  place.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  	
  65.	
  	
  
WEILLS:	
  I	
  do	
  think	
  there	
  is	
  –	
  I,	
  you	
  know,	
  having	
  litigated	
  against	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  California,	
  these	
  bureaucracies	
  
are	
  very	
  hard	
  to	
  change.	
  You	
  know,	
  these	
  are	
  big	
  systems.	
  There	
  is	
  a	
  lot	
  about	
  jobs,	
  you	
  know.	
  I	
  think	
  that’s	
  been	
  a	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

21

huge	
  thing	
  with	
  CDCR	
  over	
  the	
  years.	
  It’,	
  	
  build	
  more	
  prisons,	
  you	
  know,	
  create	
  more	
  jobs,	
  and	
  I	
  think	
  that’s	
  still	
  a	
  
problem.	
  What	
  Charles	
  said	
  –	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  new	
  regs	
  that	
  now	
  CDCR	
  has	
  jurisdiction	
  beyond,	
  you	
  know,	
  CDCR.	
  
They	
  can	
  go	
  into	
  any	
  community,	
  like	
  Oakland,	
  where	
  I’m	
  from	
  and	
  say,	
  “X64th	
  Avenue	
  gang,	
  over	
  three	
  people	
  do	
  X,	
  
Y,	
  Z,	
  sell	
  dope	
  in	
  the	
  corner.	
  They	
  can	
  be	
  brought	
  into	
  the	
  SHUs	
  of	
  California.”	
  	
  You’re	
  talking	
  about	
  1,500	
  new	
  
organizations.	
  So	
  I	
  mean,	
  what	
  is	
  this	
  but	
  a	
  huge	
  jobs	
  effort?	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  And	
  Mr.	
  Carbone,	
  any	
  …	
  	
  
CARBONE:	
  Yeah,	
  I	
  would	
  just	
  say	
  –	
  I	
  don’t	
  often	
  compliment	
  the	
  department.	
  But	
  I	
  will	
  say	
  there	
  are	
  probably	
  two	
  
elements	
  that	
  are	
  salvageable	
  here.	
  	
  
One	
  is	
  the	
  two-­‐step	
  process	
  between	
  the	
  label	
  of	
  the	
  validation	
  and	
  then	
  whether	
  or	
  not	
  the	
  second	
  step	
  of	
  to	
  send	
  
them	
  to	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit.	
  That	
  I	
  think	
  is	
  a	
  good	
  point.	
  I	
  mean,	
  it	
  should	
  apply	
  to	
  both	
  members	
  and	
  
associates.	
  	
  
And	
  the	
  second	
  issue	
  is	
  just	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  model	
  as	
  a	
  whole.	
  It’s	
  helpful	
  for	
  the	
  transitioning	
  back	
  into	
  the	
  
community.	
  It’s	
  helpful	
  for	
  transitioning	
  back	
  into	
  general	
  population.	
  So	
  I	
  think	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  or	
  model	
  is	
  
the	
  appropriate	
  model.	
  It’s	
  just	
  how	
  it’s	
  formulated	
  and	
  fashioned	
  right	
  now	
  has	
  serious	
  problems.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  both	
  of	
  you,	
  and	
  if	
  Sen.	
  Hancock	
  has	
  any	
  questions	
  then	
  we’ll	
  move	
  on	
  to	
  CDCR.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  appreciate	
  very	
  much	
  your	
  specific	
  suggestions	
  for	
  what	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  do,	
  and	
  pointing	
  us	
  in	
  the	
  
direction	
  of	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  other	
  states	
  and	
  some	
  of	
  these	
  evidence-­‐based	
  practices.	
  The	
  more	
  you	
  can	
  give	
  our	
  great	
  
staff	
  the	
  length	
  the	
  whatever	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  follow	
  up,	
  I	
  think	
  will	
  be	
  very	
  very	
  helpful.	
  I’m	
  interested	
  to	
  see	
  how	
  CDCR	
  
responds	
  to	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  ideas	
  that	
  you’ve	
  raised.	
  So	
  thank	
  you	
  very	
  very	
  much.	
  (1h56m)	
  	
  
	
  

TESTIMONY	
  OF	
  Martin	
  Hoshino,	
  CDCR’s	
  Undersecretary	
  of	
  Operations	
  
	
  

Good	
  morning,	
  members.	
  I’m	
  Martin	
  Hoshino,	
  the	
  undersecretary	
  for	
  operations	
  from	
  CDCR.	
  I’m	
  joined	
  by	
  Director	
  
Mike	
  Stainer,	
  also	
  from	
  the	
  operations	
  division	
  of	
  CDCR.	
  I	
  do	
  appreciate	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  come	
  here	
  and	
  be	
  invited	
  
as	
  well	
  as	
  to	
  provide	
  some	
  observations	
  of	
  what	
  we’ve	
  seen	
  and	
  heard	
  this	
  morning,	
  and	
  certainly	
  take	
  some	
  of	
  your	
  
questions.	
  I	
  know	
  it’s	
  unusual	
  for	
  us	
  to	
  have	
  this	
  venue	
  to	
  be	
  able	
  to	
  do	
  that	
  so	
  I’ve	
  written	
  down	
  some	
  notes.	
  	
  
I	
  want	
  to	
  also	
  begin	
  by	
  thanking	
  the	
  committee,	
  the	
  members	
  for	
  their	
  focus	
  and	
  attention	
  in	
  this	
  area	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  
CDCR	
  staff	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  so	
  diligently	
  implementing	
  the	
  early	
  parts	
  of	
  this	
  particular	
  reform	
  and	
  they	
  continue	
  to	
  
do	
  so	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  big	
  turnout	
  you	
  hear	
  in	
  public	
  comment.	
  	
  
	
  
Obviously,	
  we	
  are	
  not	
  prepared	
  nor	
  can	
  we	
  respond	
  to	
  every	
  detail	
  that	
  has	
  been	
  provided	
  to	
  including	
  Mr.	
  
Carbone’s	
  “baker’s	
  dozen,”	
  but	
  we	
  do	
  have	
  some	
  observations	
  to	
  share	
  more	
  globally	
  on	
  how	
  is	
  it	
  that	
  we	
  will	
  
respond,	
  and	
  perhaps	
  some	
  of	
  our	
  response	
  to	
  today	
  will	
  be	
  measured	
  by	
  our	
  subsequent	
  activities,	
  actions,	
  and	
  
events	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  time	
  here.	
  	
  
	
  
But	
  I	
  will	
  start,	
  at	
  least,	
  by	
  thanking	
  Mr.	
  Carbone.	
  It’s	
  the	
  first	
  time	
  I’ve	
  heard	
  two	
  “salvageable”	
  comments	
  from	
  him.	
  
[smile]	
  He	
  has	
  been	
  a	
  welcomed	
  colleague	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  adversary	
  during	
  my	
  tenure	
  and	
  course	
  there,	
  and	
  I	
  always	
  
appreciate	
  his	
  opinions	
  and	
  his	
  objectivity.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  I’ll	
  begin	
  by	
  making	
  a	
  bit	
  of	
  an	
  observation	
  that,	
  of	
  course,	
  what	
  we’re	
  talking	
  about	
  here	
  is	
  something	
  that	
  
has	
  been	
  30	
  or	
  40	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  making.	
  The	
  SHUs	
  themselves,	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  overcrowded	
  conditions	
  of	
  the	
  prison	
  
system,	
  did	
  not	
  occur	
  overnight.	
  So,	
  efforts	
  and	
  change	
  to	
  rectify	
  or	
  make	
  alterations,	
  I	
  don’t	
  think,	
  will	
  actually	
  
occur	
  overnight.	
  They	
  will	
  take	
  some	
  measurable	
  pace	
  and	
  time;	
  and	
  more	
  about	
  that	
  in	
  a	
  minute.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  do	
  want	
  to	
  focus	
  on	
  what	
  I	
  believe	
  have	
  been	
  the	
  areas	
  of	
  agreement	
  that	
  had	
  been	
  occurring	
  here	
  this	
  morning	
  
and	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  time.	
  I	
  believe	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  principles	
  and	
  comments	
  from	
  Mr.	
  Haney	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  Miss	
  Metcalf	
  
as	
  well	
  as	
  other	
  participants	
  here	
  have	
  already	
  been	
  woven	
  into	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  that	
  we’re	
  attempting	
  to	
  do.	
  I	
  
also	
  believe	
  that	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  earlier	
  hearings	
  and	
  attentions	
  and	
  questions	
  both	
  in	
  a	
  public	
  setting	
  and	
  in	
  private	
  
settings	
  have	
  also	
  shaped	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  what	
  we	
  are	
  doing.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  it	
  has	
  had	
  a	
  measurable	
  impact	
  not	
  only	
  
on	
  what	
  we’re	
  doing	
  at	
  the	
  department	
  at	
  large,	
  but	
  also	
  on	
  this	
  particular	
  issue	
  with	
  respect	
  to	
  segregated	
  housing	
  
units	
  and	
  the	
  like.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  would	
  harken	
  back	
  to	
  the	
  genesis	
  of	
  this	
  kind	
  of	
  reform,	
  which	
  actually	
  began	
  in	
  2011	
  in	
  a	
  chapter	
  of	
  what	
  we	
  had	
  
called	
  the	
  “Blueprint,”	
  which	
  was	
  passed	
  by	
  this	
  legislative	
  body	
  as	
  proposed	
  by	
  the	
  administration	
  in	
  2011.	
  And	
  
that	
  begin	
  actually	
  the	
  work	
  after	
  the	
  department	
  had	
  had	
  some	
  conclusions	
  and	
  reached	
  some	
  conclusions	
  or	
  some	
  
findings	
  that	
  perhaps	
  there	
  was	
  an	
  over-­‐reliance	
  on	
  SHU.	
  And	
  we	
  really	
  needed	
  to	
  get	
  the	
  department	
  position	
  for	
  
what	
  it	
  would	
  do	
  and	
  what	
  it	
  would	
  look	
  like	
  after	
  realignment	
  and,	
  more	
  importantly,	
  after	
  the	
  high	
  tide	
  of	
  
overcrowding	
  began	
  to	
  recede.	
  	
  
	
  
You	
  members	
  will	
  recall	
  that	
  we	
  had	
  a	
  population	
  of	
  172,000	
  inmates,	
  now	
  residing	
  at	
  117,000	
  inmates.	
  The	
  work	
  
began	
  with	
  some	
  oversight	
  from	
  this	
  legislature	
  of	
  “What	
  will	
  you	
  do	
  now	
  in	
  your	
  prison	
  system?”	
  And	
  the	
  security	
  
threat	
  group/gang	
  management	
  policies	
  –	
  the	
  genesis	
  	
  -­‐-­‐	
  actually	
  began	
  there	
  and	
  that	
  work	
  continues.	
  	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

22

In	
  terms	
  of	
  the	
  agreement	
  of	
  principles	
  today	
  but	
  also	
  the	
  principles	
  that	
  were	
  in	
  that	
  document	
  and	
  in	
  that	
  change	
  
remain	
  alive	
  today.	
  And	
  with	
  respect	
  –	
  and	
  I	
  would	
  encourage	
  that	
  we	
  continue	
  to	
  organize	
  around	
  these	
  principles	
  
as	
  we	
  go	
  forward.	
  (2h)	
  
	
  
The	
  first	
  one	
  related	
  to	
  SHU,	
  as	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  all	
  agree,	
  that	
  it	
  was	
  far	
  too	
  easy	
  to	
  get	
  in	
  and	
  too	
  hard	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  and	
  that	
  
the	
  stays	
  in	
  this	
  environment	
  were	
  certainly	
  too	
  long.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  we	
  all	
  agree	
  that	
  SHUs	
  –	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  they	
  are	
  used	
  –	
  should	
  always	
  be	
  the	
  exception	
  and	
  not	
  the	
  rule.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  that	
  we	
  all	
  agree	
  now	
  that	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  overcrowding	
  in	
  the	
  prison	
  system	
  makes	
  everything	
  harder,	
  including	
  
managing	
  gangs	
  and	
  including	
  managing	
  this	
  area.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  we	
  all	
  agree	
  now	
  that	
  gang	
  management	
  can’t	
  just	
  be	
  suppression,	
  by	
  itself,	
  that	
  it	
  also	
  has	
  to	
  include	
  
elements	
  of	
  rehabilitation	
  but,	
  more	
  importantly,	
  prevention,	
  which	
  is	
  a	
  very	
  important	
  theme	
  that	
  I	
  think	
  started	
  to	
  
emerge	
  breaking	
  late	
  in	
  this	
  particular	
  hearing.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  we	
  all	
  agree	
  that	
  the	
  policies	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  behavior-­‐based,	
  that	
  they	
  can’t	
  simply	
  be	
  strictly	
  based	
  on	
  
affiliation.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  there	
  are	
  other	
  areas	
  of	
  agreement,	
  but	
  I	
  focus	
  on	
  those	
  five	
  as	
  ones	
  that	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  must	
  continue	
  to	
  organize	
  
whatever	
  change,	
  reform	
  we	
  take	
  in	
  this	
  particular	
  reform,	
  and	
  the	
  director	
  and	
  myself	
  look	
  forward	
  to	
  working	
  
with	
  everybody	
  on	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  those	
  elements,	
  in	
  particularly	
  with	
  the	
  programming	
  and	
  the	
  prevention	
  components	
  of	
  
this.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  get	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  disagreement	
  over	
  how	
  far	
  and	
  how	
  fast	
  and	
  what	
  the	
  dimension	
  of	
  these	
  changes	
  should	
  be.	
  But	
  I	
  
don’t	
  see	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  disagreement	
  over	
  at	
  least	
  the	
  direction,	
  and	
  the	
  results	
  today	
  suggests	
  this.	
  And	
  I	
  do	
  
appreciate	
  and	
  respect	
  that	
  we	
  will	
  debate	
  those	
  very	
  questions	
  about	
  how	
  far,	
  how	
  fast,	
  and	
  how	
  much	
  more	
  is	
  
needed.	
  	
  
	
  
For	
  our	
  part	
  in	
  the	
  Department	
  of	
  Corrections,	
  pace	
  of	
  change	
  is	
  very	
  important	
  to	
  us	
  and	
  very,	
  very	
  key.	
  We	
  are	
  
obviously	
  on	
  the	
  more	
  cautious	
  side	
  of	
  the	
  equation	
  given	
  the	
  fact	
  that	
  there	
  are	
  enormous	
  changes	
  going	
  on	
  in	
  our	
  
system,	
  and	
  I	
  won’t	
  catalogue	
  all	
  of	
  them.	
  But	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  long,	
  long	
  list	
  of	
  changes	
  that	
  are	
  occurring	
  largely	
  owing	
  to	
  
the	
  fact	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  a	
  less	
  crowded	
  system,	
  and	
  we	
  are	
  making	
  investments	
  and	
  reinvestments	
  in	
  changing	
  in	
  
programs	
  and	
  changing	
  missions	
  and	
  trying	
  to	
  bring	
  up	
  re-­‐entry	
  hubs	
  and	
  the	
  like,	
  and	
  housing	
  units	
  and	
  functions	
  
and	
  roles	
  and	
  responsibilities	
  are	
  changing	
  throughout	
  this	
  particular	
  system.	
  	
  
	
  
But	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  at	
  least	
  everybody	
  to	
  be	
  encouraged	
  by	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  facts	
  as	
  we	
  strive	
  to	
  increase	
  the	
  successes	
  of	
  
our	
  programs,	
  which	
  is	
  that	
  97%	
  of	
  the	
  folks	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  reviewed	
  today	
  under	
  this	
  policy	
  are	
  in	
  fact	
  either	
  out	
  
of	
  the	
  SHU	
  or	
  making	
  their	
  way	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU.	
  And	
  again,	
  we	
  can	
  debate,	
  discuss,	
  and	
  argue	
  over	
  the	
  words	
  and	
  the	
  
early	
  formation	
  of	
  the	
  reforms	
  and	
  the	
  policies	
  that	
  we’re	
  embarking	
  upon,	
  but	
  that	
  simple	
  fact,	
  I	
  think,	
  speaks	
  for	
  
itself.	
  It	
  is	
  not	
  something	
  that	
  we	
  are	
  planning	
  to	
  do	
  or	
  talking	
  about	
  doing;	
  it	
  is	
  something	
  that	
  has	
  actually	
  
happened	
  and	
  it	
  is	
  happening	
  as	
  we	
  sit	
  here	
  and	
  as	
  we	
  speak.	
  	
  
	
  
In	
  addition	
  to	
  which	
  I	
  think	
  last	
  year	
  at	
  this	
  hearing	
  and	
  others	
  had	
  highlighted	
  the	
  longest	
  serving	
  SHU	
  person	
  in	
  
our	
  system.	
  Now	
  that	
  person	
  is	
  now	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  and	
  in	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  and	
  shortly	
  visiting	
  family	
  
members,	
  is	
  my	
  understanding.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  I	
  think	
  there	
  are	
  things	
  to	
  point	
  to	
  that	
  certainly	
  that	
  suggest	
  that	
  we’re	
  heading	
  in	
  the	
  right	
  direction,	
  and	
  we	
  
welcome	
  the	
  coming	
  discussion	
  about,	
  again,	
  the	
  pace,	
  the	
  dimension	
  elements	
  in	
  there.	
  	
  
	
  
And	
  that	
  concludes,	
  at	
  least,	
  comments	
  on	
  my	
  behalf.	
  Director	
  Stainer	
  and	
  I	
  will	
  of	
  course	
  stay	
  here	
  for	
  any	
  
questions	
  you	
  have	
  but	
  more	
  importantly	
  knowing	
  that	
  you	
  have	
  a	
  clock	
  to	
  manage,	
  we	
  do	
  want	
  to	
  hear	
  the	
  public’s	
  
comments.	
  	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

23

	
  
	
  

	
  	
  

ASSEMBLYMAN	
  TOM	
  AMMIANO	
  Q&A	
  with	
  	
  CDCR	
  Undersecretary	
  Martin	
  Hoshino	
  and	
  
Director	
  Michael	
  Stainer	
  
	
  

AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you	
  very	
  much,	
  go	
  to	
  Chair	
  if	
  I	
  may.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  come	
  after.	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  see.	
  So,	
  here’s	
  the	
  deal.	
  We’ve	
  heard	
  a	
  lot	
  from	
  the	
  other	
  side,	
  particularly	
  about	
  other	
  programs.	
  And	
  
so	
  just	
  briefly,	
  are	
  you	
  acquainted	
  with	
  Washington	
  state	
  and	
  Mississippi?	
  Have	
  you	
  visited	
  there?	
  Are	
  you	
  willing	
  –	
  
have	
  you	
  seen	
  practices	
  that	
  you	
  feel	
  that	
  California	
  could	
  adopt	
  that	
  we	
  do	
  not	
  have	
  now?	
  
HOSHINO:	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  both	
  might	
  have	
  answer	
  to	
  that.	
  The	
  first	
  thing	
  is	
  yes,	
  we’re	
  familiar	
  with	
  Washington.	
  We	
  
actually	
  sent	
  a	
  team	
  of	
  our	
  folks	
  to	
  Washington.	
  And	
  in	
  the	
  methodology	
  at	
  least	
  for	
  this	
  particular	
  set	
  of	
  reforms,	
  
there	
  was	
  a	
  fair	
  amount	
  of	
  research	
  that	
  occurred	
  through	
  other	
  states.	
  So	
  this	
  was	
  not	
  done	
  in	
  a	
  vacuum.	
  	
  
Again,	
  there	
  are	
  still	
  things	
  to	
  work	
  on,	
  but	
  this	
  department	
  started	
  to	
  move	
  in	
  this	
  direction	
  knowing	
  that	
  it	
  
didn’t	
  have	
  a	
  perfect	
  plan	
  for	
  tomorrow	
  began	
  to	
  implement	
  these	
  reforms	
  and	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  that	
  was	
  predicated	
  on	
  
best	
  practices	
  that	
  were	
  identified	
  in	
  those	
  other	
  states	
  and	
  in	
  those	
  other	
  programs.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  right.	
  But,	
  you	
  know,	
  there’s	
  still	
  a	
  miss	
  here	
  somehow,	
  because	
  it	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  that	
  those	
  
programs	
  are	
  working.	
  Yet,	
  it	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  that	
  we’re	
  shying	
  away	
  from	
  them.	
  But	
  that’s	
  something	
  to	
  be	
  
developed.	
  The	
  other	
  thing	
  I’d	
  like	
  –	
  I	
  have	
  three	
  specific	
  questions	
  about	
  the	
  …	
  don’t	
  you	
  think	
  independent	
  
oversight	
  of	
  the	
  process	
  would	
  be	
  beneficial?	
  	
  
HOSHINO:	
  	
  Do	
  you	
  mean	
  the	
  entire	
  –	
  I’m	
  not	
  sure,	
  specific	
  –	
  I’m	
  wondering	
  if	
  you	
  mean	
  on	
  the	
  actual	
  validation	
  
or	
  –	
  ?	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  that,	
  yeah.	
  	
  
HOSHINO:	
  the	
  entire	
  process?	
  Some	
  measure?	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Yeah.	
  So,	
  it’s	
  not	
  the	
  hen	
  and	
  the	
  foxes	
  and	
  that,	
  you	
  know,	
  there’s	
  truly	
  an	
  independent	
  assessment,	
  
which	
  I	
  think	
  would	
  be	
  to	
  the	
  benefit	
  of	
  CDCR.	
  See,	
  right	
  now	
  that’s	
  not	
  there.	
  It’s	
  all	
  in-­‐house.	
  So,	
  anyway,	
  I’ll	
  let	
  
you	
  ruminate	
  on	
  that.	
  [Laughter]	
  
Why	
  can’t	
  you	
  treat	
  STG	
  members	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  the	
  associates?	
  That’s	
  been	
  brought	
  up.	
  By	
  requiring	
  the	
  
validation	
  plus	
  behavior.	
  You	
  heard	
  the	
  point	
  that	
  was	
  made.	
  	
  
And	
  why	
  did	
  CDCR	
  decide	
  to	
  add	
  street	
  gangs	
  to	
  the	
  definition	
  of	
  the	
  STG?	
  Doesn’t	
  that	
  widen	
  the	
  net?	
  So	
  those	
  are	
  
the	
  three	
  points	
  that	
  I	
  heard	
  made	
  and	
  if	
  you	
  have	
  responses	
  to	
  them	
  now,	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  great.	
  	
  
STAINER:	
  I’d	
  like	
  to	
  first	
  start	
  off,	
  again.	
  Michael	
  Stainer.	
  I’m	
  the	
  Director	
  of	
  the	
  Division	
  of	
  Adult	
  Institutions.	
  I’d	
  
like	
  to	
  first	
  start	
  off	
  with	
  your	
  comments	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  Mississippi	
  and	
  Washington.	
  We	
  actually	
  have	
  sent	
  just	
  this	
  
fall	
  an	
  associate	
  director	
  along	
  with	
  several	
  wardens	
  up	
  to	
  go	
  visit,	
  and	
  they	
  actually	
  spent	
  a	
  week	
  in	
  Washington	
  
where	
  they	
  toured	
  the	
  different	
  various	
  institutions	
  with	
  the	
  directorate	
  of	
  Washington.	
  And	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  we	
  
brought	
  back	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  good	
  ideas,	
  programs.	
  We	
  looked	
  very	
  earnestly	
  at	
  what	
  they	
  had	
  to	
  offer.	
  I	
  believe	
  in	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  
what	
  Miss	
  Metcalf	
  said	
  and	
  Mr.	
  Haney	
  as	
  well	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  the	
  types	
  of	
  programs.	
  We	
  are	
  exploring	
  those	
  and	
  
seeing	
  how	
  can	
  we,	
  you	
  know,	
  take	
  something	
  that’s	
  already	
  been	
  invented	
  and	
  how	
  can	
  that	
  apply	
  with	
  our	
  system	
  
here.	
  	
  
I	
  believe	
  the	
  STG	
  reforms	
  are	
  just	
  the	
  first	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  reforms	
  of	
  our	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  systems	
  and	
  the	
  
processes	
  that	
  are	
  in	
  place.	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  have	
  a	
  long	
  way	
  to	
  go.	
  	
  
With	
  regard	
  to	
  the	
  independent	
  oversight	
  of	
  our	
  processes,	
  I	
  believe	
  we	
  do	
  have	
  a	
  system	
  in	
  place	
  and	
  that’s	
  the	
  
Office	
  of	
  the	
  Inspector	
  General.	
  They	
  do	
  provide	
  the	
  oversight.	
  I	
  just	
  had	
  a	
  conversation	
  with	
  the	
  chief	
  deputy	
  
inspector	
  general	
  and	
  Mr.	
  [Roy]	
  Wesley	
  is	
  asking	
  for	
  the	
  schedule	
  of	
  the	
  case-­‐by-­‐case	
  review	
  so	
  they	
  can	
  go	
  and	
  they	
  
can	
  observe	
  that	
  process	
  and	
  then	
  provide	
  feedback	
  not	
  just	
  to	
  the	
  public	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  us,	
  as	
  how	
  we	
  can	
  apply	
  that	
  
process	
  a	
  little	
  bit	
  better.	
  	
  
With	
  regard	
  to	
  the	
  STG	
  members,	
  again,	
  the	
  members	
  themselves	
  have	
  been	
  proven	
  and	
  it’s	
  our	
  belief	
  and	
  the	
  
evidence	
  has	
  shown	
  that	
  they	
  carry	
  a	
  different	
  amount	
  of	
  influence	
  with	
  the	
  population.	
  Therefore,	
  we	
  believe	
  just	
  
simply	
  the	
  matter	
  of	
  being	
  a	
  member	
  in	
  and	
  of	
  itself,	
  we	
  do	
  necessitate	
  that	
  we	
  would	
  treat	
  them	
  a	
  little	
  bit	
  
differently	
  than	
  the	
  associates.	
  I	
  have	
  heard	
  the	
  comments,	
  and	
  we’ll	
  take	
  those	
  comments	
  into	
  consideration	
  as	
  
well	
  and	
  we’d	
  like	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  you	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  that.	
  	
  
Finally,	
  sir,	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  your	
  question	
  about	
  the	
  street	
  gangs	
  or	
  the	
  STG	
  IIs,	
  there’s	
  always	
  been	
  a	
  process	
  in	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

24

place	
  to	
  validate	
  street	
  gang	
  members	
  and	
  associates.	
  If	
  you	
  look	
  through	
  many,	
  many,	
  many	
  of	
  our	
  files	
  today,	
  
you’ll	
  find	
  that	
  members	
  of	
  street	
  gangs	
  are	
  validated,	
  whether	
  they’d	
  be	
  an	
  associate	
  or	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  those	
  street	
  
gangs.	
  The	
  most	
  of	
  our	
  focus	
  has	
  always	
  been	
  upon	
  on	
  the	
  prison	
  gangs	
  or	
  STG	
  I’s	
  today	
  just	
  based	
  upon	
  the	
  
different	
  levels	
  of	
  influence	
  that	
  they’ve	
  had	
  within	
  our	
  system.	
  But	
  again,	
  this	
  is	
  not	
  a	
  new	
  policy	
  with	
  regard	
  to	
  
the	
  validation	
  of	
  the	
  street	
  gangs.	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  appreciate	
  your	
  answers.	
  I	
  mean,	
  I	
  do	
  have	
  some	
  dispute	
  with	
  them.	
  Very	
  happy	
  to	
  hear	
  that	
  you	
  
would	
  like	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  us	
  –	
  you	
  know,	
  there’s	
  this	
  ping	
  pong	
  that	
  gets	
  established.	
  We	
  step	
  forward	
  –	
  I	
  have	
  some	
  
legislation	
  I’m	
  going	
  to	
  introduce	
  after	
  this	
  hearing	
  today	
  about	
  restoring	
  the	
  credits,	
  which	
  I	
  think	
  Miss	
  Hubbard	
  
talked	
  about,	
  and	
  also	
  a	
  cap	
  on	
  the	
  SHU.	
  But	
  the	
  ping	
  pong	
  is	
  we	
  introduce	
  the	
  legislation,	
  then	
  you	
  go,	
  “Okay,	
  we’re	
  
going	
  to	
  respond	
  to	
  that.	
  Here,	
  we	
  respond	
  to	
  that;	
  we	
  don’t	
  need	
  the	
  legislation.”	
  

	
  

Gentlemen,	
  I	
  tell	
  you	
  it’s	
  time	
  for	
  something	
  bold.	
  We’re	
  little	
  mice	
  nibbling	
  at	
  a	
  big	
  cheese	
  here.	
  I	
  get	
  it.	
  We’re	
  all	
  
part	
  of	
  the	
  same	
  universe.	
  But	
  we	
  really	
  need	
  an	
  aggressive	
  strategy	
  here.	
  Hopefully,	
  it	
  will	
  be	
  with	
  you	
  and	
  not	
  
against	
  you.	
  	
  
You	
  know	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  I	
  do	
  that	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  question	
  of	
  political	
  will.	
  Out	
  there,	
  the	
  populist	
  sentiment	
  is	
  that	
  we	
  do	
  need	
  
reform	
  and	
  we	
  do	
  need	
  change	
  and	
  hopefully	
  that	
  will	
  impact	
  the	
  legislators	
  here	
  as	
  heavily	
  as	
  the	
  CDCR	
  does	
  on	
  
how	
  they	
  vote	
  and	
  what	
  should	
  go	
  into	
  legislation.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  those	
  are	
  my	
  comments.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  again	
  for	
  stepping	
  up	
  to	
  the	
  plate.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  have	
  some	
  comments	
  and	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  questions	
  as	
  well.	
  Thank	
  you	
  both	
  very	
  much	
  for	
  being	
  here.	
  I	
  
would	
  like	
  to	
  see	
  us	
  work	
  together	
  to	
  strengthen	
  this	
  program.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  the	
  challenge	
  for	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  is	
  converting	
  it	
  –	
  not	
  converting	
  it	
  but	
  moving	
  it	
  more	
  towards	
  a	
  more	
  
conducive	
  programming	
  type	
  of	
  institution	
  given	
  what	
  its	
  particular	
  mission	
  is	
  and	
  that	
  will	
  always	
  be	
  the	
  
challenge.	
  Some	
  of	
  its	
  limitations	
  are	
  just	
  by	
  design,	
  where	
  it	
  doesn’t	
  lend	
  itself	
  structurally	
  and	
  physically	
  to	
  the	
  
kind	
  of	
  environment.	
  But	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  mean	
  that	
  that	
  challenge	
  can’t	
  be	
  taken	
  on	
  in	
  some	
  respects.	
  	
  
And	
  I	
  know	
  that	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  has	
  come	
  a	
  ways.	
  Judge	
  Henderson	
  knows	
  that	
  institution	
  very,	
  very	
  well.	
  He	
  
essentially	
  supervised	
  of	
  that	
  through	
  Madrid	
  for	
  many,	
  many	
  years	
  before	
  finding	
  that	
  it	
  had	
  met	
  constitutional	
  
minimal	
  standards	
  and	
  dismissing	
  his	
  case.	
  	
  
But	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  necessarily	
  mean	
  that	
  that’s	
  where	
  the	
  discussion	
  ends.	
  And	
  certainly	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  every	
  
institution	
  should	
  be	
  undergoing	
  some	
  discussion.	
  In	
  fact,	
  that’s	
  what	
  we’ve	
  been	
  doing	
  as	
  I	
  keep	
  calling	
  it	
  the	
  
“post-­‐realigned	
  world”	
  where	
  you’ve	
  got	
  44,000,	
  45,000,	
  50,000	
  less	
  inmates.	
  Certainly,	
  there	
  are	
  mission	
  changes	
  
within	
  that,	
  and	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  enters	
  that	
  discussion.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  I	
  will	
  note	
  that	
  Judge	
  Henderson	
  says	
  it	
  presses	
  against	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  humanly	
  
tolerable	
  in	
  his	
  ruling.	
  So	
  it	
  was	
  not,	
  you	
  know,	
  in	
  any	
  way	
  saying	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  good	
  thing	
  to	
  do.	
  	
  

SEN.	
  LONI	
  HANCOCK’s	
  Q&A	
  with	
  with	
  	
  CDCR	
  Undersecretary	
  Martin	
  Hoshino	
  and	
  Director	
  
Michael	
  Stainer	
  	
  
	
  
HANCOCK:	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  couple	
  of	
  questions	
  and	
  some	
  comments	
  as	
  well.	
  Thank	
  you	
  both	
  very	
  much	
  for	
  being	
  here.	
  I	
  
would	
  like	
  to	
  see	
  us	
  work	
  together	
  to	
  strengthen	
  this	
  program	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  ways	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  suggested	
  today.	
  
And	
  I	
  really	
  think	
  that	
  it’s	
  great	
  that	
  you	
  went	
  up	
  to	
  see	
  Washington.	
  It	
  is	
  really	
  a	
  good	
  thing	
  because	
  we’ve	
  got	
  to	
  
get	
  more	
  flexibility	
  in	
  turning	
  around	
  a	
  very	
  big	
  ship	
  and	
  I	
  know	
  you	
  guys	
  know	
  that.	
  But	
  you’re	
  in	
  the	
  process	
  of	
  
codifying	
  this	
  or	
  implementing	
  a	
  new	
  series	
  of	
  regulations.	
  How	
  do	
  members	
  of	
  the	
  legislature	
  impact	
  that	
  process	
  
to	
  get	
  the	
  changes	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  see?	
  Who	
  in	
  state	
  government	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  finally	
  say	
  to	
  you:	
  “Yes,	
  these	
  are	
  now	
  the	
  
new	
  regulations?”	
  Can	
  we	
  come	
  with	
  a	
  series	
  of	
  things	
  to	
  write	
  in	
  there?	
  Do	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  do	
  legislation?	
  What	
  do	
  you	
  
suggest?	
  	
  
HOSHINO:	
  Well,	
  my	
  recommendation,	
  because	
  you	
  know,	
  we’re	
  in	
  the	
  public	
  commenting	
  period,	
  but	
  this	
  is	
  a	
  
period	
  where	
  we	
  will	
  take	
  everything	
  under	
  consideration.	
  And	
  I	
  don’t	
  want	
  to	
  reduce	
  the	
  stature	
  of	
  a	
  third	
  branch	
  
of	
  government,	
  but	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  way	
  for	
  us	
  to	
  get	
  your	
  comments	
  to	
  us.	
  It	
  doesn’t	
  have	
  to	
  be	
  through	
  that	
  process,	
  
which	
  will	
  be	
  lengthy.	
  There’s	
  no	
  reason	
  why	
  we	
  can’t	
  continue	
  to	
  do	
  the	
  things	
  that	
  we’re	
  doing,	
  which	
  is	
  either	
  
appearing	
  at	
  this	
  particular	
  hearing	
  to	
  take	
  it	
  in	
  but	
  also	
  to	
  work	
  with	
  you	
  and	
  the	
  members	
  of	
  your	
  staff	
  as	
  we	
  …	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Will	
  you	
  put	
  me	
  on	
  your	
  speed	
  dial?	
  [Laughter]	
  	
  
HOSHINO:	
  You	
  know,	
  along	
  the	
  way.	
  I	
  mean,	
  the	
  regulatory	
  process	
  is	
  obviously	
  subservient	
  to	
  the	
  legislative	
  
process.	
  But	
  again	
  it	
  is	
  how,	
  we’re	
  trying	
  to	
  make	
  a	
  demonstration	
  in	
  a	
  forceful	
  way	
  that	
  it	
  is	
  just	
  not	
  by	
  memo;	
  it’s	
  
just	
  not	
  by	
  a	
  training	
  curriculum;	
  it’s	
  not	
  just	
  by	
  this.	
  That	
  there	
  actually	
  is	
  something	
  that	
  codifies	
  what	
  we’re	
  doing	
  
and	
  that’s	
  why	
  you	
  see	
  us	
  moving	
  aggressively	
  into	
  the	
  regulation	
  piece.	
  It’s	
  not	
  enough	
  to	
  have	
  the	
  concept	
  and	
  the	
  
blueprint	
  to	
  have,	
  again,	
  memos	
  and	
  policies	
  and	
  things	
  that	
  we’re	
  doing.	
  We’re	
  trying	
  to	
  find	
  that	
  sweet	
  spot	
  
between	
  all	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  so	
  that	
  there	
  is	
  an	
  affirmative	
  record	
  and	
  demonstration.	
  And	
  to	
  the	
  extent	
  that	
  we	
  can	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

25

provide	
  more	
  clarity	
  by	
  people	
  who	
  are	
  actually	
  impacted	
  by	
  that,	
  that’s	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  objectives	
  behind	
  the	
  
regulations.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  OK	
  it	
  does	
  seem,	
  when	
  you	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  flow	
  charts,	
  and	
  everything,	
  that	
  it’s	
  extremely	
  difficult,	
  the	
  
addition	
  of	
  new	
  terms,	
  and	
  different	
  definitions	
  is	
  difficult.	
  And	
  you	
  know,	
  I	
  had	
  the	
  opportunity	
  over	
  the	
  weekend	
  
to	
  listen	
  to	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  hearings	
  that	
  were	
  conducted	
  in	
  2004.	
  You	
  were	
  there	
  then	
  too,	
  Martin.	
  The	
  Romero-­‐Speier	
  
hearings.	
  And	
  statements	
  were	
  made	
  at	
  that	
  time	
  about	
  the	
  problem	
  is,	
  CDCR	
  changes	
  the	
  names,	
  rearranges	
  the	
  
pieces	
  in	
  the	
  process,	
  but	
  the	
  fundamental	
  thing	
  doesn’t	
  change.	
  And	
  I	
  think	
  I	
  don’t	
  want	
  to	
  be	
  in	
  the	
  position	
  10	
  
years	
  from	
  now	
  to	
  have	
  somebody	
  having	
  these	
  same	
  hearings	
  again.	
  I	
  really	
  don’t.	
  [emotional?]	
  
	
  
And	
  I’m	
  wondering	
  if	
  anybody	
  has	
  given	
  any	
  thought	
  to	
  what	
  would	
  happen	
  if	
  we	
  tried	
  to	
  re-­‐purpose	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  in	
  
some	
  way.	
  I	
  believe	
  it	
  opened	
  in	
  1990	
  or	
  1989.	
  So	
  it’s	
  been	
  around	
  for	
  about	
  25	
  years.	
  It	
  was	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  historic	
  rush	
  
to	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  as	
  the	
  answer	
  to	
  security	
  problems	
  in	
  the	
  country.	
  And	
  unfortunately,	
  it	
  was	
  placed	
  in	
  an	
  
area	
  of	
  high	
  unemployment,	
  which	
  makes	
  the	
  two-­‐year	
  transferring	
  out	
  that	
  I	
  think	
  was	
  mentioned	
  for	
  Virginia	
  a	
  
difficult	
  thing	
  to	
  do,	
  although	
  I	
  can	
  see	
  why	
  that	
  would	
  be	
  necessary.	
  I’ve	
  heard	
  a	
  lot	
  actually	
  anecdotally	
  and	
  from	
  
other	
  people	
  about	
  the	
  toll	
  on	
  people	
  doing	
  this	
  work	
  in	
  the	
  culture	
  that	
  has	
  existed	
  there	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  narrowing	
  
their	
  humanity,	
  their	
  stress,	
  how	
  it	
  impacts	
  their	
  families,	
  and	
  their	
  sense	
  of	
  who	
  they	
  are.	
  	
  
And	
  I	
  think	
  Mr.	
  Haney’s	
  original	
  experiment	
  –	
  the	
  Stanford	
  University	
  experiment	
  where	
  the	
  students	
  that	
  were	
  
selected	
  to	
  be	
  prison	
  guards	
  acted	
  in	
  a	
  way	
  that	
  caused	
  them	
  to	
  end	
  the	
  experiment	
  early	
  –	
  shows	
  what	
  can	
  happen	
  
to	
  people	
  just	
  like	
  it	
  dehumanizes	
  prisoners.	
  I	
  don’t	
  think	
  it’s	
  healthy	
  for	
  the	
  people	
  that	
  do	
  the	
  work.	
  	
  
	
  
So	
  I’ve	
  been	
  struck	
  recently	
  in	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  other	
  issues	
  that	
  have	
  arisen	
  around	
  CDCR	
  with	
  a	
  statement	
  that	
  I	
  read	
  in	
  
the	
  press	
  that	
  CDCR	
  estimates	
  there	
  are	
  30,000	
  seriously	
  mentally	
  ill	
  inmates	
  in	
  the	
  institution.	
  Now,	
  would	
  it	
  be	
  
possible	
  to	
  re-­‐purpose,	
  if	
  we	
  decided	
  to	
  do	
  that,	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  put	
  in	
  a	
  few	
  more	
  mentally	
  healthy	
  amenities	
  for	
  
that	
  population?	
  Or	
  is	
  there	
  something	
  like	
  that	
  that	
  we	
  can	
  do?	
  It	
  would	
  require	
  a	
  great	
  deal	
  more	
  training	
  and	
  
education	
  on	
  the	
  part	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  working	
  there.	
  But	
  have	
  any	
  thought	
  be	
  given	
  to	
  that	
  by	
  CDCR?	
  
HOSHINO:	
  I	
  would	
  say	
  only	
  in	
  a	
  general	
  sense.	
  The	
  specificity	
  that	
  you’re	
  bringing	
  –	
  I’ll	
  give	
  you	
  thoughts	
  right	
  here	
  
and	
  now.	
  It	
  would	
  be	
  very	
  difficult	
  for	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  for	
  much	
  of	
  the	
  reasons	
  that	
  you’ve	
  all	
  catalogued,	
  and	
  I	
  know	
  
you	
  and	
  many	
  of	
  the	
  members	
  have	
  actually	
  visited	
  that	
  particular	
  institution.	
  And	
  you’ve	
  noted	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  
difficulties	
  operating	
  there	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  recruit	
  and	
  retain	
  staff	
  at	
  all	
  levels.	
  So	
  I	
  think	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  a	
  
pretty	
  high	
  bar	
  to	
  get	
  over	
  to	
  try	
  and	
  convert	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  into	
  a	
  more	
  mental	
  health	
  institution	
  and	
  try	
  and	
  recruit	
  
folks.	
  In	
  fact,	
  that’s	
  why	
  I	
  think	
  a	
  lot	
  of	
  that	
  population	
  is	
  housed	
  in	
  places	
  like	
  CSP	
  Sacramento	
  and	
  other	
  locations	
  
in	
  the	
  state	
  where	
  they	
  are	
  able	
  to	
  provide	
  the	
  treatment	
  and	
  services	
  and	
  the	
  like,	
  not	
  that	
  there	
  aren’t	
  any	
  going	
  
on	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay.	
  But	
  it	
  does	
  pose	
  its	
  unique	
  challenges.	
  	
  
I	
  think	
  the	
  challenge	
  for	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  is	
  converting	
  it	
  –	
  not	
  converting	
  it	
  but	
  moving	
  it	
  more	
  toward	
  a	
  more	
  conducive	
  
programming	
  type	
  of	
  institution	
  given	
  what	
  its	
  particular	
  mission	
  is,	
  and	
  that	
  will	
  always	
  be	
  the	
  challenge.	
  Some	
  of	
  
its	
  limitations	
  are	
  just	
  by	
  design,	
  where	
  it	
  doesn’t	
  lend	
  itself	
  structurally	
  and	
  physically	
  to	
  the	
  kind	
  of	
  environment.	
  
But	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  mean	
  that	
  that	
  challenge	
  can’t	
  be	
  taken	
  on	
  in	
  some	
  respects.	
  	
  And	
  I	
  know	
  that	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  has	
  come	
  
a	
  ways.	
  Judge	
  Henderson	
  knows	
  that	
  institution	
  very,	
  very	
  well.	
  He	
  essentially	
  supervised	
  that	
  through	
  Madrid	
  for	
  
many,	
  many,	
  many	
  	
  years	
  before	
  finding	
  that	
  it	
  had	
  met	
  constitutional	
  minimal	
  standards	
  in	
  dismissing	
  his	
  case.	
  	
  

	
  
But	
  that	
  doesn’t	
  necessarily	
  mean	
  that	
  that’s	
  where	
  the	
  discussion	
  ends.	
  And	
  certainly	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  and	
  every	
  
institution	
  should	
  be	
  undergoing	
  some	
  discussion.	
  In	
  fact,	
  that’s	
  what	
  we’ve	
  been	
  doing,	
  as	
  I	
  keep	
  calling	
  it	
  the	
  
“post-­‐realigned	
  world,”	
  where	
  you’ve	
  got	
  44,000,	
  45,000,	
  50,000	
  less	
  inmates.	
  Certainly,	
  there	
  are	
  mission	
  changes	
  
within	
  that,	
  and	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  enters	
  that	
  discussion.	
  	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  I	
  will	
  note	
  that	
  Judge	
  Henderson	
  says	
  “it	
  presses	
  against	
  the	
  limits	
  of	
  what	
  is	
  humanly	
  
tolerable”	
  in	
  his	
  ruling.	
  So	
  it	
  was	
  not,	
  you	
  know,	
  in	
  any	
  way	
  saying	
  that	
  this	
  was	
  a	
  good	
  thing	
  to	
  do.	
  	
  
And	
  I	
  wondered	
  if	
  –	
  I	
  was	
  very	
  interested	
  in	
  the	
  agreement	
  to	
  end	
  hostilities	
  that	
  came	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  hunger	
  strike	
  last	
  
August,	
  and	
  which	
  basically	
  was	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  leaders	
  of	
  the	
  hunger	
  strike	
  talking	
  about	
  the	
  need	
  to	
  end	
  racial	
  
hostilities	
  in	
  prisons	
  because	
  it	
  was	
  really	
  just	
  a	
  way	
  of	
  perpetuating	
  the	
  old	
  culture;	
  and	
  trying	
  to	
  change	
  it.	
  And	
  I	
  
wondered	
  if	
  the	
  department	
  was	
  taking	
  them	
  up	
  on	
  that	
  in	
  any	
  way.	
  And	
  the	
  reason	
  I	
  ask	
  is	
  that	
  if	
  it	
  could	
  happen	
  in	
  
Northern	
  Ireland,	
  where	
  they	
  have	
  had	
  a	
  tenuous	
  but	
  lasting	
  peace	
  for	
  about	
  12	
  years,	
  it	
  seems	
  to	
  me	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  
be	
  worth	
  a	
  try	
  here	
  and	
  perhaps	
  could	
  lead	
  to	
  a	
  more	
  interactive	
  process	
  with	
  designing	
  a	
  step-­‐down	
  program	
  that	
  
would	
  actually	
  work	
  and	
  not	
  humiliate	
  people,	
  and	
  some	
  other	
  things.	
  Has	
  the	
  department	
  had	
  any	
  reaction	
  to	
  that	
  
agreement	
  to	
  end	
  hostilities?	
  	
  
STAINER:	
  I	
  think	
  I	
  can	
  say	
  simply	
  we	
  definitely	
  endorse	
  and	
  support	
  an	
  end	
  of	
  hostilities	
  amongst	
  inmate	
  
population	
  and	
  an	
  end	
  to	
  the	
  violence	
  –	
  inmate	
  on	
  inmate	
  or	
  inmate	
  on	
  staff	
  violence.	
  Absolutely.	
  [Comments	
  from	
  
audience	
  off-­‐camera]	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Please	
  everybody.	
  Just	
  trying	
  to	
  figure	
  out	
  what	
  we	
  can	
  do,	
  right?	
  Okay	
  because	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  need	
  to	
  look	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

26

at	
  some	
  fixes	
  that	
  go	
  beyond	
  rearranging	
  the	
  boxes	
  on	
  the	
  flow	
  chart	
  and,	
  in	
  fact,	
  adding	
  to	
  the	
  boxes,	
  which	
  is	
  what	
  
in	
  a	
  way	
  makes	
  people	
  nervous	
  I	
  think	
  that	
  the	
  net	
  is	
  going	
  to	
  get	
  cast	
  higher.	
  So	
  I	
  think	
  we’re	
  going	
  to	
  be	
  working	
  
on	
  actual	
  benchmarks	
  and	
  goals	
  and	
  specific	
  things.	
  And	
  we	
  can	
  submit	
  those	
  as	
  comments,	
  but	
  I	
  think	
  we	
  may	
  have	
  
to	
  go	
  beyond	
  that.	
  We	
  need	
  to	
  really	
  be	
  looking	
  at	
  some	
  new	
  ways.	
  	
  
Because	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  see	
  if	
  we’re	
  all	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  page	
  here	
  and	
  ask	
  you	
  the	
  same	
  question	
  that	
  I	
  asked	
  somebody	
  
else	
  –	
  I	
  can’t	
  remember	
  –	
  during	
  this	
  hearing.	
  If	
  this	
  was	
  to	
  make	
  safer	
  prisons	
  and	
  to	
  deal	
  with	
  a	
  gang	
  problem	
  in	
  
prisons	
  –	
  and	
  we’ve	
  been	
  doing	
  this	
  for	
  25	
  years,	
  and	
  I	
  still	
  get	
  told	
  all	
  the	
  time	
  that	
  prison	
  gangs	
  are	
  the	
  reason	
  
why	
  other	
  improvements	
  can’t	
  happen	
  –	
  do	
  you	
  think	
  that	
  the	
  SHU	
  is	
  productive	
  thing	
  to	
  do?	
  	
  
Did	
  it	
  work?	
  	
  
HOSHINO:	
  So	
  I	
  know	
  many	
  have	
  tried	
  to	
  answer	
  that.	
  I	
  can	
  tell	
  you	
  my	
  answer	
  is,	
  if	
  you	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  
SHUs	
  and	
  gang	
  management	
  policy	
  and	
  what	
  happened	
  in	
  California’s	
  experience	
  as	
  well	
  as	
  the	
  nation’s,	
  certainly	
  
in	
  California	
  the	
  level	
  of	
  inmate-­‐on-­‐inmate	
  assaults	
  –	
  and	
  I’m	
  talking	
  about	
  not	
  numbers	
  but	
  also	
  the	
  degree	
  of	
  
assaults	
  –	
  the	
  actual	
  murders	
  and	
  deaths	
  that	
  were	
  occurring	
  in	
  the	
  1970s,	
  early	
  ’80s	
  that	
  gave	
  rise	
  to	
  SHU	
  as	
  
well	
  as	
  deaths	
  of	
  staff	
  members	
  -­‐-­‐	
  	
  then	
  yes.	
  If	
  that’s	
  the	
  standard,	
  it	
  worked.	
  	
  
But	
  over	
  the	
  course	
  of	
  time	
  –	
  and	
  again,	
  in	
  California’s	
  experience,	
  a	
  crowded	
  system	
  –	
  was	
  that	
  then	
  an	
  over-­‐
reaction	
  that	
  then	
  morphed	
  into	
  a	
  regular	
  practice	
  that	
  now	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  re-­‐examined?	
  I	
  think	
  the	
  answer	
  to	
  that	
  
question	
  is	
  yes	
  and	
  we’re	
  looking	
  at	
  that	
  and	
  doing	
  that.	
  	
  
The	
  truth	
  is	
  we	
  won’t	
  know	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  answers	
  until	
  we	
  complete	
  the	
  reforms.	
  And	
  I	
  talked	
  earlier	
  about	
  us	
  
being	
  the	
  –	
  everybody	
  has	
  their	
  role	
  in	
  the	
  system	
  –	
  and	
  we,	
  on	
  the	
  cautious	
  side.	
  The	
  reason	
  we	
  tend	
  to	
  go	
  slow	
  
on	
  this	
  stuff	
  is	
  because	
  of	
  not	
  only	
  the	
  experience	
  and	
  the	
  information	
  that	
  we	
  have,	
  but	
  we	
  also	
  worry	
  about	
  
moving	
  too	
  quick	
  and	
  having	
  an	
  over-­‐reaction	
  where	
  we	
  go	
  back	
  the	
  other	
  direction	
  because	
  suddenly	
  there	
  are	
  
high	
  notoriety	
  events	
  or	
  things	
  that	
  occur.	
  	
  
It	
  goes	
  back	
  to	
  Chair	
  Ammiano’s	
  comments	
  about	
  political	
  will	
  and	
  being	
  able	
  to	
  maintain	
  that,	
  sustain	
  that.	
  And	
  
so	
  that’s	
  what	
  we	
  try	
  to	
  manage.	
  	
  
As	
  we	
  are	
  doing	
  these	
  reforms	
  today,	
  there	
  is	
  a	
  voice	
  out	
  there	
  in	
  the	
  inmate	
  population	
  that	
  is	
  saying	
  to	
  us,	
  
“Whoa,	
  why	
  is	
  that	
  individual	
  back	
  in	
  the	
  general	
  population	
  with	
  us?	
  I’m	
  little	
  bit	
  worried.	
  Can	
  I	
  go	
  back	
  into	
  
more	
  protective	
  housing?”	
  So	
  there’s	
  full	
  sides	
  to	
  this	
  particular	
  story	
  and	
  equation	
  to	
  that,	
  Senator.	
  	
  
And	
  so	
  to	
  some	
  extent	
  long	
  answer	
  to	
  your	
  question,	
  it	
  did	
  work	
  for	
  that	
  particular	
  standard	
  that	
  you	
  look	
  at.	
  But	
  
then	
  overall	
  what	
  is	
  the	
  utility	
  of	
  SHU	
  and	
  the	
  practices	
  that	
  we’re	
  deploying	
  today	
  in	
  our	
  battle	
  to	
  prevent	
  and	
  
contain	
  or	
  sustain	
  gang	
  management,	
  which	
  gets	
  us	
  back	
  to	
  a	
  point	
  that	
  it	
  can	
  no	
  longer	
  just	
  be	
  suppression;	
  it’s	
  also	
  
got	
  to	
  be	
  programming,	
  intervention,	
  and	
  prevention	
  rather	
  than	
  just	
  suppression.	
  	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  Thank	
  you,	
  I	
  really	
  need	
  to	
  step	
  in	
  here	
  because	
  the	
  room	
  is	
  gonna	
  be	
  occupied	
  by	
  another	
  group	
  and	
  
we	
  haven’t	
  started	
  public	
  comment	
  yet.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  all	
  for	
  that,	
  and	
  sergeant	
  …	
  can	
  I	
  see	
  basically	
  how	
  many	
  
people	
  want	
  to	
  speak,	
  realistically	
  I	
  don’t	
  know	
  if	
  we	
  can	
  do	
  it	
  all,	
  but	
  we’ll	
  try.	
  If	
  you	
  can	
  follow	
  the	
  directions	
  of	
  the	
  
sergeants	
  please	
  …	
  if	
  you	
  want	
  to	
  come	
  to	
  the	
  mike	
  …	
  I	
  don’t	
  want	
  you	
  to	
  get	
  angry	
  with	
  me	
  or	
  feel	
  frustrated	
  with	
  
me,	
  but	
  I’m	
  gonna	
  keep	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  you,	
  you	
  gotta	
  be	
  very	
  short.	
  OK?	
  You’ll	
  be	
  heard.	
  Go	
  ahead,	
  first	
  speaker	
  …	
  we’ll	
  
try	
  a	
  minute	
  but	
  we	
  may	
  have	
  to	
  reduce	
  that	
  as	
  well.	
  Who’s	
  number	
  one?	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

27

PUBLIC	
  COMMENTS	
  [partial	
  transcript	
  of	
  more	
  than	
  50	
  commenters]	
  
COMMENTER	
  #1:	
  Good	
  morning.	
  My	
  name	
  is	
  Tessa	
  Murphy,	
  and	
  I’m	
  here	
  representing	
  Amnesty	
  International.	
  	
  
In	
  2011,	
  Amnesty	
  was	
  given	
  unprecedented	
  access	
  to	
  three	
  of	
  California’s	
  SHUs,	
  including	
  Pelican	
  Bay.	
  We	
  
documented	
  our	
  findings	
  into	
  a	
  report	
  along	
  with	
  a	
  set	
  of	
  recommendations	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  pushed	
  for	
  the	
  past	
  year	
  
for	
  CDCR	
  to	
  incorporate	
  into	
  the	
  reforms	
  discussed	
  today.	
  I	
  would	
  urge	
  the	
  committee	
  to	
  study	
  these	
  
recommendations	
  or	
  at	
  least	
  three	
  pages	
  of	
  them	
  when	
  considering	
  where	
  to	
  legislate	
  on	
  this	
  issue.	
  In	
  less	
  than	
  a	
  
minute,	
  these	
  reforms	
  fail	
  to	
  bring	
  California	
  into	
  compliance	
  with	
  requirements	
  under	
  international	
  law	
  and	
  
standards	
  for	
  the	
  humane	
  treatment	
  of	
  prisoners	
  and	
  their	
  right	
  to	
  be	
  free.	
  
#2:	
  Thank	
  you.	
  My	
  name	
  is	
  Dolores	
  Canales.	
  I’m	
  a	
  founding	
  member	
  of	
  California	
  Families	
  to	
  Abolish	
  Solitary	
  
Confinement	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  tell	
  you	
  that	
  these	
  hearings	
  and	
  even	
  the	
  processes	
  with	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  programs	
  give	
  
the	
  family	
  much	
  hope.	
  But	
  I	
  do	
  have	
  here	
  with	
  me	
  articles	
  from	
  1990,	
  1992,	
  ’93	
  –	
  “High	
  Tech	
  Facility	
  Ushers	
  in	
  New	
  
Era	
  of	
  State	
  Prisons.”	
  	
  
AMMIANO:	
  All	
  right	
  I’m	
  gonna	
  ask	
  you	
  to	
  submit	
  those	
  articles.	
  And	
  we	
  appreciate	
  that	
  very	
  much.	
  
#2:	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  say	
  if	
  there’s	
  not	
  change	
  now	
  there	
  won’t	
  be	
  any.	
  	
  
#3:	
  My	
  name	
  is	
  Virginia	
  Gutierrez	
  Brown.	
  My	
  husband	
  Paul	
  Brown	
  was	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  for	
  
28	
  years.	
  He’s	
  now	
  at	
  Corcoran	
  in	
  the	
  main	
  line	
  and	
  doing	
  very	
  well	
  –	
  working.	
  I	
  saw	
  him	
  blossom	
  from	
  a	
  shell	
  of	
  
what	
  he	
  was	
  to	
  a	
  more	
  happy	
  human	
  being.	
  And	
  I	
  urge	
  the	
  committee	
  to	
  continue	
  its	
  work	
  to	
  abolish	
  solitary	
  
confinement.	
  	
  
#4:	
  My	
  name	
  is	
  Beth	
  and	
  my	
  husband’s	
  been	
  in	
  the	
  Bay	
  SHU	
  for	
  19	
  years.	
  What	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  say	
  is	
  you	
  cannot	
  overlay	
  a	
  
new	
  program	
  on	
  the	
  same	
  old	
  culture	
  and	
  that’s	
  been	
  discussed.	
  You	
  also	
  cannot	
  lay	
  a	
  program	
  on	
  men	
  who	
  do	
  not	
  
trust	
  the	
  system	
  because	
  they	
  have	
  not	
  been	
  considered	
  -­‐-­‐	
  their	
  whole	
  psychology.	
  A	
  lot	
  of	
  men	
  are	
  refusing	
  to	
  
program.	
  It’s	
  not	
  because	
  they	
  don’t	
  want	
  to	
  cooperate.	
  They	
  would	
  love	
  to	
  cooperate	
  with	
  a	
  truly	
  effective	
  and	
  
meaningful	
  program;	
  they’re	
  not	
  being	
  obstinate;	
  they	
  want	
  respect.	
  Thank	
  you.	
  	
  
#5:	
  Thank	
  you	
  so	
  much	
  committee	
  for	
  having	
  this	
  hearings.	
  My	
  brother	
  was	
  previously	
  housed	
  in	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  for	
  23	
  
years.	
  He	
  was	
  validated	
  for	
  a	
  art	
  magazine	
  and	
  for	
  another	
  inmate	
  having	
  his	
  name	
  in	
  his	
  cell.	
  He	
  went	
  up	
  to	
  his	
  
DRB	
  board	
  and	
  they	
  told	
  him	
  that	
  he	
  should	
  have	
  never	
  been	
  validated	
  the	
  last	
  11	
  years.	
  My	
  point	
  is	
  there	
  are	
  men	
  
sitting	
  back	
  there	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  with	
  CDC	
  with	
  bogus	
  charges.	
  There’s	
  human	
  real	
  estate.	
  What	
  they’re	
  
doing	
  is	
  human	
  real	
  estate	
  on	
  all	
  of	
  these	
  SHU	
  members.	
  So	
  please,	
  please	
  keep	
  having	
  these	
  hearings.	
  And	
  CDC,	
  
stop	
  making	
  bogus	
  claims	
  on	
  our	
  loved	
  ones.	
  
#6:	
  What	
  is	
  negative	
  about	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program?	
  Everything.	
  Because	
  the	
  same	
  as	
  IGI	
  who	
  condone	
  them	
  to	
  
be	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  is	
  the	
  same	
  people	
  who	
  are	
  ruling	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program,	
  so	
  they’re	
  not	
  going	
  to	
  get	
  
out	
  of	
  the	
  SHU	
  because	
  the	
  same	
  people	
  who	
  are	
  fabricating	
  the	
  lies	
  to	
  put	
  them	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  are	
  the	
  same	
  people	
  
in	
  charge	
  of	
  the	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  Last	
  week,	
  two	
  days	
  without	
  hot	
  water	
  in	
  Pelican	
  Bay.	
  Not	
  even	
  hot	
  because	
  
it’s	
  warm.	
  So	
  not	
  even	
  a	
  coffee	
  they	
  can	
  drink.	
  My	
  brother	
  is	
  14	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  and	
  still	
  going.	
  
#7:	
  Hi.	
  After	
  11	
  years	
  of	
  being	
  in	
  prison,	
  my	
  son	
  has	
  now	
  been	
  placed	
  in	
  the	
  SHU.	
  After	
  13	
  months,	
  he	
  has	
  
developed	
  severe	
  mental	
  issues.	
  We’re	
  still	
  appealing	
  his	
  case.	
  You	
  have	
  30,000	
  estimated	
  mentally	
  ill	
  inmates.	
  
How	
  many	
  more	
  have	
  to	
  become	
  mentally	
  ill	
  before	
  you	
  change	
  these	
  rules?	
  	
  
#8:	
  My	
  name	
  is	
  Marie	
  Levin.	
  My	
  brother’s	
  been	
  housed	
  in	
  the	
  security	
  housing	
  unit	
  for	
  30	
  years	
  now.	
  Locked	
  up	
  33	
  
years	
  and	
  now	
  30	
  years	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  for	
  a	
  crime	
  he	
  didn’t	
  even	
  commit.	
  What	
  I’m	
  here	
  to	
  say	
  is	
  that	
  abolish	
  the	
  SHU.	
  
It	
  is	
  inhumane.	
  It	
  is	
  torturous.	
  And	
  I’m	
  tired	
  of	
  my	
  brother	
  having	
  to	
  go	
  through	
  this	
  for	
  decades	
  –	
  decades.	
  I	
  hope	
  
you	
  guys	
  are	
  really	
  listening.	
  Decades!	
  
#9:	
  First	
  of	
  all,	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  so	
  much	
  for	
  finally,	
  you	
  know,	
  hearing	
  our	
  hearts	
  and…the	
  cries	
  of	
  our	
  
incarcerated	
  ones.	
  And	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  say	
  that,	
  you	
  know,	
  CDCR	
  says	
  that	
  –	
  they	
  are	
  taking	
  credit	
  for	
  like	
  all	
  these	
  
wonderful	
  events	
  that	
  are	
  happening,	
  that	
  our	
  loved	
  ones	
  are	
  coming	
  out.	
  No,	
  I	
  believe	
  it	
  was	
  because	
  of	
  the	
  hunger	
  
strike,	
  because	
  of	
  these	
  courageous	
  men	
  who	
  put	
  their	
  lives	
  at	
  stake.	
  And	
  so	
  they’re	
  the	
  ones	
  that	
  deserve	
  the	
  credit	
  
and	
  I	
  thank	
  them	
  so	
  much.	
  And	
  thank	
  you.	
  	
  
#10:	
  As	
  a	
  child	
  of	
  someone	
  who’s	
  been	
  subjected	
  to	
  these	
  conditions	
  –	
  the	
  weight	
  of	
  these	
  boxes	
  of	
  dehumanization	
  
–	
  I	
  ask	
  you	
  how	
  would	
  you	
  feel	
  if	
  it	
  was	
  your	
  family	
  member	
  or	
  close	
  friend	
  or	
  even	
  yourself	
  being	
  subjected	
  to	
  the	
  
conditions	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  Would	
  you	
  still	
  allow	
  it?	
  Let	
  us	
  gain	
  back	
  our	
  humanity	
  and	
  cease	
  this	
  pointless	
  
inhumane	
  treatment	
  of	
  our	
  fellow	
  man	
  and	
  eradicate	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  for	
  ourselves	
  and	
  future	
  generations.	
  
Surely	
  we	
  can	
  find	
  better	
  alternatives.	
  	
  
#13:	
  The	
  SHU	
  program	
  violates	
  the	
  Fifth	
  Amendment	
  inhumane	
  rights.	
  Problem	
  easily	
  solved.	
  Coordinate	
  CDCR	
  
implement	
  intense	
  therapy	
  programs	
  instead	
  of	
  23-­‐hours	
  lockdown	
  and	
  step-­‐down	
  program.	
  Can’t	
  do	
  it?	
  Contract	
  a	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

28

consultant	
  to	
  implement	
  the	
  strategies.	
  AB	
  109	
  needs	
  to	
  be	
  implemented	
  in	
  LA	
  County	
  because	
  they’re	
  just	
  implementing	
  
in	
  9%	
  of	
  the	
  cases.	
  In	
  Orange	
  County,	
  it’s	
  a	
  success	
  in	
  60%	
  of	
  the	
  cases…Instead	
  of	
  building	
  jails,	
  we	
  should	
  be	
  sending	
  
that	
  money	
  for	
  education	
  and	
  rehabilitation.	
  	
  
#14:	
  Right	
  after	
  the	
  hunger	
  strike,	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  and	
  other	
  courts	
  here	
  in	
  California	
  told	
  that	
  they	
  should	
  
immediately	
  start	
  releasing	
  prisoners	
  from	
  the	
  largest	
  industrial	
  prison	
  complex	
  in	
  the	
  world,	
  which	
  also	
  is	
  a	
  Wall	
  Street	
  
and	
  world	
  stock	
  enterprise.	
  So,	
  on	
  Feb.	
  10th,	
  which	
  was	
  yesterday,	
  I	
  read	
  on	
  my	
  tablet	
  that	
  they	
  went	
  against	
  the	
  
legislature	
  of	
  the	
  Supreme	
  Court	
  [sic]	
  and	
  other	
  courts	
  here	
  to	
  say	
  that	
  it	
  would	
  be	
  two	
  more	
  years.	
  And	
  you	
  can	
  look	
  and	
  
find	
  this	
  on	
  the	
  websites.	
  That	
  it’ll	
  be	
  two	
  more	
  years	
  before	
  any	
  more	
  prisoners	
  will	
  be	
  released	
  and	
  this	
  program	
  will	
  be	
  
put	
  into	
  effect,	
  and	
  that’s	
  been	
  said	
  to	
  us,	
  in	
  the	
  future.	
  And	
  we	
  wonder	
  how	
  more	
  two	
  more	
  years	
  that	
  we	
  have	
  to	
  go.	
  And	
  
my	
  son’s	
  been	
  at	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  for	
  eight	
  years	
  because	
  someone	
  else	
  validated	
  and	
  put	
  his	
  name	
  and	
  said	
  he	
  did	
  something	
  
when	
  he	
  was	
  Tehachapi.	
  And	
  the	
  person	
  didn’t	
  even	
  know	
  my	
  son.	
  	
  
#17:	
  Kim	
  McGill	
  of	
  the	
  Youth	
  Justice	
  Coalition.	
  We	
  wanted	
  to	
  remind	
  you	
  that	
  the	
  majority	
  of	
  the	
  people	
  in	
  the	
  SHU	
  in	
  
Pelican,	
  throughout	
  the	
  California	
  system	
  and	
  at	
  the	
  county	
  level	
  in	
  our	
  juvenile	
  hall	
  and	
  camps	
  are	
  young	
  people	
  under	
  
the	
  age	
  of	
  25.	
  So	
  we	
  have	
  several	
  young	
  people	
  here	
  who	
  have	
  experienced	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  to	
  talk	
  about	
  the	
  impact	
  
it	
  has	
  on	
  even	
  days	
  or	
  weeks	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement,	
  let	
  alone	
  ridiculous	
  three	
  years	
  as	
  being	
  proposed	
  by	
  the	
  California	
  
Department	
  of	
  Corrections	
  and	
  Rehabilitation.	
  	
  
#18:	
  Hi	
  I’m	
  Jesus	
  [last	
  name	
  not	
  audible].	
  I	
  would	
  like	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  for	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  hear	
  my	
  voice	
  and	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  
share	
  a	
  little	
  experience	
  of	
  what	
  I	
  went	
  through.	
  I	
  started	
  feeling	
  lonely.	
  I	
  had	
  short	
  visits.	
  Shower	
  less	
  than	
  three	
  times	
  a	
  
week.	
  I’d	
  fall	
  asleep,	
  hungry,	
  freezing	
  to	
  crickets	
  on	
  me.	
  No	
  restroom.	
  Have	
  to	
  use	
  restroom	
  on	
  their	
  time.	
  Even	
  though	
  I’m	
  
a	
  human	
  being,	
  I	
  felt	
  like	
  a	
  dog	
  just	
  sitting	
  there	
  hopelessly,	
  waiting	
  for	
  the	
  Lord	
  to	
  answer	
  my	
  prayers.	
  No	
  one’s	
  perfect.	
  
Everyone	
  makes	
  mistakes.	
  There’s	
  always	
  a	
  solution	
  for	
  a	
  problem.	
  Thank	
  you.	
  	
  
#22:	
  I	
  am	
  a	
  person	
  who	
  has	
  been	
  previously	
  incarcerated…I	
  am	
  now	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  Youth	
  Justice	
  Coalition.	
  During	
  the	
  
time	
  of	
  my	
  incarceration,	
  I	
  was	
  put	
  into	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  for	
  about	
  two	
  weeks.	
  I	
  was	
  put	
  into	
  there	
  because	
  of	
  health	
  
reasons	
  that	
  I	
  have	
  no	
  control	
  over.	
  I	
  have	
  epilepsy	
  and	
  I’ve	
  had	
  a	
  seizure.	
  The	
  guards	
  were	
  called	
  by	
  my	
  cellmates	
  and	
  
officers	
  thought	
  I	
  was	
  playing	
  and	
  put	
  me	
  into	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  From	
  the	
  moment	
  I	
  was	
  put	
  into	
  the	
  hole,	
  I	
  felt	
  
isolated	
  and	
  depressed.	
  The	
  room	
  was	
  freezing.	
  It	
  was	
  dirty.	
  And	
  there	
  wasn’t	
  a	
  bed,	
  only	
  a	
  hard	
  concrete	
  seat	
  attached	
  to	
  
the	
  wall	
  that	
  you	
  were	
  to	
  use	
  as	
  a	
  bed.	
  The	
  room	
  was	
  very	
  small.	
  I	
  felt	
  trapped.	
  There	
  was	
  a	
  small	
  tiny	
  window	
  and	
  a	
  door	
  
that	
  I	
  would	
  peak	
  out	
  of	
  just	
  to	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  the	
  claustrophobic	
  making	
  of	
  the	
  cell.	
  One	
  day,	
  the	
  guard	
  caught	
  me	
  looking	
  out	
  
there	
  and	
  put	
  something	
  over	
  it	
  so	
  I	
  can	
  no	
  longer	
  see	
  anything.	
  I	
  just	
  felt	
  hopeless	
  and	
  trapped.	
  They	
  hadn’t	
  let	
  me	
  
shower	
  for	
  about	
  three	
  or	
  four	
  days.	
  I	
  was	
  smelling	
  myself	
  and	
  felt	
  disgusted.	
  After	
  a	
  few	
  days	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement,	
  I	
  
started	
  to	
  feel	
  like	
  I	
  was	
  going	
  crazy.	
  I	
  started	
  to	
  make	
  up	
  stories,	
  started	
  talking	
  to	
  myself,	
  and	
  imagination	
  was	
  blasting.	
  I	
  
look	
  back	
  now	
  to	
  see	
  how	
  creative	
  but	
  dangerous	
  the	
  mind	
  can	
  be.	
  If	
  a	
  person	
  wasn’t	
  already	
  insane	
  or	
  had	
  mental	
  health	
  
problems	
  before	
  coming	
  into	
  solitary	
  confinement,	
  spending	
  enough	
  time	
  in	
  there	
  you	
  would	
  lose	
  your	
  sanity.	
  Solitary	
  
confinement	
  only	
  creates	
  more	
  problems,	
  not	
  fixes	
  them.	
  It	
  is	
  cruel	
  punishment	
  to	
  be	
  treated	
  like	
  a	
  caged	
  animal.	
  I	
  never	
  
received	
  a	
  change	
  of	
  clothes	
  but	
  only	
  about	
  two	
  times	
  during	
  those	
  two	
  weeks.	
  I	
  was	
  ignored	
  like	
  I	
  did	
  not	
  exist.	
  I	
  even	
  
had	
  several	
  seizures	
  because	
  sometimes	
  they	
  did	
  not	
  bring	
  my	
  medicine	
  on	
  time	
  or	
  not	
  at	
  all,	
  and	
  stress	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  main	
  
triggers	
  of	
  my	
  seizures.	
  I	
  kept	
  knocking	
  on	
  the	
  door	
  after	
  having	
  passing	
  out	
  from	
  having	
  seizures	
  a	
  few	
  times,	
  but	
  I	
  was	
  
still	
  ignored.	
  I	
  couldn’t	
  do	
  anything	
  about	
  it.	
  This	
  was	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  worst	
  experiences	
  of	
  my	
  life,	
  and	
  I	
  wish	
  this	
  on	
  nobody.	
  
The	
  cruel	
  punishment	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  must	
  be	
  eliminated.	
  I	
  had	
  no	
  books,	
  no	
  paper,	
  no	
  nothing	
  to	
  write	
  or	
  
nothing	
  to	
  address	
  the	
  complete	
  boredom	
  in	
  the	
  hole.	
  Being	
  in	
  there	
  felt	
  traumatizing.	
  Only	
  three	
  or	
  two	
  days	
  would	
  feel	
  
like	
  I’d	
  been	
  in	
  there	
  a	
  week.	
  I	
  would	
  never	
  know	
  whether	
  it	
  was	
  day	
  or	
  night.	
  Everybody	
  deserves	
  to	
  keep	
  their	
  sanity	
  
and	
  not	
  be	
  forced	
  to	
  become	
  insane	
  from	
  lengthy	
  times	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  Last	
  thing	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  get	
  across	
  is	
  
people	
  who	
  have	
  experienced	
  this	
  should	
  be	
  given	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  present	
  our	
  observations	
  and	
  solutions	
  for	
  those	
  
such	
  as	
  myself	
  and	
  families	
  who	
  have	
  been	
  most	
  experienced	
  in	
  solitary	
  confinement.
#24:	
  I’m	
  with	
  Project	
  What,	
  and	
  I’m	
  17	
  years	
  old.	
  I	
  guess	
  basically	
  when	
  I	
  think	
  of	
  the	
  segregation	
  method	
  in	
  jail	
  I’m	
  
thinking	
  of	
  it	
  to	
  rehabilitate	
  the	
  person	
  but	
  really	
  it’s	
  just	
  dehumanizing.	
  And	
  when	
  you’re	
  isolated	
  by	
  yourself,	
  you	
  look	
  
for	
  ways	
  to	
  cope	
  with	
  where	
  you’re	
  at,	
  adapt	
  to	
  an	
  environment.	
  And	
  I	
  just	
  feel	
  like	
  it	
  really	
  socially	
  destroys	
  the	
  person	
  
and	
  dehumanizes	
  the	
  person,	
  and	
  it	
  doesn’t	
  give	
  them	
  a	
  chance	
  to	
  rehabilitate.	
  So	
  I	
  guess	
  I’m	
  saying	
  I	
  oppose	
  this.	
  Thank	
  
you.	
  	
  
#31:	
  Issuing	
  and	
  supporting	
  the	
  agreement	
  to	
  end	
  hostilities	
  should	
  be	
  identified	
  as	
  positive	
  behaviors	
  and	
  included	
  as	
  
ways	
  to	
  step	
  down	
  and	
  get	
  out	
  of	
  solitary,	
  not	
  retaliated	
  against	
  with	
  rules	
  violations.	
  In	
  order	
  to	
  refrain	
  from	
  STG	
  
behavior,	
  the	
  prisoners	
  	
  are	
  forced	
  to	
  give	
  up	
  their	
  political,	
  social,	
  cultural	
  beliefs	
  and	
  materials.	
  This	
  is	
  brainwashing,	
  
does	
  not	
  allow	
  fully	
  voluntary	
  and	
  free	
  informed	
  consent	
  without	
  force	
  or	
  coercion	
  violates	
  Article	
  I	
  of	
  the	
  Nuremberg	
  
Code	
  on	
  human	
  experimentation	
  and	
  is	
  a	
  human	
  rights	
  abuse.	
  Stop	
  retaliation	
  against	
  the	
  hunger	
  strikers	
  and	
  those	
  who	
  
issued	
  and	
  supported	
  the	
  agreement	
  to	
  end	
  hostilities.	
  At	
  Pelican	
  Bay	
  SHU,	
  food’s	
  been	
  decreased	
  to	
  bite	
  size	
  or	
  child	
  size	
  
portions,	
  not	
  enough	
  for	
  male	
  adults,	
  frequently	
  served	
  on	
  top	
  of	
  wet	
  cardboard	
  and	
  some	
  spoiled	
  or	
  not	
  completely	
  
cooked.	
  Adequate	
  food	
  is	
  a	
  human	
  right	
  and	
  is	
  one	
  of	
  the	
  prisoners’	
  five	
  core	
  demands	
  –	
  provide	
  adequate	
  and	
  nutritious	
  
food.	
  	
  
#42:	
  	
  I’m	
  a	
  member	
  of	
  the	
  Prisoner	
  Hunger	
  Strike	
  Support	
  Coalition,	
  but	
  today	
  I’m	
  representing	
  an	
  organization	
  that	
  I’m	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

29

on	
  the	
  steering	
  committee	
  of	
  –	
  international	
  psychological	
  and	
  other	
  mental	
  health	
  providers	
  professionals	
  organization	
  
called	
  Psychologists	
  for	
  Social	
  Responsibility.	
  I	
  have	
  a	
  letter	
  for	
  you	
  and	
  I	
  just	
  want	
  to	
  read	
  the	
  beginning	
  and	
  the	
  end.	
  We	
  
quote	
  Craig	
  Haney,	
  who	
  can	
  speak	
  for	
  himself.	
  We	
  quote	
  Juan	
  Mendez	
  who	
  says	
  that	
  very	
  clearly	
  that	
  solitary	
  
confinement	
  is	
  a	
  harsh	
  measure	
  contrary	
  to	
  rehabilitation,	
  which	
  is	
  the	
  aim	
  of	
  the	
  penitentiary	
  system	
  and	
  the	
  U.N.	
  
Committee	
  on	
  Torture	
  that	
  says	
  very	
  clearly	
  that	
  the	
  purpose	
  with	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  is	
  retribution	
  in	
  which	
  case	
  it	
  
constitutes,	
  cruel,	
  inhuman,	
  and	
  degrading	
  treatment	
  or	
  punishment.	
  But	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  read	
  the	
  final	
  paragraph	
  in	
  our	
  letter.	
  
“Decades	
  of	
  psychological	
  research	
  have	
  established	
  the	
  severe	
  psychological	
  effects	
  of	
  solitary	
  confinement.	
  Thus,	
  
Psychologists	
  for	
  Social	
  Responsibility,	
  which	
  is	
  an	
  international	
  organization,	
  believe	
  that	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  should	
  
only	
  be	
  used	
  as	
  a	
  rare	
  last	
  resort	
  for	
  periods	
  of	
  short	
  enough	
  to	
  not	
  cause	
  psychological	
  harm.	
  We	
  join	
  the	
  United	
  Nations	
  
Committee	
  Against	
  Torture	
  and	
  the	
  United	
  Nations	
  Special	
  Rapporteur	
  in	
  calling	
  for	
  a	
  total	
  ban	
  on	
  prolonged	
  solitary	
  
confinement.”	
  My	
  organization	
  is	
  committed	
  to	
  staying	
  with	
  this	
  as	
  long	
  as	
  necessary	
  to	
  have	
  solitary	
  confinement	
  
abolished.	
  	
  
	
  
#46	
  (from	
  Youth	
  Justice	
  Coalition):	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  share	
  my	
  experience	
  when	
  I	
  first	
  got	
  detained.	
  I	
  got	
  detained	
  at	
  the	
  age	
  of	
  16	
  
and	
  I	
  went	
  to	
  East	
  Lake	
  Juvenile	
  Hall.	
  And	
  the	
  moment	
  when	
  I	
  was	
  there,	
  they	
  put	
  me	
  in	
  a	
  unit	
  there	
  that	
  was	
  always	
  in	
  
lockdown.	
  Each	
  time	
  I	
  woke	
  up,	
  all	
  I	
  got	
  to	
  see	
  was	
  just	
  out	
  through	
  my	
  window.	
  They	
  brought	
  me	
  my	
  breakfast,	
  my	
  lunch,	
  
and	
  my	
  dinner.	
  And	
  I	
  only	
  went	
  to	
  school.	
  After	
  school	
  we	
  came	
  back	
  and	
  we’re	
  back	
  on	
  lockdown,	
  back	
  in	
  our	
  rooms.	
  And	
  
half	
  of	
  the	
  time	
  when	
  we	
  went	
  to	
  go	
  take	
  a	
  shower,	
  we	
  took	
  a	
  shower	
  of	
  cold	
  waters.	
  They	
  made	
  us	
  sleep	
  in	
  our	
  boxers,	
  
made	
  us	
  sleep	
  in	
  our	
  cold	
  room.	
  And	
  each	
  time	
  I	
  would	
  try	
  to	
  work	
  out,	
  I	
  would	
  look	
  at	
  the	
  floor	
  and	
  the	
  floor	
  was	
  very	
  
dirty	
  and	
  so	
  I	
  said	
  to	
  myself,	
  “What	
  do	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  do?”	
  I	
  don’t	
  have	
  no	
  books,	
  no	
  papers,	
  no	
  pencils,	
  nothing	
  I	
  could	
  write	
  to	
  
my	
  family.	
  No	
  one	
  else	
  should	
  go	
  through	
  this	
  experience	
  right	
  here.	
  So	
  what	
  we	
  should	
  do	
  is	
  to	
  not	
  let	
  nobody	
  ever	
  go	
  
through	
  this	
  because	
  it	
  actually	
  affects	
  people	
  and	
  their	
  minds	
  mentally	
  and	
  it’s	
  something	
  that	
  when	
  they	
  actually	
  tried	
  
to	
  do	
  something	
  fine,	
  they	
  actually	
  end	
  up	
  screwing	
  it	
  up	
  because	
  of	
  all	
  the	
  things	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  missing	
  out	
  because	
  they	
  
have	
  no	
  human	
  contact	
  with	
  nobody	
  else.	
  Thank	
  you.	
  	
  

	
  
	
  

CLOSING	
  COMMENTS	
  –	
  AMMIANO	
  AND	
  HANCOCK	
  	
  
	
  
AMMIANO:	
  I	
  don’t	
  want	
  to	
  trivialize	
  or	
  dehumanize	
  anything	
  you	
  have	
  to	
  say,	
  you	
  are	
  walking	
  the	
  walk.	
  And	
  it’s	
  us	
  
that	
  have	
  the	
  tremendous	
  responsibility	
  of	
  really	
  responding.	
  It	
  is	
  frustrating	
  as	
  hell	
  to	
  know	
  all	
  this	
  has	
  been	
  said	
  
three	
  or	
  four	
  years	
  ago	
  and	
  there	
  is	
  nothing	
  new.	
  But	
  we’re	
  hoping	
  to	
  be	
  bolder	
  about	
  what	
  we	
  can	
  do,	
  we	
  want	
  to	
  
have	
  another	
  hearing	
  in	
  regard	
  to	
  programs	
  that	
  DO	
  work,	
  and	
  again	
  your	
  presence	
  here	
  means	
  a	
  lot,	
  so	
  thank	
  you	
  
very	
  much.	
  I	
  want	
  to	
  thank	
  my	
  co-­‐chair	
  and	
  committee	
  member	
  Nancy	
  Skinner,	
  and	
  if	
  you	
  have	
  anything	
  to	
  say	
  
before	
  we	
  adjourn	
  …	
  
HANCOCK:	
  Just	
  to	
  thank	
  you	
  also,	
  and	
  let	
  you	
  now	
  we	
  are	
  going	
  to	
  try	
  very	
  hard,	
  working	
  with	
  CDCR	
  if	
  possible,	
  
and	
  I	
  hope	
  it’s	
  possible	
  to	
  change	
  the	
  dialogue,	
  the	
  culture	
  and	
  the	
  outcomes	
  –	
  the	
  outcomes	
  is	
  what’s	
  very	
  very	
  
important.	
  I	
  had	
  the	
  opportunity	
  to	
  watch	
  the	
  tapes	
  and	
  listen	
  to	
  the	
  DVD	
  of	
  the	
  Speier-­‐Romero	
  hearings	
  of	
  2004	
  
this	
  weekend.	
  It	
  was	
  stunning	
  to	
  me,	
  and	
  I	
  have	
  to	
  say	
  profoundly	
  depressing,	
  if	
  I	
  was	
  a	
  person	
  who	
  could	
  be	
  
depressed,	
  because	
  the	
  same	
  things	
  were	
  said	
  over	
  and	
  over	
  again.	
  Ten	
  years	
  ago	
  people	
  were	
  saying,	
  for	
  ten	
  years	
  
nothing	
  has	
  ever	
  changed.	
  
Something	
  has	
  to	
  change	
  now.	
  The	
  three-­‐judge	
  panel	
  has	
  given	
  us	
  a	
  two-­‐year	
  reprieve;	
  the	
  hunger	
  strike	
  has	
  
brought	
  these	
  issues	
  to	
  the	
  forefront;	
  the	
  recent	
  death	
  of	
  a	
  person	
  who	
  was	
  mentally	
  ill	
  and	
  pepper-­‐sprayed	
  has	
  
brought	
  these	
  issues	
  to	
  the	
  forefront	
  –	
  and	
  it	
  cannot	
  be	
  business	
  as	
  usual	
  anymore.	
  
And	
  we	
  will	
  all	
  benefit:	
  CDCR	
  will	
  benefit,	
  the	
  inmates	
  will	
  benefit,	
  the	
  state	
  of	
  California	
  will	
  benefit	
  because	
  we	
  
can	
  redirect	
  our	
  money	
  into	
  positive	
  things	
  –	
  if	
  we	
  decide	
  we’re	
  gonna	
  step	
  out	
  of	
  our	
  boxes	
  and	
  work	
  together	
  to	
  
do	
  the	
  evidence-­‐based	
  practices	
  that	
  we	
  know	
  exist,	
  that	
  have	
  been	
  tried	
  in	
  other	
  places,	
  and	
  really	
  solve	
  this	
  
dilemma	
  and	
  this	
  revolving	
  door	
  that	
  we’ve	
  all	
  been	
  involved	
  in	
  for	
  far	
  too	
  long.	
  	
  
So	
  thank	
  you	
  all	
  so	
  much	
  for	
  coming,	
  the	
  people	
  from	
  CDCR,	
  the	
  people	
  who’ve	
  been	
  experiencing	
  the	
  fallout	
  of	
  a	
  
system	
  of	
  a	
  system	
  that	
  really	
  doesn’t	
  work	
  very	
  well	
  for	
  anyone,	
  together	
  we	
  can	
  change	
  it,	
  and	
  we	
  can	
  make	
  it	
  
better.	
  And	
  we’ve	
  begun,	
  with	
  some	
  of	
  the	
  things	
  in	
  the	
  new	
  policy;	
  we	
  really	
  need	
  to	
  make	
  it	
  stronger.	
  	
  
	
  
I	
  think	
  we’ll	
  have	
  very	
  positive	
  recommendations	
  that	
  can	
  do	
  that,	
  and	
  I	
  hope	
  we	
  can	
  have	
  a	
  dialogue	
  and	
  see	
  them	
  
written	
  in	
  to	
  what	
  happens,	
  and	
  if	
  there’s	
  legislative	
  statute	
  change	
  that	
  is	
  needed,	
  we	
  can	
  try	
  to	
  do	
  that,	
  and	
  we	
  can	
  
–	
  I	
  hope	
  this	
  is	
  just	
  the	
  beginning	
  of	
  a	
  time	
  when	
  we’re	
  gonna	
  look	
  back	
  ten	
  years	
  from	
  now	
  and	
  say:	
  Isn’t	
  it	
  great	
  
that	
  now	
  we’re	
  the	
  system	
  that	
  people	
  look	
  to	
  for	
  how	
  to	
  do	
  it	
  right.	
  
	
  
But	
  thank	
  you	
  all.	
  	
  (3h16m)	
  	
  

FEB. 11, 2014 HEARING

30