Office of the Inspector General
David R. Shaw, Inspector General

Accountability Audit
Review of Audits of the
California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
2000–2008

July 2010

State of California
P.O. Box 348780, Sacramento, CA 95834-8780 ƒ (916) 830-3600 ƒ fax: (916) 928-5974 ƒ inquire@oig.ca.gov
Copies of this publication may be downloaded from the Office of the Inspector General’s Web site: www.oig.ca.gov

Office ofthe Inspector General

David R. Shaw, Inspector General

July 8,2010
Matthew L. Cate, Secretary
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
1515 S Street, Room 502 South
Sacramento, California 95814
J. Clark Kelso, Receiver
California Prison Health Care Receivership Corporation
501 J Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Cate and Mr. Kelso:
Enclosed is the Office of the Inspector General's 2010 Accountability Audit of the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. This two-chapter audit analyzes 87 open
recommendations from nine prior reports and special reviews. Chapter 1 presents the results from
our first follow-up audit of 49 recommendations that we identified in three audit reports issued in
2008. Chapter 2 presents the results from our follow-up review of38 recommendations that we
identified in six audit and special review reports issued from 2000 through 2007.
Overall, we found that the department has fully or substantially implemented 62 percent of the
recommendations that we made that were still applicable. However, work remains for many
recommendations, including eight unimplemented recommendations related to an on-going safety
and security issue that continues to concern the OIG. Specifically, the department continues to
allow custody officers to work armed posts without having completed quarterly weapons
proficiency requirements.
This report presents 21 follow-up recommendations in Chapter 1, including three new
recommendations that we made during this current 2010 accountability audit. While we also
identified recommendations in Chapter 2 that the department has not yet resolved, this report
represents our final review of those recommendations. The department's response appears as an
attachment to the report.
Thank you for the professional manner and cooperation that your staff displayed during the
accountability audit.
Sincerely,

()~~-David R. Shaw
Inspector General

cc: Kim Holt, External Audits Manager, Office of Audits and Compliance
Johnny Hui, Chief of Internal Audit, Internal Audit Program, California Prison Health Care Services
P.O. Box

348780,

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor
95834-8780 PHONE (916) 830-3600 FAX (916) 928-4684

SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA

Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 1
Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 5
Background ......................................................................................................................... 5
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ................................................................................. 7
Chapter 1:
Initial Follow-up Results for Three Reports Issued in 2008 ........................................................... 10
Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit ....................................................... 14
Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit ............................................ 27
California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit .......................................... 49
Chapter 2:
Follow-up Results for Six Reports Issued Between 2000 and 2007.............................................. 66
Special Review of High-Risk Issues at the Heman G. Stark
Youth Correctional Facility.......................................................................................... 70
Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation................. 79
Special Review into the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas .............................................. 92
California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit ..................................... 96
Special Review into the Shooting of Inmate Daniel Provencio....................................... 104
Special Review of 23-and-1 Confinement ...................................................................... 106
Response from the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation.......................................................................Attachment 1
Response from the California Prison Health Care Services ..................................Attachment 2

2010 Accountability Audit

Executive Summary

Executive Summary
This comprehensive accountability audit presents the results of the Office of the Inspector
General’s annual follow-up review of previous recommendations issued to the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the California Prison Health
Care Services (CPHCS). In this accountability audit, the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) assesses the CDCR’s and CPHCS’ progress in implementing past
recommendations from nine audits and special reviews affecting CDCR. Overall, we
found that CDCR and CPHCS implemented 62 percent of the recommendations that we
made that were still applicable. But our audit also revealed that some of our critical
recommendations remain unaddressed. For example, eight of the 30 recommendations
that were not implemented all relate to a safety issue concerning custody officers working
armed posts who have not fulfilled weapons proficiency requirements.
This year’s accountability audit is divided into two chapters, each of which analyzes
CDCR’s and CPHCS’ efforts to take corrective action on 87 unresolved
recommendations. Chapter 1 presents the results from our first follow-up review of 49
recommendations that we identified in three audit reports completed in 2008. Chapter 2
presents the results from our follow-up review of 38 recommendations that we identified
in six audit and special review reports issued from 2000 through 2007.
During our upcoming 2011 accountability audit, we will follow up on the unimplemented
recommendations presented in Chapter 1 of this report. However, because the
recommendations reviewed in Chapter 2 have already been subject to at least one
previous follow-up accountability audit, this report will stand as our final review of those
recommendations.
The Reason for Performing Accountability Audits
Our mission is to safeguard the integrity of California’s correctional system. One way we
carry out this mission is to audit CDCR to uncover criminal conduct, administrative
wrongdoing, poor management practices, waste, fraud, and other abuses by staff,
supervisors, and management.
To bring public transparency to the state’s correctional system, in 2004 we began
publishing our audit reports on our website. This public posting is essential because
prisons are, by their very nature, places where most events occur outside the public view.
The public airing of our audit reports provides a powerful incentive to CDCR to remedy
problems afflicting its divisions and institutions.
In 2005 we began conducting the comprehensive “accountability audit.” The
accountability audit provides periodic follow-up results on previous audits and special
reviews, and it assesses whether CDCR and CPHCS have implemented each of our
recommendations. This unified audit allows us to efficiently track CDCR’s and CPHCS’
progress and keep important issues in the public eye.
Office of the Inspector General

Page 1

2010 Accountability Audit

Executive Summary

Overall Results of OIG’s 2010 Review
The following table summarizes the implementation status of the 87 outstanding
recommendations we made to CDCR and CPHCS in reports issued between 2000 and
2008, which were included in the scope of our audit. The matrixes in the body of this
report detail CDCR’s and CPHCS’ responses as well as our assessment of their progress
in implementing each recommendation.
Table 1
Results of the 2010 Follow-up Audit - Implementation Status
Recommendations Assessed in
2010 Follow-up Audit

2
1
3
6%

6
1
7
14%

7
4
11
23%

Not Applicable

6
8
9
23
47%

Not
Implemented

Total
11
21
17
49

Partially
Implemented

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (2008)
Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (2008)
California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit (2008)
Total

Substantially
Implemented

Chapter 1

Fully
Implemented

Implementation Results

3
2
5
10%

Chapter 2
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (2007)
In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs (2007)
Release of Inmate Scott Thomas (2007)
California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit (2007)
Shooting of Inmate Daniel Provencio (2005)
23-and-1 Program Review (2000)
Total

Grand Totals

7
11
7
8
3
2
38

87

3
7
4
2

1
4

3
2
5

1
1
3

2
18
48%

5
13%

7
18%

5
13%

3
8%

41
47%

8
9%

14
16%

16
19%

8
9%

First-time Follow-up Audits
In Chapter 1 we present our assessment of the three quadrennial and warden audits
undergoing a first-time follow-up review. Our assessment revealed the following:
•

Overall, CDCR and CPHCS fully or substantially implemented 26 of the total 49
recommendations from these three reports from 2008; five recommendations are
not applicable. Thus, CDCR and CPHCS successfully addressed 59 percent of the
original recommendations still applicable.

•

The CPHCS and Folsom State Prison (FSP) had fully or substantially
implemented all eight recommendations still applicable from our January 2008
audit of FSP. Notable improvements were CPHCS’ hiring of new supervising
nursing staff and FSP’s implementation of uniform cell search procedures.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 2

2010 Accountability Audit

Executive Summary

•

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) had fully implemented more than one third of
our recommendations from our October 2008 audit. The prison had improved its
process for assigning inmates to programs, and it had implemented a new system
to track correctional officers’ weapons proficiency training. However, we found
that SVSP and CDCR must further increase inmates’ educational opportunities.
Also, SVSP must improve its cell search procedures and process use-of-force
incident packages in a more timely fashion. Sixty-two percent of the 21
recommendations remain partially or not implemented.

•

Well over half of our recommendations from our November 2008 audit of the
California Institution for Men (CIM) had been fully implemented. CDCR
successfully implemented our recommendations about assessing facility
maintenance and repair needs. Moreover, CIM addressed our concerns about
filling vacant positions in plant operations. Based on the results of our 2010
review, we noted that 33 percent of the 15 still applicable recommendations
remain partially or not implemented.

•

Seven unimplemented recommendations in our reviews of the SVSP and CIM
audits related to a safety issue that continues to concern the OIG. As we identified
in our prior 2009 accountability audit, CDCR continues to allow correctional
officers to work armed posts without having completed quarterly weapons
proficiency requirements. We urge CDCR to reconsider its decision not to
implement our recommendations. Neglecting to implement our recommendations
in this manner not only violates the Penal Code and diminishes overall safety―it
also increases CDCR’s exposure to potential lawsuits when officers use deadly
force without adequate training.

In our review of these three audits, we made 21 follow-up recommendations to CDCR,
including three new recommendations that we made during this current 2010
accountability account. We expect to review all 21 follow-up recommendations in our
2011 accountability audit.
Previous Follow-up Audits
Chapter 2 of this report presents the status of recommendations from six reports that were
included in past accountability audits. We found that CDCR and CPHCS have fully or
substantially implemented 23 of these recommendations from previous years; three are
no longer applicable. This resulted in a 66 percent implementation rate. Notable examples
of recommendations implemented since our last accountability audit include the
following:
•

In response to recommendations made during our reviews of the Heman G. Stark
Youth Correctional Facility and the 23-and-1 Program, CDCR’s Division of
Juvenile Facilities eliminated its 23-and-1 confinement of restricted program
wards housed within CDCR’s juvenile facilities by establishing a minimum
duration of three-hours for its wards’ out-of-room time. To ensure that its

Office of the Inspector General

Page 3

2010 Accountability Audit

Executive Summary

facilities comply with the three-hour requirement, the division revised policies,
trained staff, and implemented new procedures to track wards’ out-of-room time
and monitor compliance. As evidenced by these and other improvements, the
division implemented all of our recommendations still applicable from two
special reviews.
•

CDCR’s Office of Substance Abuse Treatment Service (OSATS), formally
known as the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services, revamped its
substance abuse treatment program and satisfactorily implemented all of our
outstanding recommendations. OSATS modified its programs by making changes
to CDCR’s contract bidding process for treatment providers, developing new
models for treatment services, monitoring treatment providers’ performance,
conducting compliance reviews and communicating the results to improve
providers’ programs.

•

To address recommendations made during our review of the Release of Inmate
Scott Thomas, CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations conducted training
on statewide procedures related to high-risk parolees. The division also monitored
employees’ performance to ensure that staff members identify a paroling inmate’s
high-risk designation on his or her parole release plan, when appropriate. This
will assist prisons in identifying inmates who are subject to special parole
reporting requirements.

We Will No Longer Follow Up On Older Recommendations
Although we strongly believe in the benefits of accountability, follow-up audits come at a
cost. CDCR has had over four years to satisfactorily implement some of the
recommendations detailed in Chapter 2 of this report, yet it has not done so. Further, we
have reminded CDCR through previous accountability audits to correct its deficiencies
and address these recommendations.
We believe that it is not in the state’s interest for us to continue expending our limited
resources to pursue recommendations that CDCR has demonstrated it cannot or will not
address. Therefore, this report will stand as our final assessment regarding those
repeatedly followed-up, yet unimplemented recommendations.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 4

2010 Accountability Audit

Introduction

Introduction
This report presents the results of the OIG’s follow-up audit of nine previous audits and
reviews, conducted between 2000 and 2008, of CDCR and its subdivisions. The purpose
of the follow-up audit was to assess and report on CDCR’s progress in implementing our
previous recommendations. We performed this accountability audit under California
Penal Code section 6126, which assigns the OIG responsibility for oversight of CDCR.
The accountability audit is divided into two chapters. Chapter 1 presents the results from
our first follow-up audit of recommendations that we made in three audits completed in
2008. Chapter 2 presents the results from our second and subsequent follow-up reviews
of recommendations made in six audits and special reviews issued from 2000 through
2007, which we are still tracking.
Background
The mission of CDCR is to enhance public safety through safe and secure incarceration
of offenders, effective parole supervision, and rehabilitative strategies to successfully
reintegrate offenders into our communities. Responsible for nearly 289,000 adult and
juvenile offenders who are either incarcerated or under parole supervision, CDCR has an
operating budget for fiscal year 2009-10 of $8.6 billion.
CDCR’s operations are organized into three main program areas: Adult Operations, Adult
Programs, and Juvenile Justice. A fourth area, Correctional Health Care Services
however, is overseen by a court-appointed Receiver. Each of those four program areas
include various divisions and offices. Below we have identified and briefly described
only those entities subject to the audits and special reviews we covered in this 2010
Accountability Audit.
ADULT OPERATIONS

Adult operations consist of the Division of Adult Institutions and the Division of Adult
Parole Operations.
•

The Division of Adult Institutions oversees CDCR’s 33 adult institutions. Its
objective is to provide safe and secure detention facilities to protect society from
further criminal activities and to provide necessary services, such as feeding,
clothing, record keeping, inmate classification assessments, and employee
training.

•

The Division of Adult Parole Operations’ primary objective, consistent with the
need for public safety, is to increase the rate and degree of the successful
reintegration and release into society of offenders paroled from state prison. One
of this division’s responsibilities is to determine the level of parole supervision

Office of the Inspector General

Page 5

2010 Accountability Audit

Introduction

needed based on case factors related to the offender’s propensity for violence,
past criminal history, and current service needs.
ADULT PROGRAMS

Adult Programs is responsible for the design and operation of programs that enable
offenders to successfully reenter society. These programs address the deficits that led
offenders to criminal behavior. The Division of Adult Rehabilitative Programs, one of
two Adult Programs divisions, contains the Office of Substance Abuse Treatment
Services (formerly Division of Addiction and Recovery Services).
The primary objective of the Office of Substance Abuse Treatment Services is to plan,
develop, implement and monitor addiction and recovery services within CDCR. The
program's goal is to reduce recidivism and relapse and to promote pro-social behavior
and the successful reintegration of the offender. These programs include, but are not
limited to, the In-Custody Substance Abuse Programs, Residential Aftercare Programs,
the Female Offender Treatment Employment Program, the Parolee Services Network,
and the Community and Jail Based In-Custody Drug Treatment Program.
JUVENILE JUSTICE

The juvenile justice program carries out its responsibilities through three divisions and
two other administrative areas. Juvenile Justice’s Division of Juvenile Facilities provides
housing both for youths committed directly to the juvenile justice program and youths,
under the age of 18, who have been sentenced to state prison. Youths committed directly
to the program do not receive determinate sentences and the facilities may house those
youths until age 21 or 25, depending upon their commitment offense. Youths sentenced
to state prison may remain at juvenile facilities until age 18, or if the youth can complete
his or her sentence prior to age 21, the facilities may house him or her until released to
parole.
The juvenile justice program provides youths committed to its custody—who are called
wards—with education services, medical care, counseling, and mental health treatment
and is mandated to provide wards with constitutionally adequate conditions of
confinement. California Welfare and Institutions Code section 1120 requires the division
to operate a statewide education program of academic and vocational classes to enable
wards to attain a high school diploma or equivalent (GED).
CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES

The objective of the Correctional Health Care Services Program is to provide medical,
dental, and mental health care to the inmate population statewide consistent with adopted
standards for quality and scope of services within a custodial environment. The program
Office of the Inspector General

Page 6

2010 Accountability Audit

Introduction

is administered by an independent, court appointed receivership and by CDCR’s Division
of Correctional Health Care Services.
California Prison Health Care Services
As a result of a class action lawsuit known as Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court
established a receivership in October 2005, and later appointed a Receiver to manage
CDCR’s delivery of medical services to inmates in California prisons. The Receiver’s
employees and CDCR’s employees work together under the Receiver’s direction: their
combined efforts are referred to as the California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS).
CPHCS’ oversight responsibilities include inmate medical and related services, such as
the nursing, pharmaceutical, and laboratory services of CDCR. Medical services do not
include dental, mental health, substance abuse, or juvenile healthcare.
Division of Correctional Health Care Services
CDCR’s Division of Correctional Health Care Services provides administrative support
functions for operations related to medical care delivery. The division also provides
dental services and mental health services to CDCR inmates. Similar to the Federal
court’s establishment of a receivership to oversee inmates’ medical services, CDCR’s
delivery of dental care and mental health services are also subject to court-appointed
monitoring. This monitoring results from the Perez v. Cate and Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger lawsuits.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
In 2005, we began conducting the comprehensive “accountability audit,” which publicly
identifies the recommendations from past reports that CDCR has not taken timely or
effective action to address. The accountability audit provides periodic follow-up results
on previous audits and special reviews and assesses whether CDCR has implemented
each of our recommendations. This unified audit allows us to efficiently track CDCR’s
progress and keep important issues in the public eye.
Historically, recommendations identified as “partially implemented” or “not
implemented” are carried forward to the next accountability audit. Through this process
of follow-up audits, we hope to keep public pressure on CDCR to reform the state
correctional system. However, we are limited in our ability to continually allocate
resources to report on recommendations that, even after many years, CDCR has made
little or no progress in implementing. Therefore, this is the final accountability audit for
those recommendations that have previously undergone follow-up work.
Chapter 1 of this 2010 accountability audit presents the first follow-up review for the
following three reports issued by the OIG. Their issue dates are in parentheses.
•

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (January 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 7

2010 Accountability Audit

Introduction

•

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (October 2008)

•

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit (November 2008)

Because this is the first accountability audit for the recommendations from these three
reports, the recommendations that have not yet reached the level of “substantially
implemented” or “fully implemented” will be considered follow-up recommendations
and subject to future accountability audits.
In Chapter 2 of this report, recommendations related to the remaining six audits have
been included in previous accountability audits. The six audit reports were originally
published between 2000 and 2007.
Audit Procedures

To conduct this follow-up audit, we performed the following procedures:
•

Reviewed nine audits and reviews of CDCR’s facilities and programs that we had
conducted between 2000 and 2008.

•

Reviewed statutes, regulations, lawsuits, and other documents pertinent to
CDCR’s current operating environment.

•

Contacted CDCR and CPHCS and requested an implementation status and
supporting documentation on their progress in implementing our
recommendations from the previous nine audits and reviews. CDCR’s and
CPHCS’ unedited responses are included in each matrix section of this report.

•

Assessed the risk of each recommendation. Based on the assessment and on
CDCR’s and CPHCS’ responses, we conducted interviews, made observations,
reviewed records, and performed tests, or we relied on CDCR’s statements. The
extent of audit procedures performed for each recommendation is described in our
comments in each matrix section of this report.

•

Evaluated the information developed from the audit procedures and classified
CDCR’s progress in implementing each recommendation into one of the
following five categories:
o Fully implemented: The recommendation has been implemented
and no further corrective action is necessary.
o Substantially implemented: More than half of the corrective
actions necessary to fulfill the recommendation have been
implemented.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 8

2010 Accountability Audit

Introduction

o Partially implemented: Half or fewer than half of the corrective
actions necessary to fulfill the recommendation have been
implemented.
o Not implemented: The recommendation has not been
implemented.
o Not applicable: The recommendation is no longer applicable.
•

Recommended additional corrective actions to further assist CDCR in
successfully implementing some prior recommendations.

The original nine reports covered in this follow-up accountability audit had issue dates
ranging from December 2000 through November 2008. Therefore, in most cases, CDCR
had a significant amount of time to implement the recommendations before we conducted
the follow-up audit.
Of the 87 recommendations, 80 were applicable to CDCR, two were applicable to
CPHCS, and an additional five recommendations were applicable to both organizations.
In July 2009, we requested that both CDCR and CPHCS provide us with a written
implementation status by October 8, 2009. Both of the respondents complied with the
reporting requirement.
In total, CDCR and CPHCS responded on the status of all 87 recommendations. To
conduct our audit fieldwork, we initially assessed the responses for reasonableness and
applicability to the recommendation. Next, we performed a review of supporting
documentation. After considering primary risk factors such as safety, security, and fiscal
materiality, and upon reviewing the responses and supporting documents provided, we
selected a sample of recommendations and performed additional audit procedures to
verify CDCR’s and CPHCS’ responses.
Our additional audit procedures included analyzing the documents that CDCR and
CPHCS provided and obtaining additional information and documentation that we
deemed necessary. We also visited Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) in November
2009 and conducted testing to verify the status of some recommendations. We selected
SVSP because that prison was one of our three first-time follow-up audits and because it
had the highest number of follow-up recommendations. Moreover, we were able to
conduct testing at SVSP that verified the status of recommendations related to multiple
prisons.
We performed the audit fieldwork from October 2009 to January 2010.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 9

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 1

Chapter 1:
Initial Follow-up Results for
Three Reports Issued in 2008
This chapter presents the status of our initial recommendations for the following three
reports:
•

The Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (January 2008)

•

The Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit (October 2008)

•

The California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit
(November 2008)

Summary of Results
Within these three reports, we provided CDCR and CPHCS with 49 recommendations.
Key recommendations include restricting access to stored medication, conducting random
searches of inmates’ cells, increasing inmates’ educational opportunities, ensuring that
correctional officers assigned to armed posts meet quarterly firearms proficiency
requirements, assessing institutional infrastructure repair needs, not placing high-risk
inmates in areas of low security, and installing surveillance cameras in visiting areas.
Overall, we found that CDCR and CPHCS has fully or substantially implemented 26 of
the 49 recommendations. We also determined that five recommendations are no longer
applicable. The remaining 18 recommendations were either partially implemented or not
implemented. Of those, seven related to correctional officers working armed posts
without completing required weapons proficiency requirements. Five others were
impacted by CDCR’s current budget constraints. In our 2011 accountability audit, we
plan to follow-up on all 18 of the remaining recommendations as well as the three new
recommendations that we made during this current 2010 accountability audit.
Table 2 summarizes CDCR’s and CPHCS’ progress in implementing the 49
recommendations that we made in our three 2008 audits. A brief description of each
report’s findings follows Table 2.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 10

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 1

Table 2
Summary of Initial Follow-up Results
Report

Folsom State Prison
Quadrennial and Warden
Audit
Salinas Valley State
Prison Quadrennial and
Warden Audit
California Institution for
Men Quadrennial and
Warden Audit
Total

Fully
Implemented

Substantially
Implemented

6

2

8

Partially
Implemented

Not
Implemented

6

7

Not
Applicable

Total

Success
Rate*

3

11

100%

21

38%

9

1

1

4

2

17

67%

23

3

7

11

5

49

59%

*Success rate is the percentage of recommendations fully or substantially implemented compared to the total recommendations still
applicable.

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

CPHCS and Folsom State Prison (FSP) satisfactorily implemented all eight of the stillapplicable recommendations made during our January 2008 audit. Specifically, CPHCS
hired new nursing supervisors, improved training for new nursing staff, and improved
controls for stored narcotics and certain medical supplies. FSP successfully implemented
the uniform procedures it developed for conducting and monitoring searches of inmates’
cells. Also, FSP’s warden submitted a memorandum to custody staff and inmates to
reiterating the requirements for conducting daily standing counts. Three
recommendations are no longer applicable because CDCR is closing FSP’s substance
abuse programs.
Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) satisfactorily implemented only eight of the 21
recommendations made during our October 2008 audit. The prison developed and
implemented new procedures to ensure that it appropriately assigns inmates to programs.
Also, the prison developed and implemented a tracking system and communication
process to determine whether correctional officers who work armed posts completed
weapons proficiency training at required intervals. However, SVSP and CDCR must
increase academic educational opportunities offered to SVSP inmates and expand the
number of seats available in classrooms. Further, SVSP’s custody employees are not yet
following all cell search procedures and are not processing use-of-force incident
packages in a timely manner.
California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

CDCR and the California Institution for Men (CIM) satisfactorily implemented 10 of the
15 recommendations made during our November 2008 audit that were still applicable.
CDCR assessed facility maintenance and repair needs, analyzed repair-versus-replace
factors, and requested funding for facility improvements. The prison took aggressive
action and successfully filled vacant positions in plant operations and improved employee
time-tracking procedures. In addition, the prison’s custody managers and supervisors
received training about weapons proficiency requirements, monitoring correctional
Office of the Inspector General

Page 11

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 1

officers’ compliance with requirements, and holding non-compliant staff accountable.
Finally, the prison now conducts required quarterly emergency evacuation drills. But
CIM must work with CDCR to address several recommendations that it did not
implement regarding weapons proficiency training requirements for correctional officers
working armed posts. Also, because of CDCR’s budget constraints, the prison has not yet
installed surveillance cameras and monitors in one visiting area. Two recommendations
are no longer applicable because the CIM West facility is no longer used to house
reception center inmates.
Follow-up Recommendations
Based on our review, we now make 21 follow-up recommendations—18
recommendations that continue from our original audits because the recommendations
remain either partially or not implemented, plus three new recommendations to SVSP
that will assist the prison in documenting cell searches and assigning qualified staff to
armed posts.
Seven of the unimplemented recommendations at SVSP and CIM relate to a safety issue
that is alarming to the OIG. Specifically, CDCR continues to allow custody officers who
have not fulfilled quarterly weapons proficiency requirements to work in armed posts.
This includes officers who are permanently assigned to armed post positions and those
who fill armed posts temporarily to provide vacation or sick relief, to serve overtime, or
as a result of swapping or trading work assignments with another officer.
CDCR said that it “does not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable
or fiscally responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.” However, our
recommendations do not require CDCR to train all custody officers. Rather, we
recommend that officers assigned to armed posts—either permanently or temporarily—
complete quarterly firearms qualifications as required by Penal Code section 830.5 (d).
While CDCR’s response implies that our recommendations are unreasonable and costly,
our concern is that CDCR is violating the law by not following the Penal Code, and its
noncompliance diminishes overall safety. Also, if a questionable shooting by a noncompliant officer occurs, CDCR’s legal liability may increase. We will review these
seven recommendations, along with all other follow-up recommendations, in our 2011
accountability audit.
The following table presents the page numbers for the three sections in which we present
a complete discussion of each report, including the findings, recommendations, and
results of our follow-up audit:

Office of the Inspector General

Page 12

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 1

Table 3

Report Title
Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden
Audit (2008)
Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and
Warden Audit (2008)
California Institution for Men Quadrennial and
Warden Audit (2008)
Total

Number of Follow-Up
Recommendations
0

Page Number

16*

27

5

49

14

21*

* Includes three new recommendations made during the current 2010 accountability audit.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 13

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit
The OIG found that at Folsom State Prison the California
Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) fully implemented all
four of the recommendations made to CPHCS during the
2008 quadrennial audit. After assessing staffing levels at all
prisons, CPHCS hired three additional supervising nurses at
Folsom State Prison and now requires that all new employees
undergo orientation and safety training. CPHCS also
improved its operational procedures regarding medication
and needle and syringe security. In addition, we found that
Folsom State Prison correctional officers addressed four
other recommendations and began enforcing critical safety
and security procedures for conducting cell searches and
performing inmate counts. Three other recommendations
concerning two substance abuse programs are no longer
applicable due to the closure of both programs.
Summary of Original Audit Results

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
CARD
2008 Recommendations:
11

Fully Implemented:
6 (55%)
Substantially Implemented:
2 (18%)
Partially Implemented:
0 (0%)
Not Implemented:
0 (0%)
Not Applicable:
3 (27%)

In January 2008, the OIG issued an audit report 1 on the operations at Folsom State Prison (FSP)
and the performance of its warden. Our inspectors examined FSP’s operations and programs in
order to identify problem areas and recommend workable solutions. The visit to the prison
allowed us to observe the day-to-day operations and identify the challenges inherent to an
institution built in the late 1870s. Our staff identified three audit findings and made 11
recommendations that were primarily security concerns specific to the operations of the facility.
A primary concern addressed CPHCS’s hiring of Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN) who had
no prior experience working in a prison environment. We discovered that these nurses were often
unsupervised during the periods in which most medications were distributed. As a result, the new
nurses unintentionally compromised staff and inmate safety by allowing inmates access to
controlled medication and syringes.
In addition, the audit revealed that some prison correctional officers did not conduct the
minimum number of required daily cell searches. Not performing cell searches increases the
likelihood that hidden weapons and contraband could go undetected, endangering the safety of
staff members and inmates. Also, our inspectors found that custody staff did not require inmates
to stand during the prison’s daily standing count, instead allowing inmates to sit or lie on their
bunks, some of whom were covered with blankets. The failure to perform a daily standing count
could prevent custody staff from detecting potentially injured, ill or escaped inmates.

1

“Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit” may be found on the OIG’s Web site:
http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/audits/Quadrennial and Warden Audit 2008-01 Folsom State Prison.pdf
Office of the Inspector General

Page 14

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finally, CDCR’s previous decision to locate a substance abuse treatment program for parolees at
the Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility (FTTF)―a facility that also housed a substance
abuse treatment program for inmates―had resulted in inconsistencies between policies
governing the security of inmates with those governing parolees. However, CDCR closed the
FTTF in October 2009 and closed the Parolee Substance Abuse Program’s (PSAP) intake of
parolees in September 2009. The program closures resulted from CDCR’s reduction of its
rehabilitative programming budget.
Background
Folsom State Prison (FSP) is one of 33 CDCR adult prisons. Opened in July 1880, FSP is
CDCR’s second-oldest institution. The prison has a design capacity of 2,469 beds and as of
December 2, 2009, housed 3,869 inmates or 157 percent of its design capacity. FSP houses two
levels of medium-security inmates (Levels II and III) within its four general population
cellblocks, as well as its administrative segregation unit. 2 The prison also operates a minimumsecurity unit and, until recently, operated a transitional treatment facility within its 40-acre site.
Previous Findings and Recommendations
Nursing staff was ill-prepared to work in a prison setting. As a result of a court order
stemming from Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the federal court-appointed Receiver replaced medical
technical assistants (MTA) with licensed vocational nurses (LVN) at all prisons statewide. The
MTAs were correctional officers who were also LVNs or Registered Nurses (RN). The MTAs
were able to assist in the medical care of inmates as well as maintain order within the prison.
According to the Receiver, however, the MTA’s dual role as both correctional officer and nurse
caused confusion in the workplace, divided loyalties, and made recruitment of registered nurses
difficult. As such, CDCR began converting MTA positions to LVN positions in September 2006,
and all MTA positions at Folsom Prison were vacated by June 1, 2007. Initially, the Receiver
allowed prisons to hire LVNs into temporary positions while they were being trained by MTAs.
At FSP, however, the MTAs departed before the LVNs were properly trained. As a result, the
new nursing staff lacked awareness of prison operations and had not developed strong security
practices, both of which are critical to the safety of inmates and staff.
Custody employees did not consistently follow critical safety and security procedures.
Among the important safety procedures required of custody personnel within a prison’s housing
units are daily random cell searches and inmate counts. CDCR’s operational manual describes
specific requirements for daily cell searches, and state regulations require that each prison
conduct inmate counts at least four times daily, with one count being a mandatory standing
count. These procedures inhibit the inmates’ possession of dangerous contraband and confirm
each inmate’s presence and physical well-being. But the prison’s custody staff did not
consistently record or complete the required number of cell searches and follow the required

2

CDCR classifies inmates in four levels, according to the amount of security required to contain the inmate. Level I
is the lowest security level; Level IV is the maximum.
Office of the Inspector General

Page 15

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

procedures for inmate standing counts. Such lapses in security could compromise the safety of
the prison for both inmates and staff.
Housing parolees and inmates together in the same treatment facility resulted in policy
conflicts. In October 2009, CDCR initiated the closure of the Folsom Transitional Treatment
Facility (FTTF) and its two substance abuse programs, due to budgetary constraints. The FTTF,
which was activated in March 2004, was a 380-bed lower-security facility that housed inmates in
a dormitory-style setting. One program was a pre-release program for FSP inmates. The other
program, known as the Parolee Substance Abuse Program (PSAP), served parolees under the
authority of CDCR’s Division of Addition and Recovery Services. The PSAP provided an
alternative to returning to prison for parolees who violated their parole terms because of actions
related to drug or alcohol dependency. CDCR ran the two substance abuse treatment programs
on separate yards within the facility. However, because CDCR has separate policies governing
inmates and parolees, mixing the two groups at a single prison often resulted in policy conflicts.
To address the findings identified in the 2008 FSP audit, we made a total of 11 recommendations
to the CPHCS, the prison management, or CDCR. Among these, we recommended that CPHCS
improve the supervision and training of new nursing staff. We also recommended that the prison
improve its procedures for conducting daily cell searches and inmate counts. Lastly, we
recommended that CDCR either eliminate one of two substance abuse programs at the prison’s
FTTP or modify its operating procedures for the programs to eliminate conflicts related to safety
and security and the rehabilitative needs of inmates versus those of parolees.
2010 Follow-up Results
The California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) and Folsom State Prison (FSP)
management reported that they fully implemented eight of the eleven recommendations made
during the previous audit. In addition, CDCR reported the status of the three other
recommendations, regarding the facility’s substance abuse programs, as not applicable, due to
the imminent closure of its Folsom Transitional Treatment Facility (FTTF) and Parolee
Substance Abuse Programs (PSAP).
To address the adequacy of nursing supervision, CPHCS hired a Supervising Registered Nurse
(SRN) III and two SRN IIs after assessing nursing staff levels at all institutions. CPHCS reported
that all new nursing staff undergo forty hours of employee orientation training, which addresses
safety and security, and receive on-the-job training from a nurse instructor and a supervisor. In
addition, CPHCS reported that the prison no longer has a medication storage room and that
narcotics are now double-locked in a narcotics box to which only the Triage and Treatment Area
RNs on duty have access. Furthermore, CPHCS incorporated new operational procedures for
medication and needle and syringe security and reported that SRN II staff routinely audit
compliance with local operating procedures, including the requirement that needle and syringe
counts are made on at least a weekly basis for each nursing area.
FSP management provided all custody staff and inmates with written direction reiterating the
requirement for conducting at least one standing inmate count per day as well as the resulting
Office of the Inspector General

Page 16

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

penalty for non-compliance. Management also provided written direction to all custody
supervisors reiterating expectations that they monitor unit correctional officers to ensure that
they conduct required daily cell searches. In addition, management provided all housing units
with a standardized cell search log format for documenting the searches. However, we found that
not all housing units complied with the new reporting format. Consequently, we deemed that our
two related recommendations, regarding inmate cell searches, were only substantially
implemented.
Follow-up Recommendations
None.
The matrixes on the following pages summarize the results of the 2010 follow-up audit.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 17

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit
Finding 1
Poor implementation of the changeover from medical technical assistants to licensed vocational nurses left the nurses unsupervised
and ill prepared to work in a prison setting. (January 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Receiver and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation should:
Evaluate the adequacy of nursing supervision coverage at
all institutions, especially before implementing significant
changes, such as the new medication management system,
and adding nursing supervisor positions when warranted.
(January 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: This
recommendation is under the auspices of the Receiver who will respond directly
to the OIG.
California Prison Health Care Services’ response:
Fully Implemented. In October 2007, a Supervising Registered Nurse (SRN) III
was hired; this level of nurse supervision was not previously present at FOL. In
2008, the California Prison Health Care Services completed an assessment and
approved two additional SRN II positions for FSP. Those positions are
currently filled.
The Quality Management Committee (QMC) meetings are held bi-monthly at
the institution to review audits and pertinent data regarding OIG standards
such as Medication Management, and to ensure that all OIG standards are
being met. The QMC maintains an overview of all activities in the Health Care
Services program and functions as the institution’s quality control measurement
and driving force.
A Master Matrix was completed in 2008. It is an audit tool that includes all the
Plata criteria, OIG criteria and Key Indicators that FSP monitors and tracks to
ensure compliance with Plata and OIG requirements. This tool is utilized to
report at the bi-monthly QMC meetings. The Master Matrix was sent to
headquarters and use as a template to distribute statewide to ensure all
institutions are meeting Plata and OIG requirements.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 18

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the segment of California Prison Health Care Services’ (CPHCS)
March 2008 assessment document that identified the need for six SRN II
positions at FSP. We also reviewed the minutes from CPHCS’ Quality
Management Committee meetings held during August 2009 that listed the
names of the six SRN IIs currently working at FSP.

Restrict access to Folsom State Prison’s Triage and
Treatment Area medication storage room to only those
staff members responsible for maintaining the counts and
inventory. Staff members who have authorized access
should be held accountable when they fail to lock all
medical cabinets in the medication storage room after use.
(January 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: This
recommendation is under the auspices of the Receiver who will respond directly
to the OIG.
California Prison Health Care Services’ response:
Fully Implemented. FSP no longer has a medication storage room. All
narcotics are double locked in a narcotics box in the Triage and Treatment
Area (TTA). The locks were changed and only the TTA Medication RN on duty
has access to the narcotics box in the TTA.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed Operational Procedure #119 F dated June 2008. This procedure
discussed Medication Management-Narcotics and adequately addressed the
requirements for narcotic administration, as well as the accountability for the
narcotics during each shift.

Ensure that members of Folsom State Prison’s nursing
staff attend institution new employee orientation sessions
relevant to safety and security within the time frame
established by the department or the receiver. The
orientation sessions should be expanded to include roleplaying using actual examples of unsafe and safe practices.
(January 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: This
recommendation is under the auspices of the Receiver who will respond directly
to the OIG.
California Prison Health Care Services’ response:
Fully Implemented. All new staff undergo the New Employee Orientation (NEO)
with the In Service Training Department for 40 hours and with the Nursing
Instructor (NI) and SRN II for additional On the Job Training. The training
provided by the NI includes role-playing with examples of unsafe and safe
practices.

Page 19

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
The new nurses meet with the NI on their first day of work for a week of
training. Total training time spent with the NI is five to six weeks. The nurses
are scheduled for NEO as soon as it is available. If NEO is not scheduled to be
given at the Folsom State Prison within 30 days, the nurses attend training at
the neighboring institution, California State Prison, Sacramento. Nurses are
also scheduled within one or two days from their start date for inmate and staff
relations and safety training with an officer.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the training documentation for the last two nurses hired at FSP
and verified that they had attended safety training within 30 days of their hire
date.

Ensure that members of Folsom State Prison’s nursing
staff count needles and syringes twice daily, in accordance
with Triage and Treatment Area procedures. Supervising
nurses should be held accountable for ensuring this
requirement is enforced. (January 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: This
recommendation is under the auspices of the Receiver who will respond directly
to the OIG.
California Prison Health Care Services’ response:
Fully Implemented. Syringe and needle count sheets are signed by nursing staff
at the beginning and end of each shift to ensure accountability in all nursing
areas.
SNR II staff routinely audit compliance with Local Operating Procedures
(LOP), including needle and syringe counts on at least a weekly basis for each
nursing area. The audit results are reported on a monthly basis to the Quality
Management Committee. The Medication Management LOP has also been
updated.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed Operational Procedure #119 G dated June 2008 and found that it
adequately addresses needle and syringe control and reporting requirements if
any discrepancies are identified during the count of needles and syringes.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 20

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 21

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 2
Folsom State Prison’s custody staff does not consistently follow critical safety and security procedures. (January 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The management staff at the Folsom State Prison should:
Enforce the department’s Operations Manual requirements
for daily cell searches and ensure that supervisors monitor
staff compliance with those requirements. (January 2008)

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Written direction via memorandum was provided to all custody
supervisors on December 27, 2007, reiterating expectations regarding their
responsibilities for ensuring unit staff complete and properly document daily
cell searches in accordance with DOM, Section 52050.18.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the warden’s December 2007 memorandum to custody
supervisors. The memorandum reiterated CDCR’s Operations Manual (DOM)
requirements that custody staff on both the second and third watch conduct at
least three daily cell searches per watch. We also reviewed the September 2009
daily cell search count sheets from three housing units. We found that although
officers in two of the housing units adequately complied with those
requirements, officers in the remaining unit did not conduct an adequate
number of cell searches during the month. In that housing unit, neither the
second nor third watch officers had performed any cell searches at all on 13
days during the month. Officers in that unit had, however, conducted a total of
121 cell searches during the month, or 67 percent of the minimum monthly
searches required, and we found that staff members had entered a note on the
monthly summary report explaining that the low number of cell searches were
due to lockdowns. We found that Folsom State Prison is not in full compliance
with the DOM requirements for daily cell searches and has only substantially
implemented this recommendation.

Develop uniform procedures throughout the institution for
documenting cell searches. The method should allow
officers to easily identify the cells searched, the date and
watch of the search, and the staff members conducting the
search. The method currently employed by Unit 5,

Office of the Inspector General

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Following the Office of Inspector General’s recommendation, the
Cell Search Log format utilized in Unit 5 was provided to all housing units on
January 14, 2008, to ensure consistency throughout the units.

Page 22

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

involving the use of parallel logs, satisfies these elements.
(January 2008)

Hold custody staff accountable for conducting the daily
standing count, as required by section 3274 of the
California Code of Regulations, Title 15. (January 2008)

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We found that the cell search log document that FSP provided to all housing
units allows officers to easily identify the cells searched, the date and watch of
the search, and the officer who conducted the search. However, this format was
not uniformly used among all of the housing units to document cell searches
conducted during September 2009. In one of the three housing units we
reviewed, officers used monthly cell search summary reports that differed from
the summary reports that officers used in the other two housing units.
Moreover, the different reporting format made it difficult to determine the
watch that performed the cell search(s). As a result, we determined that FSP has
only substantially implemented this recommendation.

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Written direction was provided to all staff on December 21, 2007,
reiterating the requirements of the 1630 hours[4:30 pm] standing count in
CCR, Title 15, Section 3274.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the warden’s memorandum to staff advising them of the standing
count requirements for inmates. The December 21, 2007 memorandum noted
that failure to comply with the standing count is in violation of the director’s
rules and will result in progressive disciplinary actions against the inmate. We
performed no additional audit verification.

Use the inmate disciplinary system as necessary to require
inmate cooperation during the daily standing count.
(January 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Written direction was provided to all inmates on December 21,
2007, advising them of their responsibilities for the 1630 hours [4:30 pm]
standing count and a Rules Violation Report will be issued for non compliance.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the warden’s memorandum to inmates advising them of the
standing count requirements. The December 21, 2007 memorandum noted that
failure to comply with the standing count is in violation of the director’s rules

Office of the Inspector General

Page 23

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
and will result in progressive disciplinary actions against the inmate. We
performed no additional audit verification.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 24

2010 Accountability Audit

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 3
Housing certain parolees and inmates together in the same treatment facility exposes classification policy conflicts and violates
department procedure. (January 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Because of the unique issues surrounding the Folsom
Transitional Treatment Facility, consider using the facility
exclusively for one of the two treatment programs it
currently houses—either the pre-release inmate substance
abuse program or the Parolee Substance Abuse Program.
(January 2008)

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
response: Fully Implemented. Due to the State of California's fiscal
crisis and the anticipated reductions to the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitations rehabilitative programming budget, it
is necessary to deactivate the Parolee Substance Abuse Program
(PSAP) and the Transitional Treatment Program (TTP) at FTTP. TTP
will be closed effective October 2009. The PSAP will close intake
effective September 21, 2009. The last parolees are projected to
complete the PSAP by December 11, 2009, which will also be the last
day of program operation. Since PSAP and TTP program closure is
imminent, the following responses are no longer relevant. However, we
are providing them as documentation of the progress made.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the memorandum dated September 17, 2009 from the
Director of Adult Programs and the Director of Adult Institutions
advising that Drug Treatment Furlough Programs would be deactivated
effective January 31, 2010 due to California’s budget reductions. In
addition, the warden confirmed that the Folsom Transitional Treatment
Program and the Parolee Substance Abuse Programs would be
effectively closed by the first of the year. Therefore, we determined
that our recommendation is no longer applicable.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 25

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Folsom State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments

Alternatively, if the department decides to keep inmates
and parolees at the facility simultaneously, the Office of
the Inspector General recommends that the department:

Modify Operational Procedure 30 to eliminate current
conflicts with housing parolees at the Folsom Transitional
Treatment Facility, giving consideration to custodial safety
and security needs while advancing the department’s goals
of providing rehabilitative services to inmates and
parolees. (January 2008)

Not
Applicable

Consider issuing Parolee Substance Abuse Program
participants distinctive clothing to enable custody staff to
distinguish them from inmates. (January 2008)

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. Since PSAP and TTP program closure is imminent, the responses
are no longer relevant.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
See our comments for the preceding recommendation.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. Since PSAP and TTP program closure is imminent, the responses
are no longer relevant.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
See our comments for the preceding recommendation.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 26

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit
The OIG found that Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) has
substantially or fully implemented only 8 (38%) of the 21
recommendations made during our 2008 audit. We presented
these recommendations in an October 2008 audit report that
covered six areas: inmate assignments, academic education
opportunities, cell search procedures, use-of-force
procedures, quarterly weapons qualifications, and armed
post assignments. We found that SVSP has sufficiently
implemented our recommendations related to inmate
assignments and tracking quarterly weapons qualifications
but has fallen short in implementing most other
recommendations.
Summary of Original Audit Results
In October 2008, the OIG issued an audit report 3 on the
operations at SVSP and the performance of its warden and made
six audit findings and 21 recommendations.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
CARD
2008 Recommendations:
21

Fully Implemented:
8 (38%)
Substantially Implemented:
0 (0%)
Partially Implemented:
6 (29%)
Not Implemented:
7 (33%)
Not Applicable:
0 (0%)

Two of our concerns related to inmate programming. Specifically, SVSP was not following state
laws, regulations, and policies when it placed inmates in work and education assignments, and it
did not give priority to those inmates who can benefit the most from the programs. In addition,
the prison needed to increase its educational opportunities for inmates.
Another concern related to the prison’s response to critical safety and security requirements. We
found that in two-thirds of the housing units we inspected, correctional officers did not perform
the required number of daily cell searches. Cell searches are essential because they allow officers
to uncover contraband that inmates could use to harm other inmates and employees.
Our audit also revealed that the prison was not reviewing use-of-force incidents within the
required 30 days. By delaying use-of-force reviews, the prison also delays corrective training
that may be needed for employees, thus increasing the possibility that an inappropriate use-offorce could recur, further placing officers and inmates at risk. Tardy reviews may also lead to
CDCR’s inability to take adverse action against correctional officers, since such actions
generally must be initiated within one year of the incident.
Finally, we identified two issues related to the qualifications of armed personnel. Specifically,
we identified numerous exceptions to a CDCR requirement that only correctional officers who
are currently qualified with a firearm be assigned to armed posts. We determined that the prison
was not tracking correctional officers’ compliance with quarterly firearm proficiency
requirements. We also disagreed with a CDCR practice that exempts some correctional officers
3

“Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit” may be found on the OIG’s Web site:
http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/audits/Quadrennial and Warden Audit 2008-10 Salinas Valley State
Prison.pdf

Office of the Inspector General

Page 27

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

from quarterly weapons proficiency requirements, even though other officers performing similar
armed post duties are required to demonstrate quarterly weapons proficiency.
Background
Opened in May 1996, Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) provides long-term housing and
services for minimum and maximum custody inmates housed in five facilities. As of
December 2, 2009 SVSP housed 3,675 male inmates―154 percent of its design capacity. Of
those inmates, 260 were classified as Level I or II and 3,415 as Level III or IV. Designated as a
Disability Placement Program facility, SVSP meets CDCR criteria that ensures that its eligible
inmates with designated disabilities are not denied or excluded from participating in services and
programs.
Previous Findings and Recommendations
The prison did not place the most qualified inmates in work and education assignments
and offers limited academic education opportunities. SVSP offers various work opportunities
in office support, janitorial, kitchen, education, firefighting, and dairy areas. The prison also
offers various education and self-help programs. When filling inmate work or education
assignments, state laws, regulations, and policies require that prisons give priority to inmates
who: (1) are eligible to receive day-for-day credit; and (2) are currently not assigned to a work or
education program. This allows the inmates who are the most likely to be released to have the
opportunity to prepare for parole and reduce their prison term through work experience or
education. At the time of our audit, however, SVSP was not following these guidelines. In
addition, when we reviewed the sufficiency of SVSP’s educational program, we found that the
prison canceled its academic education classes nearly 40 percent of the time and had limited
seats available in its academic education classes.
The prison did not complete the required number of cell searches and did not review useof-force incidents in a timely manner. During our 2008 audit, our inspectors also reviewed
SVSP’s compliance with requirements for conducting random cell searches and for reviewing
use-of-force incident packages. CDCR policy requires that a prison’s correctional officers
conduct six cell searches in each housing unit daily. Cell searches provide correctional officers
with an opportunity to uncover contraband that inmates could use to harm others and potentially
jeopardize the prison’s overall security. During our audit, we found that SVSP’s correctional
officers were completing these searches only about one-third of the time. They cited several
reasons for not performing the searches, including lockdowns, emergencies, training, and limited
staffing, among other issues. When our inspectors reviewed the processing time for use-of-force
incidents, we found that the prison was not following its own directive requiring the use-of-force
committee to review incident packages within 30 days of the incident. In fact, none of SVSP’s
incident packages had been reviewed within that timeframe.
The prison did not comply with weapons proficiency requirements. During our audit of
SVSP we performed procedures to determine whether custody supervisors were assigning
correctional officers to armed posts who had not demonstrated weapons proficiency, as required
by state law and regulations, and CDCR policy. We found that 23 percent of the officers we

Office of the Inspector General

Page 28

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

reviewed had not met the requirements and we attributed those discrepancies primarily to
SVSP’s lack of a formal method to track correctional officers’ compliance with quarterly
weapons qualification requirements. We also disagreed with a CDCR directive that allows
correctional officers who temporarily assume armed posts to follow different rules. Specifically,
CDCR allows correctional officers to trade work assignments, or serve overtime, without regard
to the officer’s qualifications. We believe that a prison’s noncompliance with weapons
proficiency requirements can jeopardize its safety and security.
To address the findings identified in the 2008 Salinas Valley State Prison audit, we made a total
of 21 recommendations to CDCR and SVSP. Among these, we recommended that the prison
place the appropriate inmates in work and education rehabilitation assignments and also increase
overall inmate programming opportunities. We also recommended that the prison enforce its
standard cell search policy and hold staff accountable for conducting searches. In addition, we
recommended that SVSP ensure that use-of-force packages are submitted and reviewed
promptly. Finally, we recommended that the prison ensure that its correctional officers assigned
to armed posts are current in quarterly weapons qualifications.
2010 Follow-up Results
CDCR responded to our current 2010 follow-up review by indicating that it had either fully or
substantially implemented 18 of our 21 recommendations. They also responded that two of the
three remaining recommendations were no longer applicable. To confirm CDCR’s assertions, we
reviewed supporting documentation and visited the prison in November 2009. Based on our
review, we lowered CDCR’s reported implementation status on 11 of the recommendations.
Moreover, we determined that the two recommendations that CDCR designated as not applicable
were indeed applicable but had simply not been implemented.
We found that SVSP fully implemented our recommendations related to the placement of
inmates in work and education assignments. However, the department’s budget constraints
diminished the prison’s ability to increase its academic education classes. Although CDCR plans
to implement a new education delivery model in 2010, we did not consider the related
recommendations as implemented because the changes to education were only in the initial
planning phases at the time of our fieldwork.
CDCR reported that they fully implemented our recommendations to develop a standard process
for documenting cell searches and to ensure oversight by supervisors and managers. But when
we reviewed cell search logs at ten housing units on various facilities, we observed numerous
examples of correctional officers not properly recording cell search information. In addition,
supervisors were not verifying that subordinate employees were properly documenting cell
search information. Further, contrary to CDCR’s response, correctional officers are not being
held accountable for non-compliance with the cell search requirements. Finally, our review
found that the written policies and procedures were vague regarding which cell search
documents employees must complete and which documents supervisors must review.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 29

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

When our inspectors visited SVSP, they found that the prison had improved its operations and
implemented a system to track the quarterly weapons qualification status for correctional officers
regularly assigned to armed posts. Although the prison notifies both the watch office and all
custody supervisors of correctional officers who are out-of-compliance with the weapons
proficiency requirement, we found that custody supervisors do not always consider the
compliance status before assigning an officer to an armed post. We sampled four officers whose
names appeared on a list of employees not currently qualified for armed post assignments and
identified their subsequent daily post assignments. In one of the four samples, we found that an
unqualified officer was assigned to an armed post and neither the watch office nor the facility
lieutenant nor the correctional officer prevented the improper assignment from occurring. As a
result, we concluded that SVSP has not fully implemented all of our recommendations related to
ensuring that employees permanently assigned to armed posts are currently qualified.
Finally, we found that CDCR continues to be non-compliant with the quarterly weapons
qualification requirements of employees temporarily assigned to armed posts, as specified in the
California Penal Code, the California Code of Regulations, and CDCR’s Operations Manual.
CDCR contends that it is not fiscally responsible to train all staff on quarterly qualifications, yet
it does not employ other solutions to comply with the state law. Accordingly, CDCR opens itself
to potentially costly lawsuits in the event of a questionable shooting, and creates a situation that
may lead to tradegy. In response to our finding, CDCR argued that these two recommendations
were “not applicable.” However, the OIG considers these applicable recommendations “not
implemented.”
Follow-up Recommendations
While the prison and CDCR have made progress in the area of inmate assignments, many of our
other recommendations were not fully or substantially implemented at the time of our 2010
follow-up audit. Accordingly, the OIG made 13 follow-up recommendations to SVSP and three
recommendations to CDCR. However, only ten of the 13 recommendations that we made to
SVSP were identified in our 2008 audit report―three recommendations are new.
The matrixes on the following pages summarize the results of the 2010 follow-up audit.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 30

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit
Finding 1
Salinas Valley State Prison does not appropriately place inmates in work and education assignments, resulting in ill-prepared parolees
and prolonged periods of costly incarceration. (October 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

Salinas Valley State Prison should:
Ensure that inmates who are unassigned and eligible to
receive day-for-day credit are the first inmates placed in
available work or education assignments. (October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) did develop a manual system,
combined with the automated Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS)
program, to prioritize inmates who are unassigned and day-for-day eligible
Penal Code 2933 (PC) as a means to work around the existing program
deficiencies until implementation of the new Strategic Offender Management
System (SOMS) program.
SVSP currently has 524 inmates who are PC 2933 eligible per DDPS.
o
499 - Assigned.
o
21 –Orientation status
o
5 -AlA Unassigned.
o
2 - C/C Status
o
22 of the 524 inmates are serving life terms
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We visited SVSP and spoke with the inmate assignment lieutenant. He told us
that he reviews DDPS daily to identify any unassigned inmates eligible for dayfor-day credit and then places them in available work assignments. When we
reviewed the daily DDPS listing of unassigned PC 2933-eligible inmates dated
November 18, 2009, we found that only one inmate fit the criteria for placement
and that the lieutenant had already placed the inmate in a work assignment. We
noted several other inmates on the unassigned eligible list who were still in
orientation and were therefore not yet available for assignment. Furthermore,
both the lieutenant and the chief deputy warden told us that SVSP has very few
PC 2933-eligible inmates.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 31

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Provide the inmate assignment staff with a means to
identify an inmate’s incarceration term so the lieutenant
can give priority for available work or education
assignments to inmates who are not serving life terms or
otherwise not eligible to receive day-for-day credit.
(October 2008)

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status
Fully
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Inmate assignment staff shall utilize existing data sources from
DDPS, which are not fully integrated into the inmate assignment program, to
prioritize positional assignments based on an inmate's release date, work
status, and PC 2933 eligibility.
SVSP staff shall ensure changes in release dates are expeditiously entered into
DDPS by records staff. This is accomplished by updating Offender Based
Information System (OBIS), which then downloads into DDPS.
SVSP has 3,381 inmates who are eligible for work assignments.
SVSP has 1,836 full-time and 12 half-time inmate work assignments.
499 (27.2%) are filled by PC 2933 eligible inmates.
1,337 (72.8%) are filled by non-eligible inmates.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The inmate assignment lieutenant reviews DDPS daily to identify unassigned
inmates who are eligible for day-for-day credit. Because few inmates are PC2933 eligible, the lieutenant is able to immediately place them in work
assignments.

Ensure that an inmate’s work status and relative release
date are considered when making inmate assignments.
(October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. Inmate assignment staff shall utilize the data
printouts from DDPS containing SVSP inmate release dates, work status, and
PC 2933 eligibility as a method to manually work around existing DDPS
program deficiencies.
SVSP will work with Enterprise Information Services (EIS) in an attempt to
incorporate the necessary changes into DDPS and make it more effective. SVSP
will continue to work with EIS during the development and implementation of
the new SOMS program. SVSP is continuing to work with EIS to incorporate
necessary changes to DDPS.
OBIS operator enters data into OBIS five days per week; OBIS then downloads
into DDPS nightly.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The inmate assignment lieutenant’s manual work-around process of reviewing
existing data found in DDPS when making inmate assignments effectively

Office of the Inspector General

Page 32

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
addresses our recommendation. Specifically, when we reviewed the DDPS
reports used by the lieutenant, we found that the data included inmates’ work
status group and release date, among other information. Therefore, the status of
the recommendation is fully implemented.

Ensure that the information related to an inmate’s day-forday credit eligibility contained in DDPS is accurate.
(October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Inmate assignment staff shall use the following methodology to
ensure accuracy:
o
Daily Movement Sheet
o
Classification Call Sheets
o
OBIS
o
Central Files
Records staff will import appropriate data into OBIS, and OBIS downloads into
DDPS.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We randomly selected ten inmates from DDPS who were not classified as
eligible for day-for-day credit and confirmed their classification status with the
case records staff members who reviewed the inmates’ central files.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 33

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 2
Only a small percentage of inmates at Salinas Valley State Prison are assigned to academic education classes, and classes are often
canceled because of security concerns and other disruptions. (October 2008)

Recommendation

Status

Comments

Salinas Valley State Prison should:
Increase the academic educational opportunities
available to inmates. (October 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. All academic classrooms at SVSP are being utilized.
SVSP has 26 teacher positions, of which 21 positions are filled, the remaining 5
positions are currently subject to the hiring freeze.
SVSP currently has 16 classrooms, which are being utilized by 19 teachers for
the following programs:
o
Adult Basic Education (ABE) -10
o
Enhanced Outpatient -1
o
Pre-release - 1
o
Behavioral Management Unit -1
o
Bridging - 2
o
Vocations - 2
o
Distance Learning – 2.
Additionally, SVSP has 2 teachers filling the following positions:
o
Testing Coordinator
o
Coach
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on an October 2009 memorandum received from CDCR’s Office of
Correctional Education and our own review of SVSP’s educational statistical
reports, we find that educational opportunities have not increased. In fact, we
found that SVSP actually provided fewer inmates with academic opportunities
in October 2009 than in October 2008. CDCR’s budget constraints resulted in a
hiring freeze, which have limited SVSP’s ability to hire instructors to increase
academic opportunities. However, SVSP’s education administrators told the

Office of the Inspector General

Page 34

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
OIG that in early 2010, CDCR plans to roll out a new teaching model that
should significantly increase the number of inmates provided with educational
opportunities. At this time, however, our recommendation that SVSP increase
the academic educational opportunities available to inmates has not been
implemented.

Expand the number of seats available in academic
education classes by:
Using the two available classroom spaces in C facility
for academic education. (October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. There are 81 inmate students being served in ABE classrooms,
and 87 in Distance Learning on C Facility. There are 3 ABE classrooms on C
Facility, including a Distance Learning classroom. Each of these classrooms is
being used for classroom instruction.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We did not perform any audit procedures to verify CDCR’s representation.

Using two shorter classroom sessions each school day
but enroll a larger number of inmates, thus allowing
more inmates to participate in academic education while
using existing resources. (October 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. Of the proposed 407 inmate positions, SVSP has
expanded educational programs to an additional 120 inmates. The half-time
programs proposal requires review and approval by the Office of Correctional
Education. Distance Learning teacher assignments have been re-allocated to
increase the number of inmates by 120.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on CDCR’s response, our follow-up discussions with education program
administrators, and a comparison of October 2008 and October 2009 education
statistical data, we find that the prison has not implemented this
recommendation. Although the number of inmates assigned to distance learning
increased slightly in the last year, the number of inmates assigned to regular
classroom declined. As a result, there were eleven fewer inmates participating
in academic education in October 2009 than there were in October 2008.
During our site visit to SVSP, an education program administrator asserted that
a new education teaching model was planned for implementation in early 2010

Office of the Inspector General

Page 35

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
and that the plan, if put into action, would increase educational opportunities
that would ultimately result in the OIG’s recommendation being implemented.
However, at the time of our review, CDCR’s plan to expand academic
education was still being developed and the recommendation was not
implemented.

If limiting class cancellations is not practical because
of the nature of the inmate population and facility
constraints:
Reevaluate the academic education program and
examine other methods of delivering academic
instruction to inmates. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Distance Learning is in the process of expanding to 360 students.
Alternative methods of delivery for educational services has been expanded by
3 teachers, and 217 students are currently enrolled in Distance Learning.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on our review of the monthly education report for October 2009, the
prison had assigned only two teachers and 158 inmates to its distance learning
program. This number is similar to the 145 inmates assigned one year earlier.
However, during our site visit we learned that CDCR plans to roll out a new
teaching model in early 2010 that it expects will significantly increase the
number of inmates provided with educational opportunities. Because CDCR is
only in the initial stages of re-evaluating academic programming, this
recommendation is only partially implemented.

Limit formal classroom-based instruction and develop
in-cell study courses for inmates. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. SVSP has hired 2 teachers since the audit by the
Office of the Inspector General to expand the Distance Learning Program
(DLP). This was originally projected to be implemented by June 30, 2009, but
has been delayed pending budgetary review. Alternative methods of education
delivery have been expanded and will continue to be explored. In-cell Distance
Learning encompasses TV media, and includes General Education
Development, Merging 2 Worlds, Words of Peace, and the Peer Tutor Program.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The prison’s vice-principal told us that CDCR will implement a new teaching

Office of the Inspector General

Page 36

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
model in early 2010 that will, in part, limit formal classroom instruction and
increase inmates’ in-cell study opportunities. Consequently, this
recommendation is only partially implemented while the prison awaits the new
teaching model.

Follow-up Recommendations
Salinas Valley State Prison should:
•

Increase the academic educational opportunities available to inmates. (October 2008)

Expand the number of seats available in academic education classes by:
•

Using two shorter classroom sessions each school day but enroll a larger number of inmates, thus allowing more inmates to
participate in academic education while using existing resources. (October 2008)

If limiting class cancelations is not practical because of the nature of the inmate population and facility constraints:
•

Reevaluate the academic education program and examine other methods of delivering academic instruction to inmates. (October
2008)

•

Limit formal classroom-based instruction and develop in-cell study courses for inmates. (October 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 37

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 3
Inadequate oversight by supervisors and managers contributes to custody staff members not performing required cell searches,
potentially jeopardizing the safety of the staff and inmates. (October 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

Salinas Valley State Prison should:
Immediately enforce the department’s cell search policy,
requiring supervisors and managers to provide appropriate
oversight of that function. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Monthly proof of practice is forwarded to the Chief Deputy
Warden (CDW) with back up documentation maintained by Captains. Staff
training has been conducted and an institutional tracking system has been
developed and implemented. The Draft Policy change has been prepared and
submitted to the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) for review. Operational
Procedure #19 Addendum was completed August 25, 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG reviewed SVSP’s documented cell search procedures as well as its current
operations and determined that oversight of cell searches was still lacking. For
example, while SVSP’s cell search procedures require supervisors and captains
to regularly review and approve cell search tracking logs, there is no
certification line on the logs to demonstrate that the review took place. Also, the
procedures do not clearly identify the applicable documents that supervisors
and captains are expected to examine and approve. Further, although CDCR
noted in their response above that monthly proof of practice is forwarded to the
chief deputy warden (CDW), this procedure is not explained in either the
revised procedure or its subsequent addendum.
To determine whether supervisors were providing adequate oversight of cell
searches, OIG inspectors reviewed three cell search memorandums from
correctional administrators to the CDW regarding their review of the August
2009 cell search documentation for their respective facilities. These
memorandums, provided to us by SVSP, reported the results of the correctional
administrators’ reviews of cell search logs or tracking worksheets and
addressed the discrepancies they found. Two of the three memorandums noted
that employees needed additional training or monitoring. Nevertheless, even
with the correctional administrators reviewing cell search documentation and

Office of the Inspector General

Page 38

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
reporting results monthly to the CDW, correctional officers are not adhering to
the cell search policy. To corroborate this finding, in November 2009, the OIG
inspectors visited ten SVSP housing units on four different yards and reviewed
their November 2009 cell search documentation and found inadequate
supporting documentation of cell searches at all ten housing units. Based on our
subsequent review and findings, we find that the prison’s current cell search
oversight is inadequate; consequently, the OIG considers the recommendation
only partially implemented.

Implement one standardized procedure for documenting
cell searches. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Monthly proof of practice is forwarded to the CDW with back up
documentation and is maintained by Captains. Standardized cell search
recording procedures have been implemented, and staff training has been
conducted. A manager/supervisor inspection checklist has been implemented,
and Operational Procedure #19 Addendum was completed August 25, 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Although SVSP has developed a standardized procedure for documenting its
cell searches, the procedures have not been implemented at all housing units.
During our November 2009 review, inspectors found many instances in which
correctional officers failed to properly complete cell search documentation.
Therefore, we find that the prison’s efforts to standardize procedures for
documenting cell searches, as discussed in CDCR’s response, has not been
effective. We consider the recommendation only partially implemented.

Initiate progressive discipline for non-compliance with the
department’s cell search policy. (October 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. The CDW continues to monitor for non-compliance and will
initiate progressive discipline when required. Staff training has been conducted,
and Operational Procedure #19 Addendum was completed August 25, 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
During our review we found numerous examples of custody staff not
documenting cell searches or supervisors not reviewing cell search
documentation. However, based on our discussions with the employee relations
officer and the CDW, we find that there have been no known cases in which the
prison has initiated progressive discipline for these instances of non-compliance

Office of the Inspector General

Page 39

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
with CDCR’s cell search policy. As a result, the OIG considers the
recommendation not implemented.

Follow-up Recommendations
Salinas Valley State Prison should:
•

Immediately enforce CDCR’s cell search policy, requiring supervisors and managers to provide appropriate oversight of that
function. (October 2008)

•

Implement one standardized procedure for documenting cell searches. (October 2008)

•

Initiate progressive discipline for non-compliance with CDCR’s cell search policy (October 2008)

Moreover, because SVSP has been unable to adequately document its cell searches, we have added another recommendation to assist
them. SVSP should also:
•

Ensure that written policies and procedures clearly document those cell search forms that must be both completed by employees
and reviewed by supervisors. (March 2010)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 40

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 4
Salinas Valley State Prison does not review its use-of-force incident packages on time. (October 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

Salinas Valley State Prison should:
Immediately implement and monitor compliance with a
use-of-force policy that aligns with the department’s
statewide policy ordered by the federal court to review all
use-of-force incident packages within 30 days of the
incident date. (October 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A tracking system has been in place since 2007. Compliance is
monitored by the Use of Force Coordinator, with status reports provided to the
warden a minimum of once every two weeks.
•
2009 - 85 new Use of Force incidents.
o
As of 3/2009, 37 backlog of 37 cases.
o
As of 8/2009, 66 incidents not reviewed within 30 days.
o
19 cases held in abeyance pending OIA Central Intake referral.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed SVSP’s use-of-force incident log and identified 363 incidents
recorded during the period of January 1, 2009 though October 18, 2009. We
found that only ten of those incidents, or 2.8 percent, were reviewed within 30
days of the incident date. This rate is slightly worse than the 2.9 percent rate we
found during our 2008 audit. We find, therefore, that the prison remains not in
compliance with its 30-day review policy.

Require timely submission of use-of-force incident
packages by staff members to the use-of-force coordinator.
(October 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. Departmental policy is substantially followed
regarding timely completion of reportable incidents CDCR 837. As of March
24, 2009, there is a total backlog of 70 critical incidents for 2008 and 2009
combined. Of the 70 reportable incidents, 30 have been reviewed and are under
investigatory review or were returned for clarification, showing a consistent
decrease.
As of August 2009, there is a backlog of 33 incident reports.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We identified 363 incidents recorded on SVSP’s use-of-force incident log
during the period of January 1, 2009 through October 18, 2009. We found that
SVSP staff members submitted only four of those incidents, or 1.1 percent, to

Office of the Inspector General

Page 41

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
the use-of-force coordinator within 10 days of the incident. At the time of our
2008 audit, the rate was much higher: 15.4 percent. We find that the prison has
not implemented the recommendation.

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Perform an analysis of the use-of-force staffing levels at its
adult prisons, including SVSP, to determine whether
appropriate use-of-force staffing levels exist to ensure that
each prison processes its use-of-force packages within 30
days, considering the annual number of use-of-force
incidents at each prison. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. The revised Use of Force Policy and Regulations are in
final DAI approval stages, inclusive of revised review attachments and a lesson
plan. Following implementation of the revised statewide UOF Policy and
Regulations, Mission Associate Directors will monitor 30 day initial review
progress to identify any additional training, monitoring and or staffing
considerations as may be determined appropriate.
As of August 1, 2009, policy staged implementation remains pending. Policy &
Procedures and attachments completed. Package is being forwarded to the
Office of Administrative Law for public notice prior to implementation.
A request for information survey will be forwarded to the adult institutions to
determine the appropriate use of force staff levels at each institution.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We did not perform any audit procedures to verify CDCR’s representation.

Follow-up Recommendations
Salinas Valley State Prison should:
•

Immediately implement and monitor compliance with a use-of-force policy that aligns with CDCR’s statewide policy ordered by
the federal court to review all use-of-force incident packages within 30 days of the incident date. (October 2008)

•

Require timely submission of use-of-force incident packages by staff members to the use-of-force coordinator. (October 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 42

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should:
•

Perform an analysis of the use-of-force staffing levels at its adult prisons, including SVSP, to determine whether appropriate useof-force staffing levels exist to ensure that each prison processes its use-of-force packages within 30 days, considering the annual
number of use-of-force incidents at each prison. (October 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 43

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 5
Salinas Valley State Prison does not ensure that peace officers permanently assigned to armed posts remain current in quarterly
weapons qualifications. (October 2008)

Recommendation

Status

Comments

Salinas Valley State Prison should:
Ensure that all correctional peace officers permanently
assigned to armed posts and issued a department firearm as
part of their assignment remain current in quarterly
weapons qualification. (October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A tracking system is in place and working effectively.
A list of non-compliant staff is forwarded to the Watch Office and staff is
redirected until qualified.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
During our on-site visit to SVSP, OIG inspectors found that the prison had
improved its operations for tracking and ensuring that correctional officers
assigned permanently to armed posts are trained and weapons-qualified each
quarter. We also found that the in-service training office regularly
communicates that information to all custody supervisors through a
memorandum. However, although the prison has fully implemented processes
to ensure that officers are trained and qualified in weapons proficiency, it has
not implemented processes to ensure that only qualified officers are assigned to
armed posts.

Continue to develop and implement a tracking system to
identify peace officers who are not currently qualified.
(October 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A tracking system is in place and working effectively.
A list of non-compliant staff is forwarded to the Watch Office and staff is
redirected until qualified.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Our inspectors reviewed SVSP’s operations and found that the prison has
implemented a tracking system to identify officers who are not currently
weapons-qualified. However, although the system effectively identifies out-ofcompliance officers, custody administrators and supervisors do not always use
the information provided to ensure that only qualified officers are assigned to
armed post positions.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 44

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Continue to notify the watch commander and supervisors
of noncompliant peace officers. (October 2008)

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status
Fully
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A tracking system is in place and working effectively.
A list of non-compliant staff is forwarded to the Watch Office and staff is
redirected until qualified.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Our inspectors reviewed SVSP’s operations and determined that the tracking
system information is regularly communicated to the watch commander and
supervisors. However, those staff members do not always use the information to
redirect unqualified officers as needed.

Ensure that noncompliant peace officers are not assigned
to armed posts until compliant with the qualification
requirements. (October 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A tracking system is in place and working effectively.
A list of non-compliant staff is forwarded to the Watch Office and staff is
redirected until qualified.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
To test the prison’s compliance with this recommendation, we selected four
officers identified as out-of-compliance with their required quarterly weapons
qualification. We found that one had been assigned to fill in as sick relief for an
armed post position prior to re-qualifying. Both the watch office and the yard
supervisor at the post where the officer was assigned failed to redirect the
unqualified employee. Furthermore, when we discussed this lapse with a watch
office lieutenant and the chief deputy warden, we were told that the
noncompliant officer also had a responsibility to “step forward” and identify his
or her out-of-compliance status.
Although SVSP implemented an effective system to identify noncompliant
officers and communicate that information to custody supervisors, we found
that the prison still does not have an effective process in place to prevent
noncompliant officers from working at armed posts. There are three control
points within the process at which time various staff members should decide
whether to preclude an unqualified officer from working at an armed post
position: when the watch office fills a position, when the officer agrees to work
the position, and when the custody supervisor receives the officer reporting for
duty. However, when we reviewed the post assignments for the four
noncompliant officers, we found that one had worked at an armed post position

Office of the Inspector General

Page 45

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
before re-qualifying.
Considering the importance of assigning qualified officers to armed posts, we
expect to find no exceptions to the rule requiring compliance. The OIG
considers the recommendation only partially implemented.

Follow-up Recommendations
Salinas Valley State Prison should:
•

Ensure that noncompliant correctional officers are not assigned to armed posts until compliant with the qualification
requirements. (October 2008)

In addition, because SVSP has been unable ensure that all correctional officers assigned to armed posts meet the quarterly weapons
qualification requirement as required by the Penal Code, we have added two other recommendations to assist them. SVSP should also:
•

Ensure that custody supervisors review the most recent listing of noncompliant officers and use the information to determine
when officers need to be redirected to a non-armed post. (March 2010)

•

Ensure that noncompliant correctional officers are held accountable if they do not notify the watch commander and supervisor of
their noncompliant status before accepting any assignment to work at an armed post. (March 2010)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 46

2010 Accountability Audit

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 6
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation risks the safety and security of its prisons and the public by not requiring
quarterly weapons training for peace officers temporarily assigned to armed posts. (October 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Ensure that (except in extreme emergencies) all peace
officers assigned to armed posts, either permanently or
temporarily, meet the quarterly qualification requirements
as specified in the California Penal Code, the California
Code of Regulations, and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Operations Manual.
(October 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CDCR’s response misrepresents the OIG’s recommendation. Requiring all
employees assigned to armed posts to meet quarterly qualification requirements
is not the same as requiring all employees to qualify quarterly, since many
employees do not work armed posts. Regardless of the state’s financial crisis,
the safety of staff, inmates, and the public is an important mission for CDCR,
and assigning qualified officers in an armed post is important in meeting that
mission. CDCR’s practice of allowing noncompliant officers in armed posts is
neither consistent with its mission nor compliant with the law. Penal Code
section 830.5 (d) states that peace officers will complete quarterly firearms
qualification training. Moreover, CDCR’s Operations Manual (DOM) section
32010.19.7 states that peace officers in armed posts will complete quarterly
firearms qualifications. Unless CDCR complies with the law and ensures that
qualified officers are in every armed post, it risks unnecessary tragedy and
opens itself to costly lawsuits in the event of a questionable shooting. We find
that this recommendation is still applicable, but not implemented.

Page 47

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Rescind the November 4, 2004, memorandum allowing
peace officers who are not qualified quarterly to assume
armed posts that require quarterly qualifications. (October
2008)

Salinas Valley State Prison Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status
Not
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The OIG concludes that, regardless of the state’s financial crisis, CDCR is not
complying with Penal Code section 830.5 (d) which states that peace officers
will complete quarterly firearms qualification training. CDCR’s Operations
Manual (DOM) section 32010.19.7 also states that peace officers in armed posts
will complete quarterly firearms qualifications. The OIG finds that this
recommendation is applicable and is not implemented.

Follow-up Recommendations
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should:
•

Ensure that (except in extreme emergencies) all correctional officers assigned to armed posts, either permanently or temporarily,
meet the quarterly qualification requirements as specified in the California Penal Code, the California Code of Regulations, and
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Operations Manual. (October 2008)

•

Rescind the November 4, 2004, memorandum allowing correctional officers who are not qualified quarterly to assume armed
posts that require quarterly qualifications. (October 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 48

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit
The OIG found that CDCR and the California Institution for
Men (CIM) had fully implemented over half of our
recommendations. Specifically, CDCR implemented our
recommendations about assessing CIM’s infrastructure
problems. Also, the prison addressed many of our concerns
regarding the efforts to fill plant operations vacancies, hold staff
accountable for training and emergency drills, update
procedures, and instruct supervisors to check the qualifications
records of custody staff prior to assuming an armed post.
However, CDCR and CIM did not implement four of our
recommendations related to mandatory quarterly firearms
training sessions for correctional officers. Consequently, the
prison is out of compliance with state law and departmental
regulations that require correctional officers in armed posts to
complete quarterly firearms qualifications. Two other
recommendations concerning one of CIM’s open dormitory
facilities are no longer applicable because the facility is no longer
used to house reception center inmates.

IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
CARD
2008 Recommendations: 17

Fully Implemented:
9 (53%)
Substantially Implemented:
1 (6%)
Partially Implemented:
1 (6%)
Not Implemented:
4 (23%)
Not Applicable:
2 (12%)

Summary of Original Audit Results
In November 2008, the OIG issued an audit report 4 on the operations at California Institution for
Men (CIM) and the performance of its warden. Our inspectors examined CIM’s operations and
programs in order to identify problem areas and recommend workable solutions. We conducted
audit field work on-site at the prison, which allowed us to observe the day-to-day operations and
identify the challenges inherent to the third-oldest California prison. Our staff identified six audit
findings and made 17 recommendations that focused on institutional infrastructure, weapons
training, and lack of surveillance equipment on the prison’s visiting yard.
A primary concern during the audit was to determine why the facility’s infrastructure was
deteriorating. CDCR had contracted with Vanderweil Facility Advisors to conduct a facility
condition assessment. After the contractor completed its assessment, we recommended that
CDCR determine whether repairing CIM was more cost effective than replacing it.
Another concern was that correctional officers were assigned to work at armed posts even though
they were not current in their weapons training. Our inspectors examined employee rosters,
firearms training records and post assignment histories. These records revealed that CIM did not
comply with California law, regulations, and departmental policies regarding firearms
proficiency requirements. Specifically, CIM supervisors allowed many correctional officers to
continue to work armed posts, despite the officers not having completed mandatory firearms
4

“California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit” may be found on the OIG’s Web site:
http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/BAI/audits/Quadrennial and Warden Audit 2008-11 CA Institution for
Men.pdf

Office of the Inspector General

Page 49

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

training, instead of redirecting them to alternate posts until the officers completed quarterly
weapons proficiency requirements.
Finally, the audit revealed several other issues. For example, CIM placed high risk inmates in
areas of low security, correctional officers did not adequately supervise the visiting area, and the
prison did not conduct required quarterly emergency evacuation drills.
Background
The California Institution for Men (CIM) opened in 1941, making it CDCR’s third-oldest adult
institution. Covering about 1,600 acres, CIM occupies more area than any other CDCR
institution. Moreover, CIM’s layout comprises four separate facilities that are not physically
connected. As of December 2, 2009 CIM housed 4,763 adult inmates within the four
facilities―160 percent of its design capacity.
In 1941, CIM opened with inmates housed in two cellblock-style living units known as South
Dorm and West Dorm within what is now known as the Minimum Support Facility (MSF). The
MSF covers about 62 acres and houses more inmates than any other MSF in the state—2,255
inmates as of December 2, 2009. The MSF consists of 13 dormitory and cellblock housing units
surrounded by a fenced perimeter with four gun towers. The prison’s fire department, plant
operations, medical infirmary, substance abuse programs, and academic and vocational
education programs are also located within the MSF’s secured perimeter.
In 1951, CIM opened the Reception Center Central (RCC) facility. RCC processes reoffending
parolees and newly committed medium- and maximum-custody level inmates into the prison
system. Reception Center West (RCW), which opened in 1960, houses inmates in eight barracksstyle living units. Reception Center East (RCE), opened in 1974, is about a mile away from the
other three facilities. Designed with cellblock housing, RCE houses protective custody, medium
to high level custody, and reception center inmates.
Previous Findings and Recommendations
CDCR’s funding allocation to CIM for maintenance and repair needs is inadequate, but
CIM can still take actions to mitigate some of its infrastructure problems. CDCR and the
state Legislature are aware that CIM’s infrastructure is in disrepair due to years of neglect. The
prison’s problems include an ineffective water treatment system, failing plumbing, dilapidated
housing units, leaking roofs, and hazardous material in need of removal. CDCR hired an outside
consultant to assess the condition of California’s prisons, including CIM. The consultant
estimated a cost of $28 million annually just to maintain CIM in its present “poor” condition.
Although CDCR approved special repair projects at CIM, such projects remain unfunded.
However, we identified inefficiencies that CIM could readily correct to maximize the
effectiveness of its existing plant operations resources. To address these issues, we recommended
that CIM take actions to fill vacant plant operations positions and change certain operating
procedures.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 50

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

CIM’s central reception center staff inappropriately approved some dangerous, high-risk
inmates for housing in crowded dormitories. Central reception center staff members failed to
follow procedures and review certain inmates’ classification scores before assigning the inmates’
housing. CIM uses an inmate’s classification score, which is an indicator of the inmate’s
behavior in prison, as part of its criteria for inmate eligibility for assigning inmates to reception
center housing. Specifically, inmates with higher security needs are typically moved to celled
housing, whereas inmates with lower security needs are transferred to open dormitories. We
recommended that CIM change their policies to help place high-risk inmates in appropriate
areas.
Correctional officers who have not attended mandatory quarterly firearms training
sessions are allowed to assume armed posts at the prison as well as off-site in local
hospitals. Although CIM has a process to identify correctional officers who fail to meet
mandatory quarterly qualification sessions, many such officers continue to work armed posts
instead of being redirected to alternate posts pending completion of quarterly qualification
requirements. This practice violates California statutes and regulations, as well as other
department policies, and it endangers employees, inmates, and the public. Moreover, it exposes
the state to litigation if a non-compliant officer uses deadly force. Consequently, we
recommended that CDCR no longer allow correctional officers to work armed posts unless they
comply with firearms proficiency requirements.
The prison is not adequately monitoring activities at its Minimum Support Facility (MSF)
visiting area to control the exchange of contraband. Also, CIM’s supervisors are not
conducting required fire and emergency evacuation drills throughout the prison. Inmates
often use visiting as an opportunity to smuggle contraband into the prison. CIM’s MSF visiting
area is an expansive yard that accommodates hundreds of inmates and visitors. However, only
two officers were assigned to monitor the yard and CIM had no surveillance cameras to allow for
continuous monitoring of suspicious activity. Our inspectors also identified another, unrelated,
safety concern relating to emergency drills. Specifically, CIM supervisors were conducting fewer
than half of the required emergency evacuation drills in their work areas, which can leave
employees and inmates ill-prepared to quickly evacuate during an emergency. To address these
findings, we recommended that CIM install surveillance cameras with video recording
capabilities in the MSF’s visiting area. We also recommended that CIM ensure that its
supervisors are aware of evacuation drill requirements, document the drills, and submit copies of
the documentation to the fire chief.
2010 Follow-up Results
CDCR and CIM reported that they had fully implemented over half of the recommendations
made in the November 2008 report. Also, CIM reported substantial progress in addressing the
plant operations vacancies, time accountability, and work order duplication issues.
Unfortunately, CDCR reported that their budget change proposals and funding for repair and
maintenance needs were not included in the fiscal year 2009-10 budget. In addition, because the
CIM West dormitory facility is no longer used to house reception center inmates, our two
recommendations about that facility are no longer applicable.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 51

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

CIM, with CDCR’s approval, continues to disagree with our recommendation that the institution
limit armed post assignments to only correctional officers who complete a quarterly firearms
qualification, as required by Penal Code section 830.5 (d). CDCR believes that it is not
reasonable or fiscally responsible to meet this requirement considering the state’s current
financial crisis. The prison has partially implemented the recommendation that it install
surveillance cameras with video recording capabilities in the MSF visiting area. CIM also reports
that it now conducts required emergency evacuation drills.

Follow-up Recommendations
CIM and CDCR have made progress in preparing for current and future plant operation projects.
The prison has mitigated infrastructure problems, instructed and trained correctional officers
about quarterly firearms qualification requirements, and now conducts required emergency
evacuation drills. However, CIM and CDCR did not fully or substantially implement some of our
other recommendations. Accordingly, we made five follow-up recommendations to assist CIM
and CDCR in correcting deficiencies.
The matrixes on the following pages summarize the results of the 2010 follow-up audit.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 52

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit
Finding 1
The department’s available funding allocation to CIM for maintenance and repairs is inadequate to keep the institution in an
acceptable state of repair. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Develop and use reliable data on current and future
maintenance and repair needs on which to base funding
allocations and plan for maintenance and special repair
expenditures. The Vanderweil Facility Advisors (VFA)
project will provide the groundwork for developing this
information, but the department must commit to using the
information to full advantage and to supplementing it with
its own data collection and monitoring efforts. (November
2008)

Substantially
Implemented

Direct the newly created Maintenance Services Branch to
work with CIM to complete an analysis by December 2009
to determine whether performing the necessary repairs and
modifications identified by VFA to bring present
structures into a condition that meets the Department’s
current needs is more cost-effective than constructing a
new prison on CIM’s present site. (November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

Office of the Inspector General

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. The Vanderweil Facility Advisors (VFA) conducted
a Facilities Condition Assessment at the California Institution for Men (CIM) in
April 2009 and a Budget Change Proposal (BCP) was submitted in
September 2008 (Increase Plant Operations Staffing and Deferred Maintenance
Funding) 2009/10. CIM is included in the phased approach for planned
corrective repairs at Institutions.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the facility condition executive summary report and Budget
Change Proposal (BCP) and verified that CDCR requested increased staffing.
CDCR based its facility condition report on information obtained through the
Vanderweil Facility Advisors (VFA) facility condition assessment. However,
according to a CDCR representative, the funding was not included in either of
the fiscal year 2009-10 or 2010-11 budgets due to the fiscal challenges that the
state faces. Additionally, CDCR’s fiscal year 2009-10 funding for special
repairs and deferred maintenance was also removed to help reduce the state’s
general fund deficit.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. Facilities Management Division completed the Facility Condition
Executive Summary Report in January 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The facility condition report identified the level of funding needed to improve
or maintain the current facility condition for various prison assets. The report
also identified whether it was more cost effective to replace an asset than to
repair it, by assigning the asset with a facility condition index equal to or
Page 53

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
greater than 1.00 (or 100%). Even though the report did not specify whether it
was more cost effective to build a new prison than repair the current one, the
report included enough information to imply that repairing most current assets
would cost less than replacing them.
Although CDCR completed work to identify the replacement and maintenance
needs at CIM, the funding to upgrade CIM facilities was not included in either
of the fiscal year 2009-10 or 2010-11 budgets. CIM will continue to have
problems maintaining and repairing its buildings until CDCR obtains sufficient
funding.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 54

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 2
Despite the formidable gap between available repair and maintenance funding for CIM and the institution’s actual needs, CIM can still
take actions to mitigate its infrastructure problems. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Men should:
Continue to aggressively recruit and conduct examinations
for plant operations positions to fill existing vacancies,
soliciting assistance from department headquarters if
necessary. (November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM has hired outside casual labor and contractors have
continuous postings for job vacancies both locally and statewide on Vacant
Positions (VPOS), the State Personnel Board vacancy listing; held job fairs;
held local spot examinations for positions they have delegated authority for,
and post and bid for certain positions.
Plant Operations has no vacancies as of August 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed a March 2009 memorandum and vacancy tracking log from
CIM’s Personnel Manager to the chief deputy warden, addressing the vacancies
in plant operations since September 2008. The memorandum identified staff
appointment dates for positions that had been filled and gave the reasons that
other vacancies were not filled. The tracking log further described the actions
taken by personnel staff to fill each vacant position. For example, the log
identified the status of exams, the dates when interviews were conducted, and
pending hires. We also contacted a CIM analyst who confirmed that there were
no plant operations vacancies as of August 2009.

Hold plant operations employees accountable for recording
all of their time in the SAPMS database. (November
2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM completed revising their local procedure on April 10, 2009,
for the Maintenance Work Order Requests, Work Orders, and Project Requests.
The procedure addresses employees’ accountability for recording their time on
SAPMS.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Our inspectors reviewed the revised procedure, which addresses employees’
accountability for recording their time.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 55

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Enforce the local policy requiring a work order coordinator
at each facility to reduce duplicate work orders.
(November 2008)

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status
Fully
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM management has identified a staff member responsible to be
the work order coordinator and will continue to monitor this procedure to
ensure ongoing compliance is maintained. Management is now conducting a
monthly meeting with all dedicated staff to address any problems, roadblocks,
or work order issues.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed CIM’s Work Order Coordinator (WOC) Responsibilities
document, which described the work order process, and a listing of the facility’s
designated WOCs for each department, as of January 2009. We also reviewed
minutes from an April 2009 WOC meeting at which attendees were reminded to
avoid duplicate work requests.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 56

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 3
Staff at CIM’s central reception center inappropriately approved some dangerous, high-risk inmates for housing in crowded
dormitories. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Men should:
Require transportation staff in the Central Reception
Center, who make the decisions to move parole violator
inmates to RCW, to check inmates’ classification scores in
the Disability and Effective Communication System
(DECS) before moving them. In instances when
overcrowding in the central reception center forces the
officers to transfer inmates to RCW before their
classification scores are available, assign a staff member
the responsibility of checking the scores the next day. If
the staff member identifies an inmate who is not eligible
for RCW, promptly transfer the inmate out of that facility,
and hold the staff member accountable if any inmate with
a classification score above 35 is found at RCW more than
24 hours after being transferred there. (November 2008)

Not
Applicable

Ensure the institution’s local operational policy for inmate
eligibility at RCW is updated by deleting the reference to
“prior custody level” and replacing it with relevant
evaluation factors that may include classification score,
behavioral history, and mitigating or aggravating factors.
(November 2008)

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. CIM West has been repurposed as a sensitive needs yard and no
longer houses reception center inmates.
Classification criteria for housing (consistent with Title 15 Section 33) will be
reflected in the new Operational Procedure.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Because CDCR changed the mission for CIM West (formally referred to as
RCW) and no longer uses the facility to house reception center inmates, the
recommendation is no longer applicable.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM revised their local procedure to address the proper housing
and classification for reception center inmates.
CIM met with their local chapter and have completed training to staff on their
local procedure.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Because CDCR changed the mission for CIM West and no longer uses the
facility to house reception center inmates, the recommendation is no longer
applicable.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 57

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 58

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 4
CIM allows peace officers who have not attended mandatory quarterly firearms training sessions to assume armed posts at the
institution and off-site in local hospitals. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Men should:
Instruct supervisors to periodically review the master
roster to ensure their familiarity with peace officers
assigned to armed posts and those who could be assigned
to armed posts in a “relief” position. (November 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CDCR’s response misrepresents the OIG’s recommendation. Requiring all
employees assigned to armed posts to meet quarterly qualification requirements
is not the same as requiring all employees to qualify quarterly, since many
employees do not work armed posts. Regardless of the state’s financial crisis,
CDCR is not complying with Penal Code section 830.5 (d) which states that
peace officers will complete quarterly firearms qualification training. CDCR’s
Operations Manual (DOM) section 32010.19.7 also states that peace officers in
armed posts will complete quarterly firearms qualifications. The
recommendation is still applicable but not implemented.

Instruct supervisors to examine the weapons qualification
card of officers whose qualifications they are unfamiliar
with to ensure assigned officers meet the quarterly
qualification requirements before assuming an armed post.
(November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM warden has provided an instructional memorandum dated
December 16, 2008, and provided on the job training code B0126 to all custody
supervisors and custody managers concerning Departmental Operations
Manual (DOM) Section 32010.19.10.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the December 2008 memorandum from Warden Poulos to
custody managers and supervisors about supervisors’ responsibility to ensure
that officers meet weapons qualification requirements. The memo instructed
supervisors to examine the weapons qualification card of officers in armed
posts. We also reviewed the October 2008 to February 2009 list of custody staff
members attending mandatory training regarding the weapons qualification

Office of the Inspector General

Page 59

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
card, and we found that rank-and-file officers and supervisors attended the
training.

Ensure that officers who receive a letter of instruction for
failing to attend a quarterly qualification session sign and
return the letter of instruction to the employee relations
officer. (November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM management provided instruction, training, and a
letter of instruction flow chart to staff via memorandum dated December 15,
2008. The training was documented utilizing the on the job training code
B0078.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed CIM’s letter of instruction (LOI) flowchart, which shows the
Employee Relations Officer’s (ERO) involvement at both the beginning and
end of the process. We also reviewed a December 2008 memorandum and an
April 2009 memorandum from Warden Poulos to associate wardens and
captains regarding CIM’s LOI process. The memos assert that the ERO is
required to receive LOIs and instructs associate wardens and captains to train
their assigned staff. We also reviewed the list of custody staff members
attending training between January and April 2009 on the employee discipline
process and the LOI process, and we found that 93 officers, supervisors, and
managers attended the training.

Hold supervisors accountable for failing to redirect
officers from armed posts when those officers fail to meet
the quarterly qualification requirement. (November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM warden provided instruction to managers and custody
supervisors via memorandum dated December 15, 2008, on DOM Section
32010.19.10 and “Supervisors Responsibility for Failure to Attend/Qualify
Range Qualification.” In addition, training was provided and completed on
February 1, 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the warden’s December 2008 memorandum and CIM’s December
2008 Quarterly Range Qualification policy. The policy describes CDCR’s
weapons qualification requirements, staff members’ responsibilities to ensure
that they are qualified before assuming an armed post, and CIM’s process for
monitoring correctional officers’ compliance with the requirements.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 60

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Use the monthly In-Service Training Bulletin, or similar
means, to emphasize to the custody staff that qualification
must occur before assuming an armed post. (November
2008)

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status
Fully
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM has reemphasized to staff the Department’s qualification
requirements through postings in the In-Service Training Bulletins from
November 2008 through April 2009.

Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed CIM’s IST monthly bulletins from November 2008 to May 2009.
The bulletins contained a copy of a February 2006 memorandum from Warden
Poulos to custody staff, describing CDCR’s directives on quarterly and annual
firearm qualifications and the warden’s expectations. The bulletins also
included a calendar identifying upcoming quarterly range training dates.
Limit armed post assignments only to peace officers who
complete a quarterly firearms qualification session as
required in the Departments Operations Manual Section
32010.19.7. (November 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CDCR’s response misrepresents the OIG’s recommendation. Requiring all
employees assigned to armed posts to meet quarterly qualification requirements
is not the same as requiring all employees to qualify quarterly, since many
employees do not work armed posts. Regardless of the state’s financial crisis,
CDCR is not complying with Penal Code section 830.5 (d) which states that
peace officers will complete quarterly firearms qualification training. CDCR’s
Operations Manual section 32010.19.7 also states that peace officers in armed
posts will complete quarterly firearms qualifications. This recommendation is
still applicable, but not implemented.

Allow officers who complete an annual qualification
session during CIM’s designated months of February,
May, August, or November to work armed posts through
special assignment in the three months following the
annual qualification. For example, officers who complete
annual qualification sessions during May would be eligible
to work armed posts during June, July, or August.
Moreover, officers who complete annual qualification
sessions during a quarter would be eligible to work armed
posts during the remainder of that quarter.
Office of the Inspector General

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Our recommendation was to allow officers to work an armed post if they had
completed an annual qualification session in the quarter prior to their armed
post assignment. The recommendation would increase the number of qualified
officers meeting the penal code and DOM requirements. CDCR, however,
Page 61

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

(November 2008)

Comments
appears to have disregarded this alternative and continues to be out-ofcompliance with the law. This recommendation is still applicable but not
implemented.

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Repeal those provisions of the November 4, 2004,
department wide memorandum that allow officers to
assume armed posts without completing quarterly firearms
qualification requirements.
(November 2008)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Applicable. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation does
not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable or fiscally
responsible with the State’s current financial crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CDCR’s response misrepresents the OIG’s recommendation. Requiring all
employees assigned to armed posts to meet quarterly qualification requirements
is not the same as requiring all employees to qualify quarterly, since many
employees do not work armed posts. Regardless of the state’s financial crisis,
CDCR is not complying with Penal Code section 830.5 (d), which states that
peace officers will complete quarterly firearms qualification training. CDCR’s
Operations Manual section 32010.19.7 also states that peace officers in armed
posts will complete quarterly firearms qualifications. The recommendation is
still applicable but not implemented.

Follow-up Recommendations
The California Institution for Men should:
•

Instruct supervisors to periodically review the master roster to ensure their familiarity with correctional officers assigned to
armed posts and those who could be assigned to armed posts in a “relief” position. (November 2008)

•

Limit armed post assignments only to correctional officers who complete a quarterly firearms qualification session as required
in CDCRs Operations Manual Section 32010.19.7. (November 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 62

2010 Accountability Audit

•

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Allow officers who complete an annual qualification session during CIM’s designated months of February, May, August, or
November to work armed posts through special assignment in the three months following the annual qualification. For
example, officers who complete annual qualification sessions during May would be eligible to work armed posts during June,
July, or August. Moreover, officers who complete annual qualification sessions during a quarter would be eligible to work
armed posts during the remainder of that quarter. (November 2008)

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation should:
•

Repeal those provisions of the November 4, 2004, department-wide memorandum that allow officers to assume armed posts
without completing quarterly firearms qualification requirements. (November 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 63

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 5
The visiting area for CIM’s Minimum Support Facility accommodates hundreds of inmates and visitors, but the institution lacks an
effective means of monitoring visiting activities to control the exchange of contraband. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Men should:
Install surveillance cameras with video recording
capabilities in the Minimum Support Facility’s visiting
area and allocate sufficient staff to operate the cameras and
monitors. (November 2008)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. CIM has submitted a Budget Concept Statement (BCS)
for the additional staff and a minor capital outlay request for the cameras. In
addition, CIM has also put in a request to the Asset Forfeiture Committee (FC)
as another avenue to request the cameras.
The Executive Asset Forfeiture Review Board approved their request in June
2009 and expects money to become available in the next fiscal year.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed CIM’s Budget Concept Statement for fiscal year 2009-10 and its
February 2009 memorandum to the Asset Forfeiture Committee.

Follow-up Recommendation
The California Institution for Men should:
Continue efforts to install surveillance cameras with video recording capabilities in the Minimum Support Facility’s visiting area and
allocate sufficient staff to operate the cameras and monitors. (November 2008)

Office of the Inspector General

Page 64

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Men Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 6
Supervisors are conducting fewer than half of the required fire/emergency evacuation drills in their work areas, which may leave
employees and inmates ill-prepared to respond to a crisis. (November 2008)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Men should:
Ensure that supervisors are aware of the quarterly
fire/emergency evacuation drill requirement in their areas
of responsibility and that they document the drills and
submit copies of documentation to CIM’s fire chief as
required in Section 52090.19 of the Departments
Operations Manual. (November 2008)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. CIM has completed full compliance for the 3rd quarter reporting
period. CIM will continue to monitor and ensure CIM fire drills are in full
compliance.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the quarterly compliance report for fire evacuation drills
conducted during the third quarter of 2008, which CDCR submitted in support
of its response. The report indicated that CIM was in full compliance with
requirements. We performed no additional audit verification.

Follow-up Recommendation
None

Office of the Inspector General

Page 65

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 2

Chapter 2:
Follow-up Results for Six Reports
Issued Between 2000 and 2007
This chapter provides the follow-up results of six audits and special review
reports originally issued between 2000 and 2007. All of these audits and reviews
have been subject to at least one previous accountability audit. Therefore, this
accountability audit presents our final assessment of CDCR’s and CPHCS’
implementation of the related past recommendations. At the conclusion of our
audit fieldwork, CDCR and CPHCS had either fully or substantially implemented
23 of our 38 past recommendations. Twelve recommendations remain partially or
not implemented, and three recommendations are no longer applicable. Overall,
CDCR and CPHCS achieved a 66 percent implementation rate for these older
recommendations.
History of Past Audits and Reviews
Starting in 2005, we began conducting reviews of past audit recommendations
and issuing public reports detailing the corrective action taken by CDCR. 5 These
reports, called accountability audits, provide the public and policy makers with
objective information on the status of our past recommendations and, ultimately,
serve to hold CDCR accountable.
Summary of Results
During our follow-up for this accountability audit, we found that CDCR and
CPHCS has satisfactorily implemented (either fully or substantially) 23 of the 38
recommendations that were remaining at the start of this audit. We determined
that three recommendations were no longer applicable, thus leaving 12
recommendations still only partially implemented or not implemented. As shown
in Table 4, CDCR and CPHCS achieved a completion rate of 66 percent overall.
Table 4
Overall Implementation Rates ― 2010 Accountability Audit
Status of Implementation
Name

Number of Unimplemented
Recommendations Prior to 2010
Accountability Audit

Satisfactory
Implementation

Unsatisfactory
Implementation

Adult Operations and Adult Programs
29
17
59%
12
(includes recommendations to CPHCS)
Juvenile Justice Program
9*
6
100%
0
Totals
38*
23
66%
12
* Includes three recommendations found to be no longer applicable during the current 2010 accountability audit.
Implementation rates were based on recommendations still applicable.

5

Between 2002 and 2004, the OIG completed four follow-up audits of past recommendations; however, we
did not issue public reports.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 66

41%
0%
34%

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 2

Notable examples of implemented recommendations from this year’s
accountability audit include the following:
•

CDCR’s Office of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (OSATS),
formally known as the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services,
significantly modified its overall program. After collaborating with expertmember groups, OSATS developed new models for treatment services it
provides to inmates and parolees and implemented new processes to track
and measure the effectiveness of its programs. In addition, CDCR
modified its treatment provider contract bidding process and OSATS
implemented tools and procedures to monitor contractors’ performance.
OSATS also developed and implemented tools to conduct ongoing
compliance reviews of its contractors, and conducts meetings to discuss
worst and best practices.

•

CDCR enhanced mental health software applications in its information
technology systems to provide facility employees with additional
information about inmates’ mental health history.

•

CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations trained its parole staff on
statewide policy and procedures relating to high-risk inmates. Those
procedures require parole staff to identify a paroling inmate’s high-risk
designation when completing his or her parolee release plan. This
designation assists institutions in identifying those parolees who are
subject to special parole reporting requirements once they are released
from custody. The division also monitored its empoyees’ performance to
ensure they followed the required procedures.

•

CDCR’s Division of Juvenile Facilities established a minimum
requirement of three-hours out-of-room time for wards. As a result, it
eliminated its 23-and-1 confinement (23 hours in the room and one hour
out of the room) of restricted-program wards at the Heman G. Stark Youth
Correctional Facility (HGSYCF) and other juvenile justice facilities. To
implement these changes, the division revised its policy manual, trained
staff, and developed new oversight procedures to ensure that its wards
receive their required program and other services.

•

HGSYCF developed and implemented new administrative policies and
procedures to clearly define standards for wards’ living quarters and to
provide safer living conditions to restricted-program wards. As a result of
these changes and the Division of Juvenile Facilities’ changes addressed

Office of the Inspector General

Page 67

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 2

above, HGSYCF discontinued its special step-down transition program for
restricted program wards. 6
Remaining Unimplemented Recommendations
As shown in Table 4 above, CDCR implemented all six of the applicable
recommendations for its Juvenile Justice program. However, 12 recommendations
that we made to CDCR or to CPHCS during audits or reviews of CDCR’s Adult
Operations and Adult Programs remain unresolved. Worse yet, some of these
recommendations represent problems that continue to jeopardize the safety of
staff and inmates or increase the risk of legal action against the state. Of equal
concern is that, in some instances, CDCR has had several years to implement
remaining recommendations and has been reminded to address them in previous
accountability audits. Some of the recommendations, however, may remain
unimplemented for reasons beyond the prison’s control. For example, CDCR may
have denied funding to implement some of our recommendations.
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

CDCR has yet to address ten remaining unimplemented recommendations
regarding its adult operations and programs. CDCR has not yet conducted a
compliance audit of the Division of Adult Parole Operations and has not
completed its revision of educational operating procedures. Although it has taken
steps to assess facility infrastructure needs and staffing needs, there is no
available funding for CDCR to complete projects and increase staffing levels. In
addition, while CDCR implemented a revised training method for its cadet
officers to practice shooting from an elevated position and at moving targets, it
does not mandate that officers continue to train once they are assigned to a prison.
Moreover, CDCR has yet to implement our recommendation to ensure that all
correctional officers assigned to armed posts—including relief officers,
permanent intermittent officers, and those working armed posts through voluntary
overtime and shift swaps—complete a weapons proficiency course each quarter.
California Prison Health Care Services

The California Prison Health Care Services (CPHCS) has yet to address two
unimplemented recommendations concerning loose medical filing that had not
been placed in inmates’ medical files and the availability of inmates’ mental
health records. CPHCS reports that it has taken steps to address our findings and
has partially implemented both recommendations. For example, CPHCS hired
students to reduce its backlog of loose medical filing and is preparing a plan to
manage the filing backlog. Also, CPHCS is taking a phased approach in
developing a paperless system to allow clinicians to access inmates’ mental health
history upon their arrival.
6

CDCR closed its juvenile justice program at HGSYCF and formally announced its plans to convert the
facility to an adult prison on November 6, 2009.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 68

2010 Accountability Audit

Chapter 2

Final Assessment of Recommendations
For the recommendations from 2000 to 2007 discussed in Chapter 2, this will be
our final follow-up. We have made our best effort to monitor implementation of
these recommendations, but we cannot continue to expend state resources to
follow up on recommendations that CDCR or CPHCS will not or cannot address.
Further, we hope that our accountability audit prompts policy makers and the
public to hold CDCR responsible for implementing the remaining
recommendations.
The following matrixes present the findings, recommendations, and results of our
follow-up review of the six reports.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 69

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review of High-Risk Issues at the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility
Finding 1
Contraband in the form of window coverings and makeshift ropes, combined with wards’ isolation in their rooms and inadequate
delivery of mandated services such as education and counseling, present an environment conducive to suicide attempts and potentially
dangerous to staff. (February 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Administration of the Division of Juvenile Justice
should:
Develop uniform policies and procedures to support
existing directives intended to eliminate 23-and-1
confinement, including establishing a minimum acceptable
duration for which restricted program wards are to be out
of their rooms and for documenting daily either the means
by which this was accomplished for each ward, or the
reasons for failing to do so. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. The implementation of Temporary Departmental Orders 07-82
Restricted Program, 07-83 Delivery of Mandated Services, and 07-85
Temporary Detention as well as additional staff training and oversight has
elevated the Division of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) status to fully implemented.
The DJJ completed a revision of the Restricted Program Policy on March 9,
2007. Training associated with this policy was completed and the
implementation date was May 1, 2008. Facilities operate only from Institutions
and Camps Restricted Program Policy Manual Section 7200-7285 dated March
9, 2007.
To ensure youth are receiving 3-hours of program per day DJJ has an
enhanced monitoring process with DJJ Headquarters oversight. The April 30,
2008 completion of Ward Information Network (WIN) Exchange provided a
system wide capability allowing DJJ to track daily mandated services
electronically. On a monthly basis, DJJ Headquarters reports to facilities on
deficient youth mandated service records and directs facilities to develop plans
to ensure youth receive 3-hours of daily programming. In addition, DJJ
Headquarters collects weekly mandated services information from all facilities
to monitor 3-hours program to youth at all sites. Each facility continues to
have staff assigned to monitor mandated services and the implementation of the
Restricted Program Policy.
On August 24, 2009 the DJJ modified the Restricted Program Policy Manual

Office of the Inspector General

Page 70

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
Section § 7220, to include a clear statement requiring all restricted program
youth receive 3-hours programming daily. The policy now states:
“The department’s goal is to provide program services to youth in the least
restrictive environment, while maintaining the safety and security of the facility.
Whereas each mandated service has a specific time allotted for its delivery, all
youth shall be afforded the opportunity to be out of their room on a daily basis
a combined total of 3-hours each day, unless safety and security preclude such
activity. Safety and security issues precluding out of room activity shall be
approved by the supervisor (Mandated Services Section § 7220) and
documented in the daily Mandated Services log in WIN as a denial of service
for that day.”
This addition along with continued oversight of restricted programs has clearly
established 3-hours as the minimum acceptable duration for which youth shall
be out of their rooms.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed CDCR’s Division of Juvenile Facilities current Institutions and
Camps (I&C) manual section 7220, which directs that all youth shall be
afforded the opportunity to be out of their room for a total of three hours each
day, unless safety and security precludes it. We also reviewed Heman G. Stark
Youth Correctional Facility’s (HGSYCF) daily ward information tracking logs
for July 2009, which identified wards’ program and out-of-room hours. For
those wards who did not receive the required program time or services, facility
staff and supervisors entered notes in the daily logs to identify the
circumstances that resulted in the non-compliance. We also reviewed monthly
summaries of wards’ out-of-room time and a memorandum from the director of
the Division of Juvenile Facilities, verifying that CDCR’s headquarters is
reviewing and acting on reports compiled from its ward information tracking
system.

Refine its policies and procedures to more clearly define
the standards for wards’ living quarters and to enhance its
youth facilities’ ability to provide wards in restricted
programs with safe living conditions. These policies and

Office of the Inspector General

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. This recommendation has been substantially
implemented through the development and implementation of local policies and
procedures. DJJ requires each facility to identify allowable restricted program

Page 71

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
procedures should include examples of the specific types
of contraband items to be removed from restricted wards’
rooms, the frequency of staff inspections, proper
documentation of those inspections, and sanctions for noncompliance. (February 2007)

Status

Comments
property and develop procedures for room inspections. These procedures
include frequency of room searches, inspections, and subsequent
documentation. Property lists are now posted in the living units and youth are
informed about all property and canteen items allowed in their rooms on
Special Management Programs (SMPs). The Disciplinary Decision Making
System (DDMS) is used to hold youth accountable for contraband property and
room conditions during daily, weekly and random living unit searches and
inspections in the living units. Placing emphasis on room conditions, room
searches, inspections and consistent enforcement of SMP property standards,
have improved youth safety and living conditions in restricted programs.
The DJJ completed a revision of the Restricted Program Policy on March 9,
2007. Training associated with this policy was completed and the
implementation date was May 1, 2008. The facilities operate only from
Institutions and Camps Manual Restricted Program Policy Section 7200-7285
dated March 9, 2007. While this policy does not list specific contraband items,
frequency of room inspections and sanctions for youth violations, it does state
youth will be afforded clean and sanitary living conditions. Further, the policy
mandates youth rooms be cleaned weekly or as needed and that procedures are
in place to clean youth rooms whether or not the youth indicates a desire to
personally clean their room. Establishing the statewide standard of clean and
sanitary living conditions has allowed each facility to develop procedures to
achieve this standard. It affords each facility the opportunity to develop its own
processes that will allow staff and youth to maximize their efforts towards clean
living conditions.
To enhance the overall condition of the facilities, the Director of Facilities
mandated a graffiti abatement plan for each facility that specifically targets
rooms and living unit cleanliness and appearance. These plans have a short
and long term strategy to address facility conditions.
To improve the living conditions at each facility, DJJ has taken a broad
approach, rather than program by program. DJJ has implemented a quarterly
facility inspection as required in the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan. This
requires a facility wide inspection of all living units, buildings and grounds.
This is in addition to individual facility inspections currently in place.
Identified problem areas are cleaned as part of the inspection process.
Deficient areas requiring attention are documented in a Corrective Action Plan

Office of the Inspector General

Page 72

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
with a date of completion for each item. These quarterly inspections in
conjunction with restricted programs expectation of clean and sanitary living
conditions have lead to a notable improvement in the conditions of the SMPs as
testified to by the Safety and Welfare Remedial Plan court appointed expert,
during the July 30, 2009 case conference hearing on the Farrell litigation.
These improvements were also evident during the Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) 2009 Accountability Audit wherein three facilities were visited
including Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility (HGSYCF). The report
indicated the OIG observed “no noticeable safety or security concerns in the
occupied rooms of these facilities special management programs.” Having
enhanced inspections and facility reviews the department intends to include
these new processes into the Institutions and Camps Manual Policy Section §
1235 “Inspection of Facilities” by January 2010.
The HGSYCF SMP displays and disseminates to youth through orientation an
approved property list for youth assigned to the program. At HGSYCF, Youth
Correctional Counselors (YCCs) are assigned specific rooms to inspect on a
daily basis. The room inspection form containing the room number of each
room inspected and the results of the YCC’s inspection are forwarded to the
Senior Youth Correctional Counselor (SYCC). The SYCC reviews the
inspection form and conducts random reviews of the rooms listed. The SYCC
forwards the room inspection forms along with any youth DDMS and/or staff
accountability actions to the Treatment Team Supervisor (TTS) daily. The TTS
keeps a log on each room inspection of the contraband found and any
subsequent DDMS issued to youth. A monthly report is submitted to the
Program Administrator and Superintendent’s Office.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed HGSYCF’s administrative policies for wards assigned to
restricted program, also referred to as the Special Management Program (SMP).
We found that SMP wards’ living condition standards, frequency of room
inspections and sanctions for non-compliance, and allowable (rather than nonallowable) personal property were all clearly defined in the SMP Rules and
Regulations. We also found that wards are required to sign a receipt
acknowledging that they received an SMP orientation packet, which identifies
the room standards and allowable items. In addition, we reviewed examples of
July 2009 SMP Property acknowledgements that listed allowable personal

Office of the Inspector General

Page 73

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
property items and were signed by wards. Furthermore, we reviewed samples of
July 2009 daily room inspection sheets and room search logs.

The Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility should:
Improve supervisory monitoring over staff’s delivery of
mandated services to ensure that all wards assigned to
restricted programs are provided with required services
including three hours of time out of their rooms daily,
education, and behavior counseling. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. A SYCC assigned to restricted programs reviews all entries for
daily mandated services. In addition, the HGSYCF Superintendent has
assigned a TTS to review mandated services in the facility. Discrepancies are
addressed with staff and appropriate corrections are made to youth records.
With the implementation of the WIN Exchange System, DJJ Headquarters
reviews individual youth records weekly to ensure minimum mandated services
are provided. DJJ Headquarters reports deficiencies within youth records and
directs facilities to develop a remedy or explanation for the deficiency in the
form of a monthly memorandum to the Director of Facilities.
The Program Service Day (PSD) schedule is in place for all youth at HGSYCF
including restricted programs. Teachers are assigned to the SMP classes and
complete daily attendance accountability rosters. Case Managers provide
additional rehabilitative treatment services daily as part of PSD by conducting
groups and individual counseling. YCCs also provide group counseling to
prepare youth for reintegration into less restrictive core treatment programs.
Youth on a restricted program that have completed high school or equivalent
also have the opportunity for distance learning through Coastline College,
further enhancing their educational opportunities.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed a sample of July 2009 daily and monthly school attendance
reports, small group counseling forms, and class schedules. We found evidence
that both teachers and supervisors account for wards’ education time by
reviewing and signing off on attendance sheets. In addition, we verified that
HGSYCF supervisors monitor their employees to ensure that SMP wards are
provided with required services, including three hours out-of-room time.
Further, we verified that the director of the Division of Juvenile Facilities also
monitors wards’ out-of-room time.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 74

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Finding 2
The step-down transitional program at Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility, despite its name, operates as an extension of the
facility’s highly restrictive special management program, but lacks the critical protections required of such a program. (February
2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Administration of the Division of Juvenile Justice
should:
Officially recognize the step-down transitional program at
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility as an
extension of the special management program by
developing policies and procedures for the program,
providing it with the resources necessary to prepare wards
for a successful transition to programming units, and
subjecting it to the provisions of Temporary Departmental
Orders #07-82 Restricted Program and #07-83 Delivery of
Mandated Services. (March 2009)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. HGSYCF does not operate a step-down transitional
program. All youth are classified as high risk, medium-high risk, medium-low
risk or low risk. The Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) youth classification
process at HGSYCF requires youth to be placed on living units in accordance
with their treatment needs and risk of institutional violence. Based on this
classification, SMP youth traditionally are sent to living units within the facility
designated as high risk core treatment programs. While there may have been
some initial efforts to develop transitional processes between SMPs and the
high risk core treatment program at HGSYCF, it is not the DJJ’s intent that
high risk core treatment programs be designed as transitional programs for
SMPs. Youth are evaluated based on their risk level and treatment needs and
are assigned to an appropriate treatment program in accordance with the
established risk classification process.
Youth assigned to high risk core treatment programs receive a full range of
programs the same as all living units within the facility including youth
incentives, visiting, and canteen should their behavior be consistent with the
safe and secure operation of the facility.
The Program Service Day now in place outlines structured daily programming
for all youth at HGSYCF. Case Managers provide additional rehabilitative
treatment services daily by conducting groups and individual counseling. YCCs
also provide group services to prepare the youth for reintegration into less
restrictive core treatment programs.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 75

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
HGSYCF formerly operated a separate step-down transitional program for
high-risk wards. The intent of our original recommendations was to ensure that
the facility provided these wards with the resources needed to prepare them for
a successful transition to programming units and provide them with all
mandated services. CDCR’s response indicates that HGSYCF no longer
operates a separate step-down transitional program. Instead, it assesses the
needs of all wards and provides them with all mandated treatment and services.
To verify that HGSYCF is preparing wards for a successful transition to
programming units, we reviewed wards’ program tracking logs and monitoring
documentation for July 30, 2009. The tracking logs show wards’ out-of-room
time on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis. Staff noted in the log when a ward
did not receive three hours of daily program and other mandated services.
Supervisors then commented on staff notes when they felt more information
was needed. We also reviewed a memorandum from the director of the Division
of Juvenile Facilities. That memorandum provided further direction and
feedback to HGSYCF about wards’ mandated hours of daily program. Further,
we reviewed CDCR’s Division of Juvenile Facilities reclassification
procedures, classification status reports, and correspondence from the division’s
Program Operations Unit, all of which provided evidence that HGSYCF has
implemented a process to transition wards from high- to low-risk living units, as
needed.
Because CDCR adequately tracks and monitors its wards’ mandated services,
the original finding has been satisfactorily addressed. Therefore, we have
upgraded this recommendation to fully implemented and reported the remaining
recommendations as not applicable.

The Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility should:
Until the Division of Juvenile Justice develops statewide
policies and procedures for step-down transitional
programs, develop local policies and procedures utilizing
the guidelines of Institutions and Camps Branch Manual

Office of the Inspector General

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. HGSYCF does not operate a step-down transitional
program.

Page 76

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

section 7285 for the transitional program. These policies
and procedures should provide a means by which to
establish individual transition plans for wards in the
program and to objectively measure and monitor wards’
progress in achieving treatment goals. (February 2007)
Maintain mandated services logs for wards in the
transitional program such as those used in the special
management program to record the level of mandated
services delivered to those wards and to ensure that they
receive a minimum of three hours out of their rooms daily.
(February 2007)

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Because HGSYCF no longer has a separate transitional program, this
recommendation is no longer applicable.

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. HGSYCF does not operate a step-down transitional program.
In response to the Office of the Inspector General’s 2009 Accountability Audit
Report regarding 3-hours of daily out of room time for high risk youth at
HGSYCF, the facility has developed a tracking system for all youth. In May
2009 HGSYCF implemented a monitoring system to document out of room
program hours for all youth not in a restrictive program. Youth assigned to a
restrictive program continue to have services recorded and monitored through
the Ward Information Network database. As of July 2009 a Daily Summary
Tracking Spreadsheet was developed to enhance the daily monitoring and
recording of out of room activities on a weekly basis (Sunday-Saturday) to
include recreation, education, counseling and other activities. Additionally, a
comments section allows for documentation and explanation if 3-hours of out of
room programming is not provided.
YCCs are required to record in real time youth out of room activities and/or
document why a youth did not receive the minimum mandate. The Daily
Summary Tracking Spreadsheet is then reviewed weekly by the living unit SYCC
and Treatment Team Supervisor/Supervising Casework Specialist (TTS/SCWS).
The living unit supervisor and manager’s review identifies trends or
inconsistencies and makes applicable corrections as necessary. Living Unit
Daily Summary Tracking Spreadsheets are forwarded to the Program
Administrator at which time a second administrative review of youth out of
room program time occurs. At the facility administrative level, additional
trends may be observed and corrected.
Each week, the Daily Summary Tracking Spreadsheets are forwarded to the
Director of Juvenile Facilities for review. Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)
Headquarters reviews out of room program (approximately 2,100-2,400 weekly
records) documentation for occurrences of youth receiving less than 3-hours

Office of the Inspector General

Page 77

Special Review of High Risk Issues at the
Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
and monitors the corresponding comments by staff. Identified trends and/or
documentation not clear or inconsistent with policy are returned to the facility
for review and action. Weekly reports are developed and forwarded to the
Director of Facilities, Superintendent and Chief of Court Compliance showing
how many youth records were reviewed, how many youth did not receive 3hours daily program and the corresponding reasons these services were not
received.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Because HGSYCF no longer has a separate transitional program, this
recommendation is no longer applicable.

Conduct a progress case conference for each ward in the
transitional program within 60 days of the initial
conference and every 30 days thereafter to assess the
ward’s readiness to be transitioned to general population
housing. (February 2007)

Not
Applicable

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially Implemented. HGSYCF does not operate a step-down transitional
program.
Consistent with current departmental policy, it is the practice of HGSYCF that
all youth classified as high risk participate in a case conference within five
weeks of arrival to the living unit and every 30-days thereafter while classified
as high risk for institutional violence. Upon moving to a lower risk
classification, youth participate in case conferences every 120 days. During
each case conference, the risk level of each youth is reviewed, affirmed, or
modified based on the youth’s behavior during the evaluation period. This is
tracked in the WIN and monitored by the Director of Juvenile Programs.
During the case conference process transition plans are developed for each
youth to assist them to progress to a lower risk program.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Because HGSYCF no longer has a separate transitional program, this
recommendation is no longer applicable.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 78

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs Managed by the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
Finding 1
Numerous studies show that despite an annual cost of $36 million, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s in-prison
substance abuse treatment programs have little or no impact on recidivism. Moreover, the department has had this information for
years but has failed to correct deficiencies identified by the studies and instead continues to open new programs. (February 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Continue designing and implementing substance abuse
treatment programs for inmates and parolees based on
input and recommendations of substance abuse treatment
experts and other expert-member groups. (March 2009)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. The Division of Addiction and Recovery Services (DARS) 7 has
been engaged in CDCR’s system-wide shift of prioritizing and improving
rehabilitation services for offenders and parolees. DARS has worked to remake
substance abuse treatment programs within the context of these Departmentwide changes. As part of this process, DARS has solicited and received
recommendations, input, and strategies to improve substance abuse treatment
from several expert-member groups. These groups include the CDCR Expert
Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programming and the
Governor’s Rehabilitation Strike Team. DARS has modified programs to
incorporate the framework outlined in the California Logic Model into future
substance abuse treatment services.
DARS also collaborates with other expert member groups including the
Treatment Advisory Committee (TAC) and the Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC). DARS assembled the TAC, a group of substance-abuse treatment
experts for day-to-day input regarding program design, program operations,
pilot programs, and program assessments. The Policy Advisory Committee
(PAC) includes senior officers from contracted service providers. The DARS
Director convenes meetings of the PAC on a quarterly basis or as needed. PAC

7

The department changed the name of the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services to the Office of Substance Abuse Treatment Services in August 2009.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 79

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
and DARS collaborate to ensure effective delivery of treatment services and to
share best practices.
Additionally, DARS has developed new approaches to treatment, based on the
recommendations of these expert groups. These new service delivery models are
based on a science-based, collaborative and integrated approach with other
treatment areas such as education, vocation, mental health, etc. CDCR
launched a pilot project at California State Prison, Solano in December 2008.
The Solano Project allows the Division to implement and assess the
effectiveness of its expanded treatment model, which includes strategies such as
risk-needs assessments, risk-needs responsive treatment services, and
integrated treatment services.
These expert groups have provided significant feedback to DARS, including
recommendations for appropriate primary and secondary risk-needs
assessments and modifications to the therapeutic community (TC) model for the
in-prison setting. In addition, recommendations from these groups have
informed the Division’s approach to providing Gender-Responsive and Trauma
Informed Treatment for female offenders.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed the Treatment Advisory Committee (TAC) charter,
which describes the structure and function of the committee. In addition, we
reviewed documentation describing the expanded treatment model for the
Office of Substance Abuse Treatment Services (OSATS), formally known as
the Division of Addiction and Recovery Services. The treatment model is based
upon input received from both internal and external substance abuse treatment
experts.

For purposes of determining aftercare eligibility, define
successful completion of an in-prison substance abuse
program, such as number of hours or required participation
or other specific achievements participants must attain.
(February 2007)

Office of the Inspector General

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. In order to develop a standardized method to track and measure
an inmate’s success, CDCR has defined successful completion of In-Prison
treatment as participation (attendance) and completion of 80 percent of the
treatment services provided as determined by CDCR staff and the treatment
provider.

Page 80

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments

Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The OSATS described the implementation of its new credit-earning program in
a 32-page draft memorandum dated January 1, 2010. Our inspectors reviewed
an attachment to the memorandum that defined the successful completion of an
in-prison substance abuse program as an inmate’s completion of at least 80
percent of his or her treatment services.
Issue annual public reports that identify both short-term
and long-term recidivism outcomes for all in-prison
substance abuse programs. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. DARS, in coordination with the Department’s Office of Research
has prepared and distributed an annual program performance report that
includes return to custody rates at 12 and 24 months. In April 2008, DARS
worked with the Department’s Office of Audits and Compliance (OAC) to
develop a reporting tool on DARS’ program performance and return to custody
rates. This report will be updated regularly.
In 2007, DARS designed the Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Database to
monitor and evaluate programs. Information is collected on offender
participants receiving treatment services and matched with data from the
CDCR Offender Information Services Branch (OISB) and the Distribute Data
Program System on a monthly basis. DARS reports on one and two year
recidivism rates of SAP participants with this data.
In 2009, DARS developed an automated system to measure, collect, store, and
report on hourly individual-level inmate attendance data for in-prison drug
treatment and education services. The purpose of this project is for DARS to
work with the Division of Education, Vocation and Offender Programs
(DEVOP) and an Enterprise Information Systems (EIS) developer to build and
implement an interim automated system to measure, collect, store, and report
on hourly individual-level inmate attendance for all substance abuse programs
(SAP). This new system has been named the Interim Computerized Attendance
Tracking System (ICATS).
ICATS functions as a performance indicator and measures whether DARS is
meeting the AB 900 substance abuse treatment benchmark of 75 percent
utilization.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 81

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
Additionally, DARS expects to release its first annual report in September 2009.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed OSATS’ June 2009 annual report, which was located
on CDCR’s website. The report included data on the return-to-prison rates, by
program, at one year and at two years for all inmates who had participated in
OSATS’ in-prison substance abuse treatment programs.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 82

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Finding 2
Responsibility for the failure of the state’s $36 million in-prison substance abuse treatment programs rests with the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation because it fails to hold providers accountable for meeting contract terms and places the programs in
prison settings that undermine the treatment model. (February 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Ensure that the Division of Addiction and Recovery
Services specifies in contracts with program providers the
minimum number of encounter group hours that each
contractor must provide each week or month and institute
a system to monitor contractor compliance. (February
2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. The goal of DARS is to implement a science-based, collaborative
and integrated approach to service delivery. Such services include but are not
limited to: Therapeutic Community (TC), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT),
Psycho-Educational Treatment and Interventions, Trauma Informed and
Gender Responsive Treatment strategies, 12 step programs, relapse prevention,
and self-help groups. These models seek to build social support networks as
opposed to “encounter group sessions”, which can result in a confrontational
approach to treatment. Research shows that confrontational groups are not
effective with many populations, including females and young adults, whereas
treatment environments based on safety, respect, and dignity are fundamental
to motivating behavioral change.
All DARS contracts since 2008 contain specific reference to the expected
minimum hours of treatment, outputs, outcomes and performance measures.
DARS has implemented several contract monitoring systems to assure
compliance. A monthly Contractor Report is sent to DARS from each program
each month. Also, a monthly Site Visit Report has been implemented for
reporting on contract compliance in each location (this report is completed by
a headquarters-based analyst after visiting each site). A more in-depth review,
the Program Design and Assessment Team (PDAT) was implemented in
January, 2007. The PDAT and monthly Site Visit Report were replaced in
October 2008 by an improved compliance measurement tool – the Program
Accountability Review (PAR). Contract compliance and performance is
measured by the PAR and exceptions will be considered on a case-by-case
basis. Programs will be adjusted or terminated if contract non-compliance or

Office of the Inspector General

Page 83

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
failure to meet performance expectations persists.
DARS has implemented the Interim Computerized Attendance Tracking System
(ICATS), to record and track all utilization of treatment programs.
In addition to internal monitoring tools, DARS will enforce contract compliance
using other CDCR tools. The Performance Accountability and Improvement
Process (PAIP) is a performance-based accountability process CDCR is
developing for all in-prison rehabilitative programming. The PAIP aims to
create statewide standards for the approach, structure, and process of
rehabilitative programming. It also establishes equitable and accountable
performance targets and allows CDCR to monitor achievement of these defined
outcomes. The PAIP process was developed by Adult Programs, in
collaboration with the Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) in FY 2008-09.
CDCR’s Office of Rehabilitative Program Planning and Accountability will
also conduct periodic evaluations of all CDCR Divisions. The Correctional
Program Checklist (CPC) will be administered to specified programs to ensure
compliance with the Department’s rehabilitation strategies outlined in the
California Logic Model.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors examined the applicable sections of a June 2009 program
provider contract where CDCR quantified the minimum number of encounter
group hours that the contractor must provide to its program participants. We
found that the contract scope of work requires the contractor to ensure that it
provides 20 hours of treatment per week to each program participant.
Our inspectors also examined OSATS’ August 2008 draft procedures for its
program accountability review of program providers’ contract compliance,
which OSATS refers to as its PAR tool. Section 3.3 of the PAR tool addresses
the mandatory 20 hours of treatment per week that is specified in contracts and
includes procedures that OSATS reviewers should perform to ensure that
treatment providers meet those requirements. In addition, we reviewed a listing
of the 39 compliance reviews OSATS conducted during calendar years 2008
and 2009 as well as the results of its testing of program hours for 35 applicable
provider contracts.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 84

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

In locations where security or custody reasons prevent the
department from completely isolating participating
inmates, or if lockdowns continue to have a significant
impact on a program even when its participants are
isolated, the department should cease operating the
substance abuse program at that location and redirect its
funding for use in other programs. (February 2007)

Status

Substantially
Implemented

Comments

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially implemented. DARS sent teams to conduct site visits and
assessments at all seven institutions identified by the OIG. DARS
administration has relocated or modified programs at several sites, while
several institutions are under continued monitoring. Attachment J shows the
specific actions that have been taken and the current status at each of these
sites.
In the locations where DARS did not cease operations, significant
improvements were made in lockdown reduction and daily inmate participation.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors examined OSATS’ September 2008 action plan for the seven
prisons, which described CDCR’s actions taken or CDCR’s plans to either close
substance abuse treatment programs or find solutions to reduce the number of
lockdowns and maintain successful programming. We also reviewed a weekly
report from September 2009 that identified the status of the hours of operation
for all in-prison substance abuse programs (SAP). The report showed that SAP
programs were still in operation at five of the seven facilities and that most
programs at those institutions operated 100 percent of the time.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 85

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Finding 3
The bidding process used by the Office of Substance Abuse Programs to select in-prison substance abuse program providers neither
fosters competition nor ensures that the state receives the highest quality services for the lowest possible price—or the best value for
the $144 million represented in the current multiple-year contracts. Elements of the process also violate state contracting law.
(February 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Continue to reevaluate the substance abuse program
contracting process. If the department elects to use a
different contracting method to correct the deficiencies
noted in this finding, the Office of the Inspector General
recommends that the department establish a crossfunctional team consisting of the Department of General
Services, the Division of Addiction and Recovery
Services, the department’s contracting unit, and other
contracting experts to consider the invitation for bid,
primary request for proposal, or other alternative
contracting methods. (February 2007)

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Substantially implemented. DARS consulted with the Department of General
Services (DGS) staff regarding with questions associated with non-competitive
bids and future bidding options. In May and June 2008, DARS met with the
Legal and Procurement offices and discussed the unique nature of DARS
contracts. DGS legal recommended that DARS enter into multi-year contracts
with options to continue based on performance. They further recommended that
DARS require multiple bids for contracts to anticipate growth during the term
of the contract. These and other changes have been made to improve DARS'
contracts. DARS will continue to work with DGS and CDCR Office of Business
Services (OBS) to adopt appropriate contracting strategies.
In Spring 2008, DARS renewed contracts for 10 of its existing in-prison SAPS.
DARS also began developing eight new contracts to establish the 2,000 beds in
AB 900. DARS will continue to implement changes as these contracts proceed.
In order to address OIG concerns, the current RFP process includes more
detail and clarity about deliverables and performance measures which will be
evaluated and tracked regularly. In an effort to explore other changes in the
process, DARS partnered with CDCR Contract Services to develop new
approaches to:
a) Improve DARS current bidding process
b) Solicit more bidders
c) Establish effective rating/review committee
d) Better handle protest issues

Office of the Inspector General

Page 86

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
e) Minimize any ability contractors may have to manipulate scoring
f) Expedite the bidding process
DARS is using the Invitation For Bid (IFB) process for the first time this FY.
The IFB will eliminate the need for review teams. DARS is also exploring
alternative procurement processes such as master service agreements and
solicitations to public entities.
DARS will continue to work with DGS and our own Office of Business Services
(OBS) to improve this process.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed OSATS’ September 2008 summary of the topics
discussed and actions taken as a result of its meetings with the Office of Budget
Services regarding SAP contracting issues. We also verified that OSATS now
uses the Invitation For Bid (IFB) process.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 87

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Finding 5
The Office of Substance Abuse Programs has failed to adequately monitor in-prison substance abuse program providers for
compliance with contract terms and has not established a quality improvement process to identify improvement opportunities.
(February 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Ensure that the Division of Addiction and Recovery
Services follows its policy requiring it to conduct biannual
compliance reviews of its in-prison substance abuse
programs and consider the results of those reviews in
future contracting decisions. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. In January 2007, DARS established the Program Design
Assessment Team (PDAT) to monitor all contracts. From February 2007
through December 2007, PDAT conducted site visits at 15 institutions, many of
which operate multiple programs. In April 2008, DARS initiated the
development of the Program Accountability Review (PAR) tool. The PAR is
based on deliverables and performance measures, and will ensure compliance
with all contracts. It also replaces the PDAT and current DARS Program
Managers’ site review tool. The PAR is administered quarterly and
standardizes the monitoring of contract compliance. Although interrupted by
travel freezes last year, approximately 40 PAR’s have been completed. In order
to ensure contract compliance, the PAR’s are currently exempt from travel
freezes.
Programs that are unsuccessful in their PAR and fail to conduct appropriate
corrective action will now be terminated. However, DGS advised that even
after termination for cause, a contractor cannot be barred from future bidding
opportunities.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed several documents that OSATS provided in support of CDCR’s
response, including sections of its June 2008 request for proposal (RFP) used to
solicit SAP contractors. Those sections of the RFP indicate that OSATS will
conduct annual, rather than biannual, evaluations of each program and that a
provider’s failure to perform satisfactorily or implement corrective action
(recommended by OSATS) could result in contract termination. We also
reviewed September 2008 correspondence from CDCR’s legal counsel staff

Office of the Inspector General

Page 88

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
confirming the legality of the specific sanctions for non-compliance that were
identified in the RFP.
In addition, our inspectors reviewed a July 2008 memorandum that describes
OSATS’ performance accountability and improvement process and its draft
PAR procedures for conducting contract compliance reviews. Furthermore,
OSATS provided us with a listing of 29 program accountability reviews its staff
conducted during calendar year 2009 and ten reviews conducted in 2008.

Consider including in future contracts intermediate
remedies that would allow it to enforce contractor
compliance. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. DARS contracts now contain a list of performance measures and
a series of sanctions that will be imposed if providers do not comply with terms
of the contract.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
As addressed above, OIG inspectors reviewed sections of a June 2008 RFP and
correspondence from CDCR’s legal counsel. The RFP identified specific
sanctions available for contractors’ non-compliance with contract terms and the
legal counsel correspondence confirmed that those sanctions were appropriate
and enforceable.

Implement a continuous quality improvement process that
includes the following steps:
•

Identify the best and worst practices among the inprison substance abuse program providers and
ensure that poor-performing providers take
corrective action to change their programs and
adopt applicable, successful practices of the topperforming providers. (February 2007)

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. DARS’ focus has been on improving the treatment model with
evidenced-based practices, identifying performance measures, and maintaining
accountability and contract compliance. Results of the In-Prison Program
Accountability Review (PAR) tool now allow DARS to identify and document
best and worst practices.
The PAR ensures that corrective action is being taken, and that remedial
measures are implemented. As part of the PAR, best practices are suggested,
along with other corrective actions.
The Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) is also a forum for sharing best
practices with providers. Program managers assist contractors with identified
problems during the interim periods between reviews. Best practices are

Office of the Inspector General

Page 89

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
included as a means of program improvement. TAC and DARS will evaluate
program innovations and identify improvements to services that can contribute
to program success.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We recognize that OSATS has implemented new tools and processes to
evaluate and monitor its program providers and enhance program success.
However, according to OSATS’ deputy director, the last time the Policy
Advisory Committee (PAC) met was in January 2009. To enable program
providers to share the best and worst practices identified during OSATS’
program reviews and to ensure that poor-performing providers take timely
corrective action to change their programs, we believe that the PAC should
meet more often than once a year. Therefore, the OIG concludes that CDCR has
only substantially implemented this recommendation.

•

Identify pertinent measures of performance and
methods of capturing and analyzing key
information. (February 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. The PAR, described above, identifies and evaluates pertinent
measures of performance. It is modeled after the University of Cincinnati’s
“Correctional Program Checklist” (CPC) – a validated tool used widely for
performance evaluation. It effectively determines if individual treatment
programs are adhering to evidence-based practices.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed OSATS’ draft PAR tool and found that it identifies
procedures for measuring program providers’ performance and capturing and
analyzing key information.

•

Beginning in 2007, conduct regular meetings with
program providers to share best practices and
pertinent performance measures. (February 2007)

Office of the Inspector General

Substantially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. DARS established the Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) to
create a forum for sharing best practices with providers. The Policy Advisory
Committee (PAC) includes senior officers from contracted service providers.
The DARS Director convenes the PAC on a quarterly basis or as needed. PAC
and DARS collaborate to ensure effective delivery of treatment services and to
share best practices.

Page 90

Special Review into In-Prison Substance Abuse Programs
Managed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Status

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The PAC members met in October 2007 and again in January 2009 to share
best practices among providers. Also, OSATS used its PAR tool, which
identifies procedures for measuring program providers’ performance, to
conduct evaluations of 39 programs during calendar years 2008 and 2009.
However, for program providers to benefit from sharing best practices and
performance measures, they need to communicate that information with each
other more often than once a year. Therefore, the OIG concludes that CDCR
has only substantially implemented this recommendation.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 91

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review into the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas

Special Review into the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas
Finding 1
The contents of this finding and the related recommendations are redacted because of their confidential nature.
This finding is based on specific health care information for Thomas. To comply with state and federal privacy laws, the OIG removed
the text of the finding and two of the five recommendations that were not substantially implemented at the time we began this followup review.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 92

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review into the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas

Finding 4
Despite Division of Adult Parole Operations and San Quentin staff’s failure to follow department procedures, the prison reception
center’s correctional counselor III should have known state law prohibited Scott Thomas’s release on a Friday. (October 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Division of Adult Parole Operations should:
Monitor the work of the parole staff who did not follow
policies and procedures in identifying Thomas as high
control and who failed to notify the institution of the
inmate’s release plans and reporting instructions. Continue
monitoring this work until those staff members are
consistently complying with policies and procedures. If
appropriate, provide remedial training or take disciplinary
action. (October 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. The institution was notified of Parolee Thomas’ High Control
status as indicated in the 611 dated December 4, 2002. Further, it also states
parolee’s High Control status in the chronological history dated 12/11/02;
8/19/03; 9/6/05; and 12/5/06. All attached.
Unit Supervisor, K. Volbeda conducted a unit meeting on July 2, 2008 followed
by additional unit meetings regarding “Designation of Penal Code Section
3060.7 Cases,” in the attached unit meeting agenda. Further, one on one
training was given with each agent the last two years. Unit Agents were trained
to annotate the CDC 611 and CDC 1244 with captions clearly indicating
3060.7 PC statuses on forms that pre-date CDCR 611 and CDCR 1244( date
revised October 2006.) On these newer forms the 3060.7 PC check box is to be
marked. Following the meeting, US Volbeda and PAII Herschberg reviewed
unit procedure to ensure that the 3060.7 PC review process was adequately in
place.
Policy 08-28 and PC Section 3060.7 release date adjustments for inmates
scheduled for release on a Friday or days before a holiday have been covered
in the San Fernando Valley District Meetings held with US’s; PAII’s; and
SPT’s present on a regular basis. Specifically in district meetings dated on
1/8/07; 1/23/08; 8/26/08 and 6/11/09. Agendas and sign-in sheets attached are
provided for the four district meetings indicated. In the meetings it was
discussed to ensure the box is checked on the 611 and 1244 forms to indicate
3060.7 cases when appropriate and the importance of notifying the institution
of 3060.7 cases. Policy memo 08-28 and PC Section 3060.7 release date
adjustments for 2007, 2008, and 2009 were passed out to all staff.
Note it is this administrator’s opinion that these issues have been fully covered

Office of the Inspector General

Page 93

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Special Review into the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas

Status

Comments
in the district for over two (2) years, and further, monitoring of procedures in
the future are not necessary. Yearly 3060.7 release date calendars and
instructions will still be passed out to staff and the importance of noting High
Control cases to the institution will continue to be stressed.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the Division of Adult Parole Operations’ policy 08-28 dated June
2008, related to the designation of Penal Code section 3060.7 (high-risk
classification) cases; CDCR’s 611 form, which is a parolee release plan; and the
1244 form, which is a parole violation tracking log applicable to cases returned
to custody for parole violations. For parolees who are subject to the high-risk
designation, parole staff are required to note the high-risk classification on both
forms. This assists prisons in identifying parolees who are subject to specific
parole reporting requirements once they are released from custody.
In addition, we reviewed in-service training attendance records and found that
statewide procedural training is taking place to inform employees and
supervisors of the proper protocols to be followed related to inmates with Penal
Code Section 3060.7 release dates. Furthermore, we contacted a parole
administrator and obtained verbal confirmation that general state-wide
procedures are in place for parole supervisors to monitor parole agents’ cases
on a regular basis.
We are concerned, however, that in CDCR’s response the program
administrator indicated that they have been adequately covering the topic for
over two years and that future monitoring of the procedures is not necessary.
The OIG believes that monitoring is a continuous process that helps ensure
policies and procedures are consistently and continually applied.

The Office of Audits and Compliance should:
Audit the Division of Adult Parole Operations’ compliance
with the above policies and procedures. The division
should use the findings from this audit to train and
discipline staff as appropriate. (October 2007)

Office of the Inspector General

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. The Office of Audits and Compliance is scoping an
audit of DAPO’s compliance with policies and procedures currently in place to
prevent inmates from being released prior to eligibility for parole to be
included in the 2009/10 audit plan. OAC’s 2009/10 audit plan is currently

Page 94

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Special Review into the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Release of Inmate Scott Thomas

Status

Comments
being created and the exact date of the audit is not yet determined.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
We reviewed the OAC’s fiscal year 2009-10 audit plan and noted that it did not
include a planned audit of the Division of Adult Parole Operations. While we
understand that the back-log in other CDCR management audit requests,
coupled with the state’s employee furlough program, may have prevented OAC
from scheduling the audit, we also note that CDCR has known about the
reported finding for over two years. Therefore, the OIG considers the
recommendation not implemented.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 95

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit
Finding 1
The aging and overcrowded institution has fallen into disrepair, and many buildings have become inadequate, yet the institution still
waits for overdue repair funds from department headquarters. (December 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Using the results of the inspection, identify all
maintenance and safety problems and generate a corrective
action plan. (December 2007)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. Facilities Management met with staff members from
California Institution for Women (CIW) on June 13, 2008 to review and discuss
their facility assessment documents. Facilities Management provided a
requirement list report to CIW listing any time-sensitive priorities. The
requirement list was used by CIW to develop their long-term plan of action for
maintenance projects/issues at CIW. $226,000 was appropriated to assist CIW
in repair projects but was returned to the general fund prior to being used due
to the fiscal budget crisis.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed CIW’s five-year plan, which identifies maintenance
and safety projects and fiscal year resources needed to implement planned
projects. We also reviewed a June 2009 directive from CDCR’s Chief of Staff
advising CDCR facilities that the funds had been disencumbered for contracts.
Although a corrective action plan was generated, funding was not provided to
support the maintenance issues identified in the five-year plan.

Using the corrective action plan, identify staffing
requirements and resources necessary to complete repairs
and maintain the institution’s infrastructure. (December
2007)

Office of the Inspector General

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. Facilities Management prepared a Statewide Budget
Change Proposal for special repair projects, deferred maintenance projects
and additional plant operation staffing. $226,000 was appropriated to assist
CIW in repair projects but was returned to the general fund prior to being used
due to the fiscal budget crisis.

Page 96

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
As addressed above, CIW documented repair and maintenance projects in its
five-year plan, but due to the state’s fiscal crisis, CDCR disencumbered funds
that were set aside for such projects.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 97

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 2
The attendance rate is poor in education classes because of frequent cancellations and other factors. (December 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Women and the management
of the El Prado Adult School should:
Ensure that the classrooms have adequate air conditioning
by obtaining sufficient capital outlay funding to purchase
and install appropriate air conditioning units. (December
2007)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. Concept Paper has been received from the institution
and is under consideration for development as a Capitol Outlay Budget
Concept Proposal (COBCP) for Fiscal Year 2010-2011. This COBCP funding
to purchase and install appropriate air conditioning units. (Pending approval
process).
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed CIW’s capital outlay concept papers for fiscal year
2010-11, which included a request to install air conditioning in education
buildings at an estimated cost of $1.067 million. According to both the
associate warden for business services and the capital outlay analyst, funding
for the project was included in CIW’s COBCP for fiscal year 2010-11 as a
priority number 39 out of 40. If CDCR does not fund the air-conditioning units,
CIW will resubmit the request for fiscal year 2011-12 funding as its number one
priority.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 98

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 3
The California Institution for Women does not always assign inmates with low reading abilities to adult basic education classes.
(December 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Compare the inmate literacy requirements contained in its
Operations Manual section 101010.1 with those of Penal
Code section 2053.1 and change the department
Operations Manual as necessary. (December 2007)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. The Office of Correctional Education (OCE) reviewed
current state laws related to inmate literacy and allocated a teacher position to
provide educational services in the form of an independent study model for
those inmates below the 9.0 grade reading level.
In lieu of changes to the Department Operations Manual (DOM), direction was
given to the institutions by the OCE and the Division of Adult Institutions to
revise their Pro-Literacy Operational Procedure to come into compliance with
Penal Code (PC) Section 2053.1. The OCE is in the final phase of collecting
the revised operating procedures.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
According to the associate warden for education, CIW hired an additional
teacher in the independent study program for inmates reading below the 9.0
level.

Assess whether legislative exemptions from current state
laws related to inmate literacy are needed for the inmate
firefighting program, especially during dry years.
(December 2007)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. OCE reviewed current state laws related to inmate
literacy and allocated a teacher position to provide educational services to the
female campers in the form of an independent study model for those inmates
below the 9.0 grade reading level.
In lieu of changes to the DOM, direction was given to the institutions by the
OCE and the Division of Adult Institutions to revise their Pro-Literacy
Operational Procedure to come into compliance with PC Section 2053.1. The
OCE is in the final phase of collecting the revised operating procedures.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 99

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Status

Comments

Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CIW’s chief deputy warden told us that inmates must meet the 6.0 literacy
grade level to be accepted into the fire camps, and that they continue to receive
classroom time to meet the 9.0 grade level literacy requirement while at the
camp. However, the associate warden for education told us that CIW’s
education staff at the fire camps will soon move back to the prison, due to
budget cuts. Therefore, we changed the status of this recommendation to not
implemented as inmates at the fire camps will not be receiving educational
services.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 100

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 4
Inmates sent to off-site medical specialists do not always receive prompt follow-up medical care. (December 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Division of Health Care Services and the
California Health Care Receivership should:
Assess the possible causes for the delays in providing
inmates with prompt follow-up care, including the timely
scheduling of appointments and whether there are too few
doctors available to meet the 14-day requirement, and take
appropriate corrective action. (December 2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: This
recommendation is under the auspices of the Receiver who will respond directly
to the OIG.
California Prison Health Care Services’ response: Fully Implemented. CIW
has been performing monthly focused audits to diligently achieve and maintain
compliance in this area. The monthly audits are reported to the Quality
Management Committee and reviewed by the Specialty Care Subcommittee.
Focused audits conducted since 2008 show an average overall compliance that
exceeds 90%.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed documentation from the August 2009 committee
meeting minutes showing the results from auditing the California Prison Health
Care Services’ compliance with the 14-day follow-up requirement. The results
showed a compliance rate of 90 percent in June 2009 and an average
compliance rate of 84 percent for calendar year 2008. The documentation
indicates that the required compliance rate is 85 percent.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 101

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

Finding 6
The visiting center staff does not consistently adhere to visiting policies and regulations, increasing the risk of visitors bringing banned
materials into the institution. (December 2007)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Institution for Women should:
Implement measures to address the high turnover of
custody staff assigned to the visiting area. (December
2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
Implemented. In May 2008, CIW contacted the Prison Industry Authority
regarding the status of the new Visiting Processing Center being built. In
September 2008, the New Visiting Processing Center was completed and is
being utilized. The processing center and visitor center was too small confined
quarters for staff to work. These changes made it a more desirable area to
work. In September 2008, a Correctional Lieutenant was added to Visiting
Room staffing which enhanced direct supervision in which the staff was more
willing to retain their bid position. CIW has maintained consistent staffing for
over one year.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
CIW’s Public Information Officer (PIO) confirmed that the processing center at
the prison was completed and that the facility can now accommodate visitors
and staff. The PIO also confirmed that staffing at the facility has been
consistent for a lengthy period.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 102

2010 Accountability Audit

California Institution for Women Quadrennial and Warden Audit

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Perform an analysis of the visiting center staffing levels at
the three adult women’s correctional facilities to determine
whether appropriate staffing exists at each facility based
on the average number of visitors each institution
processes daily and the physical layout of each visiting
facility. (December 2007)

Partially
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. A staffing analysis was completed in August 2008. It
was determined that additional staff was needed and a request for 3.0 personnel
year positions for visitor center staffing is being prepared for consideration in
the 2010-11 budget year.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed the August 2008 analysis of visiting center staffing
levels at the three women’s prisons. The analysis supported a budget change
proposal for fiscal year 2009-10 requesting three new positions for the visiting
center. According to CIW’s assignment lieutenant, CIW has not increased its
staffing levels for the visiting center since the OIG completed its audit in 2007.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 103

Special Review into the Shooting
of Inmate Daniel Provencio

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review into the Shooting of Inmate Daniel Provencio
Finding 2
A number of contributing factors may have accounted for the control booth officer’s inaccurate placement of the 40 mm projectile,
including inadequate training on the weapon and the lack of a consistent policy at Wasco for qualification with the 40 mm launcher.
(June 2005)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation should:
Develop a more comprehensive training component
covering the use of direct-impact weapons from an elevated
post. (June 2005)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. Currently, not all of the Department’s institutions have
elevated platforms at the range for qualification. However, the Basic
Correctional Officer Academy (BCOA) and Office of Correctional Safety
(OCS) have revised the Impact Munitions Instructor’s Guide to address the
use of a direct impact weapon from an elevated post and at moving targets.
The BCOA has constructed a platform and have purchased moving targets.
The cadets are currently being trained to discharge a weapon from the
elevated post at moving targets.
Although the Department has revised the Impact Munitions Instructor’s Guide
and distributed the revision to all institutions on November 4, 2008, the
Department will not mandate the firing of the 40MM from an elevated post
and/or at a moving target.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on CDCR’s response, we find that this recommendation is not
implemented. We commend CDCR for implementing revised training methods
for its cadet officers prior to their deployment to the prisons. Shooting from an
elevated position and at moving targets provides the cadets with more realistic
training. The problem, however, is that CDCR has chosen not to continue this
training once an officer is at the prison. Consequently, the officer’s proficiency
is not maintained.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 104

Special Review into the Shooting
of Inmate Daniel Provencio

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation
Develop a comprehensive training component that includes
training on how to effectively and safely employ the 40 mm
launcher against a moving target. (June 2005)

Status
Not
Implemented

Comments
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response:
Partially Implemented. Currently, not all of the Department’s institutions have
elevated platforms at the range for qualification. However, the BCOA and
OCS have revised the Impact Munitions Instructor’s Guide to address the use
of a direct impact weapon from an elevated post and at moving targets
The BCOA has constructed a platform and have purchased moving targets.
The cadets are currently being trained to discharge a weapon from the
elevated post at moving targets.
Although the Department has revised the Impact Munitions Instructor’s Guide
and distributed the revision to all institutions on November 4, 2008, the
Department will not mandate the firing of the 40MM from an elevated post
and/or at a moving target.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on the CDCR’s response, we find that this recommendation is not
implemented. See the OIG’s comments for the preceding recommendation.

Ensure that every officer assigned to an armed post as part
of his or her regular or special assignment (which includes
relief, voluntary overtime and trades/swaps, permanent
intermittent, etc.) must complete a weapons proficiency
course on a quarterly basis. (June 2005)

Not
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Not
Implemented. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
does not agree that quarterly training of all custody staff is reasonable with
the current state financial crisis. However, CDCR will continue to review and
assess the ability to quarterly qualify all correctional officers that may be
assigned to an armed post as part of his or her regular or special assignment.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
Based on CDCR’s response, we agree that CDCR should continue to review
and assess the viability of quarterly qualifying those correctional officers
assigned to armed posts. We hope that CDCR requires that everyone assigned
to an armed post, even for one day, be properly trained. Improperly trained
officers can jeopardize the safety of inmates and staff members and create
legal liability if an officer is involved in a shooting deemed improper.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 105

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review of 23-and-1 Confinement

Special Review of 23-and-1 Confinement
Finding 1
A significant portion of the wards interviewed said they were deprived of their rights while housed in temporary detention units.
(December 2000)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Division of Juvenile Justice should:
Review its methods for tracking mandated services
to wards and implement procedures to ensure that
weekly and monthly, as well as daily, services are
provided and accurately documented. (December
2000)

Office of the Inspector General

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. The implementation of Temporary Departmental Orders 07-82
Restricted Program, 07-83 Delivery of Mandated Services, and 07-85 Temporary
Detention as well as additional staff training and oversight has elevated the
Division of Juvenile Justice’s (DJJ) status to fully implemented.
The DJJ completed a revision of the Restricted Program Policy on March 9, 2007.
Training associated with this policy was completed and the implementation date
was May 1, 2008. Facilities operate only from Institutions and Camps Manual
Restricted Program Policy Section 7200-7285 dated March 9, 2007.
To ensure youth are receiving 3-hours of program per day DJJ has an enhanced
monitoring process with headquarters oversight. The April 30, 2008 completion of
Ward Information Network (WIN) Exchange provided a system wide capability
allowing DJJ headquarters to track daily mandated services electronically. Weekly,
headquarters reviews out of room program documentation for occurrences of youth
receiving less than 3-hours and monitors the corresponding comments by facility
staff. On a monthly basis, DJJ headquarters reports to facilities on deficient youth
mandated service records and directs facilities to develop plans to ensure youth
receive 3-hours of daily programming. Facilities respond to the Director of
Facilities with a memorandum documenting deficient youth records and their plan
to ensure a minimum 3-hours program is provided. Each facility continues to have
staff assigned to monitor mandated services and the implementation of the restricted
program policy.

Page 106

2010 Accountability Audit

Recommendation

Special Review of 23-and-1 Confinement

Status

Comments
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
OIG inspectors reviewed July 2009 tracking logs and monitoring reports for one
juvenile justice facility. We found that facility staff tracked wards’ daily program
hours and out-of-room time on separate logs. Custody staff members entered notes
on the daily logs when wards did not receive their mandated three hours of daily
program and services, and supervisors commented on staff members’ notes when
they needed more information. We also reviewed weekly and monthly summaries of
wards’ out-of-room time and samples of weekly memorandum reports used by the
director of the Division of Juvenile Facilities to monitor the facility’s compliance
with the three-hour requirement.
In addition, we reviewed high school attendance logs for the month of July 2009 and
supporting daily attendance sign-in sheets. Similarly, we reviewed daily counseling
attendance sheets that identified the material covered. The daily attendance sign-in
sheets and monthly logs were reviewed by teachers or group leaders and
supervisors, as appropriate. Finally, we reviewed samples of counselors’ case
conference notes and verified that follow-up case conferences are set up within 30
days of the last case conference.

Office of the Inspector General

Page 107

2010 Accountability Audit

Special Review of 23-and-1 Confinement

Finding 2
The reasons for wards’ detention were not clearly documented. (December 2000)
Recommendation

Status

Comments

The Division of Juvenile Justice should:
Include in its restricted programs and temporary
detention policy the mandate that wards in restricted
programs––including wards assigned to temporary
detention––be allowed at least three hours outside
their rooms every day, and incorporate the policy in
the Division of Juvenile Justice Institutions and
Camps Branch Manual. (2007)

Fully
Implemented

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s response: Fully
implemented. On August 24, 2009 the DJJ modified the Restricted Program Policy
Manual Section § 7220, to include a clear statement requiring all restricted program
youth receive 3-hours programming daily. The policy now states:
“The department’s goal is to provide program services to youth in the least
restrictive environment, while maintaining the safety and security of the facility.
Whereas each mandated service has a specific time allotted for its delivery, all youth
shall be afforded the opportunity to be out of their room on a daily basis a combined
total of 3-hours each day, unless safety and security preclude such activity. Safety
and security issues precluding out of room activity shall be approved by the
supervisor (Mandated Services Section § 7220) and documented in the daily
Mandated Services log in WIN as a denial of service for that day.”
This addition along with continued oversight of restricted programs has clearly
established 3-hours as the minimum acceptable duration for which youth shall be out
of their rooms.
Office of the Inspector General’s comments:
The OIG reviewed CDCR’s Division of Juvenile Facilities current Institutions and
Camps (I&C) manual section 7220 and found that the language now asserts that “all
youth shall be afforded the opportunity to be out of their room on a daily basis a
combined total of 3-hours each day, unless safety and security preclude such
activity.”

Office of the Inspector General

Page 108

Attachment 1
Response from the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation

STATE OF CALIFORNIA -DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GOVERNOR

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
P.O. Box 942883
Sacramento, CA 94283-0001

June 30, 2010

Mr. David R. Shaw
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
P.O. Box 348780
Sacramento, CA 95834-8780
Dear Mr. Shaw:
This letter is being submitted in response to the Office of the Inspector General's (OIG)
Accountability Audit: Review of Audits of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation 2000-2008. We appreciate your acknowledgment that we have implemented the
majority of the OIG's recommendations. In those areas where we have not, we want to assure
you that work will continue towards implementation of all recommendations, however the nature
of the current fiscal situation creates challenges in many areas.
Nonetheless, we have strived to address those areas where the OIG's recommendations are not
yet implemented. For example, to ensure necessary and appropriate cell searches are being
completed and tracked at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP), a local operational procedure was
developed and is currently in place to assist the tracking and follow up of required building and
cell searches. The institution has made significant strides in enhancing their local cell search
procedures and believes that with additional focus, all levels of responsibility can achieve full
implementation associated with expectations for completing, reporting, and maintaining
appropriate accountability for conducting cell searches.
Further, your report states that SVSP has not implemented a process to ensure that Use of
Force (UOF) Incident Reports are submitted within a timely manner and receive an initial review
within 30 days of their reported occurrence. We are in the process of revising the UOF Policy
and Regulations that will require that all UOF Incident Reports receive an initial review within
30 days of their reported occurrence. The revised regulations are currently with the Office of
Administrative Law pending approval. Additionally, SVSP has experienced situational
vacancies within their UOF Coordinator Position, which has contributed to other issues
experienced locally during calendar year 2009. SVSP will endeavor to completely absorb this
backlog during the current year, which will soon also incorporate the Department's revised UOF
Policy and UOF Review expectations.

Mr. David R. Shaw
Page 2

In addition, the OIG would like SVSP to increase the academic education opportunities available
to inmates. Early in 2010, education opportunities for inmates were increased, however budget
reductions resulted in subsequent decreases.
We would like to thank the OIG for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the special
review and value your continued professionalism and guidance in our efforts to improve our
operations. CDCR's Office of Audits and Compliance will monitor and document the
Department's progress in addressing the report's recommendations. If you should have any
questions or concerns, please call my office at (916) 323-6001.
Sincerely,

MATTHEW L. CATE
Secretary

Attachment 2
Response from the California Prison Health Care
Services

The California Prison Health Care Services concurred with the OIG report and did not
prepare a formal response.