The 2025-26 Budget: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

2025-26 BUDGET The 2025-26 Budget: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation GABRIEL PETEK | LEGISLATIVE ANALYST | FEBRUARY 2025 SUMMARY In this brief, we assess and make recommendations on several California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) budget proposals. Below, we provide a summary of our major recommendations. (A figure summarizing all of our recommendations is in the appendix of this brief.) State Prison and Parole Population and Other Biannual Adjustments. The Governor’s budget estimates that Proposition 36 (2024), which increased punishment for various theft and drug crimes, will cause the average daily prison population to be about 570 higher (or 1 percent) than otherwise in 2024-25 and 3,300 higher (or 4 percent) in 2025-26. It estimates that Proposition 36 will not impact the average daily parole population in 2024-25 but will cause the population to be about 360 higher (or 1 percent) than otherwise in 2025-26. We identify flaws in the administration’s methodology that mean CDCR may be overbudgeted by millions of dollars in 2024-25 and tens of millions of dollars in 2025-26. Accordingly, we recommend directing the administration to address these flaws at the May Revision. San Quentin Rehabilitation Center (SQRC) and the California Model. The Governor proposes a total of $7.8 million General Fund in 2025-26 (growing to $13 million by 2027-28) for SQRC to activate a new learning center and make various other programmatic enhancements. The proposal is part of a systemwide effort to develop the “California Model,” which is intended to reduce recidivism and improve the health and wellness of people who live and work in prison. While it is reasonable to activate the new learning center, we recommend rejecting most of the remainder of the request unless the administration is able to provide a clear plan for SQRC. In addition, we recommend requiring the administration to produce a report that answers key questions about the California Model. Inpatient Mental Health Beds. The Governor proposes $3 million General Fund in 2025-26 (growing to $4.4 million in 2026-27 and ongoing) to activate a newly constructed licensed 50-bed mental health crisis facility. With the addition of this capacity, the budget reflects operation of 686 inpatient beds in excess of the amount projected to be necessary. We recommend approving the activation to address regional bed needs, but directing CDCR to seek approval from the Coleman federal court to align statewide inpatient bed capacity with updated population projections and to account for transportation savings. These changes could save more than $100 million annually if all the excess beds are deactivated. Parole Community Rehabilitation Programs. The Governor proposes $44.9 million General Fund in 2025-26 (generally increasing annually thereafter) for various parole rehabilitation programs. This would support: (1) a roughly 30 percent one-time cost-of-living increase for specific programs; (2) an ongoing 2 percent annual cost-of-living increase for those same programs; and (3) a two-year extension of a housing program. While providing cost-of-living increases is reasonable, we think the Legislature could make additional changes that generate state savings from leveraging federal funds through Medi-Cal. Accordingly, we recommend approving the proposed funding on a limited-term basis and requiring CDCR to take steps to increase utilization of Medi-Cal for some of these programs, which could improve them while reducing state costs. Additionally, we recommend evaluating all of these programs to determine whether they merit continued support or need to be restructured to be effective. www.lao.ca.gov 1 2025-26 BUDGET OVERVIEW Roles and Responsibilities. CDCR is 2025-26 because they are accounted for elsewhere responsible for the incarceration of certain adults in the budget. For more information about the convicted of felonies, including the provision reductions associated with Control Sections of rehabilitation programs, vocational training, 4.05 and 4.12, please see our publication, The education, and health care services. As of 2025-26 Budget: State Departments’ Operational January 29, 2025, CDCR was responsible for Efficiencies (Control Sections 4.05 and 4.12). incarcerating about 91,000 people. Most of these The proposed budget would provide CDCR with people are housed in the state’s 31 prisons and a total of about 60,000 positions in 2025-26, a 34 conservation camps. The department also decrease of about 475 (less than 1 percent) from supervises and treats about 34,700 adults on the revised 2024-25 level. parole and is responsible for the apprehension of Capital Outlay Spending Proposed for those who commit parole violations. In addition, 2025-26. The Governor’s budget proposes total the department operates the Pine Grove Youth expenditures of $14.1 million General Fund for Conservation Camp to provide wildland firefighting capital outlay projects in 2025-26. This amount skills to justice-involved youth from counties that includes (1) $11.5 million to construct new have entered into contracts with CDCR. groundwater wells to supply Ironwood State Operational Spending Proposed for 2025-26. Prison in Blythe, (2) $1.2 million for the preliminary The Governor’s January budget proposes a total plans phase of a project to construct new ground of about $13.9 billion to operate CDCR in 2025-26, water wells to supply Central California Women’s mostly from the General Fund. Figure 1 shows Facility and Valley State Prison in Chowchilla, and the total operating expenditures estimated in (3) $982,000 for the working drawing phase of a the Governor’s budget for the prior and current project to construct a potable water treatment years and proposed for the budget year. As the system at the California Health Care Facility figure indicates, the proposed spending level in Stockton. reflects a decrease of $149 million (1 percent) from the revised Figure 1 2024-25 level. This decrease primarily reflects expiration of Total Expenditures for Operation of CDCR previously authorized limited-term (Dollars in Millions) spending. These decreases are partially offset by various proposed Change From 2024-25 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 augmentations, such as funding to Actual Estimated Proposeda Amount Percent address increased costs resulting Adult Institutions $12,809 $12,450 $12,236 -$214 -2% from inflation and population Adult Parole 702 694 728 34 5 caseload adjustments. The Administration 914 787 818 31 4 Board of Parole 75 73 74 1 1 proposed $149 million decrease Hearings does not reflect anticipated Totals $14,499 $14,005 $13,856 -$149 -1% reductions associated with Control a Does not reflect anticipated reductions associated with Control Sections 4.05 and 4.12 of the Sections 4.05 and 4.12 of the 2024-25 Budget Act or increases in employee compensation costs in 2025-26 because they are accounted for elsewhere in the budget. 2024-25 Budget Act or increases CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. in employee compensation costs in 2 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET STATE PRISON AND PAROLE POPULATION AND OTHER BIANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS Background average daily prison population is projected to be 93,300 in 2025-26, an increase of about Adjustments Proposed Biannually Based 1,600 people (2 percent) from the estimated on Projected Population Changes and Other current-year level. The average daily parole Factors. As part of the Governor’s January budget population is projected to be 34,700 in 2025-26, proposal each year, the administration requests a slight decrease of 270 people (less than 1 percent) adjustments to CDCR’s budget based on projected from the estimated current-year level. The projected changes in the prison and parole populations in increase in the prison population is primarily due the current and budget years. The adjustments are to the estimated impact of Proposition 36, which made both on the overall population and various increased punishment for certain drug and theft subpopulations (such as people housed in reentry crimes and created a new court process called a facilities and sex offenders on parole). In addition, “treatment-mandated felony” for certain people who some adjustments include factors other than possess illegal drugs. Specifically, the administration population trends, such as inflation adjustments. estimates that Proposition 36 will cause the average The administration then modifies both types of daily prison population to be about 570 higher (or adjustments based on updated information each 1 percent) than otherwise in 2024-25 and 3,300 spring as part of the May Revision. higher (or 4 percent) in 2025-26. The administration Governor’s Proposal estimates that Proposition 36 will have no impact on the average daily parole population in 2024-25 but Prison Population Projected to Increase, will cause it to be about 360 higher (or 1 percent) Parole Population Projected to Decrease than it otherwise would be in 2025-26. Slightly in 2025-26. As shown in Figure 2, the Net Increase in Current-Year Funding Adjustments. The Figure 2 Governor’s budget reflects adjustments to 2024-25 spending, Prison Population Projected to Increase, largely from the General Fund, Parole Population Projected to Decrease Slightly that result in a net increase of $51 million. The current-year 120,000 net increase in costs is primarily Prison due to both a higher total prison Parole 100,000 population and an increase in the portion of the population 80,000 with high health care needs relative to what was assumed 60,000 in the 2024-25 Budget Act. This increase in costs is partially 40,000 offset by various factors, including lower-than-expected costs of 20,000 providing naloxone (a medication that can prevent overdose deaths) 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 to people when they are released (Estimated) (Proposed) from prison and free phone calls to people in prison. www.lao.ca.gov 3 2025-26 BUDGET Net Increase in Budget-Year Funding Accordingly, the number of people that Adjustments. The budget proposes a net increase reach prison under Proposition 36 for drug of $81 million in adjustments in 2025-26. Similar possession is likely to be substantially to the current-year, this net increase is primarily smaller than the number of people that were due to both a higher total prison population and an sentenced to prison for drug possession prior increase in the portion of the population with high to the passage of Proposition 47. health care needs relative to what was assumed • Includes Crimes That Were Not Affected in the 2024-25 Budget Act. This increase in costs by Proposition 36. The methodology counts is partially offset by various factors, such as a 2013-14 prison admissions for people who projected decrease in costs related to the decline in were convicted of receiving stolen property. the parole population. However, this crime was generally not affected by Proposition 36. Similarly, the Assessment estimate appears to include all admissions Impact of Proposition 36 on Prison for the lower-level theft crimes affected by Population Is Likely Overestimated for Current Proposition 47. However, Proposition 36 only and Budget Years. The department did not affects a subset of those cases, such as by provide detailed backup showing its methodology allowing multiple acts of misdemeanor theft to estimate the impact of Proposition 36 on the to be prosecuted as a felony if the combined prison population. However, based on discussions dollar amount exceeds $950. with the department, it is our understanding • Excludes Crimes That Were Affected by that CDCR used the number of people that were Proposition 36. The methodology does not admitted to prison for drug possession and certain include several crimes that were affected by lower-level theft crimes in 2013-14, the year before Proposition 36. These include cases in which Proposition 47 (2014) reduced prison admissions for people receive time added to their sentence these crimes by converting them to misdemeanors. for selling high volumes of illegal drugs, being The department then assumed that the same armed with a firearm during the commission of number of people would again be admitted to state a drug felony, or selling drugs to a person who prison under Proposition 36 and would remain in suffers significant physical injury as a result of state prison for 11 months on average. We find that using the drug. this estimation methodology is problematic for the following reasons: The first two flaws discussed above cause the department’s methodology to overestimate the • Does Not Account for Key Features of impact of Proposition 36. The third flaw causes Treatment-Mandated Felony. CDCR’s the methodology to underestimate the impact. estimate assumes that the same number of On net, we find that the methodology likely people who were committed to prison for drug overestimates the impact of Proposition 36 in the possession prior to Proposition 47 would again current and budget years. This is because the third be committed to prison under Proposition 36. flaw largely involves crimes that drive a relatively However, this is not plausible for two primary smaller number of prison admissions per year but reasons. First, Proposition 36 only allows have longer lengths of stay in prison. Accordingly, people who possess certain drugs to be the effect of the third flaw—which leads to charged with a treatment-mandated felony if underestimation—is likely relatively negligible for they have at least two past drug convictions, near-term projections. Our estimates suggest whereas, people who possessed drugs prior that the average daily prison population impact to Proposition 47 could be charged with a of Proposition 36 could be in the low hundreds felony even without any prior convictions. in 2024-25 and grow to around 1,000 or so in Second, it requires that people are generally 2025-26—less than half of the magnitude of the given the option of treatment in lieu of administration’s estimates. This would cause CDCR incarceration in county jail or state prison. to be overbudgeted in the millions of dollars in 2024-25 and tens of millions of dollars in 2025-26. 4 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET However, any estimate at this early point in the someone could commit one of these crimes, serve implementation of Proposition 36 is subject to a sentence, and be released to parole before the significant uncertainty. end of 2025-26. This means that the proposed Administration’s Assumption That 2025-26 budget includes roughly a few million Proposition 36 Will Impact the Parole dollars in excess funding for parole. Population in the Budget Year Is Not Plausible. Recommendation People whose current offense is classified as serious or violent, as well as certain others, such Direct CDCR to Address Key Flaws in Its as high-risk sex offenders, are placed on state Proposition 36 Population Impact Estimates parole supervision after they are released from at the May Revision. We recommend that the Legislature direct the department in spring prison. All other people released are placed under budget hearings to address the key flaws in its the supervision of a county probation officer. Proposition 36 population estimates and adjust Only two components of Proposition 36 relate its population-related funding requests at the to serious or violent crimes, meaning only these May Revision accordingly. We recognize that any provisions could impact the parole population. estimates will be subject to significant uncertainty First, Proposition 36 specified that selling drugs to due to the limited amount of actual data since a person who suffers a significant physical injury the enactment of Proposition 36. However, as a result of using the drug is a serious and violent the key flaws we identify above are conceptual crime. Second, the measure requires courts to warn problems that can be improved through reasonable people convicted of selling certain drugs that they assumptions in areas where actual data are could be charged with murder if they sell or provide lacking. We will continue to monitor CDCR’s illegal drugs that kill someone. This could make it populations and the other factors affecting the more likely for them to be convicted of murder— proposed adjustments and make recommendations also a serious and violent crime—in the future if based on the updated information available at the they later sell drugs to someone who dies. Both May Revision, including the administration’s revised of these crimes would carry relatively long prison population projections. sentences. Accordingly, it is not plausible that SAN QUENTIN REHABILITATION CENTER AND THE CALIFORNIA MODEL Background professionally satisfying workplace for all staff, and improve outcomes and opportunities for success Broad Framework for California Model through robust re-entry efforts.” More specifically, Articulated by the Secretary and Receiver. the memorandum cited the following goals: On April 4, 2023 the Secretary of CDCR and the (1) improving the health and well-being of people federal Receiver who oversees prison medical who live and work in California prisons, with a focus care issued a joint memorandum expressing on reducing trauma and toxic stress; (2) reducing their concern that prison environments can be recidivism; and (3) reducing incidents of use unfavorable to the health and well-being of the of force, staff assaults, overdoses, self-harm, people who live and work in them and operate at homicides, suicides, grievances, self-isolation, cross purposes to rehabilitative efforts. To address and admissions to Mental Health Crisis Beds. this concern, they announced the department In addition, the memorandum outlined four pillars is implementing the California Model, which intended to guide development of specific policy aims to make “system changes that create an and practice changes: environment rich in rehabilitation, a safer and more www.lao.ca.gov 5 2025-26 BUDGET • Dynamic Security. Dynamic security is for the highest-risk, highest-need people in an approach to security that promotes prisons. Officers on resource teams receive positive relationships between staff and specialized training on the nature of mental incarcerated people through purposeful illness and trauma, de-escalation techniques, activities and professional, positive, and and strategies for motivating people to engage respectful communication. in rehabilitative programming and mental • Normalization. Normalization involves health care. These officers lead a team, bringing life in prison as close as possible including medical and mental health staff, to life outside of prison to make it easier for to develop individualized plans to support people to adjust to life in the community upon out-of-cell time and engagement in positive release. Normalization can involve changes activities while ensuring safety. to physical features (such as adding furniture • Peer Support Specialist Programs. CDCR that more closely mirrors furniture used has launched various certified peer support outside prison) or changes to experiences, specialist training programs through which routines, or interactions (such as celebrating people can learn to work as peer support cultural events). providers while in prison. For example, peer • Peer Support. Peer support involves support specialists can help with alcohol training incarcerated people to use their and drug recovery, navigating health care lived experiences to provide recovery and systems, teaching people how to advocate rehabilitative support to their peers. for themselves, and promoting self-care. Peer support specialists receive certification • Trauma Informed Organization. Becoming and work experience while in prison that can a trauma informed organization involves potentially help them gain employment in a changing the practices, policies, and culture similar field upon release. of the department to recognize the impacts of trauma and ensure the physical and emotional • Honor Dorms. CDCR operates certain safety of all staff and incarcerated people. housing units as “honor dorms,” which provide privileges and greater access to education Planning and Implementation Team and other programming in exchange for Responsible for Developing the California positive behavior. For example, a program Model Statewide. A planning and implementation at Valley State Prison in Chowchilla clusters team within CDCR is responsible for overseeing people under age 26 where they are provided identification and implementation of the specific with enhanced programming opportunities activities that align with the above goals and pillars. and older incarcerated people who serve This team includes decision-level representatives as mentors through one of the peer support from all areas of the department and reports to an specialist programs discussed above. executive steering committee co-chaired by the • Staff Training. CDCR has been rolling out Secretary and Receiver. staff training on California Model-related Several Activities Are Being Implemented at topics, such as dynamic security and Various Prisons. Below, we provide an overview of recognizing and responding to the impacts of some of the primary activities that the department trauma. In addition, the department reports reports implementing to date. We note that some that it is in the process of adapting its 13-week of these activities build on work that had already Basic Correctional Officer Academy to reflect been under way for several years. In addition, these the California Model. activities have largely been done without requests • Normalization Efforts. CDCR reports various for additional resources. efforts to change physical spaces in prisons, • Resource Teams. Based on a model such as by incorporating more comfortable, developed in Norwegian prisons, “resource home-like furniture and bedding as well as teams” aim to reduce isolation and violence adding gardens and murals. In addition, 6 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET prisons have been encouraged to look for The California Model project and implementation opportunities to bring elements of normal life team reports that it is currently working with leaders into prison—such as graduation ceremonies, of the San Quentin advisory council to review music events, and barbeques—sometimes each of the advisory council’s recommendations inviting loved ones of incarcerated people into and identify those that have already been the prison to participate. implemented and those that will be pursued in the future. This analysis is expected to be completed Department Has Identified Certain Metrics sometime this spring. In addition, the project and to Measure California Model Impacts. The implementation team indicates that after identifying California Model planning and implementation team the recommendations that will be pursued, it plans indicates that it is tracking data related to drug to engage stakeholders at the prison—such as overdoses, self-harm, misconduct, rehabilitative rehabilitative program providers—in workgroups for program participation, and post-release connection further planning activities. services as a starting point for measuring the impacts of the California Model. The department Governor’s Proposals is expecting to see reductions in violence, use of The Governor proposes a total of $7.8 million force, and allegations of staff misconduct. General Fund and 33.6 positions in 2025-26 Governor’s San Quentin Advisory Council (increasing annually to $13 million and Recommended Changes for San Quentin 74.4 positions by 2027-28) to (1) activate the new Rehabilitation Center (SQRC). In May 2023, learning center, (2) contract with the American Job Governor Newsom convened an advisory council Center of California (AJCC), and (3) make various to recommend changes at SQRC in line with the programmatic enhancements. We discuss these California Model framework as a pilot to potentially elements of the proposal in more detail below. be scaled up. In January 2024, the advisory council Activate the New Learning Center released a report containing 44 recommendations. ($6.2 Million Ongoing by 2027-28). The proposal Many of these recommendations differ from, or go includes $3 million in 2025-26 (growing to beyond, the activities being implemented under $6.2 million in by 2027-28) to support the operation the oversight of the California Model project and of the new learning center. At full implementation, implementation team. For example, the report this would include 24.8 custody positions, 8 plant recommended single-celling the entire prison, operations positions, 5 information technology which would involve reducing the population of the positions, 2 librarian positions, and 1 position prison. It also recommended creating a new job role to support community engagement (such as by called a “community correctional officer” for select processing security clearances for volunteers to correctional officers at SQRC who apply to receive enter the prison). enhanced training in how to support rehabilitation. Contract With AJCC ($200,000 Ongoing). 2023-24 Budget Act Authorized Construction The proposal includes $200,000 ongoing to partner of a New Learning Center at SQRC. The with AJCC, which provides one-on-one career 2023-24 Budget Act authorized $360.6 million counseling and job placement assistance for (subsequently reduced to $239 million as people nearing release from prison. The proposal recommended by the advisory council) in lease assumes AJCC would assist approximately revenue bond authority for the construction of a 1,200 people at SQRC annually. new learning center at SQRC, which is expected to Make Various Programmatic Enhancements be completed in early 2026. The center will contain ($6.6 Million Ongoing by 2027-28). The proposal 28 classrooms (nearly triple the existing classroom includes $4.6 million in 2025-26 (growing to space at the prison) a library, a media center, staff $6.6 million by 2027-28) to make the following offices, a large multipurpose gathering space, a expansions to custody staffing and rehabilitative café, and a store. programming capacity: California Model Project and Implementation Team and Advisory Council Leadership Working to Identify Next Steps for SQRC. www.lao.ca.gov 7 2025-26 BUDGET • Provide Additional Custody Staff for AJCC Contract Appears Reasonable. We Existing Areas of the Prison. The proposal find that it is reasonable to contract with AJCC to includes 21.6 custody positions, which would provide job counseling and placement services at be assigned to housing units to engage with SQRC given that such services could help people residents to build trust, rapport, and help find employment after release and the cost of the them navigate rehabilitative opportunities at contract is relatively small. the prison. Administration Has Not Developed a Clear • Expand Basic and Secondary Education Plan for SQRC. As discussed above, the California Capacity. The proposal includes eight teacher Model project and implementation team—and the positions, which would allow CDCR to expand administration more broadly—is still in the process basic and secondary education capacity by of reviewing the San Quentin advisory council’s 432 students, roughly doubling capacity. recommendations to determine which ones it will • Establish Bachelor’s Degree Program. pursue. In addition, once it determines which to The proposal includes funding and two pursue, it will need to identify a clear strategy and positions to contract with a college to action plan for achieving those recommendations, establish a bachelor’s degree program many of which articulate a vision but do not specify at SQRC to serve 140 students at full the actual steps needed to achieve it. For example, implementation. This would be in addition the advisory council recommends creating a to two existing associate degree programs rehabilitation and reentry plan for every person that currently offered at SQRC. CDCR currently reflects their healthcare, education, job training, has bachelor’s degree programs at 10 other recreational, and other rehabilitative needs and prisons with a total of about 400 students. goals. To effectively pursue this goal, CDCR would need to review its existing resources and processes • Establish Electrical and Barbering/ for rehabilitation and reentry planning, determine Manicurist Training Programs. The proposal how and why they are falling short of the advisory includes two positions and funding for start-up council’s vision, and identify the specific resources costs to establish two new career technical and/or process changes that are necessary to education (CTE) programs—serving a total overcome those barriers. Moreover, while the of 54 new students—in the space that will be project and implementation team indicates it vacated by existing rehabilitative programs intends to engage key stakeholders at the prison— that are relocated to the new learning center. such as rehabilitation program providers—it has not The administration indicates that it selected yet done so. In sum, at this time, the administration electrical and barbering/manicurist programs has not (1) determined which pieces of the advisory based on employment trend data. Current council’s vision it wants to pursue; (2) prepared a CTE programs at the prison are plumbing, strategy and specific action plan to pursue that painting, and machine shop and can serve a vision; or (3) vetted the plan with key stakeholders, total of 81 students. many of whom will be critical to implementing it. Assessment Premature to Approve Remainder of Request Until SQRC Planning Process Has Been Resources to Activate New Building Appear Completed. Because the administration has not Reasonable. We find that it is reasonable to yet completed its planning process for SQRC, we provide the custody and other support staff that find that it is premature to approve the remaining would enable SQRC to activate the new learning portions of the request. Below, we discuss these center after construction is completed. Doing so portions of the request and why certain critical would allow rehabilitation programs that already pieces of planning are necessary before the exist at the prison to move into the new building Legislature can determine if they are worth pursuing designed for them and for people to begin relative to its other budget priorities. accessing the library and other common areas in the building. 8 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET • Custody Staff Not Associated With • New Bachelor’s Degree Program. The the New Learning Center. The proposal administration has not provided data showing includes 21.6 custody positions that would a demand for additional bachelor’s degree primarily be assigned to housing units to program capacity systemwide. Accordingly, engage with the population. The department it is unclear whether adding a bachelor’s has provided high-level descriptions of the degree program at SQRC would simply siphon job duties for these positions. However, it some of the roughly 400 bachelor’s degree is unclear how these staff and their duties students off of existing bachelor’s degree would fit into the administration’s overall programs at other prisons or whether it would plan for SQRC because one has not yet actually result in more bachelor’s degree been developed. For example, a portion of attainment. In addition, Mount Tamalpais these staff would be required to “collaborate College—a private accredited college based with the California Model team to support at SQRC—currently offers an associate’s rehabilitative programming, through feedback degree program and operates entirely through and observations made in the housing units.” private philanthropy. It may be possible that However, the department has not provided Mount Tamalpais College could expand any details on this California Model team, its associate’s degree capacity—or add a including who it consists of and what its bachelor’s degree program if the demand role is. The lack of clarity on these positions indeed exists—at no cost to the state. is particularly notable given that they However, because the administration has could represent a relatively high resource not yet engaged stakeholders in developing commitment if scaled up. Specifically, a specific plan, it is unclear if this option at a $3.6 million annual cost for SQRC was considered. Moreover, SQRC has many alone, this additional staffing could cost other existing nonstate-run rehabilitation around $100 million annually to implement programs. It is possible that after conducting statewide—particularly notable given the its stakeholder engagement process, it will multiyear deficits facing the state. determine that some of those programs • Basic and Secondary Education Capacity represent a higher priority for expansion than Expansion. CDCR reports that it is in the adding a new bachelor’s degree program. process of developing criteria for who will be • New Electrical and Barbering/Manicurist housed at SQRC with a focus on maximizing Training Programs. Because the policies the number of people who will be able to take that will impact the makeup of the population advantage of the enhanced rehabilitation at SQRC have not yet been finalized and the opportunities at SQRC. Accordingly, the department has not yet engaged stakeholders makeup of the population that will be housed in the planning process, it is unclear whether at SQRC is not yet clear. This makes it electrical and barbering/manicurist programs unclear whether the proposed expansion of represent the highest priority for expansion at basic and secondary education capacity is this time. needed. For example, if the makeup of the Key Questions Remain Unanswered for population shifts toward people who have the California Model as a Whole. Even after a demonstrated history of participating in the administration develops a specific plan for programs, they may be more likely to have SQRC, certain key questions will remain about the completed basic or even secondary education California Model as a whole. Without answers to by the time they reach SQRC. This is probable these questions, it is difficult for the Legislature because people are generally required to to provide oversight over the development and meet certain basic education requirements implementation of the California Model and evaluate before they can participate in some any future funding requests. We discuss these key rehabilitation programs. questions below. www.lao.ca.gov 9 2025-26 BUDGET • How Is Progression Through the Prison single-celling and richer programming will System Envisioned? Several of the activities motivate people at other prisons to make more being piloted under the California Model positive choices in the hopes of being placed are targeted toward specific populations at SQRC, then it should explain how it believes and environments within the prison system. this incentive would function. For example, For example, resource teams are typically how would people at other prisons learn of the focused on some of the most challenging benefits of SQRC? What are the intermediate populations in the highest-security positive steps and institutional responses that environments in the system. In addition, would mark someone’s pathway to SQRC? honor dorms—at least as they have been • How Would the Administration’s Vision implemented so far—seem to be focused Be Implemented? After establishing a on specific subpopulations, such as theory of action for how the California people under the age of 26. However, the Model could logically lead to its stated administration has not articulated how these goals, the administration should identify the various interventions fit together to motivate key policy changes and additional budget behavior change in a continuum through the capacity that it would need to implement prison system from admission to release. this vision. For example, if the administration Without a clear theory of action, it is difficult to aims to offer single-celling more broadly assess the overall logic of the activities being throughout the prison system, then it would pursued under the California Model and to need to articulate a specific plan to either identify any potential gaps. For example, of the expand prison capacity (which could be roughly 30,000 people released from prison very costly) or reduce the prison population annually, roughly half spend around a year or sufficiently to achieve its desired level of less in prison. A clear theory of action would single-celling. While it may be premature articulate how the California Model would for the administration to know specific better serve this large group with short stays implementation details, it should be able to and what specific outcomes we might logically articulate the broad contours of a plan at this expect to see as a result. point. If it cannot do so, this raises concerns • What Is the Role of SQRC in the Envisioned that the administration’s vision is not feasible Progression? The ongoing construction to implement. Moreover, even if the Legislature and current request for operational funding agrees with the administration’s vision, it will at SQRC are substantially more costly than want to ensure that it is comfortable with the California Model activities being implemented steps and budgetary resources that would at other prisons. Moreover, the administration be required to achieve it. Given the multiyear has indicated an intention to single-cell SQRC, deficits facing the state, it is particularly which would reduce the number of people important that the Legislature understands the that can otherwise be housed at the prison, fiscal implications of the administration’s plans thereby concentrating the richer resources so that it can weigh California Model activities at SQRC among an even smaller number of against its other budget priorities. people. Given this resource intensity, the pilot • What Would Success Look Like? Based project being developed at SQRC requires on its theory of action and high-level a higher level of scrutiny. In particular, the implementation plan, the administration should administration should be able to articulate be able to articulate how it would know if the how SQRC fits into its overall theory of action model is working as expected. Specifically, for the entire prison system and why it would the department should be able to articulate logically contribute to the administration’s how the metrics it is tracking would logically stated outcomes. For example, if the be affected by the California Model and how administration believes that access to it would know if trends in those metrics are 10 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET indeed caused by the California Model as evaluate whether metrics of staff wellness are opposed to other factors. For example, one improving. In contrast, it could make sense goal could be to reduce violence at SQRC. for state entities that already play a role in However, simply measuring the number of oversight of CDCR—such as the Office of violent incidents at SQRC before and after the Inspector General or the California State the pilot is implemented would not be a clear Auditor—to monitor implementation of or indicator of success because the department adherence to new policies. is planning to change the makeup of the population of the prison, which could affect Recommendations violence levels independently of the other Approve Resources to Activate New Learning changes being developed. In contrast, if the Center and Contract With AJCC. We recommend administration believes that SQRC will help that the Legislature approve the portions of the motivate positive behavior change throughout request to activate the new Learning Center and the system, then perhaps the degree to which contract with AJCC. This would allow existing people report actively working to earn transfer programs at the prison to begin utilizing the space to SQRC and the number that are successfully and for people preparing to reenter the community transferring there from higher-level institutions to receive career counseling and job placement could be an indicator of success. services. This would be a total of $3.2 million and • How Will Success Be Measured and 19.7 positions in 2025-26, growing annually to Evaluated? After it has a clear sense of what $6.4 million and 40.8 positions by 2027-28. success would look like under its theory of Reject Remaining Resources Unless action, the administration should develop a Administration Is Able to Provide a Clear Plan detailed plan for measuring and evaluating for SQRC Justifying Them. In view of the above whether success is being achieved. Such concerns, we recommend that the Legislature a plan would include a description of the only approve the remainder of the request if the specific data points and benchmarks that department is able to provide a complete action will be used to measure progress. To the plan for SQRC that is consistent with legislative extent certain needed data are not currently priorities and justifies the requested resources. collected, the plan would identify how Require Administration to Report on Key that data will be collected, including the Unanswered Questions. We recommend instruments or counting rules that will be that the Legislature adopt budget bill language used to gather it, the data systems that will be requiring the administration to submit a report by used to manage it, and the staff responsible January 10, 2026 that answers the key questions for doing this. In addition, such a plan would outlined above. We note that the Legislature identify who will evaluate data to assess if may want to explicitly direct the department benchmarks are being met and report on to engage with stakeholders as it develops the results. Given that the California Model answers to these questions. To the extent that the touches on many areas of the department and administration cannot fully answer these questions has wide ranging goals, an evaluation plan by January 10, 2026, the report should outline the may involve several components and entities. process for and time frame in which the questions For example, it could make sense to contract will be answered. with external researchers to survey staff and www.lao.ca.gov 11 2025-26 BUDGET INPATIENT MENTAL HEALTH BEDS Background MHCBs are in a 34-bed facility operated at the California Institute for Men (CIM) in Chino. Overview of CDCR Mental Health. All people entering the prison system are screened for CDCR Uses Other Types of Inpatient Mental mental health needs. About one-third of the prison Health Beds for Longer-Term Needs. If a patient’s population has a diagnosed mental health need. condition is stabilized in an MHCB, the patient is The mental health care provided at the prisons generally sent back to a housing unit. However, is subject to the oversight of a Special Master if the patient’s condition requires longer-term, appointed as part of the Coleman v. Newsom 24-hour care, the patient may be admitted to federal court case, which ruled in 1995 that CDCR inpatient beds designed for such care. In prison, was not providing constitutionally adequate mental these beds are operated by CDCR. However, health care. Most people in prison with a mental patients may also be placed in such beds in a health need can be treated in an outpatient setting, state hospital operated by the Department of State meaning they live in a prison housing unit and Hospitals (DSH) through a referral process. There is receive regular mental health treatment but do a total of 1,632 of these beds—1,296 in prisons and not require 24-hour care. However, under certain 336 in state hospitals. These beds are divided into circumstances, some people may require more the following two types based on the nature of the intensive treatment provided in an inpatient bed. care they provide: These inpatient beds provide intensive 24-hour care • Acute Psychiatric Programs (APPs). APPs with the goal of preparing the people to return to an provide shorter-term, intensive treatment for outpatient program. Below, we discuss the various people who show signs of a major mental types of inpatient beds provided at CDCR. illness or higher-level symptoms of a chronic CDCR Operates Mental Health Crisis Beds mental illness. Patients are supposed to be (MHCBs) to Address Shorter-Term Acute Needs. transferred to an APP within 72 hours of the If people are suffering from severe symptoms of a referral, but no more than ten days after the serious mental health need that cannot be managed referral and can generally stay up to 45 days. by an outpatient program, they are generally sent Currently, there are 489 APP beds, all of to MHCBs, which provide short-term housing and which are in state prisons. The annual cost of 24-hour care. Due to their immediate need for operating one of these beds is $300,000. treatment, people referred to MHCBs are supposed • Intermediate Care Facilities (ICFs). ICFs to be transferred to these beds within 24 hours. provide care beyond what is provided in When an MHCB is unavailable at a specific prison, CDCR outpatient programs, but are available CDCR typically transports people to another prison for longer time periods than MHCBs or with an available MHCB. Under CDCR regulations, APPs. People with lower security concerns people are not supposed to stay in MHCBs for are placed in low-custody ICFs, which are more than ten days. The annual cost of operating in dorms, while those with higher security each MHCB is around $400,000—including concerns are placed in high-custody custody staff. Currently, there are 392 MHCBs ICFs, which are in cells. There are 722 ICF at men’s prisons and 41 MHCBs at women’s beds in state prisons, 658 of which are prisons. Normally, MHCBs must be licensed by the high-custody ICF beds. In addition, there are California Department of Public Health to ensure 306 low-custody ICF beds in state hospitals compliance with minimum standards established which CDCR can refer patients to. Each ICF for patient safety and quality of care. However, bed in a state prison costs around $246,000 53 of the MHCBs in CDCR are unlicensed and are annually to operate, while those in DSH cost legally allowed to operate only due to a waiver from around $393,000 annually. the Coleman court. Most of the state’s unlicensed 12 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET The department also maintains 85 beds for CDCR Is Being Fined for Failing to Fill Mental women and people sentenced to death in state Health Positions. As part of the ongoing Coleman prisons that can be operated as either ICF or court case, CDCR has been incurring fines monthly APP beds. Additionally, there are 30 beds in state since April 2023 for failing to reduce vacancy rates hospitals that CDCR can refer women to. Due to the for five mental health classifications, which include: specific groups these beds serve, these beds are psychiatrists; psychologists; clinical social workers; costlier to operate—about $364,000 annually. recreational therapists; and medical assistants. CDCR Determines How Many Beds to Many of these positions are used to operate Operate Based on Projections and Court inpatient mental health beds. The Coleman court Requirements. The number of beds CDCR requires that each of the five classifications have a operates are a part of a court-required bed plan. vacancy rate below 10 percent otherwise the state The department determined how many beds to is fined for each classification out of compliance. operate based on projections of the mental health The state has paid over $150 million in fines so population completed by a private contractor using far, which are deposited in a special account to a methodology approved by the federal court. support staff recruitment and retention. At the time These projections are updated biannually and used of publication, CDCR is still accruing fines but the to develop a bed need study that compares the court has paused on collecting and spending the department’s mental health bed capacity with its fines due to ongoing litigation. current and projected mental health populations. Governor’s Proposal The court requires CDCR to operate at least 10 percent more beds than the projections imply Activation of Newly Constructed Mental would be needed to act as a “buffer” against Health Crisis Facility. The Governor’s budget proposes $3 million General Fund and unexpected surges in bed need. (We note that 13.4 positions in 2025-26, growing to $4.4 million the bed need study counts the 336 inpatient beds and 20.4 positions in 2026-27 and ongoing, to in state hospitals towards the prison inpatient staff the 50-bed mental health crisis facility at capacity.) CDCR cannot modify the number of beds CIM. Additionally, the 34 unlicensed beds currently without notifying the Special Master and receiving operated at CIM would be deactivated and the approval from the Coleman court. $16.4 million General Fund and 86.2 positions CDCR Is Constructing a Mental Health Crisis currently supporting these beds would be shifted Facility at CIM to Reduce Unlicensed Beds and to staff the new facility. Accordingly, CDCR would Transfer Time. Since 2017, the state has approved have a total of $19.4 million and 99.6 positions to a total of $141.1 million ($7.5 million General Fund staff the facility in 2025-26, growing to $20.8 million and $133.6 million lease revenue bond authority) to and 106.6 position in 2026-27 and ongoing. construct a 50-bed mental health crisis facility at CIM. CDCR sought the project in order to (1) replace Assessment 34 unlicensed MHCBs at CIM with licensed beds Activation of Mental Health Crisis Facility and (2) reduce the amount of time it takes to Would Increase Amount of Statewide Excess transfer people in Southern California prisons to Capacity. The underlying rationale for the newly MHCBs by adding 16 MHCBs in the region. CDCR constructed facility still remains, as it would reports that, currently, a lack of MHCBs in Southern allow the department to convert its unlicensed California forces it to transfer some people in beds to licensed beds and it would help address Southern California prisons to Central and Northern capacity limitations in the Southern California California prisons where more MHCBs are available. region, thereby reducing the number of people The project at CIM is expected to be completed in needing to be transferred to other parts of the October of 2025. state. However, while the new facility helps address regional capacity challenges, the department has excess MHCB capacity when viewed at the www.lao.ca.gov 13 2025-26 BUDGET statewide level. As shown in Figure 3, with the the May Revision. For more information, please see added capacity provided under this proposal, the “State Prison and Parole Population and Other the department will continue to have more than Biannual Adjustments” section of this brief.) enough existing capacity to meet all of its current MHCB Proposal Does Not Account for and projected needs for licensed MHCBs. CDCR Reduced Costs Related to Transfers. As needs 341 MHCBs systemwide in 2025-26, but it discussed above, the new MHCB facility would is proposing to operate 449 MHCBs—an excess likely reduce transportation costs, as fewer of 109 MHCBs (84 at men’s prisons and 25 at people in Southern California would need to be women’s prisons). Furthermore, CDCR’s MHCB transferred to beds in more northern parts of the needs are projected to decline by 25 additional state. However, the Governor’s proposal does not beds by June of 2029. Based on this projection, account for these potentially modest savings. excess capacity would rise to 134 beds. This CDCR Also Continuing to Operate Excess does not account for the increase in the prison APP and ICF Bed Capacity. As shown in Figure 4, population caused by Proposition 36, which CDCR is also operating excess capacity in other could also increase the mental health population. types of inpatient beds, including 205 APPs, However, we anticipate that even after adjusting 327 ICFs at both men’s prisons and state hospitals, for the effects of Proposition 36 there will still be 32 APP/ICF beds at women’s prisons, and 13 APP/ excess capacity. For example, if Proposition 36 ICF beds for the condemned population. Similar to increases the number of MHCBs needed by MHCBs, adjusting the population for Proposition 36 4 percent in 2025-26 (the amount the administration would somewhat reduce the amount of excess expects the measure to increase the overall capacity in these beds, but the department would population by in that year) there would still be likely still be operating significantly more inpatient 95 excess beds in 2025-26. (The bed need study, beds than needed. as well as the projections of the prison population and the effects of Proposition 36, will be updated at Figure 3 Department Has More MHCB Capacity Than Needed 500 Buffer Bed Need Needed Capacity Excess Capacity 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 2028-29 Actual Estimated Projected Note: The mental health populations do not account for impacts of Proposition 36 (2024). Therefore, the estimated number of MHCBs needed could be understated by roughly a few percentage points according to current administration projections. MHCB = Mental Health Crisis Bed. 14 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Figure 4 Department Has More Acute Psychiatric Program (APP) and Intermediate Care Facilities (ICF) Beds Than Needed 2025-26 2029 Proposed Projected Bed Excess Projected Bed Excess Capacity Need Capacity Need Capacity ICFa 1,028 702 327 667 361 APP 489 285 205 271 218 Women’s prisonsb 75 43 32 42 33 Condemned population 40 27 13 25 15 Totals 1,632 1,056 577 1,005 627 a 306 of these beds are in state hospitals. z 30 of these beds are in state hospitals. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding. Reducing Excess Capacity Would Create Direct CDCR to Seek Approval to Align Savings and Help With Court Compliance. Inpatient Bed Capacity With Updated Bed Need If the department were to reduce MHCB, APP, Study. Given that CDCR’s estimates indicate there and ICF bed capacity, we estimate that this could would be 686 excess inpatient beds—including result in annual ongoing savings ranging from tens MHCBs and other inpatient beds operated by of millions of dollars to more than $100 million, CDCR and DSH—in 2025-26, we recommend that depending on the number of actual beds that the Legislature direct CDCR to seek approval from are deactivated. The savings primarily would the Coleman court to reduce excess capacity result from the elimination of hundreds of mental as part of the May Revision. Specifically, we health positions needed to staff these beds. recommend directing CDCR to seek authorization The reductions in staffing would have the added from the Coleman court to include a proposal in effect of reducing the vacancy rate of mental health the May Revision to reduce inpatient bed capacity staff. This would help the state comply with the based on a revised bed need study. To ensure Coleman court’s order to reduce mental health excess capacity does not accumulate in future vacancies, likely allowing the state to reduce the years, we further recommend that the Legislature amount of fines that would be levied on the state. add budget bill language requiring CDCR to As such, there could be additional significant regularly seek adjustments to its inpatient mental fiscal benefits from rightsizing inpatient mental health bed capacity based on the bed need study. health bed capacity based on the projected We anticipate these changes would reduce CDCR need. As discussed earlier, CDCR would need to costs—both from operating the excess capacity notify the Special Master and receive approval and avoided fines—by potentially more than from the Coleman court to make changes in bed $100 million annually, if all the excess beds are need capacity. approved for deactivation by the Coleman court. This would not only free up General Fund resources Recommendation that could be used to address the multiyear deficits Approve Activation. We recommend approving facing the state, but could help CDCR comply the proposed activation of the CIM mental health with the Coleman court order to reduce mental crisis facility. Doing so would allow the department health vacancies. To the extent, the Coleman court to convert unlicensed MHCBs to licensed beds. denies a plan to deactivate excess bed capacity, it This could improve the quality of care provided would benefit the Legislature to understand what by the state. Furthermore, it could reduce the criteria, threshold, or buffer the state would have time it takes to transfer people from the Southern to achieve under the Coleman court in order to California region to MHCBs. deactivate some, if not all, of the excess capacity. www.lao.ca.gov 15 2025-26 BUDGET The Legislature could consider having CDCR work Direct CDCR to Account for Transportation with Special Master to produce such a report at Savings. Because the MHCB proposal did not that time. account for potential savings from transportation costs, we recommend that the Legislature also direct CDCR to include a proposal at the May Revision that accounts for such savings. SUICIDE WATCH Background overtime and other costs to absorb the remaining $9 million cost of the suicide watch workload. CDCR Provides Intensive Short-Term Separately, the biannual population adjustment Monitoring to Prevent Suicides. When a person process provides additional funding for CNA in prison is suspected of being a danger to positions based on the number of health care beds themselves, CDCR policy requires that the person CDCR operates. Some of these CNAs can also be be provided with short-term intensive monitoring. used for suicide watch, but the process does not This monitoring—referred to as suicide watch— make any specific adjustments to suicide watch is typically conducted by health care staff on a staffing based on changes in population. The one-on-one basis. Staff take shifts watching the 2024-25 budget provided CDCR with $3.8 million person up to 24-hours a day. The department General Fund and a total of 197.5 CNA positions has various positions that can perform this for suicide watch. If combined with the $9 million one-on-one monitoring, but generally starts with in costs CDCR reports it has typically absorbed for certified nursing assistants (CNAs). However, when suicide watch workload, total resources for suicide a CNA is not available, the department assigns watch in 2024-25 are about $12.8 million. other staff. These other assigned staff, such as psychiatric technicians and registered nurses, CDCR Has Experienced Notable CNA are compensated at a higher rate, making suicide Vacancy Rates for Suicide Watch, but Has watch costlier when these classifications are used. Had Success Hiring CNAs More Recently. Specifically, data provided by CDCR indicate CNAs Vacancy data reported by the department show cost about $42 per hour while the department that nearly one-third of CNA positions for suicide spends an average of about $69 per hour when watch—about 60 positions—are currently vacant. using other positions for this work. Although there have been fluctuations in vacancy rates in prior years, Figure 5 shows that the CNA CDCR Budget Includes Funding for Suicide vacancy rate has remained between 20 percent Watch. Prior to the 2017-18 budget, CDCR and 32 percent. This is relatively high compared managed suicide watch workload within its existing to the statewide vacancy rate for all employees, resources by often redirecting correctional and which was 18 percent in December 2024. These healthcare staff and using overtime. However, trends suggest that the department has struggled as suicide watch hours increased, it became to fill these positions in recent years. However, it more challenging for the department to redirect is possible that this could change going forward. resources and staff for suicide watch without For example, the department indicated that, as negatively affecting other workload. In the of January 2025, it was in the process of hiring 2017-18 budget, CDCR received $3 million ongoing 79 CNAs from one recruitment event. General Fund and 185 CNA positions for suicide watch workload. While the full cost of these position Department Consistently Overspends was around $12 million, at the time, CDCR indicated Budget. CDCR reports that, due to the frequent it could use preexisting funding in its budget for need to use positions other than CNAs for this work, they have routinely overspent their budget. 16 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET As shown in Figure 6, CDCR has spent about in greater detail in the “Inpatient Mental Health $31 million on suicide watch annually and projects Beds” section of this brief, the Coleman court is a to spend about the same in the current year, federal court that oversees the provision of mental resulting in overspending by $18.4 million. When health care in CDCR pursuant to a lawsuit known as overspending occurs, CDCR has to redirect Coleman v. Newsom.) According to the department, funding in its budget—such as savings from unfilled the identified classification could cost more than positions elsewhere in the department—to cover CNAs but would cost less than the other positions these costs. However, CDCR reports that it can no CDCR uses for suicide watch, reducing the number longer redirect this level of resources. of hours that the higher-cost positions currently CDCR Exploring Alternatives to Supplement provide. CDCR also anticipates that this additional Suicide Watch Hours. CDCR has indicated that classification would be easier to fill than CNAs. it plans to work with the Coleman court and the Governor’s Proposal California Department of Human Resources to identify a different classification for suicide watch Suicide Watch Augmentation. The Governor’s budget includes a $13.6 million General Fund that can supplement CNA positions. (As discussed augmentation in 2025-26 and ongoing to fund costs Figure 5 associated with suicide watch CDCR Certified Nursing Assistant Vacancies workload. This would bring total High for Suicide Watch budgeted resources for suicide watch to $17.4 million annually. The requested amount reflects that 35% CDCR reports it can continue to 30 absorb $9 million on an ongoing basis as well as an additional 25 $5 million of suicide watch workload—for a total of $14 million 20 annually. As such, the total 15 resources for suicide watch would be $31 million on an ongoing basis. 10 Notably, CDCR is not requesting 5 additional positions. Instead, the requested funds would largely pay for using more costly positions 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 Estimated when CNAs are unavailable. CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Figure 6 CDCR Consistently Spends More Than Budgeted on Suicide Watch (In Millions) 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 2024-25a Authorized expendituresb $12.9 $12.8 $12.8 $12.8 $12.8 Actual expenditures 30.3 31.6 29.2 33.7 31.2 Difference -$17.4 -$18.8 -$16.4 -$20.9 -$18.4 a Estimated. b Includes $9 million in costs that the department has historically absorbed. CDCR = California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. www.lao.ca.gov 17 2025-26 BUDGET Assessment approve the proposal on a one-time basis. However, the ongoing costs of suicide watch are Proposed Funding May Be More Than still uncertain as there are reasons to think it might Needed… Under the Governor’s proposal, CDCR decline in the future—particularly if CDCR takes would receive an ongoing amount of funding that steps we recommend below to reduce costs. reflects the costs of redirecting more expensive Limiting the funding to one-time would give the positions to suicide watch. However, there are a Legislature a natural opportunity to reassess couple of reasons to think the full $13.6 million the ongoing level of funding needed for suicide requested by CDCR might not be necessary to watch as part of the 2026-27 budget process, and pay the future costs of suicide watch. First, CDCR allow the department time over the next year to reports hiring 79 CNAs in a single hiring event in implement the steps we recommend below. January 2025 as mentioned above. This suggests CDCR is experiencing greater success in reducing Direct CDCR to Take Steps to Reduce Costs the CNA vacancy rate, which would reduce the cost of Suicide Watch. In order to reduce the costs of of suicide watch. For example, if CDCR successfully suicide watch and more closely track changes in fills all of its vacant CNA position, these lower-cost workload, we recommend the Legislature direct positions could reduce the annual cost of suicide CDCR to take the following steps: watch by about $2.8 million. Second—even if CDCR • Continue Efforts to Fill CNA Vacancies. cannot maintain its success in recruiting CNAs— As noted above, if the department was costs could be lower if the department is successful fully staffed it could provide more suicide in its efforts to identify a classification that is watch hours at a lower cost. As a result, we easier to fill and has a lower cost than some of the recommend the Legislature direct CDCR positions that are currently used. to continue to make efforts to fill the vacant …And Would Not Adjust to Changes in positions. The recent success in hiring CNAs Suicide Watch Workload. Currently—and under suggests the department may be successful in the Governor’s proposal—CDCR receives more reducing the number of vacant CNA positions or less a set amount of funding for suicide watch for suicide watch. irrespective of changes in the size of the population. • Create Alternative Classification for However, it is possible that suicide watch hours Suicide Watch. We recommend that could increase or decrease in the future with the Legislature direct CDCR to create an changes in the prison population. For example, data alternative position classification for suicide published by CDCR show that nearly two-thirds of watch that can supplement the use of CNAs suicide decedents had a mental health designation for this workload to the extent it cannot hire in 2023, and nearly 90 percent in 2022. To the a sufficient number of CNAs to fully address extent there are changes in the population at risk this workload. CDCR should strive to identify of suicide, it could drive changes in suicide watch a classification that is both (1) lower cost than workload. If the number of suicide watch hours the average the department has historically needed declines, then the department would be spent per hour on suicide watch by using overfunded for these services. On the other hand, other positions and (2) easier to recruit if the number of suicide watch hours were to than CNAs. increase, CDCR would be underfunded and likely • Direct CDCR to Develop a be forced to use higher-cost positions rather than Population-Driven Budgeting Methodology CNAs because of its limited position authority. for Suicide Watch. We recommend the Legislature direct CDCR to develop a Recommendation budgeting methodology for suicide watch Approve One-Time Funding. Because that accounts for changes in the population suicide watch is critical to patient safety and the that drive suicide watch hours. For example, department has struggled to fill these positions CDCR could annually estimate its need for in recent years, we recommend the Legislature suicide watch based on the projected size 18 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET of the overall population and/or portions of positions and data on the effectiveness of these the population that are likely to contribute to strategies; (2) what classifications it is considering suicide watch workload—such as people in to use for suicide watch as an alternative to prison with identified mental health needs. CNAs, the rationale for using such classifications, This would ensure the annual resources for whether it continues to need an alternative to suicide watch are more closely tied to the CNAs for suicide watch, and when it expects a new department’s needs—an especially important classification could be deployed; and (3) details consideration given that the projected decline on a population-based budgeting methodology. in the population will likely drive a decline in This report should be provided to the Legislature suicide watch workload. no later than January 10, 2026. This would allow the Legislature to consider the report as it is To help the Legislature ensure that CDCR is determining the ongoing funding level for suicide making adequate progress on these steps, we watch as part of the 2026-27 budget process. recommend directing the department to report on (1) the strategies it is using to fill vacant CNA PAROLE COMMUNITY REHABILITATION PROGRAMS BACKGROUND paired with other services—or as programs that participants attend for a period of time during the People on Parole Receive Services day. These programs can last for months. For Through CDCR-Funded Rehabilitation example, many last for up to 180 days but can be extended for an additional 185 days. Within these Programs programs, people can receive various services Certain People Released From Prison Are such as substance use disorder (SUD) treatment, Supervised by CDCR on Parole. When people case management, sex offender treatment, and are released from prison, they are generally employment assistance. The revised 2024-25 supervised in the community for a period of time— budget includes $233.9 million total funds for these usually between one to two years. While some of programs, including $191.1 million from the General these people are supervised by county probation Fund. Below, we provide details on some of the key departments, people convicted of a serious or programs offered to people on parole. violent offense are generally supervised by state parole agents. Alongside supervision, the state • Specialized Treatment for Optimized provides people on parole with access to a variety Programming (STOP) Provides SUD of rehabilitation services in order to successfully Treatment and Housing. STOP is a reintegrate them into the community. As noted in CDCR-funded program that provides a the “State Prison and Parole Population and Other range of services to people on parole, but Biannual Adjustments” section of this brief, CDCR primarily focuses on various types of SUD projects there to be an average daily population of treatment. These include residential and about 34,700 people on parole in 2025-26. outpatient services but exclude Medication Assisted Treatment (MAT). (MAT combines CDCR Uses Contracts to Provide SUD treatment services—such as cognitive Rehabilitation Services to People on Parole. behavioral therapy, a type of therapy CDCR funds a number of different rehabilitation which helps change negative patterns of programs for people on parole throughout the behavior—with medications designed to state. These services are generally provided by reduce the likelihood of people relapsing contractors. Programs are structured as either while undergoing treatment.) CDCR currently residential programs that provide housing—typically www.lao.ca.gov 19 2025-26 BUDGET has agreements with nonprofit and private State Has Started Providing Cost-of-Living contractors that administer STOP in six Increases for Some Providers. As discussed in regions throughout the state. These regional our publication The 2023-24 Budget: Considering STOP contractors (1) pay local STOP Inflation’s Effects on State Programs, inflation can network providers to deliver services through erode the quantity and quality of state services, subcontracts, (2) connect people with these such as service obtained through contracts. providers, and (3) conduct oversight of the For example, CDCR has indicated that in recent services provided. In 2024, the STOP network years there has been a lack of providers willing to provided services to about 8,600 people bid on expired CDCR contracts because contract on parole. rates did not have cost-of-living increases built • Day Reporting Centers (DRCs) Connect into them, meaning they have not kept up with People to Various Services. DRCs offer increased costs resulting from inflation. It is a “one-stop shop” for people on parole to possible that, rather than providing service to be connected to various nonresidential the state, these providers are instead servicing services, some of which are offered on site. others, such as people referred by counties and The programs generally focus on addressing private individuals. CDCR reports this has made it factors that might contribute to future criminal difficult to continue to provide services. To address activity such as anger management, but this, the 2024-25 budget provided several parole also have a limited ability to connect people rehabilitation programs whose contracts were set with transitional housing. There are 17 DRCs to expire with a $2.3 million General Fund increase throughout California that served about in 2024-25 and an ongoing 2 percent annual 4,500 people in 2023-24. cost-of-living increase thereafter. This funding provided cost-of-living increases specifically to five • Long-Term Offender Reentry and Recovery DRCs and six LTORR programs. (LTORR) Provides Housing and Services. LTORR programs are substance-free, People on Parole Can Receive Certain residential programs that provides housing, Services Outside of CDCR-Funded meals, and various services. The services Programs generally focus on the needs of people that have served long prison sentences such as Medi-Cal SUD Treatment Programs Are employment and computer-supported literacy. Available to Treat People on Parole. Some There are 14 LTORR programs throughout people on parole—particularly those receiving California that served about 1,700 people MAT—receive SUD treatment services outside in 2023-24. of CDCR’s contracts. Usually, these services are • Returning Home Well (RHW) Program funded through Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid Provides Housing Services on a program, which provides health care coverage for Limited-Term Basis. The 2022-23 budget low-income Californians and is overseen by the included $10.6 million annually for three state Department of Health Care Services (DHCS). years for the RHW program to provide Medi-Cal SUD treatment services are administered emergency transitional housing services to locally by county behavioral health departments. people on parole. To implement the program, Under the Medi-Cal billing structure, counties STOP contracts were amended to include receive a fee-for-service reimbursement for additional housing-only services. The RHW behavioral health services based on an established program serves people for a maximum of fee schedule. Counties then negotiate payment 180 days or 6 months. In 2023-24, the RHW terms and rates for the provision of services with program served a total of about 1,500 people. providers. Federal reimbursements rates range The department is required to submit a report from 50 percent to 90 percent depending on by March 1, 2026 that presents metrics and various factors such as income, services received, outcomes associated with the program. and whether the person has dependent children. 20 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Most people being released from prison qualify GOVERNOR’S PROPOSAL for Medi-Cal and are therefore eligible for these Build in Inflation Adjustments to Parole services. CDCR screens people before release Rehabilitation Program Funding. The Governor’s and, as of 2023-24, submits Medi-Cal applications budget proposes $32 million General Fund in for about 83 percent of people released, while the 2025-26, $34.6 million in 2026-27, $37.3 million in remainder did not have applications submitted 2027-28, $40.1 million in 2028-29, $42.9 million for various reasons, such as having access to in 2029-30, and ongoing increases annually other insurance or refusing service. Between thereafter to reduce the impact of inflation on parole July 2023 and June 2024 (the most recent data rehabilitation programs. This consists of (1) a roughly available), Medi-Cal applications were submitted 30 percent one-time catch-up adjustment and (2) an for about 24,900 people who were released. ongoing 2 percent annual cost-of-living increase Of these applicants, about 20,100 (81 percent) were for two DRCs, six LTORR programs, and all STOP approved, 35 (less than 1 percent) were denied, contracts. The one-time catch-up adjustment is and the remaining 4,800 (16 percent) were pending calculated based on when the service was first at the time of release. provided in each county and the cost-of-living State Is Expanding Housing Services Offered increases that have occurred in that area since. The Through Medi-Cal. The California Advancing and administration is proposing this catch-up adjustment Innovating Medi-Cal (CalAIM) initiative is a large set because the department has not increased of reforms in Medi-Cal to expand access to new funding in previous years for these contracts and and existing services and streamline how services is concerned that it will not receive any bidders are arranged and paid. Under CalAIM, DHCS has on these contracts as previously happened at two been implementing two new Medi-Cal benefits locations with expired contracts. Of the total: targeted at the subset of Medi-Cal beneficiaries • $3.7 million in 2025-26 (increasing to with the most complex care needs. These complex $5.1 million by 2029-30 and growing annually care needs include issues related to homelessness. thereafter) would be allocated to the DRCs and Notably, several housing-related services—such LTORR programs. as housing navigation services and term-limited • $28.3 million in 2025-26 (increasing to payments for housing (such as for security $37.8 million by 2029-30 and growing deposits or first month’s rent)—are included annually thereafter) would be allocated to in CalAIM as optional benefits and have been STOP contracts. implemented by at least one Medi-Cal managed care plan in all 58 counties. (Over 90 percent of Extend Funding for RHW Program for Medi-Cal beneficiaries are enrolled in Medi-Cal Additional Two Years and Add Services. managed care plans, which are responsible for The Governor’s budget also includes $12.9 million arranging and paying for most Medi-Cal services General Fund in 2025-26 and 2026-27 to extend on behalf of their members.) Recently, DHCS RHW for an additional two years and add services received federal approval to provide transitional not currently provided, such as SUD treatment rent to eligible Medi-Cal members and draw down assessment and programming. This consists of federal funding. The transitional rent service $10.6 million in each year to maintain the existing covers up to six months of rent for certain people housing program and $2.3 million to support including those transitioning into the community additional nonhousing services for the RHW from correctional facilities or transitioning from population, such as services related to SUD homelessness. The benefit will be mandatory treatment and anger management. The department to provide for certain beneficiaries beginning indicates that the additional services are necessary January 2026, and mandatory for all eligible people because people in the RHW program have an beginning January 2027—though these services assessed need for these services. The STOP can be offered now. Similar to Medi-Cal SUD network, which already provides the housing treatment, between 50 percent and 90 percent of services, would provide the additional services as the cost of these services will be covered by federal well. Absent the proposal, funding for the program reimbursements. would expire June 30, 2024. www.lao.ca.gov 21 2025-26 BUDGET ASSESSMENT and whether some are more cost-effective than others. As such, it is difficult for the Legislature to Inflation Increases Appear Reasonable assess which programs are the most successful at for Parole Rehabilitation Programs reducing recidivism and to target funding towards those programs. Cost-of-living increases for parole rehabilitation programs appear reasonable because it could Current Structure of STOP Makes It mitigate the erosion of the quantity and quality of Costlier to State and Potentially Less services that can be caused by inflation. Because Effective costs have increased due to inflation in recent years, it is plausible that providers are less willing Medi-Cal SUD Treatment Has Advantages to extend their existing contracts. In addition, other Over CDCR’s SUD Treatment for People on providers that don’t already offer these services Parole. In our publication Improving Parolee (1) may be less willing to do so, (2) would do so Substance Use Disorder Treatment Through by providing lower-quality services, or (3) would Medi-Cal, we found that SUD treatment provided provide services to fewer people. This trend would through Medi-Cal has several advantages over make it difficult for CDCR to find quality providers CDCR-funded SUD treatment. Specifically, and ensure people on parole receive rehabilitation Medi-Cal-funded SUD treatment (1) provides care programming. For example, CDCR reports it was based on medical necessity, (2) allows care to not successful in obtaining bids for DRC and continue beyond parole, and (3) makes greater LTORR contracts that had been set to expire at utilization of federal funding—all of which the the end of 2023-24, which were advertised at the existing parole SUD treatment structure under same or similar rates to the prior contracts for these STOP does not do. In addition, nearly all Medi-Cal services. The department reported that the 2024-25 enrollees in the state receive comprehensive SUD funding increases for those contracts appear to treatment services modeled after the American have allowed it to successfully obtain contractors Society for Addiction Medicine Criteria. These for some of these services, though the contracting findings indicate that the state is operating a parole process is still ongoing. SUD treatment system that is potentially less effective and costlier than Medi-Cal’s existing SUD Parole Rehabilitation Programs treatment structure. Have Not Been Evaluated for STOP Report Suggests Many CDCR-Funded Cost-Effectiveness Providers Either Already Are Medi-Cal Licensed Ensuring that programs are cost-effective Providers or Are Interested in Becoming So. In helps ensure that the state is allocating its limited December 2024, CDCR surveyed over 80 STOP resources for rehabilitation programs in a manner network providers on the feasibility of becoming that has the maximum effect on people successfully Medi-Cal licensed providers. This would be completing their parole terms and not committing necessary for these providers to give Medi-Cal additional crime. Accordingly, to the extent that funded care to people on parole. Over half of the state is not allocating its resources to the most the respondents indicated that they are in the cost-effective programs, it is potentially allowing process or would like to become Medi-Cal licensed more crime to occur than would otherwise be providers. The survey findings are encouraging in the case. Although some metrics exist about that they indicate a willingness from providers to participants, the department generally lacks robust leverage Medi-Cal SUD treatment. To the extent evaluations of the actual cost-effectiveness of these providers are able to become Medi-Cal its parole rehabilitation programs. This makes it licensed providers and CDCR is able to successfully difficult for the department to determine which refer people on parole to them, it could improve rehabilitation programs are cost-effective, whether the quality of care and reduce state costs. The there are potential obstacles or challenges CDCR report did, however, outline challenges preventing them from operating cost-effectively, STOP network providers cited in transitioning to 22 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Medi-Cal. For example, some providers indicated RECOMMENDATION they had not pursued Medi-Cal licensure due to not knowing how to apply, administrative burdens, and Require CDCR to Increase Utilization of cumbersome certification requirements. The report Medi-Cal for Parole SUD Treatment and also suggests that some of these challenges could Require Evaluation be addressed through technical assistance. Require CDCR to Increase Utilization of Ongoing Need for RHW Unclear Medi-Cal for Parole SUD Treatment. In order to capitalize on the advantages of Medi-Cal-funded Lack of RHW Report Makes It Difficult to SUD treatment programs for people on parole Assess Effectiveness of Program. Because the and the willingness of some providers to become report on the metrics and outcomes associated Medi-Cal licensed providers, we recommend a with RHW will not be available until March of series of steps to increase the utilization of these 2026, it is difficult for the Legislature to assess programs for people on parole. These steps are whether the program merits ongoing funding. outlined in detail in our report Improving Parolee For example, the department is expected to report Substance Use Disorder Treatment Through on return-to-prison rates, reconviction rates, Medi-Cal. Below, we provide a summary of and housing status after leaving the program for these steps, which would improve the quality of RHW participants. Without such information, it is parole SUD treatment while allowing the state to difficult to know whether the program is effective draw down additional federal funding in place of at reducing crime or homelessness among those state funding. exiting prison. • Connect All People on Parole With Under CalAIM, Medi-Cal Could Provide Medically Appropriate SUD Treatment. Similar Services as RHW, Potentially at a We recommend the Legislature require CDCR Lower State Cost. As discussed above, under to refer all people on parole with a medical CalAIM, Medi-Cal managed care plans are starting need for SUD treatment to Medi-Cal licensed to provide housing services targeted to those providers in the community. This process at risk of homelessness and those transitioning should be facilitated by the fact that CDCR from incarceration, which would include people already screens people for medical SUD on parole. This means the program targets a treatment needs and helps people submit very similar population as RHW. For example, Medi-Cal applications while they are in prison. under CalAIM, Medi-Cal already provides housing services—such as housing deposit support—to • Require STOP Network Providers Become high-risk, high-need populations. Moreover, Medi-Cal Providers and Ensure Continuity Medi-Cal managed care plans will eventually be of Care. We recommend that the Legislature required to provide access to six-month transitional direct CDCR to require all STOP network housing rental assistance to eligible populations, providers to become Medi-Cal licensed including people on parole. To the extent people on providers and require that STOP network parole receive these services, the state could draw providers continue services after people down federal funds for those that are Medi-Cal are discharged from parole. This would help eligible, potentially resulting in lower state costs ensure that people on parole receive medically than providing these services through RHW. appropriate SUD treatment based on their needs during and after parole. • Structure Funding to Streamline Billing and Reduce Workload. We recommend requiring STOP network providers to submit their expenditures for reimbursement using the existing Medi-Cal billing structure. This would eliminate the need for funding for www.lao.ca.gov 23 2025-26 BUDGET services provided to people on parole to To address this, we recommend that the Legislature pass through the regional STOP contractors. direct the department to partner with external Instead, this process would require that STOP researchers to evaluate parole SUD treatment network providers submit their expenditures following the changes discussed above. This for reimbursement to counties who would then could result in some modest additional one-time submit their expenditures to DHCS for either costs for the department that would likely be far state or federal reimbursement. This approach outweighed by the savings that would be achieved would also prevent STOP network providers from increasing the use of Medi-Cal for parole from needing to bill both CDCR and counties. SUD treatment. • Ensure Costs Are Not Shifted to Counties Reevaluate Ongoing Need and Nonreimbursable Services Maintained. For RHW Proposal Under our recommendations above, there could be costs shifted to counties—especially Consider Approving Funding on One-Year for STOP services that are not covered Basis. To the extent RHW remains a legislative through Medi-Cal and portions of costs priority, we recommend the Legislature modify that the federal government does not pay. the proposal by funding it on a one-year basis To ensure such costs are not shifted to instead of two. In March 2026, the Legislature counties and nonreimbursable STOP services expects to receive more information about RHW are maintained, the Legislature could direct implementation, including preliminary rates at DHCS to pass those costs to CDCR. which people in the program recommit crimes. With this information, the Legislature will be in a Under this structure, most expenditures on better position to revisit the RHW funding level as parole SUD treatment would shift from CDCR to it deliberates on the 2026-27 budget. Medi-Cal. As such, CDCR would eventually no Modify RHW Reporting Requirement to longer need the full $98 million (General Fund) Require Assessment of Using Medi-Cal for currently proposed for STOP in 2025-26, which Housing Services. In light of the availability of includes the $28.3 million cost-of-living increase housing assistance programs under CalAIM, we requested for these services. While this would recommend that Legislature modify the RHW increase Medi-Cal costs, it would allow for federal reporting requirement to mandate that CDCR reimbursements for a significant portion of the cost (in consultation with DHCS) also include an analysis of parole SUD treatment service. We estimate this of the viability of relying on Medi-Cal rather than could generate low to mid tens of millions of dollars RHW for housing people on parole. Under this in net General savings annually. approach, CDCR would connect people on parole Provide Requested STOP Funding on a to Medi-Cal providers in the community that Limited-Term Basis to Allow for Transition. We can help them receive housing services rather acknowledge that it would take time to implement than using RHW. In the report, CDCR should, at our recommendations highlighted above. As a minimum, provide information on the relative state result, we recommend funding the portion of the cost of relying on Medi-Cal versus RHW and what Governor’s proposal related to STOP ($28.3 million) the pros and cons of RHW and Medi-Cal funded for at least one year. This would provide CDCR, services are. This would allow the Legislature to DHCS, counties, and the STOP network providers assess whether RHW merits separate ongoing time to implement our recommendations. funding or if CDCR can instead rely Medi-Cal to Direct CDCR to Contract for Evaluation of provide housing services to people on parole at a Restructured Parole SUD Treatment Programs. lower state cost. As discussed above, parole rehabilitation programs—including parole SUD treatment—have not been evaluated for cost-effectiveness, making it is difficult to know whether the programs are achieving the goals at the lowest possible cost. 24 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET Fund Remaining Programs on a to be restructured to be effective. We recommend Limited-Term Basis and Require this evaluation be provided to the Legislature no later than January 10, 2029 to provide the external Evaluation evaluator time to complete the review. Require Evaluation of DRC and LTORR. Provide Funding on Limited-Term Basis Given that DRCs and LTORR programs have Pending Results of Evaluation. To maintain these not been evaluated for cost-effectiveness, we programs in operation while the evaluation is being recommend that the Legislature direct CDCR to carried out, we recommend providing three years partner with external researchers to do so. Such an of the proposed increases in funding for DRCs and evaluation could result in modest one-time costs LTORR programs ($3.7 million in 2025-26, $4 million to CDCR that would likely be absorbable, though in 2026-27, and $4.4 million in 2028-29). This would the Legislature could work with the department allow the Legislature to review the evaluation as to determine whether dedicated funding is part of its deliberations during the 2029-30 budget necessary. We think that the modest costs to the process, at which point it could consider whether state would be justified, as the evaluation would to provide ongoing funding for these DRCs and allow the Legislature to determine whether these LTORR programs. programs—totaling over roughly $40 million in annual spending—merit continued support or need AIR COOLING PILOT PROGRAM Background medications) or have other health conditions (such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes) that impair Many Prisons Experience High Summer their body’s temperature control system. Risk of Temperatures and Lack Adequate Cooling. heat-related illnesses also increases as humidity Many of the state’s prisons are located in areas rises. Moreover, use of portable electric fans in that experience high summer temperatures, certain hot conditions can speed the onset of including the eastern and southeastern deserts, heat-related illnesses by blowing hot air on the Central Valley, Antelope Valley, and Inland Empire. body and increasing the heat stress that the body CDCR has traditionally used evaporative cooling (a must respond to. In addition to its direct risks to system that cools air through evaporation of water, health, heat may also limit productivity (such as in sometimes called a “swamp cooler”) for the majority education classes) and some studies indicate it is of housing areas. These systems were designed correlated with violence and self-harm. to keep indoor temperatures under 89 degrees Fahrenheit, though the department reports that its CDCR Has Various Heat-Related Policies. existing systems are not always capable of meeting CDCR has various policies intended to mitigate even this standard. some of the negative effects of heat. For example, when indoor temperatures reach 90 degrees, staff High Heat Poses Health and Other Risks for initiate cooling and hydration procedures such as People Who Live and Work in Prisons. In hotter cool showers and misting and perform increased temperatures, the body must work harder to cool observation of people with health conditions that itself. When the body’s temperature control system make them particularly sensitive to heat. cannot do so, significant physiological problems can occur—such as fainting, nausea, muscle CDCR Is Likely to Face Requirements to cramps, damage to vital organs, and in extreme Limit Indoor Heat in Prisons. In July 2024, the cases, death. These problems can set in more Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board quickly for people who take medications (such as (OSHSB) approved a regulation requiring employers diuretics, antihistamines, and many mental health to take steps to protect workers from heat when indoor temperatures reach 82 degrees Fahrenheit, www.lao.ca.gov 25 2025-26 BUDGET with additional requirements when temperatures Assessment reach 87 degrees Fahrenheit. Local and state Piloting Cooling Options Makes Sense. In view correctional facilities were exempted from these of the health and other risks posed by indoor heat regulations. However, OSHSB is in the process as well as the likelihood that the state will face of developing an industry-specific regulation for requirements related to indoor heat in prisons, workers in local and state correctional facilities. it makes sense to proactively begin addressing In addition, plaintiffs in an ongoing class action the issue. In addition, piloting alternatives in four lawsuit related to prison medical care (known common housing unit design types is a reasonable as Plata v. Newsom) have expressed concerns step to inform a broader statewide strategy. about extreme heat, suggesting that heat-related Department Has Not Provided a Detailed litigation is possible. Plan to Evaluate Success. The department has not provided a detailed plan for how it would Governor’s Proposal evaluate success in the pilot. For example, it has Install and Evaluate Three Options for not described its plan for measuring temperature, Cooling in Four Types of Housing Units. The such as whether it would use sensors located Governor proposes $23.6 million in 2025-26 and throughout housing units that continuously measure $45.4 million in 2026-27 from the General Fund for and transmit data or whether it would depend a pilot program to install and evaluate three options on staff to manually read and log temperatures. to reduce indoor temperature in certain housing The department has also not specified the data to units at the Central California Women’s Facility in which it will compare the pilot sites. For example, it Chowchilla; California Medical Facility in Vacaville; is unclear if it would compare pilot housing units to Kern Valley State Prison in Delano; and California their own interior temperatures from previous years State Prison, Los Angeles County in Lancaster. or if it would compare pilot housing units to data Specifically, the pilot would test: (1) mechanical collected from other housing units over the same cooling (such as air conditioning) only, (2) exterior time period. thermal insulation only, and (3) mechanical cooling Systemwide Implementation Could Present plus thermal insulation. These options would be Significant Challenges. While the exact scope of installed in four different housing unit design types the problem is not clear, it seems likely that meeting that are common throughout the prison system. the 79 degree goal statewide could be a major The department reports that it identified the cooling undertaking. Specifically, we find that statewide options through an engineering study of the existing implementation could present the following infrastructure in these four housing unit types and significant challenges: what modifications would be capable of maintaining interior temperatures below 79 degrees Fahrenheit. • High Cost. The department has not Based on this study, the department is expecting developed a cost estimate or time line to mechanical cooling and mechanical cooling plus scale up air cooling because it intends to use insulation to meet this temperature goal. It expects the results of the pilot to inform its statewide thermal insulation alone to provide temperature strategy. However, our rough estimates reductions but acknowledges that it is not expected suggest that the one-time installation costs to meet the 79 degree threshold. However, because to cool facilities statewide could total in the insulation is relatively quicker and less expensive low billions of dollars. In addition, operation of to install than mechanical cooling, the department mechanical cooling systems would increase considers it worth piloting. CDCR expects ongoing utility costs. The department’s installation for the pilot to be completed in 2028-29 engineering study estimates that the addition and intends to use the findings to inform a plan to of mechanical cooling for facilities that cool facilities statewide. previously have only included evaporative cooling will increase annual energy costs by $77,000 to $141,000 annually per building. 26 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET If scaled up statewide, we estimate that the and upgrade it. However, to make this decision, increase in CDCR’s energy costs could be in the Legislature would need information about the tens of millions of dollars annually. the condition of the infrastructure and estimated • Additional Strain on Project Planning and costs and time lines to address it. In addition, Management Capacity. The potentially the Legislature needs information about what high cost of installing air cooling statewide other strategies—besides major infrastructure would be in addition to the roughly $1.5 billion modifications—CDCR is considering to mitigate in other infrastructure projects that CDCR heat. This is important because the pilot will estimates it will need to pursue over the next not be completed until 2028-29 and statewide decade to address issues related to safety implementation could take many years more. (such as replacement of fire suppression Accordingly, interim strategies to address heat are systems) and critical infrastructure (such as essential to mitigating health and litigation risks in kitchen renovations). Accordingly, introduction the near term. of air cooling projects alone could potentially Recommendation double the volume of projects over this time period. This would put additional strain on Approve Pilot. Given the health risks of extreme heat, the risks of heat-related litigation, CDCR’s project planning and management and the reasonable approach to testing various capacity, which is concerning given that air cooling alternatives proposed by the Governor, effective project planning and management is we recommend approving the proposed air important for ensuring projects are completed cooling pilot. in an efficient and timely manner. Require CDCR to Provide Evaluation and • Operational Considerations Could Limit Implementation Speed. CDCR indicates Statewide Strategy by January 10, 2031. We recommend that the Legislature adopt trailer bill that installation of mechanical cooling could language requiring CDCR to provide an evaluation cause operational disruptions to housing units of the pilot by January 10, 2031 (a full year and during construction, though the details cannot a few months after the installation of the air be determined until design is complete. cooling projects at the pilot sites is expected to To the extent people need to be relocated be completed). To inform this trailer bill, we also to other housing units during construction, recommend directing CDCR to provide during this would limit the number of projects that spring 2025 budget hearings a clear plan for how can be ongoing at any given time. This is it will evaluate success in the proposed pilot. because the more housing units that are In addition to the evaluation, the department under construction at a given time, the more should submit in the January 10, 2031 report a people will become concentrated in the recommended statewide strategy for scaling air remaining housing units. Accordingly, to avoid cooling in a timely and efficient manner. To the overcrowding, the department would likely extent the strategy would involve deactivating have to pursue statewide implementation in housing units while air cooling is being installed, several construction stages, which could take the report should discuss how CDCR would many years to complete. manage the impact to the prison population and Legislature Needs Additional Information to employees. In addition, the report should include Provide Ongoing Oversight. Given the serious consideration of options to expedite construction. health risks posed by extreme heat in prisons Require CDCR to Provide an Interim Report and the significant challenges that could come by January 10, 2026 With Information Necessary with systemwide implementation of air cooling, it for Legislative Oversight. We recommend is important that the Legislature has information that the Legislature adopt budget bill language necessary to provide oversight going forward. requiring CDCR to report by January 10, 2026 on For example, it might make more sense to close, or the following: even rebuild, a prison with particularly significant infrastructure problems rather than pay to repair www.lao.ca.gov 27 2025-26 BUDGET • Systemwide Monitoring. The report • Plan for Nontypical Housing Units. should discuss the administration’s current For those housing units that are not one of capabilities and/or plans to collect statewide the four common design types included in data on temperature, humidity, and the the pilot, the report should discuss the steps availability of electric fans in housing units as CDCR has taken and/or plans to take (such as well as other areas of prisons that may also conducting additional engineering studies) to require cooling, such as kitchens. Such data identify cooling options for them. would be useful for CDCR and the Legislature • Other Heat Mitigation Strategies. The in determining how to prioritize deployment report should discuss other policies and/or of future cooling interventions. For example, if practices CDCR has adopted or is considering fans are not authorized in certain units due to to mitigate the effects of indoor heat in the security reasons or physical plant limitations, near term. For example, these may include it could make sense to prioritize these units to using portable air conditioning units, changing receive mechanical cooling. lightbulbs to LED, reducing humidity (such as • Status of Existing Infrastructure. For each by ensuring showers are properly ventilated), housing unit in the state, the report should painting roofs to reflect solar radiation, indicate (1) their design type, (2) their existing modifying summer uniforms, creating cooling air cooling infrastructure (if any), and (3) how centers, or changes to policies for monitoring many days they exceeded 78 degrees over the and responding to heat-related illnesses. past year (or similar available data). In particular, the report should include a discussion of policies around electric fan usage, given that they can be helpful in some circumstances but increase risk of heat-related illness in others. 28 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET APPENDIX Appendix Figure 1 Summary of LAO Recommendations Issue Governor’s Proposal LAO Recommendation State Prison and Parole The budget estimates that Proposition 36 (2024), Direct the California Department of Corrections Population and Other which increased punishment for various theft and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to address certain Biannual Adjustments and drug crimes, will cause the average daily flaws in its estimates, which likely cause it to be prison population to be about 570 higher over budgeted by millions of dollars in 2024-25 (1 percent) than otherwise in 2024-25 and 3,300 and tens of millions of dollars in 2025-26, and higher (4 percent) in 2025-26. It estimates that adjust its funding requests at the May Revision Proposition 36 will not impact the average daily accordingly. parole population in 2024-25 but will cause the population to be about 360 higher (or 1 percent) than otherwise in 2025-26. San Quentin Rehabilitation $7.8 million in 2025-26 (growing to $13 million While it is reasonable to activate the new Center (SQRC) and the by 2027-28) from the General Fund for SQRC learning center, most of the remainder of the California Model to activate a new learning center and make request is premature and we recommend other programmatic enhancements (such as rejecting it unless the administration is able establishing a new bachelor’s degree program). to provide a clear plan for SQRC. In addition, The proposal is part of a systemwide effort to we recommend requiring the administration to develop the “California Model,” which is broadly produce a report that answers a variety of key intended to reduce recidivism and improve the questions that remain unanswered about the health and wellness of people who live and California Model. work in prison. Inpatient Mental Health $3 million General Fund in 2025-26 (growing to Approve activation of the facility. Direct CDCR to Beds $4.4 million in 2026-27 and ongoing) to activate seek approval from the Coleman federal court a newly constructed, licensed, 50-bed mental to align inpatient bed capacity with updated health crisis facility at the California Institution population projections and to account for for Men in Chino. transportation savings. These changes could reduce CDCR costs by more than $100 million annually if all the excess beds are deactivated. Suicide Watch $13.6 million General Fund in 2025-26 and Approve one-time funding. Direct CDCR to take ongoing for suicide watch workload. the following steps to reduce costs of suicide watch: (1) continue efforts to fill Certified Nursing Assistant suicide watch vacancies, (2) create an alternative classification for this work, and (3) direct CDCR to develop a population-driven budgeting methodology. Parole Community $44.9 million General Fund in 2025-26 (generally Approve the proposed funding on a limited-term Rehabilitation Programs increasing annually thereafter) for various parole basis and require CDCR to take steps to rehabilitation programs. increase utilization of Medi-Cal for some of these programs, which could improve them while reducing state costs. Direct CDCR to evaluate all of these programs to determine whether they merit continued support or need to be restructured to be effective. Air Cooling Pilot Program $23.6 million in 2025-26 and $45.4 million in Approve proposal, but adopt legislation requiring 2026-27 from the General Fund for a pilot an evaluation and statewide strategy to expand program to install and evaluate three options to air cooling by January 10, 2031 and an interim reduce indoor temperature in prisons. report with information necessary for legislative oversight of CDCR’s air cooling efforts by January 10, 2026. www.lao.ca.gov 29 2025-26 BUDGET 30 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE 2025-26 BUDGET www.lao.ca.gov 31 2025-26 BUDGET LAO PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared by Caitlin O’Neil and Orlando Sanchez Zavala, and reviewed by Drew Soderborg and Ross Brown. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) is a nonpartisan office that provides fiscal and policy information and advice to the Legislature. To request publications call (916) 445-4656. This report and others, as well as an e-mail subscription service, are available on the LAO’s website at www.lao.ca.gov. The LAO is located at 925 L Street, Suite 1000, Sacramento, California 95814. 32 LEGISLATIVE ANALYST’S OFFICE