OIG Annual Report

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General 2012 ANNUAL REPORT January 2013 Office of the Inspector General 2012 ANNUAL REPORT Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General James C. Spurling Chief Counsel Renee L. Hansen Executive Director, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board Public Information Officer P.O. Box 348780 Sacramento, CA 95834-8780 Telephone: 916-830-3600 Facsimile: 916-928-4684 January 2013 Table of Contents FOREWORD 1 OIG OUTREACH 3 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW 5 FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 6 Statewide General Intake 6 Discipline Monitoring 7 Medical Inspections 9 Warden/Superintendent Vetting 9 Blueprint Monitoring 10 The California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) 11 Authorized Reviews 11 CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 12 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2012 12 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2011 12 APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2012 13 FOREWORD The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has moved steadily forward over the last year. This progress was recognized when the agency was presented with the Excellence in Innovative Leadership in State Government award from the Asian Pacific State Employees Association (APSEA) in November 2012. After being appointed Inspector General (IG) by Governor Brown on August 29, 2011, I was recommended for confirmation by the Senate Committee on Rules on February 22, 2012, and was unanimously confirmed by the full Senate on March 5, 2012. The staff and operational reorganization of the OIG was completed in February 2012, wherein our office did away with bureau designations and began operating on a regional basis, achieving our statutory mandates more efficiently. APSEA Presentation: Excellence in Innovative Leadership In July 2012, our California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or department) oversight role was expanded by the Legislature when they tasked the OIG with monitoring CDCR’s adherence to its Future of California Corrections Blueprint. This mandate was added to our existing statutory duties. Our statewide intake function continues to respond to the concerns of persons both inside and outside the department. Our Discipline Monitoring Unit (DMU) continues to build on the improvements gained from the now-terminated Madrid injunction and provide transparency to critical areas within the department such as use of force (UOF), contraband surveillance watch (CSW), internal affairs investigations, and the employee discipline process. Our staff maintain a daily presence within the State’s prisons and juvenile facilities, providing real-time monitoring and recommendations to improve correctional operations, while protecting the interests of the taxpayers. The OIG completed 20 warden/superintendent evaluations and made recommendations to the Governor on their qualifications, to assist in providing stability and quality leadership to the department. The OIG’s role in the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) continues to be an invaluable avenue of transparency for the rehabilitative efforts of CDCR and a conduit for the public’s interest in that arena. The OIG’s Medical Inspection Unit (MIU) completed 27 medical inspections and published 30 medical inspection reports, and it is hoped the progress demonstrated by the department in improving the delivery of medical care to inmates will soon accomplish the goals of the Federal Court in the Plata lawsuit. If the Court’s receivership ends, the OIG will continue with ongoing inspection and oversight in accordance with statutory mandates. 2011 was a major transitional year for the OIG, and our staff admirably responded and made 2012 a year of progress. We continue to use the real-time monitoring model to assist CDCR in achieving their goal of being the best correctional system in the nation. The department has 2012 Annual Report Page 1 Office of the Inspector General State of California implemented many of the recommendations from our formal reports, and as this report documents, implementation progress continues. The OIG will continue to be value added to the administration of corrections in California, and our dedicated staff is committed to fulfilling our mission in the most efficient and responsive manner possible. We look forward to additional opportunities to serve our great State and the taxpayers that rely on our agency to provide transparency to the correctional system. Robert A. Barton Inspector General 2012 Annual Report Page 2 Office of the Inspector General State of California OIG OUTREACH annual conference, coordinating meetings regarding the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), and maintaining an open dialogue As a part of the OIG’s mission to act as the with the Prison Law Office. Additionally, the eyes and ears of the public into the State IG attended the 18th Annual National correctional system, Inspector General Barton Association for Civilian Oversight of Law has made 58 institution visits. Since his Enforcement Conference; the Responsibility, appointment, the IG has visited every Rehabilitation, and Restoration Symposium; institution and youth correctional facility at and the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice least once. The IG has also visited the out-of- Group meeting. The IG also attended state facilities that house California inmates, APSEA’s Navigating Leadership Challenges including North Fork Correctional Facility in and Equal Employment Opportunity in a Oklahoma, Tallahatchie County Correctional Changed World conference and served on the Facility in Mississippi, and La Palma panel discussing leadership tools, approaches, Correctional Center and Red Rock and skills for thriving in a changed world. Correctional Center in Arizona. The IG visited the Trinity River Fire Asian Pacific State Employees Conservation Camp and attended parole Association Award consideration hearings held by the Board of Parole Hearings and participated in legislative budget hearings. The IG participated in the statewide wardens’ meeting and supervisory academy, and also attended the CDCR Rehabilitation Summit. Additionally, the IG continues to meet monthly with CDCR executive staff to address issues and concerns. The OIG held an annual all-staff meeting to allow employees from each region the opportunity to meet and work together in one location. The OIG is fostering cooperation APSEA Award – Excellence in Innovative across agency, hierarchical, and functional Leadership in State Government. Received boundaries and creating a team environment. by IG Robert Barton and Chief Deputy IG During the meeting, OIG staff worked within Roy Wesley their teams to create strategic plans for their units and presented them to the agency. This In 2012 the OIG was awarded the APSEA afforded every employee the opportunity to Excellence in Innovative Leadership in State gain a deeper understanding of each unit’s Government award. The OIG was recognized mission and collaborate on how to achieve as a government agency exemplifying their goals. Employees were also tasked with outstanding leadership in implementing working within their units to revise the OIG transformational strategies, customer service, administrative policies and create desk collaborative partnerships, and dedication to manuals for their various job functions. championing innovation and creativity in the The OIG continues to network with non- workplace. The OIG was honored to receive governmental entities by attending the this award and be recognized for its hard Association of Inspectors General (AIG) work and innovation during our transition. 2012 Annual Report Page 3 Office of the Inspector General State of California Prison Crimes Council has produced many significant The Prison Crimes Council (PCC) of the accomplishments, including: California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) has met twice yearly since 1999 to  Clarified each county’s elected DA’s promote better relations and training between roles in successfully prosecuting District Attorney (DA) offices and CDCR prison crimes for all 33 institutions; institutions statewide, with the goal of more successfully prosecuting prison crimes. The  Minimized inmate movement by PCC has representatives from CDAA, CDCR, passing legislation to administer a OIG, DAs from counties with prisons, the video appearance court calendar; Attorney General’s Correctional Law Unit, and local law enforcement agencies.  Delivered live (and subsequently videotaped) training sessions by trial Up until May 2012, the OIG hosted the PCC attorneys in DA Prison Crime Units; meetings and partnered with the Sacramento County DA’s Office to create agendas  Increased the prosecution of civilians relevant to all stakeholders. CDAA now hosts and staff caught introducing cell the PCC meetings, but the OIG remains an phones into institutions through the active partner and participant. passage of the cell phone interdiction law and the increased use of the felony Over the past few years, collaboration among bribery and conspiracy statutes; and the attendees at these semi-annual meetings  Assisted CDCR with its implementation of Pitchess and Brady protocols. 2012 Annual Report Page 4 Office of the Inspector General State of California ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW The OIG is comprised of a skilled  Because statutory revisions in July 2011 team of professionals, including refocused the OIG’s responsibilities, the attorneys with expertise in internal office implemented a significant affairs investigations and criminal reorganization of its operational structure. and employment law and Specifically, the OIG significantly reduced inspectors experienced in its workforce, eliminated bureau correctional policy, operations, designations, redistributed duties, and and investigations. regionalized workforce according to need. The following represents the organization of  In addition to executive and administrative operations in the OIG at the close of 2012: Sacramento (Natomas), the OIG is regionally organized into three California Penal Code sections  areas: North, Central, and South. 2641, 6125 et seq., and 6141 provide the statutory authority for The North Region is in Rancho the OIG’s establishment and Cordova, the Central Region is in operations. Bakersfield, and the South Region is in Rancho Cucamonga, all co- located with CDCR’s OIA staff. 2012 Organizational Chart 2012 Annual Report Page 5 Office of the Inspector General State of California FUNCTIONS OF THE and advocacy groups. Similar to prior years, most complaints concerned OFFICE OF THE allegations of staff misconduct, access to the inmate appeal process, and the INSPECTOR quality or lack of access to medical care. GENERAL Based on the OIG screening criteria, Intake staff conducted additional research into matters and requested California Penal Code section 6125 clarifying documentation from the establishes the Office of the Inspector institutions for 392 complaints. General as an independent agency and provides for the Inspector General to be Intake staff referred 43 complaints to the appointed to a six-year term by the OIG’s regional operations teams to bring Governor, subject to Senate the matters to the attention of the confirmation. institution and monitor departmental response at the local level. Intake staff In 2011, the Legislature focused the referred 65 complaints to OIG nursing OIG’s duties and the office was staff who conducted additional analysis restructured. The following sets forth the for medical, dental, and mental health current statutory duties and functions of complaints received in 2012 related to the OIG and its work in 2012. the quality or lack of access to health Statewide General Intake care for inmates. Where violations of policies or procedures were determined, the OIG referred the complaints to CDCR’s Division of Correctional Health Care Services for remedy. Retaliation Claims California Penal Code section 6129 requires the OIG to receive and respond to retaliation complaints. The OIG’s Chief Counsel conducts assessments of retaliation complaints submitted by Intake Staff Reviewing a File CDCR employees against members of The OIG maintains a statewide intake CDCR management. If the complaint process to receive communications from states a prima facie case, the complaint any individual regarding allegations of is investigated by an OIG inspector and improper activity within the CDCR. a merit determination is made. Any Every complaint is logged and reviewed, finding is communicated to CDCR for and receives a follow-up response. Any corrective action. In 2012, the OIG complaints requiring a higher level of received ten complaints relating to review and interaction with CDCR are allegations of retaliation. Nine of the ten referred to our regional operations teams complaints did not meet the legal who make direct contact with the requirement for an investigation. One involved institution. complaint is currently being investigated by the OIG. In 2012, the OIG’s Intake Unit received 3,490 general complaints filed by inmates, families, CDCR employees, 2012 Annual Report Page 6 Office of the Inspector General State of California Sexual Abuse in Detention the department, including, but not Elimination Act Ombudsperson limited to, use of deadly force, Claims unexplained deaths in custody, homicides, suicides, large-scale riots, California Penal Code section 2641 escapes, and other serious or directs the OIG to act as the ombudsman newsworthy incidents. Each incident is for complaints related to sexual abuse in evaluated and reported in the OIG’s detention. The OIG is tasked with Semi-Annual Report. reviewing allegations of mishandling sexual abuse investigations within correctional institutions, maintaining the confidentiality of sexual abuse victims, and ensuring impartial resolution of inmate and ward sexual abuse complaints. The OIG monitors CDCR’s handling of all sexual abuse allegations CDCR’s Central Intake Motto and all subsequent investigations of staff involvement. Internal Affairs and Employee Discipline Monitoring The OIG received and reviewed 13 complaints relating to inadequate The OIG monitoring of CDCR’s internal investigations of sexual abuse in affairs and employee discipline cases detention. When necessary, these matters includes monitoring of the allegation were addressed directly with CDCR. intake process, the investigation phase by CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs, Discipline Monitoring the decision-making process by the hiring authorities, and the handling of California Penal Code section 6133(c)(1) the matter by the CDCR Employee mandates the OIG publish a Semi- Advocate Prosecution Team (EAPT) Annual Report of its oversight of CDCR attorneys (referred to as vertical internal affairs investigations, employee advocates). Monitoring includes all case discipline, and use of force. Prior to July activity up to and including State 2011, the OIG monitored these areas Personnel Board proceedings, if through its Bureau of Independent necessary. During 2012, the OIG Review (BIR). Following the published two Semi-Annual Reports, reorganization of the OIG, these one in April and one in October. The activities are now monitored regionally time period of these reports covered July by the OIG’s Discipline Monitoring through December 2011 and January Unit. through June 2012. These reports The OIG’s DMU provides covered 520 monitored cases and contemporaneous oversight of CDCR’s documented the performance by the internal affairs investigations and department. employee discipline process. Use-of- Critical Incident Monitoring force reviews conducted by CDCR and CDCR’s response to critical incidents The OIG maintains regional on-call within the institutions are also monitors who can respond on-site 24 monitored. Since its inception, the OIG hours per day to critical incidents has maintained a notification process reported to our office from any of the with CDCR for critical incidents within 2012 Annual Report Page 7 Office of the Inspector General State of California State’s correctional institutions. The CSW. This on-scene process continues OIG monitors the incident and any every 72 hours until the inmate is subsequent investigation with special removed from CSW. Serious breaches of emphasis on determining what led up to policy are immediately discussed with the incident, whether it was handled institution managers. appropriately, and what, if any, action should be taken afterward. If neglect or The results of our monitoring program misconduct is suspected, the OIG will will be reported every six months as part recommend and subsequently monitor a of the OIG’s Semi-Annual Report. The secondary investigation. The OIG may first report of CSW activities will cover recommend policy changes to prevent the period July 1, 2012, through future occurrences and conform to best December 31, 2012. practices. In some instances, the OIG has identified systemic issues that should be Use-of-Force Reviews addressed statewide. During the July through December 2011 and January The OIG monitors CDCR’s use-of-force through June 2012 time periods, the OIG review process. During 2012, the OIG monitored 223 critical incidents. published two UOF reports, one in June and one in October. The first UOF report Contraband Surveillance Watch summarized UOF reviews from July through December 2011, and the second In 2012, citing concerns that CDCR’s UOF report summarized UOF reviews contraband surveillance watch process from January through June 2012. was being applied improperly and inconsistently, the Legislature requested In 2012, CDCR reported 7,194 use-of- the OIG to develop a CSW monitoring force incidents in the adult system. The program. In March 2012, the OIG began OIG reviewed 1,296 incidents involving a four-month pilot program to develop a force while attending 215 use-of-force method to monitor CDCR’s contraband review meetings. The OIG also surveillance watch process. Beginning performed an additional 1,566 reviews on July 1, 2012, the OIG began its of incidents involving force. In addition, formal monitoring of the department’s the OIG participated as a non-voting CSW process. member of CDCR’s Deadly Force The OIG is now notified any time an Review Board. inmate is placed on contraband In our June 2012 UOF report, the OIG surveillance watch. The OIG collects all made seven recommendations to CDCR relevant data, including the name of the to improve its use-of-force practices and inmate, the reason the inmate is placed policies, and in our October 2012 UOF on CSW, what contraband is suspected, report, we made one additional what contraband is actually found, and recommendation. All eight the times the inmate was placed on and recommendations are being implemented taken off CSW. Additionally, whenever by the department. an inmate is kept on CSW longer than 72 hours, the OIG goes on scene to inspect While the OIG is still monitoring the condition of the inmate and ensure CDCR’s use-of-force review process, we the department is following its policies. have temporarily discontinued our UOF The OIG inspects all logs and reviews reporting to give the department time to the evidence used to place the inmate on implement a new use-of-force process. 2012 Annual Report Page 8 Office of the Inspector General State of California The new process was designed by In February 2012, the OIG began its CDCR following a recommendation by Cycle 3 medical inspections and will the OIG to streamline the use-of-force complete Cycle 3 inspections by March incidents allowing greater scrutiny of the 2013. The OIG’s Cycle 4 medical more serious incidents. We continue to inspections will begin in April 2013, and attend use-of-force meetings and made all inspections will likely be completed recommendations in 99 of the within a 12-month time period. department’s decisions in 2012. The OIG’s next UOF report will cover the Comparative Summary and six-month period of January through Analysis of the First and Second June 2013, and will be published semi- Medical Inspection Cycles of annually thereafter. California’s 33 Adult Institutions D etailed assessments of the OIG’s case On July 13, 2012, the OIG published a moni toring activities and use-of-force reviews Comparative Summary and Analysis of are available on the OIG’s website at: the First and Second Medical Inspection www.oig.ca.gov/ Cycles of all 33 adult institutions. The report summarized trends from the first and second reporting cycles and Medical Inspections highlighted areas with significant medical score increases or decreases among the 33 institutions. Medical inspection scores were compared across five general medical categories based on each institution’s overall score from 20 distinct medical components. The inspection results demonstrated that all but one of the 33 institutions improved their overall medical care OIG’s Medical Inspection Team at Work scores from Cycle 1 to Cycle 2. The OIG conducts an objective, clinically appropriate, and metric- Individual and summary medical oriented medical inspection program to inspection reports are available on the review delivery of medical care at each OIG’s website at: www.oig.ca.gov of the adult institutions in California. Every institution is inspected annually. During the 2012 calendar year, the OIG’s Medical Inspection Unit conducted 27 medical inspections and published 30 medical inspection reports. The OIG also published a report comparing the Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 medical inspection results of the 33 adult institutions. 2012 Annual Report Page 9 Office of the Inspector General State of California Warden/Superintendent completing 20 of those evaluations in Vetting 2012. The OIG completed those evaluations in an average of 58 days. Penal Code section 6126.6 requires that This is a 30 percent improvement in the OIG evaluate the qualifications of timeliness of reviews. every candidate whom the governor Blueprint Monitoring nominates for appointment as a State prison warden or a youth correctional To monitor implementation of the facility superintendent, and report the Future of California Corrections recommendation in confidence to the Blueprint, the Legislature passed and the governor within 90 days of the request to Governor signed legislation in 2012 evaluate the candidate. mandating the OIG periodically review In recognition of CDCR’s need for delivery of the reforms identified in the stable leadership in the institutions, the Blueprint, including, but not limited to, OIG increased the efficiency of the following specific goals and reforms completing vettings to assist in quickly described by the Blueprint: reducing a backlog of acting warden and superintendent candidates, while  Whether the department has maintaining an effective and thorough increased the percentage of inmates evaluation process. served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department's target The OIG implemented a three-phase population prior to their release; vetting process, streamlining the process  The establishment of and adherence with the goal of completion by the OIG to the standardized staffing model at in 60 days. In addition to conducting a each institution; background investigation of the candidate and surveying designated  The establishment of an adherence to stakeholders, the first phase consists of a the new inmate classification score site visit conducted by a team of system; inspectors, which provides the OIG with  The establishment of and adherence an overview of the institution’s to the new prison gang management operations. During the second phase, the system, including changes to the IG himself consults with outside department's current policies for stakeholders, conducts a management identifying prison-based gang review, and tours the facility while members and associates and the use observing the candidate interact with and conditions associated with the inmates and staff. During the final phase, department's secured housing units; the IG evaluates all of the information and gathered during the vetting process and evaluates the candidate’s suitability for  The implementation of and the position of warden or superintendent adherence to the Comprehensive after a one-on-one interview with the Housing Plan described in the candidate. The IG then submits a Blueprint. confidential recommendation to the Governor. The OIG anticipates publishing its first Blueprint Monitoring report in Spring During 2012, the OIG began 24 warden 2013. and superintendent evaluations, 2012 Annual Report Page 10 Office of the Inspector General State of California The California Rehabilitation Oversight C-ROB reports are available on the OIG’s Board (C-ROB) website at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/pages/c-rob/reports.php Authorized Reviews C-ROB Meeting in Progress The enactment of the Public Safety and In 2011, the Legislature created an Offender Rehabilitation Services Act of authorized review process codified in 2007 (AB 900) established the 11- Penal Code section 6126. Upon request member California Rehabilitation of the Governor, Speaker of the Oversight Board. Chaired by the Assembly, or Senate Committee on Inspector General, C-ROB meetings are Rules, the OIG will conduct a review of conducted quarterly to examine CDCR’s CDCR policies, practices, or procedures various mental health, substance abuse, set forth in the review request. Upon educational, and employment programs completion of the review, the OIG will for inmates and parolees. report its findings and recommendations to the authorizing entity. In 2012, the In 2012, C-ROB’s Executive Director following authorized review was Renee Hansen conducted program conducted: reviews and met with education staff at all 33 adult institutions and the 4 out-of- High Desert State Prison state facilities that house California In May 2012, the OIG reported back to inmates. Director Hansen reported back the Senate Committee on Rules to the board the best practices she regarding an authorized review of observed and the challenges of alleged staff misconduct at High Desert delivering rehabilitation programs in an State Prison to determine if staff were institution setting, ascertained during her subjecting sex offender inmates to program reviews. potential harm by intentionally or negligently identifying them to other Pursuant to statute, C-ROB published inmates. The OIG interviewed over 52 two reports in 2012. The reports inmates and 23 officers and reviewed highlighted that CDCR continued to be multiple reports and complaints. Three challenged with a hiring and spending potential misconduct cases were referred freeze during the first half of 2012; to CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs and however, the department continued to subsequently monitored by the OIG. make positive strides in implementing This review illustrates the ability of the improvements in the delivery of OIG to work in a true monitoring role rehabilitation programming. while CDCR itself addresses a problem. Additionally, the inclusion in the Future Authorized reviews will continue to be a of California Corrections Blueprint of a vital tool in the overall role of the OIG strategy for program expansion sent a to provide true independent oversight. positive signal reiterating the support of rehabilitative programming by the department. 2012 Annual Report Page 11 Office of the Inspector General State of California CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE In 2012, the OIG completed 1 authorized review and published 31 formal reports containing 8 recommendations. The recommendations in these reports result in greater transparency, taxpayer savings, process improvements, increased accountability, and higher adherence to policies and constitutional standards. Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2012 CDCR has fully implemented six of the eight OIG recommendations, and has partially implemented the remaining two recommendations, with full implementation expected in 2013. Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2011 The OIG noted in its 2011 Annual Report the department planned to implement 18 recommendations made by the OIG during 2011. To date, the department has fully or partially implemented 11 of those recommendations and 2 recommendations are no longer applicable. Additionally, the department reports it has formed a workgroup to plan implementation of three recommendations, pursued a policy change to address one recommendation, and is considering labor negotiations on the final recommendation. The 2011 Annual Report is available on the OIG’s website at: http://www.oig.ca.gov 2012 Annual Report Page 12 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2012 Annual Report 2011 OIG Annual Report (March 26, 2012) Semi-Annual Reports Use-of-Force within CDCR January-June 2012 (October 17, 2012) OIG Semi-Annual Report January-June 2012 (October 2, 2012) Use-of-Force within CDCR July-December 2011 (June 21, 2012) OIG Semi-Annual Report July-Dec.2011 (April 13, 2012) California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) C-ROB Biannual Report September 15 2012 (September 14, 2012) C-ROB Biannual Report March 1 5 2012 (March 15, 2012) Authorized Review Letter Reports Special Review - May 2012 High Desert State Prison (June 14, 2012) Medical Inspection Comparative Report Comparative Summary and Analysis of the First and Second Medical Inspection Cycles of California’s 33 Adult Institutions (July 30, 2012) Medical Inspection Reports Cycle 3 California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (December 21, 2012) Pelican Bay State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (December 20, 2012) California State Prison Corcoran Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (December 6, 2012) California Correctional Center Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 29, 2012) California Institution for Women Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 28, 2012) Valley State Prison for Women Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 28, 2012) California State Prison Los Angeles County Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 15, 2012) 2012 Annual Report Page 13 Office of the Inspector General State of California Kern Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3. (November 8, 2012) Central California Women’s Facility Medical Inspection Report Cycle 3 (November 8, 2012) North Kern State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 8, 2012) High Desert State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 7, 2012) California Correctional Institution Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (November 1, 2012) Sierra Conservation Center Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (September 18, 2012) Pleasant Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (August 29, 2012) California Rehabilitation Center Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (August 29, 2012) San Quentin State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (August 23, 2012) Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (July 12, 2012) California Men’s Colony Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (July 12, 2012) California Medical Facility Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (June 21, 2012) California State Prison Sacramento Medical Inspection Results Cycle 3 (June 19, 2012) Cycle 2 Calipatria State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (April 23, 2012) California Institution for Men Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (April 19, 2012) Wasco State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (March 15, 2012) Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Cycle 2 (March 8, 2012) Avenal State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (February 23, 2012) Mule Creek State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (February 9, 2012) California State Prison Solano Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (January 19, 2012) Salinas Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (January 19, 2012) Pelican Bay State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (January 12, 2012) Ironwood State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 2 (January 12, 2012) 2012 Annual Report Page 14 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2012 ANNUAL REPORT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA January 2013