OIG Annual Report

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General 2014 ANNUAL REPORT January 2015 Office of the Inspector General 20 14 ANNUAL REPORT Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General Shaun R. Spillane Public Information Officer January 2015 Table of Contents FOREWORD 1 OIG OUTREACH 3 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW 6 FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 7 Statewide General Intake 7 CDCR Oversight Activities 8 Monitoring Activities 9 Medical Inspections 10 Warden/Superintendent Vetting 11 Blueprint Monitoring 11 California Rehabilitation Oversight Board 12 Special Reviews 13 CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 14 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2014 14 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR During 2013 14 APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2014 15 FOREWORD OIG Mission To safeguard the integrity of the State’s correctional system by providing oversight and transparency through monitoring, reporting, and recommending improvements on policy and practices of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. OIG Vision To transform the State’s correctional system into a model for inmate rehabilitation, employee conduct, health care delivery, and transparency in correctional programs. This report recounts the activities of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) for the 2014 calendar year. It also encompasses the third full year and marks the halfway point of my six-year term as Inspector General. I am proud of the accomplishments of my staff. We continue to provide transparency for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or the department). With our ongoing monitoring of various CDCR practices, we aim to provide confidence to the Legislature, citizenry, and Governor that our correctional system is functioning properly. We seek to add value to the department by providing recommendations that improve the crucial public safety mission of CDCR. To that end, we have employees inside the prisons on a daily basis interacting with CDCR staff and inmates in a multitude of areas, and we compile reports in several of those categories, which can be found on our website (www.oig.ca.gov). It is my goal moving forward to become more active assisting the department in the arena of inmate rehabilitation. This last year, legislation was passed that revised the number of meetings and reports required by the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). However, it was not done because the OIG’s role in assessing rehabilitation efforts by the department decreased; in fact, just the opposite is true. Due to the OIG’s monitoring of CDCR’s adherence to The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight and Improve the Prison System (the Blueprint), we found we were duplicating the efforts of our office and the department in compiling and reporting on the same rehabilitative efforts. Now we concentrate on taking a more in-depth look at what is occurring in programs within the prisons. We are expanding the scope of our review to include those rehabilitative opportunities created not only by CDCR, but also by outside providers and inmates themselves. We will also be looking to other states and countries to see what is working elsewhere that might be effective here. It is increasingly clear that to continue a reduction in crime and incarceration, the State has to provide realistic opportunities for rehabilitation. Through collaboration and communication with CDCR’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs, Office of Correctional Education, and Division of Adult Institutions, it is our sincere hope that California can reduce recidivism rates in the future. I have reached out to stakeholders and attended conferences and workshops to become better informed on the obstacles and challenges to successful societal reentry faced by those who are released. I have continued to visit CDCR institutions and facilities both in and out of State. Many of those visits have coincided with the statutory requirement to evaluate and recommend prospective wardens to the Governor. In 2014, 11 vettings were completed, with an average completion time of 55 days. 2014 Annual Report Page 1 Office of the Inspector General State of California The OIG continues to respond to the concerns and complaints of staff, inmates, and the public and address those issues with CDCR as part of our Intake function. We have also responded to legislative requests for authorized reviews. This year the Senate Public Safety Committee requested the OIG assess and report back on the state of electronic monitoring of sex offender parolees. That report was published November 6, 2014. Our Semi-Annual Reports detail our work monitoring CDCR’s disciplinary process, contraband surveillance watch, use of force, and critical incidents. We have also completed a comprehensive update and pilot project for our medical inspections. Beginning in 2015, medical inspection reports will include both a policy adherence component, as in the past, and a new qualitative analysis component. We also continue to analyze and, when necessary, investigate both Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) and retaliation complaints. The Office of the Inspector General is dedicated to protecting the interests of the taxpayers and ensuring the integrity of the correctional system, the safety and security of staff and inmates, and meaningful opportunities for rehabilitation. Robert A. Barton Inspector General 2014 Annual Report Page 2 Office of the Inspector General State of California OIG OUTREACH daily presence through OIG staff monitoring and providing on-scene response to incidents, The OIG is constantly looking for the Inspector General or Chief Deputy opportunities to better assess and positively Inspector General visits every adult institution impact the operations of CDCR. This requires and youth correctional facility at least once communication with departmental staff, the annually. In 2014, the Inspector General institutions, and outside stakeholders. The conducted 21 institution visits and visited OIG also tries to educate those same entities Ventura Youth Correctional Facility in about the OIG mission and solicit input from person. The Chief Deputy Inspector General them. Finally, the OIG searches for ways to conducted 18 institution visits and visited learn about best practices that might be O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility, N.A. recommended within the State’s system. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, and Baseline Fire Camp. In addition, the Inspector The OIG’s vision is that it will be able to General and Chief Deputy Inspector General point to what is possible in redemptive visited the four out-of-state correctional programming for offenders. The OIG would facilities that house California inmates— like to recommend strategies and workable Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in solutions to the largest system of Mississippi, North Fork Correctional Facility incarceration in the nation, with the goal of in Oklahoma, and La Palma Correctional effectively reducing that population and Center and Florence Correctional Center in fostering success for those already caught in Arizona. In total, the Inspector General and it. In November 2014, the Inspector General Chief Deputy conducted 47 institution visits was invited by the Rockefeller Foundation to in 2014. In addition to staff assigned to attend an international conference. The monitor systems within the prisons on a daily delegates brainstormed and collaborated basis, there is staff specifically tasked to regarding various strategies and methods of assess the rehabilitation and education programs for inmates and staff to equip them operations as part of a review for the for release and reintegration into society. California Rehabilitation Oversight Board and Blueprint monitoring function at least twice As an oversight agency with broad per year. monitoring mandates throughout a huge correctional system, there may be no other The Office of the Inspector General staff area more critical to success right now than make presentations to the CDCR Office of effective rehabilitative programming for Internal Affairs academy regarding the role offenders. The Inspector General sees and function of the OIG. Presentations are over-incarceration, recidivism, and the also made by the OIG to correctional officer attendant tragedies as a worldwide social candidates in the Galt academy, and at CDCR issue to be addressed at every level. Whatever leadership conferences. gains currently being experienced will only become long-term realities by providing The OIG continues to maintain a close liaison effective rehabilitation and community with senior management at the department. resources for those at risk. The Chief Deputy Inspector General has continued monthly meetings with the Director The OIG provides public transparency for the of Adult Institutions, the Director of Adult State’s correctional system. One of the ways Parole Operations, the Director of Internal to have an impact and become aware of issues Oversight and Research, and the Deputy within corrections is to have a personal Director for the Office of Internal Affairs. presence within the institutions. In addition to These meetings allow for a high-level 2014 Annual Report Page 3 Office of the Inspector General State of California discussion of issues and problems and their • Attended a leadership retreat for State timely resolution. In addition, the Assistant agencies at Google headquarters (3/19) Chief Deputy Inspector General has monthly • Attended the Community Justice 2014: meetings with the Chief Counsel for the International Summit hosted by the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Administrative Office of the Courts Team, the Chief of Field Operations, the (4/22–4/24) Office of Internal Affairs, the regional • Attended APSEA’s Navigating Assistant Chief Counsels for the Employment Leadership 2014—Conversations in Advocacy and Prosecution Team, and Leadership Workshop: Redefining regional Special Agents in Charge for the Leadership and Innovation (4/29) Office of Internal Affairs. These meetings • Attended the Ford Foundation’s Renewing delve into more day-to-day operational issues Communities: Improving Educational and have been extremely helpful in resolving Access in California’s Correctional issues at the field level. Facilities and Beyond (5/8–5/10) • Met with the co-founder of the Pain of the The Inspector General and OIG staff also Prison System (POPS) club and the attend noteworthy events throughout the State Executive Director of Centerforce (6/5) to maintain contact with the department and • Spoke at the University of California, the public in order to educate and establish Davis, Police Accountability Board working relationships with stakeholders. Meeting (7/23) • Spoke at the CDCR Executive Additional Outreach Events Development Orientation Program (8/25) • Spoke at the Division of Adult Parole The Inspector General personally: Operations Northern Region District • Attended the reception welcoming the Administrator Meeting (8/26) University of California President Janet • Monitored the initial Board of Parole Napolitano (1/14) Hearing Panel Attorney Appointment • Attended a reception hosted by the Process (8/26) California State Association of Counties • Attended and presented at the National (2/19) Association for Civilian Oversight of Law • Spoke at a Soroptimist International of Enforcement conference (9/14–9/18) Metropolitan Sacramento meeting (2/20) • Spoke to the Alameda County Children of • Visited Friends Outside headquarters in Incarcerated Parents Partnership and the Stockton and met with the director (3/10) San Francisco Children of Incarcerated Parents about the role of the OIG and its activities relevant to children and families of the incarcerated (10/1) • Attended the Doing Life as a Family seminar, presented by Life Support Alliance, the leading advocate for California lifers (10/4) The Inspector General and staff at Google headquarters 2014 Annual Report Page 4 Office of the Inspector General State of California • Attended and addressed a Pain of the Staff of the OIG: Prison System (POPS) club meeting at • Attended the Yolo County Realignment Venice High School (10/15) Presentation in West Sacramento (4/10) • Attended the Get on the Bus event at Central California Women’s Facility (5/9) • Attended the Division of Juvenile Justice commencement at Mary B. Perry High School (6/20) • Attended CDCR’s Medal of Valor Ceremony (9/18) Staff also attend briefings on public safety realignment, parole populations, crime trends, and prison capacity challenges held at the Pain of the Prison System (POPS) Public Policy Institute in Sacramento. club meeting at Venice High School At the request of the Secretary of California • Attended and presented at APSEA’s Health and Human Services, the OIG Navigating Leadership Symposium 2014 consulted with the Department of State along with other State agency leaders Hospitals on its internal affairs process in (11/13) order to assist in the creation of a workable system and provide a report requested by the Legislature. The OIG worked closely with the Secretary’s office and provided detailed reviews of the various strategies and proposals developed. The OIG collaborated with the California Health and Human Services Agency to provide the “lessons learned” that the OIG experienced in its monitoring of the CDCR disciplinary and investigation process. The OIG held an annual All-Staff Meeting to allow for cross-training and cooperation across agency, hierarchical, and functional Presenting at APSEA’s Navigating boundaries. This included invitations to Leadership Symposium outside stakeholders to address and interact • Attended an international conference on with OIG Staff. As a State agency, the OIG’s redemptive rehabilitation held by the goal is to continue to strive for excellence, Rockefeller Foundation (11/18–11/21) including the training of staff. 2014 Annual Report Page 5 Office of the Inspector General State of California ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW • California Penal Code Sections 2641 and 6125 et seq. provide the statutory authority for the OIG’s establishment and operations. • The OIG comprises a skilled team of professionals, including attorneys with expertise in internal affairs investigations, criminal law, and employment law, as well as inspectors experienced in correctional policy, operations, and investigations. The OIG now also has a cadre of medical professionals in the Medical Inspection Unit. There are also analysts and various support staff within the OIG, all of whom are integral in achieving the OIG mission. • The OIG is organized into three regions: North, Central, and South. The North Region is co-located with executive and administrative operations in Sacramento (Rancho Cordova), the Central Region is in Bakersfield, and the South Region is in Rancho Cucamonga. 2014 OIG Organizational Chart Inspector General Publications, Chief Deputy Blueprint, Administration Chief Counsel C-ROB Inspector General Intake, Vetting Human Medical Discipline Information Resources Inspection Monitoring Technology Unit Unit Business Services Assistant Chief Deputy Inspector General North Central South Special Region Region Region Assignments Team 2014 Annual Report Page 6 Office of the Inspector General State of California FUNCTIONS OF THE behavior, or other indicators that there may be a safety or security risk for staff or OFFICE OF THE inmates. Intake Unit staff require CDCR to provide a status of the situation to ensure the INSPECTOR GENERAL department rectifies any safety concerns and provides appropriate intervention to mental California Penal Code Section 6125 health inmates. establishes the Office of the Inspector General as an independent agency and The Intake Unit focuses OIG staff resources provides for the Inspector General to be on the most serious complaints by using a appointed to a six-year term by the matrix of common prison issues that receive Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. priority attention. Lack of access to Robert A. Barton was appointed on August grievance processes or health care, serious 29, 2011, and his term will expire in 2017. due process violations, unnecessary extended stays in segregation units, sexual California Penal Code Sections 2641 and abuse, serious staff misconduct, and 6125 set forth the functions of the Office of inappropriate uses of force are included in the Inspector General. the matrix. However, if a trend of lesser policy violations is identified, the Intake Statewide General Intake Unit makes efforts to remedy any potentially systemic problem. In most instances, the The OIG maintains a statewide intake Intake Unit encourages complainants to process to receive communications from any utilize CDCR’s grievance processes to individual regarding allegations of improper resolve their issues before contacting the activity within CDCR. Other than PREA OIG; therefore, lack of access to the and retaliation complaints, the OIG cannot grievance process or unjustified rejection of independently conduct investigations. appeals by CDCR staff often receive the However, any instances of misconduct are most attention from Intake Unit staff. brought to the department’s attention. When Intake Unit staff find potential The OIG Intake Unit logs, reviews, misconduct or policy violations after analyzes, and responds to every reviewing complaints and corresponding non-duplicative complaint it receives. Intake CDCR documents, the cases are presented at Unit staff screen all complaints within 24 a semimonthly meeting with the Inspector hours of receipt to identify potential safety General for consideration of referral to OIG concerns. Staff directly contact institutional regional field staff. In the field, OIG staff personnel in order to remedy issues that may work directly with CDCR administrators to be addressed informally, such as failure to remedy identified issues, usually resulting in accept an appeal, failure to schedule a simple, informal fixes, such as the training classification hearing, or failure to schedule of staff, the initiation of inquiries, or medical appointments. In addition, during use-of-force reviews to determine whether 2014, Intake Unit staff contacted institutions misconduct may have occurred. If CDCR 42 times based on letters and messages left initiates a formal investigation, OIG regional on the toll-free public phone line, calls staff monitor it in accordance with the received on the main OIG telephone OIG’s normal discipline monitoring number, and complaints submitted activities and report the findings in the electronically. These communications Semi-Annual Report. expressed potentially unsafe conditions, such as enemy concerns, threatening 2014 Annual Report Page 7 Office of the Inspector General State of California Complaints alleging theft, fraud, or waste of allegations and determines whether State resources concerning CDCR are also retaliation has occurred. If the OIG presented to the Inspector General for determines a CDCR employee has been consideration of referral to the California subjected to unlawful retaliation, the OIG’s State Auditor. Intake Unit provides a report of its findings to CDCR along with a recommendation of In 2014, the OIG’s Intake Unit received the appropriate corrective action. 2,139 general complaints submitted by inmates, parolees, families, CDCR In 2014, the OIG received 11 complaints of employees, and advocacy groups, including retaliation. Of these 11 complaints, the 57 complaints the Office of the Governor Legal Unit determined nine did not state a assigned the OIG to review. Based on the prima facie case of retaliation. The Legal OIG screening criteria, Intake Unit staff Unit is currently in the process of conducted additional research into matters completing its review of the two remaining or requested clarifying documentation from complaints. CDCR institutions for 653 of these complaints. In addition, the OIG’s Legal Unit partnered with the law firm Liebert Cassidy Whitmore Seventy-eight complaints were referred to to provide retaliation investigation training the OIG’s regional operations teams to bring to OIG employees. the matters to the attention of the specific institutions and to monitor departmental Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination response at the local level. The OIG’s Intake Act Ombudsperson Claims (also referred Unit received 76 complaints alleging to as Prison Rape Elimination Act claims) inappropriate healthcare, a lack of access to healthcare, or both. OIG Intake or medical California Penal Code Section 2641 directs staff conducted additional analysis of these the OIG to act as the ombudsperson for medical, dental, and mental health complaints related to sexual abuse in complaints. The OIG referred these detention. The OIG is tasked with reviewing complaints to CDCR’s Division of allegations of mishandling sexual abuse Correctional Health Care Services for investigations within correctional remedy where the OIG determined potential institutions, maintaining the confidentiality violations of medical policies or procedures of sexual abuse victims, and ensuring occurred. impartial resolution of inmate and ward sexual abuse complaints. CDCR notified the CDCR Oversight Activities OIG of 122 sexual abuse allegations during 2014, including 71 with an inmate as the Retaliation Claims alleged perpetrator and 51 with a staff member as the alleged perpetrator. The OIG California Penal Code Sections 6128 and monitors CDCR’s handling of all sexual 6129 require the OIG receive and review abuse allegations and all subsequent complaints of retaliation levied against investigations of staff involvement. members of CDCR management by CDCR employees. The OIG’s Legal Unit analyzes The OIG received and reviewed 86 the allegations of each complaint to complaints relating to inadequate determine whether the complaint states a investigations of sexual abuse in detention prima facie case of retaliation. If the and sexual harassment by staff. The Intake complaint meets this initial legal threshold, Unit referred ten of those allegations to OIG the OIG initiates an investigation into the regional staff for remedy. The remaining 2014 Annual Report Page 8 Office of the Inspector General State of California 76 complaints went through the regular Critical Incident Monitoring intake process. The OIG maintains regional on-call staff Monitoring Activities who can respond on site 24 hours per day to critical incidents reported to the OIG from California Penal Code Section 6133(b)(1) any of the State’s correctional institutions. mandates the OIG publish a Semi-Annual During the July through December 2013 and Report of its oversight of CDCR internal January through June 2014 time periods, the affairs investigations, employee discipline, OIG monitored 203 critical incidents. and use of force. The OIG monitors a critical incident and any The OIG’s Discipline Monitoring Unit subsequent investigation with special provides contemporaneous oversight of emphasis on determining what led up to the CDCR’s internal affairs investigations and incident, whether it was handled employee discipline process. The OIG also appropriately, and what, if any, action oversees CDCR’s response to critical should be taken afterward. If the OIG incidents within the institutions. suspects neglect or misconduct, the staff will Furthermore, the OIG monitors the recommend and subsequently monitor any department’s contraband surveillance watch investigation. The OIG may recommend process and use-of-force reviews. policy changes to prevent future occurrences and conform to best practices. In some Internal Affairs and Employee Discipline instances, the OIG has identified systemic Monitoring issues and made recommendations statewide or at a specific institution. The OIG’s monitoring of CDCR’s internal affairs and employee discipline cases The critical incident table and summary is includes the allegation intake process, the found in Volume II of the OIG’s investigative phase by CDCR’s Office of Semi-Annual Report, available at: Internal Affairs, the decision-making www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php process by the hiring authorities, and the handling of the matter by the CDCR Contraband Surveillance Watch Employee Advocatcy Prosecution Team attorneys (referred to as “vertical The OIG began its formal monitoring of the advocates”). Monitoring includes all case department’s contraband surveillance watch activity, up to and including State Personnel process July 1, 2012, to ensure the process is Board proceedings, if necessary. The conducted within departmental policy and Semi-Annual Reports document the not used for punitive purposes. department’s adherence to its operating rules and procedures regarding employee Department staff notify the OIG any time an discipline. inmate is placed on contraband surveillance watch. The OIG reviews all relevant data The closed discipline cases monitored by the regarding the use of contraband surveillance OIG are reported in Volume I of the OIG’s watch. Additionally, whenever the Semi-Annual Report, available at: department keeps an inmate on contraband www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php surveillance watch longer than 72 hours, the OIG goes on scene to inspect the condition of the inmate and ensure the department is following its policies. This on-scene process 2014 Annual Report Page 9 Office of the Inspector General State of California continues every 72 hours until the After the completion of the Cycle 3 department removes the inmate from inspections in May 2013, the OIG engaged contraband surveillance watch. The OIG in a comprehensive dialogue with the immediately discusses serious breaches of stakeholders and the federal court to discuss policy with institution managers. the shortcomings of the OIG inspection In 2014, the OIG was notified of 483 program identified by the federal court contraband surveillance watch cases, 118 experts. The OIG inspection process was fewer than in 2013. Of the 483 notifications originally designed to be a compliance-only in 2014, the OIG monitored the 123 cases audit without a qualitative component. All that extended beyond 72 hours, as compared parties agreed that a qualitative component to 181 cases extending beyond 72 hours in was essential to a thorough assessment of 2013. The decrease in the need and length of the medical care delivered in the prison contraband surveillance watch is a positive setting. trend. After reaching consensus on the need for a Contraband surveillance watch reports are qualitative assessment, the OIG hired found in Volume II of the OIG’s additional clinical staff, including medical Semi-Annual Report, at: doctors and another nurse, to develop and www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php implement a qualitative assessment process to complement the compliance testing. The result is an updated medical inspection tool Use-of-Force Monitoring that will now not only address compliance with policy, but also examine quality of In 2014, CDCR reported 6,503 use-of-force care. incidents in the adult system. The OIG reviewed 3,968 incidents involving force During 2014 the OIG conducted five while attending 705 use-of-force review Cycle 4 pilot medical inspections (Deuel meetings. The OIG performed an additional Vocational Institution in March; California 598 use-of-force reviews outside of the Institution for Women in May; California review meetings. The OIG also participated State Prison, Sacramento, in September; as a non-voting member of CDCR’s Deadly High Desert State Prison in October; and Force Review Board. California Men’s Colony in October), and non-public pilot inspection drafts were The OIG’s monitoring activities are detailed provided to external stakeholders to assess in its Semi-Annual Reports, available on the the program developed by OIG. Those OIG’s website at: stakeholders include the Plata court medical www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php experts, the Receiver’s Office, the Office of the Attorney General, CDCR management, Medical Inspections and the Prison Law Office. The OIG worked collaboratively with the stakeholders Pursuant to California Penal Code Section receiving their feedback for the 6126(f), the OIG conducts an objective, improvement of its testing instruments. The clinically appropriate, and metric-oriented next cycle of inspections is starting in medical inspection program to review January 2015. delivery of medical care at each of the adult institutions in California. Past and future medical inspection reports can be found on the OIG’s website at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php 2014 Annual Report Page 10 Office of the Inspector General State of California Warden/Superintendent Vetting Blueprint Monitoring Penal Code Section 6126.6 requires that the OIG evaluate the qualifications of every candidate whom the Governor nominates for appointment as a State prison warden or a youth correctional facility superintendent, and report the recommendation in confidence to the Governor within 90 days of the request to evaluate the candidate. Candidates have typically been acting In 2012, the Legislature passed and the wardens for at least three months before the Governor signed legislation mandating the OIG process begins. The OIG is keenly OIG periodically review delivery of the aware of the need for stability in reforms identified in The Future of management and, therefore, strives to California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save complete its part of the vetting process as Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court expeditiously as possible. Oversight and Improve the Prison System (the Blueprint). The OIG uses a three-phase vetting process with an internal completion goal of 60 days, The department continued to show progress and this year has an average completion in implementing the goals of the Blueprint time of 55 days. In addition to conducting a in 2014. With regard to the standardized background investigation of the candidate staffing model, the department is meeting and surveying designated stakeholders, the the Blueprint goals at every institution. In first phase consists of a site visit conducted addition, the department has established and by a team of inspectors, which provides the is adhering to the new inmate classification OIG with an overview of the institution’s score system, showing a trend toward operations. During the second phase, the overall reduction in higher-level inmate Inspector General personally consults with placements. Also, the comprehensive outside stakeholders, conducts a housing plan outlined in the Blueprint is management review, and tours the facility generally on schedule, and the department is with the candidate. In the final phase, the housing inmates at Blueprint-prescribed Inspector General reviews all of the levels. The department still needs to show information gathered during the vetting progress in its rehabilitative program goals, process and evaluates the candidate’s as its biggest challenge remains increasing suitability for the position of warden or the percentage of inmates served in superintendent after a one-on-one interview. rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of its The Inspector General then submits a target population by June 30, 2015. confidential recommendation to the Governor. In October 2014, the department completed its 24-month pilot implementing its new Due to the high rate of attrition within prison gang management system by CDCR management, the OIG anticipates a conducting case-by-case reviews for continual demand for warden vetting in 37 percent of its total Security Threat Group 2015. Currently, there are 12 institutions population. Although there were no without permanent wardens. benchmarks identified in the Blueprint to complete a specific number or percentage of case-by-case reviews, a more rapid pace of reviews may have been expected by the 2014 Annual Report Page 11 Office of the Inspector General State of California Legislature and stakeholders. The OIG is education programs, and volunteer committed to monitoring and making rehabilitative programming. recommendations to the department in its pursuit of these goals. C-ROB published two reports in 2014. These reports commended the department The OIG published its third Blueprint for its dedication and progress in Monitoring report in March 2014 and its implementing rehabilitative programming fourth report in October 2014. and made several recommendations for improvement. The March 15, 2014, report outlined the many changes the department Blueprint monitoring reports are available on the OIG’s website at: was making as a result of the Blueprint. www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php C-ROB focused on the department’s plan to improve access to rehabilitative programs and to create sufficient capacity for California Rehabilitation Oversight approximately 70 percent of the Board department’s target population. Additionally, C-ROB underscored the The Public Safety and Offender importance of implementing proper Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (AB assessment and case management 900) established the 11-member California Programs, which are essential components Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). of the California Logic Model. In the Chaired by the Inspector General, California September 15, 2014, report, C-ROB focused Rehabilitation Oversight Board meetings are on successes and challenges identified from conducted to examine CDCR’s various site visits, and provided a summary of the mental health, substance abuse, education, areas working well, and those posing and employment programs for inmates and challenges to effective rehabilitation parolees. With the passage of the programming. In this report, C-ROB Governor’s 2014–2015 budget, the commended the department for making frequency of C-ROB board meetings was good progress filling vacancies and changed from quarterly to biannually, with expanding academic and career technical additional meetings as needed, and the education programs, as well as for reporting requirement was amended from improving data collection efforts with biannual reports due on March 15 and out-stationed eligibility workers for health September 15 to one annual report due on benefit enrollment. The board also ∗ September 15. recognized the department for working toward incentivizing substance abuse In 2014, C-ROB staff, in collaboration with treatment completions with the formation of the OIG’s Blueprint monitoring team, an incentives subcommittee. visited all 35 adult institutions to observe rehabilitation programs and identify The board recommended the department successes or challenges in programming. continue to work toward developing a case C-ROB staff reviews a variety of management plan, as well as a system to rehabilitative programming, including effectively track and report on milestone substance abuse treatment, academic credits earned and applied. C-ROB would education programs, career technical like to see the department add a bilingual component for the rehabilitative programs to eliminate language barriers in accordance ∗ Section 6141, as amended by Stats, 2014, Ch. 26, with the significant percentage of the inmate Section 33. population that is Spanish speaking. 2014 Annual Report Page 12 Office of the Inspector General State of California Lastly, C-ROB emphasized the importance likely to violate the terms of their parole of a reentry center located in every than those who have a permanent residence. institution, and recommended the staffing In the most recently completed fiscal year shortage of librarians be solved. (2013–14), over 76 percent of the sex offender parolees whom the department charged with violating their parole terms California Rehabilitation Oversight Board were transient. Less than 1 percent of those reports are available on the OIG’s website at: violations were for new sex crimes. http://www.oig.ca.gov/pages/c-rob.php Special Reviews are available on the OIG’s Special Reviews website at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php A special review process is codified in Penal Code Section 6126. Upon request of the Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, or the Senate Rules Committee, the OIG will conduct a review of CDCR policies, practices, or procedures set forth in the review request. Upon completion of the review, the OIG will report its findings and recommendations to the authorizing entity and publish a public report. Special Review: Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions On May 14, 2014, the Senate Rules Committee requested the OIG conduct a review and assessment of electronic monitoring of sex offenders on parole and the impact of residency restrictions on this same population. To do so, the OIG visited selected parole field offices to conduct interviews with management representatives of CDCR’s Division of Adult Parole Operations, sex offenders currently on parole, and parole agents. The OIG also interviewed local law enforcement officials and members of the California Sex Offender Management Board. In addition, The OIG analyzed statistical and demographic data about paroled sex offenders and conducted written surveys of selected district parole administrators throughout the State. In November 2014, the OIG published its report, which contained several findings and recommendations, the most significant being that transient sex offender parolees are more 2014 Annual Report Page 13 Office of the Inspector General State of California CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE In 2014, the OIG completed one special review and published ten formal reports containing 22 recommendations. The recommendations in these reports promote greater transparency, taxpayer savings, process improvements, increased accountability, and higher adherence to policies and constitutional standards. Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR in 2014 The OIG made five recommendations to CDCR in the March 2014 Semi-Annual Report, and four more recommendations in the October 2014 Semi-Annual Report. The department has fully implemented three of the nine Semi-Annual Report recommendations and substantially implemented two of the recommendations. One recommendation has not been implemented but is in the developmental process, and the remaining three are currently being reviewed. The OIG made three recommendations in the November 2014 Special Review: Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions. Of the three recommendations made in that special review, two have been fully implemented and one has been partially implemented. There were also six recommendations made in the C-ROB March 2014 Biannual Report and four made in the C-ROB September 2014 Biannual Report. The California Rehabilitation Oversight Board is an independent board, and, unlike the OIG, does not have authority to request specific responses to recommendations; however, the department has fully or substantially implemented five of the six recommendations from the March 2014 C-ROB report, and is currently reviewing the four most recent recommendations from the September C-ROB report. Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR in 2013 The OIG issued the Special Review: Female Inmates Serving Security Housing Unit (SHU) Terms in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in 2013, which included nine recommendations. The department reported full implementation of all nine recommendations; however, the OIG asserts that the majority of these recommendations have not been adequately implemented. The department did not address the OIG’s concerns with the department’s proposed corrective action plan at the time of the report and has not yet adequately addressed the issues identified by the OIG. The OIG has now elevated the issues to the Division of Adult Institutions Director for appropriate response and resolution. 2014 Annual Report Page 14 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2014 Annual Report 2013 OIG Annual Report (January 28, 2014) Semi-Annual Reports OIG Semi-Annual Report July–December 2013 Volume I (March 27, 2014) OIG Semi-Annual Report July–December 2013 Volume II (March 27, 2014) OIG Semi-Annual Report January–June 2014 Volume I (October 14, 2014) OIG Semi-Annual Report January–June 2014 Volume II (October 14, 2014) California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) C-ROB March 15, 2014 Biannual Report (March 14, 2014) C-ROB September 15, 2014 Biannual Report (September 15, 2014) Blueprint Monitoring Reports Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint (March 19, 2014) Fourth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint (October 27, 2014) Special Review Reports Special Review: Electronic Monitoring of Sex Offenders on Parole and the Impact of Residency Restrictions (November 6, 2014) All Reports are available on the OIG’s website at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php 2014 Annual Report Page 15 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2014 ANNUAL REPORT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA January 2015