OIG Annual Report

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General 2015 ANNUAL REPORT January 2016 Office of the Inspector General 20 15 ANNUAL REPORT Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General Shaun R. Spillane Public Information Officer January 2016 Table of Contents FOREWORD 4 OIG OUTREACH 5 Expert Assistance Provided to the Department of State Hospitals 7 ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW 8 FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 9 Statewide General Intake 9 CDCR Oversight Activities 10 Monitoring Activities 11 Medical Inspections 12 Warden/Superintendent Vetting 13 Blueprint Monitoring 14 California Rehabilitation Oversight Board 14 Special Reviews 15 CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE 16 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR in 2014 16 Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR in 2015 16 APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2015 17 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 year, more than ever before, saw an increased national discussion regarding issues of incarceration, including input from the President of the United States. Issues of over- incarceration, restorative justice, re-examination of sentencing, meaningful rehabilitation opportunities, mindfulness and resiliency training for staff, and limiting solitary confinement have been brought to the forefront of public consciousness. Now more than ever, is an opportunity for California to be a leader in smart and effective corrections policy that enhances public safety. It is my goal to aid CDCR in fulfilling that role. 2015 was a year of notable events within the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). After several months of collaboration with the various involved entities, the OIG embarked on a new and expanded medical inspection cycle. Reports are now provided assessing not only compliance with medical policies, but also the quality of clinical care provided. The Medical Inspection Unit doubled in size to enable the agency to conduct more inspections in a shorter time period. It is hoped that the feedback provided in the reports will be valuable in all parties’ efforts to improve the state of prison healthcare. The OIG also expanded its process for follow up and reporting on intake complaints. More details will be included in future Semi-Annual reports on the efforts between the OIG and the CDCR to resolve issues brought to our attention. There continues to be an emphasis within OIG to positively impact the rehabilitation efforts of CDCR and to assist in adding to the department’s progress in this area. The OIG is also assisting the California Health and Human Services agency in its effort to create a disciplinary process with added transparency and oversight. In December, the OIG completed a special report regarding High Desert State Prison that will hopefully result in permanent positive changes at that institution. In addition, the OIG has maintained a constant presence in the prisons via our monitoring activities and outreach. There are continued challenges faced by the department, especially in the turnover of key staff, including, but not limited to wardens. It is the goal of the OIG to aid in regaining stability by expeditiously completing our recommendations regarding wardens, and in working with new administrators in achieving the common goal of making the California correctional system a model agency. There is now a new Secretary and Chief Counsel for the Department, as well as a vacancy for the very important post of Director of Rehabilitative Programs. The OIG looks forward to working with these new partners, along with the legislature, and the administration, to improve the California criminal justice system and make it a leader in this rejuvenated environment of national discussion. Robert A. Barton Inspector General 2015 Annual Report Page 4 Office of the Inspector General State of California OIG OUTREACH The OIG consistently seeks opportunities to better assess and recommend improvements within CDCR. This requires communication with departmental staff, the institutions, and outside stakeholders. The OIG also educates these entities about the OIG mission and solicits input from them. Finally, the OIG searches for ways to learn about best practices to be implemented within the State’s system. All of this requires constant outreach by the agency. The OIG provides public transparency for the State’s correctional system. One of the ways to have an impact and become aware of issues within corrections is to have a personal presence within the institutions. In addition to daily presence through OIG staff monitoring and providing on-scene response to incidents, the Inspector General or Chief Deputy Inspector General visits every adult institution and youth correctional facility at least once annually. In 2015, the Inspector General conducted 34 institution visits. The Chief Deputy Inspector General conducted 16 institution visits and visited O.H. Close Youth Correctional Facility, N.A. Chaderjian Youth Correctional Facility, and Baseline Fire Camp. The Inspector General and Chief Deputy Inspector General also visited the four out-of-state correctional facilities that house California inmates—Tallahatchie County Correctional Facility in Mississippi, North Fork Correctional Facility in Oklahoma, and La Palma Correctional Center and Florence Correctional Center in Arizona. In total, the Inspector General and Chief Deputy conducted 50 institution visits in 2015. Above and beyond the staff who monitor systems within the prisons on a daily basis, OIG staff are specifically tasked to assess the rehabilitation and education operations as part of a review for the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board and Blueprint monitoring function at least twice per year. The California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, where the OIG and staff interact with the department and other stakeholders at regular meetings, provides another avenue for input. The Office of the Inspector General staff make presentations to the CDCR Office of Internal Affairs academy regarding the role and function of the OIG. Presentations are also made by the OIG to correctional officer candidates in the Galt academy, and at CDCR leadership conferences. Additional presentations on the OIG’s role and function were provided to various entities when requested such as the Division of Adult Parole Operations, Life Support Alliance, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Statewide Inmate Family Council, etc. The OIG continues to maintain a close liaison with senior management at the department. The Chief Deputy Inspector General holds monthly meetings with the Director of Adult Institutions, the Director of Adult Parole Operations, the Director of Internal Oversight and Research, and the Deputy Director for the Office of Internal Affairs. The Inspector General also meets monthly with the Secretary of CDCR. These meetings allow for a high-level discussion of issues and problems and their timely resolution. In addition, the Assistant Chief Deputy Inspector General has monthly meetings with the Chief Counsel for the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, the Chief of Field Operations, the Office of Internal Affairs, the regional Assistant Chief Counsels for the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution Team, and regional Special Agents in Charge for the Office of Internal Affairs. These meetings delve into more day-to-day operational issues and have been extremely helpful in resolving issues at the field level. The Inspector General and OIG staff also attend noteworthy events throughout the State to maintain contact with the department and the public in order to educate and establish working relationships with stakeholders. 2015 Annual Report Page 5 Office of the Inspector General State of California The Inspector General personally: • Participated in the Executive Development Orientation Program • Presented at the Volunteer Advisory Task Force • Presented at the Life Support Alliance first lifer annual seminar • Attended the Service Employees International Union’s annual legislative reception • Attended the California Leadership Forum • Attended the Community Justice 2014 International Summit hosted by the Administrative Office of the Courts • Participated in the California State Employees with Disabilities training symposium “Advancing Disability Employment in State Government” • Presented a training seminar at CDCR’s Correctional Training Center regarding Employee Investigation and the Disciplinary Process • Participated as a guest speaker at the annual National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference • Participated in the Smart on Safety Summit in Los Angeles • Presented at the Division of Adult Parole Operations leadership conference • Attended the Californians for Safety and Justice conference • Attended events sponsored by the Anti-Recidivism Coalition (ARC) • Attended the Actor’s Gang Prison Project rehabilitative program graduation at the California Institution for Men • Participated in the Mindful Justice working conference at the Fetzer Institute in Michigan • Supported the Caring for Kids charity event with staff members of the OIG to raise funds and awareness for adoption and foster care • Attended the California Prison Industry inmate graduation at the Folsom Women’s Facility • Attended and addressed a Pain of the Prison System (POPS) club meeting at Venice High School • Attended and presented at the Asian Pacific State Employee Association’s leadership conference • Attended the Survivor’s Speak Conference as part of National Crime Victims’ Rights Week • Presented at the Inmate Family Council • Attended a workshop titled Burning Down the House, the End of Juvenile Prison • Attended the 70th year anniversary of Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp Inspector General Bob Barton participating in the Life Support Alliance seminar with Jennifer Shaffer, Inspector General Bob Barton and OIG Executive Officer of the Board of Parole Hearings. staff supporting the Caring for Kids charity run. 2015 Annual Report Page 6 Office of the Inspector General State of California Staff of the OIG from the C-ROB, Publications, and Rehabilitation unit: • Attended CDCR’s Medal of Valor Ceremony • Attended Defy Ventures inmate rehabilitative programming group • Participated in CDCR’s Gender Responsive Training Conference • Participated in CDCR’s Internet Protocol Television Integration Content Selection Committee • Attended Insight Prison Project’s Victim Offender Education Group • Attended briefings on public safety realignment, parole populations, crime trends, and prison capacity challenges held at the Public Policy Institute in Sacramento. • Visited DAPO’s Lifer Peer Reentry Navigation Network pilot program • Attended the One Family rehabilitative program graduation • Participated in the California Coalition on Sexual Offending training conference Other staff of the OIG: • Attended the 70th year anniversary of Pine Grove Youth Conservation Camp • Coordinated an agency-wide clothing drive to support a local Female Offende r Treatment and Employment Program • Observed annual firecrew training at Ishi fire camp The Inspector General, Chief Deputy The OIG invited outside stakeholders to address and Roy Wesley, and Senior Assistant interact with OIG Staff at the annual OIG All-Staff meeting Inspector General, Suzann Gostovich to provide feedback, training, and cooperation across at Ishi fire camp. agency, hierarchical, and functional boundaries. Expert Assistance Provided to the California Health and Human Services Agency At the request of the Secretary of California Health and Human Services Agency, the OIG has entered into an interagency agreement to provide expertise for the creation of a system of transparent oversight of the disciplinary processes for the Department of State Hospitals and the California Department of Developmental Services. The goal of the joint venture is to create a robust internal affairs process with public reporting. The OIG worked closely with the Secretary’s office and provided detailed reviews of the various strategies and proposals developed. The OIG continues its collaboration with the California Health and Human Services Agency as that agency activates its plan for transparent oversight of the employee disciplinary system. 2015 Annual Report Page 7 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 staff is 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 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. OIG Organizational Chart Inspector General C-ROB Chief Deputy SLAA and Chief Intake and Administration Publications, Inspector Vetting Counsel Investigations Rehabilitation General Human Medical Discipline Resources Inspection Monitoring Information Unit Unit Technology Business Services Assistant Chief Deputy Inspector General North Central South Special Region Region Region Assignments Team 2015 Annual Report Page 8 Office of the Inspector General State of California FUNCTIONS OF THE appropriate intervention to mental health inmates. OFFICE OF THE In non-urgent matters, staff directly contact INSPECTOR GENERAL institutional personnel in order to remedy issues that may be addressed informally, California Penal Code Section 6125 such as failure to accept an appeal, failure to establishes the Office of the Inspector schedule a classification hearing, or failure General as an independent agency and to schedule medical appointments. The provides for the Inspector General to be Intake Unit focuses OIG staff resources on appointed to a six-year term by the the most serious complaints by using a Governor, subject to Senate confirmation. matrix of common prison issues that receive Robert A. Barton was appointed on August priority attention. Lack of access to 29, 2011, and his term will expire in 2017. grievance processes or health care, serious due process violations, unnecessary California Penal Code Sections 2641 and extended stays in segregation units, sexual 6125 et seq. set forth the functions of the abuse, serious staff misconduct, and Office of the Inspector General. inappropriate uses of force are included in the matrix. However, if a trend of lesser Statewide General Intake policy violations is identified, the Intake Unit makes efforts to remedy any potentially The OIG maintains a statewide intake systemic problem. In most instances, the process to receive communications from any Intake Unit encourages complainants to individual regarding allegations of improper utilize CDCR’s grievance processes to activity within CDCR. The OIG does not resolve their issues before contacting the independently conduct investigations. OIG; therefore, lack of access to the However, complaints of misconduct are grievance process or unjustified rejection of brought to the department’s attention. appeals by CDCR staff often receive the most attention from Intake Unit staff. The OIG Intake Unit logs, reviews, analyzes, and responds to every When Intake Unit staff find potential non-duplicative complaint it receives. Intake misconduct or policy violations after Unit staff screen all complaints within 24 reviewing complaints and corresponding hours of receipt to identify potential safety CDCR documents, the cases are presented at concerns. During 2015, Intake Unit staff a semimonthly meeting with the Inspector contacted institutions 34 times indicating General for consideration of referral to OIG potential safety concerns based on letters regional field staff. In the field, OIG staff and messages left on the toll-free public work directly with CDCR administrators to phone line, calls received on the main OIG remedy identified issues, usually resulting in telephone number, and complaints submitted simple, informal fixes, such as the training electronically. These complaints expressed of staff, the initiation of inquiries, or potentially unsafe conditions, such as enemy use-of-force reviews to determine whether concerns, threatening behavior, or other misconduct may have occurred. If CDCR indicators that there may be a safety or initiates a formal investigation, OIG regional security risk for staff or inmates. Intake Unit staff monitors it in accordance with the staff require CDCR to provide a status of the OIG’s normal discipline monitoring situation to ensure the department rectifies activities and reports the findings in the any safety concerns and provides Semi-Annual Report. 2015 Annual Report Page 9 Office of the Inspector General State of California Complaints alleging theft, fraud, or waste of CDCR Oversight Activities State resources concerning CDCR are also presented to the Inspector General for Retaliation Claims consideration of referral to the California State Auditor. California Penal Code Sections 6128 and 6129 provides an avenue for the OIG to In 2015, the OIG’s Intake Unit received receive and review complaints of retaliation 2,266 general complaints submitted by levied against members of CDCR inmates, parolees, families, CDCR management by CDCR employees. The employees, and advocacy groups, including OIG’s Legal Unit analyzes the allegations of 36 complaints the Office of the Governor each complaint to determine whether the assigned the OIG to review. Based on the complaint states a prima facie case of OIG screening criteria, Intake Unit staff retaliation. If the complaint meets this initial conducted additional research into matters legal threshold, the OIG initiates an or requested clarifying documentation from investigation into the allegations and CDCR institutions for 844 of these determines whether retaliation has occurred. complaints. If the OIG determines a CDCR employee has been subjected to unlawful retaliation, The OIG’s Intake Unit received 136 the OIG provides a report of its findings to complaints alleging inappropriate CDCR along with a recommendation of the healthcare, a lack of access to healthcare, or appropriate corrective action. both. OIG Intake or medical staff conducted additional analysis of these medical, dental, In 2015, the OIG received 16 retaliation and mental health complaints. The OIG complaints. The Legal Unit determined 2 referred these complaints to CDCR’s stated a prima facie case of retaliation and Division of Correctional Health Care opened investigations into each complaint. Services for remedy where the OIG One of those investigations has been determined potential violations of medical completed; the other is still pending. Of the policies or procedures occurred. 14 other complaints, the Legal Unit determined 12 did not state a prima facie case of retaliation and is still in the process Field Inquiries of evaluating the other two. Since its inception, the OIG has provided a process by which inmates, CDCR staff, and The OIG also concluded its investigation the public can report misconduct. The OIG into a complaint it received in 2013 and examines complaints received and assigns determined neither of the two remaining staff to conduct field inquiries regarding the complaints it received in 2014 stated a prima complaints at the institutions. On July 1, facie case of retaliation. 2015, the OIG began to collect data regarding CDCR’s response to OIG’s Sexual Abuse in Detention Elimination inquiries to be included in our semi-annual Act Ombudsperson Claims (also referred report. In 2015, the OIG referred 70 field to as Prison Rape Elimination Act claims) inquiries to the OIG’s regional operations California Penal Code Section 2641 directs teams to bring the matters to the attention of the OIG to act as the ombudsperson for the specific institutions and to monitor complaints related to sexual abuse in departmental response at the local level. detention. The OIG is tasked with reviewing allegations of mishandling sexual abuse investigations within correctional 2015 Annual Report Page 10 Office of the Inspector General State of California institutions, maintaining the confidentiality includes the allegation intake process, the of sexual abuse victims, and ensuring investigative phase by CDCR’s Office of impartial resolution of inmate and ward Internal Affairs, the decision-making sexual abuse complaints. The Inspector process by the hiring authorities, and the General met with both Just Detention handling of the matter by the CDCR International and ACLU to explain the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution agency’s role in this area. Team attorneys (referred to as “vertical advocates”). Monitoring includes all case CDCR notified the OIG of 264 sexual abuse activity, up to and including State Personnel allegations during 2015, including 127 with Board proceedings, if necessary. The an inmate as the alleged perpetrator, 136 Semi-Annual Reports document the with a staff member as the alleged department’s adherence to its operating rules perpetrator; and 1 with an inmate and staff and procedures regarding employee as alleged perpetrators. The OIG monitors discipline. In 2015, the OIG opened 514 CDCR’s handling of all sexual abuse employee discipline cases for monitoring. allegations and all subsequent investigations of alleged staff involvement. Closed discipline cases are reported in Volume I of the OIG’s Semi-Annual Report: The OIG received and reviewed www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php 127 complaints alleging inadequate investigations of sexual abuse in detention and sexual harassment by staff. The Critical Incident Monitoring Inspector General referred fourteen of those allegations to OIG regional staff for follow The OIG maintains regional on-call staff up. who can respond on site 24 hours per day to critical incidents reported to the OIG from Monitoring Activities any of the State’s correctional institutions. In 2015, the OIG monitored 195 critical California Penal Code Section 6133(b)(1) incidents. mandates the OIG publish a Semi-Annual Report of its oversight of CDCR. The OIG monitors a critical incident and any subsequent investigation with special The OIG’s Discipline Monitoring Unit emphasis on determining what led up to the provides contemporaneous oversight of incident, whether it was handled CDCR’s internal affairs investigations and appropriately, and what, if any, action employee discipline process. The OIG also should be taken afterward. If the OIG oversees CDCR’s response to critical suspects neglect or misconduct, OIG staff incidents within the institutions and will recommend and subsequently monitor monitors the department’s contraband any investigation. The OIG may recommend surveillance watch process and use-of-force policy changes to prevent future occurrences reviews. In addition, the OIG conducts field and conform to best practices. In some inquiries based on complaints received from instances, the OIG has identified systemic inmates, CDCR staff, and the public. issues and made recommendations statewide or at a specific institution. Internal Affairs and Employee Discipline Critical incident case summaries are reported Monitoring in Volume II of the OIG’s Semi-Annual Report, available at: The OIG’s monitoring of CDCR’s internal www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php affairs and employee discipline cases 2015 Annual Report Page 11 Office of the Inspector General State of California Contraband Surveillance Watch use of force incident and allow collection of data identifying those officers who use force The OIG monitors the department’s most often and those inmates against whom contraband surveillance watch process to force is used most often. The new tool will ensure it is conducted within departmental also allow identification of “hotspots” where policy and not used for punitive purposes. force is used within a prison. The new tool was deployed on January 1, 2016 and is Department staff notify the OIG any time an undergoing field beta testing. The OIG also inmate is placed on contraband surveillance participates as a non-voting member of the watch. The OIG reviews all relevant data CDCR Deadly Force Review Board. regarding the use of contraband surveillance watch. Additionally, whenever the Use-of-Force reports are found in Volume II department keeps an inmate on contraband of the OIG’s Semi-Annual Report, at: surveillance watch longer than 72 hours, the www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php OIG opens a case, goes on scene to inspect the inmate’s condition, and ensures the department is following its policies. This Medical Inspections on-scene process continues every 72 hours until the department removes the inmate Pursuant to California P enal Code, Section from contraband surveillance watch. The 6126(f), the OIG conducts an objective, OIG immediately discusses serious breaches clinically appropriate, and metric-oriented of policy with institution managers. medical inspection program to review delivery of medical care at each of the adult In 2015, the OIG was notified of 308 institutions in California. contraband surveillance watch cases, 175 fewer than in 2014. Of the 308 notifications After completing pilot medical inspections in 2015, the OIG monitored the 101 cases at seven institutions, the OIG began its that extended beyond 72 hours, as compared fourth cycle of medical inspections on to 123 cases extending beyond 72 hours in January 26, 2015. During 2015, the OIG 2014. The continued decrease in the need completed 12 of its Cycle 4 medical and length of contraband surveillance watch inspections. Related to those inspections, the is a positive trend. OIG issued eight final public reports; as of December 31, 2015, the OIG had also issued Contraband surveillance watch reports are one additional draft report to external found in Volume II of the OIG’s stakeholders. Semi-Annual Report, at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php The Cycle 4 medical inspection methodology includes qualitative reviews Use-of-Force Monitoring and compliance testing conducted by teams staffed with OIG clinicians and deputy The OIG continues to monitor the inspectors general, who use 16 quality department’s use-of-force review process. indicators of health care to assess each The OIG attended 891 Executive Review institution. During the second half of 2015, Committee meetings and reviewed nearly the OIG more than doubled its Medical 3,500 of the almost 6,000 use of force Inspection Unit staff to complete the incidents. For the past year, OIG has been inspection cycle faster. Once all of the new developing a new use-of-force monitoring teams are fully staffed and trained, the OIG tool to allow more in-depth analysis of each should be able to conduct a full cycle of 2015 Annual Report Page 12 Office of the Inspector General State of California inspections over a period of approximately investigation of the candidate and surveying 12 months. designated stakeholders, the first phase consists of a site visit conducted by a team OIG Cycle 4 Medical Inspections of inspectors, which provides the OIG with Conducted During 2015 an overview of the institution’s operations. During the second phase, the Inspector Institution Final Report Rating General personally consults with outside Inspected Issued stakeholders, conducts a management FSP April 2015 Adequate review, and tours the facility with the CTF June 2015 Adequate candidate. In the final phase, the Inspector General reviews all of the information CRC July 2015 Adequate gathered during the vetting process and CCC August 2015 Inadequate evaluates the candidate’s suitability for the CVSP September 2015 Adequate position of warden or superintendent after a one-on-one interview. The Inspector NKSP October 2015 Inadequate General then submits a confidential SOL December 2015 Inadequate recommendation to the Governor. KVSP December 2015 Adequate CCI January 2016 Adequate Due to the high rate of attrition from retirement within CDCR management, the PBSP (pending) TBA OIG anticipates a continual demand for VSP (pending) TBA warden vetting in 2016. Currently, the CEN (pending) TBA following 13 institutions are without permanent wardens:  Avenal State Prison Warden/Superintendent Vetting  California Correctional Center Penal Code Section 6126.6 requires that the  California Health Care Facility OIG evaluate the qualifications of every  California Institution for Men candidate whom the Governor nominates for  California Men’s Colony appointment as a State prison warden or a  California State Prison, Los Angeles youth correctional facility superintendent, County and report the recommendation in  Centinela State Prison confidence to the Governor within 90 days of the request to evaluate the candidate.  Correctional Training Facility Candidates have typically been acting  High Desert State Prison wardens for at least three months before the  Kern Valley State Prison OIG process begins. The OIG is keenly  North Kern State Prison aware of the need for stability in management and, therefore, strives to  Sierra Conservation Center complete its part of the vetting process as  Wasco State Prison. expeditiously as possible. The OIG uses a three-phase vetting process with an internal completion goal of 60 days, and this year 10 vettings were completed, with an average completion time of 56 days. In addition to conducting a background 2015 Annual Report Page 13 Office of the Inspector General State of California Blueprint Monitoring agreement is to be implemented over a 24- month pilot period, placing an emphasis on In 2012, the Legislature passed and the completing all remaining case reviews for Governor signed legislation mandating the all SHU inmates on a definitive timeline— OIG periodically review delivery of the within 12 months of the court’s preliminary reforms identified in The Future of approval of the settlement agreement—by California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save August 31, 2016. These reviews are to be Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court conducted by Institution Classification Oversight and Improve the Prison System Committees, and inmates who have served (the Blueprint). the longest SHU terms will be prioritized. The OIG will continue to monitor and report on the revised agreement. Blueprint monitoring reports are available on the OIG’s website at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php The department continued to show progress California Rehabilitation Oversight in implementing the goals of the Blueprint Board in 2015. With regard to the standardized staffing model, the department is meeting The Public Safety and Offender the Blueprint goals at every institution. In Rehabilitation Services Act of 2007 (AB addition, the department has established and 900) established the 11-member California is adhering to the new inmate classification Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB). score system, showing a trend toward Chaired by the Inspector General, California overall reduction in higher-level inmate Rehabilitation Oversight Board meetings are placements. Also, the comprehensive conducted three times per year to examine housing plan outlined in the Blueprint is CDCR’s various mental health, substance generally on schedule, and the department is abuse, education, and employment programs housing inmates at Blueprint-prescribed for inmates and parolees. The C-ROB report levels. The department made progress in is published annually, on September 15. implementing some of its rehabilitative program goals, but it was unable to attain its In 2015, C-ROB staff, in collaboration with goal of reaching 70 percent of its target the OIG’s Blueprint monitoring team, population by June 30, 2015, as only 56 visited all 35 adult institutions to observe percent of its target was served. rehabilitation programs and identify successes and challenges in programming. On August 31, 2015, the department entered into a settlement agreement for Todd C-ROB staff review a broad range of Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of rehabilitative programs, services, and California, et al., Settlement Agreement, C activity groups, including substance abuse 09-05796 CW. The agreement involves treatment, academic education programs, changes to policies and practices for placing, career technical education programs, and housing, managing, and retaining inmates volunteer rehabilitative programming. who have been validated as prison gang members and associates, along with Institution site visits revealed many positive conditions in each of its four Security changes occurring within the department, Housing Unit (SHU) institutions. This 2015 Annual Report Page 14 Office of the Inspector General State of California especially its efforts to expand reentry complaints against staff; reviews of services and substance abuse treatment. The misconduct allegation inquiry reports, department successfully increased its internal affairs investigation reports, and rehabilitative program capacity by nearly 30 heath review reports; and research into percent in less than two years, has developed current policy and practices plus past a case management plan, and has addressed reviews done at the institution. all four of the recommendations from the 2014 C-ROB report. The 2015 C-ROB As a result of this statutorily authorized report also provides four recommendations. review process, the OIG was sued by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association in an attempt to curtail the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board legitimate oversight efforts of the OIG. The reports are available on the OIG’s website at: pending litigation threatens the ability of this http://www.oig.ca.gov/pages/c-rob.php oversight agency to conduct lawful reviews and provide public transparency to the Special Reviews conditions and practices within CDCR. A special review process is codified in Penal Special Reviews are available on the OIG’s Code Section 6126. Upon request of the website at: Governor, the Speaker of the Assembly, or www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php 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: High Desert State Prison Susanville, CA The Office of the Inspector General completed one Special Review in 2015. The Senate Committee on Rules requested a review of the practices at High Desert State Prison regarding various aspects of interaction between staff and inmates. The report was published December 16, 20151. The report makes several findings and recommendations. The review lasted several months and involved interviews with dozens of former staff and former and current inmates, and active monitoring of 20 potential misconduct investigations involving HDSP staff. In addition, OIG staff conducted reviews of prior inmate appeals, disciplinary actions, confidential files, and 2015 Annual Report Page 15 Office of the Inspector General State of California CDCR CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN UPDATE In 2015, the OIG completed one special review and published 17 formal reports containing 62 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 or substantially implemented five of the nine Semi-Annual Report recommendations and partially implemented one of the recommendations. Two of the recommendations have not been implemented, and the remaining one is 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 four of the six recommendations from the March 2014 C-ROB report, and partially implemented the remaining two recommendations. In addition, the department has partially implemented the four recommendations from the September 2014 C-ROB report. Status of Recommendations Made to CDCR in 2015 The OIG made eight recommendations to CDCR in the March 2015 Semi-Annual Report, and three more recommendations in the October 2015 Semi-Annual Report. The department has fully or substantially implemented four of the eleven Semi-Annual Report recommendations and partially implemented four of the recommendations. One of the recommendations has not been implemented, and the two remaining recommendations are currently being reviewed. The OIG made 45 recommendations to the department in the December 2015 Special Review: High Desert State Prison Susanville, CA. These recommendations are all currently being reviewed. There were also four recommendations made in the September 2015 C-ROB report. Three of the recommendations have been partially implemented and one is currently being reviewed. The Medical Inspection Reports also contain institution-specific recommendations that are provided to the Receiver and the department, but due to the authority of the Receiver to implement corrections, the department does not submit a corrective action plan for the recommendations in the MIU reports. 2015 Annual Report Page 16 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX: REPORTS RELEASED IN 2015 Annual Report 2014 OIG Annual Report (January 2015) Semi-Annual Reports OIG Semi-Annual Report July–December 2014 Volume I (March 20, 2015) OIG Semi-Annual Report July–December 2014 Volume II (March 20, 2015) OIG Semi-Annual Report January–June 2015 Volume I (September 16, 2015) OIG Semi-Annual Report January–June 2015 Volume II (September 16, 2015) Medical Inspection Reports California Training Facility Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (June 18, 2015) California Rehabilitation Center Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (July 3, 2015) California Correctional Center Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (August 25, 2015) California State Prison, Solano Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (December 22, 2015) Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (September 29, 2015) Folsom State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (April 22, 2015) Kern Valley State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (December 31, 2015) North Kern State Prison Medical Inspection Results Cycle 4 (October 23, 2015) California Rehabilitation Oversight Board (C-ROB) Report C-ROB September 15, 2015 Biannual Report (September 15, 2015) Blueprint Monitoring Reports Fifth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint (March 16, 2015) Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint (September 30, 2015) Special Review Reports 2015 Special Review: High Desert State Prison Susanville, CA (December 16, 2015) All Reports are available on the OIG’s website at: www.oig.ca.gov/pages/reports.php 2015 Annual Report Page 17 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2015 ANNUAL REPORT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA January 2016