11th Blueprint Monitoring Report

Roy W. Wesley, Inspector General Bryan B. Beyer, Chief Deputy Inspector General of the OFFICE OIG INSPECTOR GENERAL Independent Prison Oversight August 2020 Blueprint Monitoring Eleventh Report The OIG’s Monitoring of the Delivery of the Reforms Identified by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in Its Report Titled The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System and Its Update Electronic copies of reports published by the Office of the Inspector General are available free in portable document format (PDF) on our website. We also offer an online subscription service. For information on how to subscribe, visit www.oig.ca.gov. For questions concerning the contents of this report, please contact Shaun Spillane, Public Information Officer, at 916-255-1131. T he Inspector General shall conduct an objective, metric-oriented oversight and inspection program to periodically review delivery of the reforms identified in the document released by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation in April 2012, entitled The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System (the blueprint), including, but not limited to, the following specific goals and reforms described by the blueprint. — State of California (Penal Code section 6126 (g)) Return to Contents ii | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | iii Contents Summary 1 Introduction 5 Rehabilitative Programs 7 In Prison: Assess Needs 8 Rehabilitation Program Report 9 Case Management Plan 11 OIG Fieldwork Review 13 Academic Education 14 Career Technical Education 17 Transitions 18 Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment 18 Sex Offender Treatment Program 21 California Identification Card Program 22 Standardized Staffing for Education Programs 25 Academic Education 26 Career Technical Education 27 Classification and Housing 31 Housing Plan: Global Benchmarks 32 Contract Capacity 33 Proposition 57 34 Milestone Credits 35 Sensitive Needs Yards 37 Security Threat Group Regulations and the Step-Down Program 38 Recommendations 41 Appendices 43 Appendix A—Rehabilitative Case Plan: Example 43 Appendix B—Statewide Programming Totals 44 Appendix B—Statewide Programming Totals: Exhibit 45 Appendix C—Status of Blueprint Recommendations, 2019 46 Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents iv | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Illustrations Tables Terms Used in This Report v 1. CSRA and COMPAS Assessments 9 2. OIG Fieldwork Summary of Operational Programs 14 3. Summary of Academic Education Programs / Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) 16 4. Summary of Career Technical Education Programs 17 5. Summary of Transitions 18 6. Summary of Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs 21 7. Program Vacancies in Academic Education and Career Technical Education Over Three Reporting Periods 25 8. Vacancy Rates for Academic Education Instructors Across Institutions 26 9. Academic Education Positions for the California Institution for Men and Ironwood State Prison 27 10. Instructor Vacancy Rates for Career Technical Education 28 11. Career Technical Education Positions at Institutions With an Instructor Vacancy Rate Over 40 Percent 29 12. Custody Designations 31 13. Modified Community Correctional Facilities’ Capacity and Population 33 14. Sample of Milestone Completion Credit Schedule Changes 36 Graphics The Roadmap to Rehabilitation 7 Image credit, page i : Historic site plan of San Quentin State Prison reproduced courtesy of the U.S. Department of the Interior, sourced from the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | v Terms Used in This Report On January 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement for Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., Northern District of California, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW (Ashker v. Brown). The agreement involved changes to policies Ashker and practices for placing, housing, managing, and retaining inmates who have been validated Settlement as prison gang members and associates, along with conditions in each of the department’s four Agreement security housing unit (SHU) institutions. The agreement was also significant because it allowed the department to address housing challenges, as the movement of step-down program (SDP) inmates from SHU to general-population housing freed up (former) SHU beds to lesser security levels. In 2007, an Expert Panel on Adult Offender and Recidivism Reduction Programs issued a report California Logic recommending the department implement the California Logic Model. The model consists of eight Model components for delivering effective rehabilitation by applying evidence-based principles. A validated risk-assessment tool that considers an inmate’s past criminal history and characteristics, California Static such as age and gender. The tool is used to predict the individual’s risk to reoffend. Based on the Risk Assessment score, the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) assigns the inmate a classification category: low, (CSRA) moderate, or high risk. Core Correctional A validated, automated, needs-assessment tool used to identify criminogenic needs of offenders Offender and parolees based on their responses to interview questions. Criminogenic need categories can Management include any of the following: substance abuse, anger management, employment problems, criminal Profiling for personality, and family support. COMPAS results assist in identifying an inmate’s criminal risk factors Alternative and assessing whether the inmate has a low, medium, or high need for certain types of offender Sanctions rehabilitative programming. (COMPAS) Division of A secure, multichannel, streaming network that delivers 24/7 rehabilitative television programming Rehabilitative to all departmental institutions. Each channel is designed to broaden an offender’s rehabilitative Programs development during their incarceration. The DRP-TV programming includes the following channels: Television Education, Employment, Freedom, and Wellness.* (DRP-TV) A voluntary credit-earning program designed to extend learning outside the traditional classroom eLearning environment via the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) television. The department’s institutions provide four levels of housing, as follows: • Level I facilities and camps primarily consist of open dormitories with a low-security perimeter. Inmates typically have a placement score from zero through 18. • Level II facilities primarily consist of open dormitories with a secure perimeter, which may include armed coverage. Inmates typically have a placement score from 19 through 35. • Level III facilities primarily have a secure perimeter with armed coverage and housing units or cellblock housing with cells that are not adjacent to exterior walls. Inmates typically have a Housing (or placement score from 36 to 59. Security) Levels • Level IV facilities have a secure perimeter with internal and external armed coverage and housing units or cellblock housing with cells that are not adjacent to exterior walls. Inmates typically have a placement score above 60. • Lower-level housing may be considered as Levels I and II, with higher-level housing as Levels III and IV. It is possible for an inmate to be housed in a facility that does not correspond with his placement score, based on an override by departmental officials, due to an administrative determinant. * Division of Rehabilitative Programs – Television,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (accessed June 25, 2020, https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/drp-tv/). (Table continued on next page.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents vi | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Terms Used in This Report (continued) Nondesignated programming facilities (NDPFs) do not identify inmates as sensitive needs yard or Nondesignated general population. The department is slowly transitioning its lower-level housing facilities (I and Programming II) into NDPFs, as inmates in these facilities are deemed “programming” inmates. The focus of Facilities the NDPF is to offer an environment that provides greater rehabilitative opportunities for inmates (NDPFs) demonstrating positive programming efforts. In November 2016, California passed Proposition 57, the California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative, requiring the department to adopt Proposition 57 regulations implementing new parole and sentence-credit provisions to enhance public safety, and authorizing the department to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements. Security Within the department, the overarching term “security threat group” now replaces the individual Threat Group terms “prison gang,” “disruptive group,” and “street gang.” (STG) Sensitive Sensitive needs yards are facilities at several male institutions designated primarily to safely house Needs Yard inmates who are victims of assault, are gang dropouts, or have significant enemy or other safety (SNY) concerns. Security A specialized housing unit where inmates have restrictions placed on their movements, privileges, Housing Unit and workgroup status. Inmates in SHU are released to general population if they complete their (SHU) SHU terms without committing additional acts of misconduct. Step-Down This program provides inmates with increased incentives that promote positive behavior and Program encourage individuals to stop participating in STG activities, with the ultimate goal to be released (SDP) from the SHU to general population. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 1 Summary California Penal Code section 6126 mandates the Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) periodically review the delivery of the reforms identified by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) in its 2012 report titled The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System (the Blueprint).1 In January 2016, the department issued An Update to the Future of California Corrections (the Update), which provides a summary of the goals identified in the initial Blueprint and the progress made, along with the department’s vision for future rehabilitative programming as well as safety and security. Of the five key Blueprint components the OIG monitors, the department previously achieved a 100 percent adherence rate for maintaining custody staffing patterns that matched budgeted levels and for implementing its offender classification score system. This report evaluates the remaining Blueprint components—adhering to the standardized staffing model for education programs and increasing the total number of offenders served in rehabilitative programs—and evaluates the changes made following the Update in rehabilitative program expansion, specialized housing, gang management, and population management. The OIG sent staff to each of the department’s 35 adult institutions, where they reviewed and reconciled departmental documents,2 interviewed staff, and observed departmental programs in operation. This report presents our 11th review of the Blueprint, and our findings are based on information collected from February 6, 2020, through March 10, 2020, except for departmental population figures, which extend through June 17, 2020. Of note, these on-site visits occurred just prior to the department initiating its response to the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in mid-March 2020. Effective March 18, 2020, the department suspended all Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) treatment programming, including the new integrated substance use disorder treatment program. Due to these program closures, many rehabilitative staff were no longer reporting to the institutions, while DRP Correctional Counselor II and III positions, Parole Services Associates, and Office Technicians continued to report to assigned institutions. Career Technical Education students were to be provided textbooks or independent study assignments. Administrators 1. See https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/2012plan/docs/plan/complete.pdf to read the online version of the department’s original report. 2. A review of departmental documents and records includes, in part, rehabilitative roster sign-in sheets, a listing of education employees, and a listing of offender activity groups. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 2 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report were encouraged to expand eLearning enrollment via the Postsecondary and Continuing Education instructor through independent study and DRP television (DRP-TV).3 The department’s standardized staffing for education and career technical education programs showed slight increases in its level of vacancies. The vacancy rate increased to 10 percent (a 2 percent increase) for academic education positions and increased to 21 percent (a 3 percent increase) for career technical education positions since our June 2019 Blueprint report. These vacancy rates are higher than the level of vacancies the department’s deputy director of rehabilitation believes is appropriate for rehabilitative programming, which would be less than 10 percent of budgeted positions. The OIG found that 90 percent of academic programs, 79 percent of the career technical education programs, and 82 percent of the transitions programs were operational. This demonstrates a 2 percentage point decrease for academic programs, a 3 percentage point decrease for career technical education programs, and a 24 percentage point increase for transitions programs. However, the department has exhibited slow progress in its recent implementation of the integrated substance use disorder treatment model. Offenders eligible for the CBI intensive outpatient program used only 3 percent of the program’s capacity to deliver evidence-based cognitive behavioral interventions. In addition, no offenders were yet enrolled in the CBI outpatient program and life skills program. These programs were planned to “ramp up” in phases until full budgeted capacity at each institution is reached. The ramping-up process involves increasing offender programming seats in phases at the direction of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs. However, the proposed ramp-up has been suspended in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.4 In our past Blueprint reports, we found the department was not able to meet its initial Blueprint goal identified in 2012 of ensuring that at least 70 percent of offenders in its target population, prior to their release, receive rehabilitative programming consistent with their criminogenic needs. The department was to provide rehabilitative programming in a comprehensive manner to the target population and to design a methodology capable of tracking the efficacy of the programs it had provided once offenders reentered society. The department demonstrated that only 52 percent of offenders in its target population met this objective during fiscal year 2015–16, the last fiscal year the department 3. The department notified the OIG that during the suspension of programming due to COVID-19, offenders were receiving library services with increased social distancing; recreation services have continued to be provided where social distancing is permitted; and the Office of Correctional Education instructors have been collaborating with college faculty to share student work and provide accommodations ensuring learning continuity for college students. 4. Brant R. Choate to CDCR and CCHCS Extended Executive Staff, Institution Wardens, Institution Executive Staff, memorandum, March 23, 2020. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 3 tracked this benchmark. Subsequently, the department developed a new counting rule, which would track program information for all offenders rather than focus on a target population. Minimum participation in a program is now defined as the number of offenders who have been enrolled in a program for a minimum of 30 calendar days, with associated in-classroom time. The department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs now uses five measures to actively monitor access to programming for rehabilitation, academics, and career technical education, and to address any operational issues involving the delivery of rehabilitative programming. The Update issued in January 2016 identified new goals and detailed the department’s focus on modifying custody regulations to create additional programming opportunities for offenders with lower supervision needs. The passage of Proposition 57 in November 2016 established a parole consideration process for nonviolent offenders and gave offenders an opportunity to earn additional credits for good behavior and to participate in rehabilitative, educational, and career training programs. In March 2020, 1,734 offenders earned credit authorized by Proposition 57 toward their advanced released dates, earning an average of 137 days of additional credit. As part of its rehabilitative efforts, the department implemented a rehabilitative case plan in September 2016; in March 2020, the department began its next phase of case management enhancements through implementation of the Rehabilitative Case Plan Study, which was designed to enhance the use and delivery of rehabilitative services. As of February 2020, 219 offenders have completed the department’s sex offender treatment program, which is an increase of 79 offenders, or 56 percent, from February 2019. The department also expanded its Offender Mentor Certification Program from three to four sessions per year and continues to ensure offenders obtain a state-issued ID card prior to release. The department continues its efforts to address housing and population challenges, including creating two separate housing options: programming and nonprogramming sensitive needs yards (SNYs). The department continues to expand its nondesignated programming facilities (NDPFs). NDPFs are now located at 31 of its 35 institutions, comprise a population of approximately 44,000 offenders, and include all minimum support facilities and enhanced outpatient program housing units.5 These facilities are designed to provide rehabilitative environments for offenders who have demonstrated positive programming efforts and a desire to refrain from violent behaviors. 5. The department converted to NDPF housing units for all of its enhanced outpatient programs in January 2018 and minimum support facilities in May through June 2018. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 4 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report On August 31, 2015, the department entered into a settlement agreement in Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., which modified the policies and practices involving offenders whom the department had validated as prison gang members and associates, along with stipulating that the department bring about conditional change in each of its four security housing unit (SHU) institutions.6 The Ashker settlement agreement resulted in a substantial decline in both the number of step-down program (SDP) participants and the SHU population. The department reported, as of April 2020, only 13 remaining SDP participants and two SDP facilitators, compared with the figures from our most recent report reviewing the Blueprint, in which we noted 15 SDP participants and three SDP facilitators. However, the department is in the process of expanding its Offender Mentor Certification Program and plans to use SDP facilitators to assist with this program. 6. Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., Settlement Agreement, C 09-05796 CW, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (accessed June 26, 2020, https://www. clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/PC-CA-0054-0024.pdf). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 5 Introduction In July 2012, the Legislature tasked the Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) with monitoring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (the department) 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). California Penal Code section 6126 mandates that the OIG periodically review the delivery of the reforms identified in the Blueprint, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. The establishment of and adherence to the standardized staffing model at each institution; 2. The establishment of and adherence to the new inmate classification score system; 3. The implementation of and adherence to the comprehensive housing plan described in the Blueprint; 4. Whether the department has increased the percentage of inmates served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to the inmates’ release; and 5. The establishment of and adherence to the new prison gang management system, including changes to the department’s current policies for identifying prison-based gang members and associates, and the use and conditions associated with security housing units.7 In January 2016, the department issued An Update to the Future of California Corrections (the Update), which included a summary of progress made toward goals identified in the Blueprint and new goals identified, as well as the department’s vision for future rehabilitative programming and future safety and security. The Update included a goal to modify the target for rehabilitation to a minimum program participation level. Whereas the Blueprint’s benchmark specified that the department serve 70 percent of its target population in rehabilitative programs prior to release, the Update, along with the department’s new metric for a minimum participation level, did not identify an objective benchmark or standard for the department to achieve. In addition, the Update included an expansion of programs to address in-prison substance abuse treatment and long-term offenders; other new items included several pilot programs for offender access to community college courses and in- prison sex-offender treatment.8 7. California Penal Code section 6126, California State Legislature (accessed July 22, 2020, http://www.leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection. xhtml?sectionNum=6126&lawCode=PEN). 8. An Update to the Future of California Corrections, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, January 2016, p. 9. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 6 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report To assess and monitor these reforms, the OIG obtained and reviewed budgeted capacity and operational capacity, collected and evaluated data, interviewed numerous departmental staff, and compared the assessment results with goals identified in the Update. This report presents the results from our 11th review of the department’s implementation of its Blueprint and our fifth review of its Update and is based on information collected from February 6, 2020, through March 10, 2020, with the exception of departmental population figures, which extend through April 29, 2020. We have organized this report into three sections that represent the key areas the OIG continues to monitor: rehabilitative programs, standardized staffing of rehabilitative programs, and classification and housing. The rehabilitative programs section outlines the department’s current processes for determining how offenders should be prioritized for program placement as well as describes the department’s program delivery models. It also provides details about the department’s various rehabilitative efforts, including its Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Sex Offenders (CBI-SO) program, Offender Mentor Certification Program, and California Identification Card (CAL-ID) program. The standardized staffing of education programs provides additional information about the department’s rehabilitative staffing levels at each of its adult institutions. The classification and housing section provides additional information about the department’s population management efforts following the Update and the passage of Proposition 57. It also provides details about the status of the department’s step-down program (SDP) following the Ashker settlement agreement. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 7 Rehabilitative Programs The department provides rehabilitative programs to adult offenders during their incarceration and upon their release. In-prison programming includes academic education, career technical education, transitions (preparation for workforce readiness and financial literacy), substance use disorder treatment, and cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) treatment. Upon release, the department provides offenders with substance use disorder treatment, education programs, and employment services. The illustration below depicts the rehabilitative process an offender may travel from incarceration to release. The Step-By-Step Process The Roadmap to Rehabilitation Inmate enters prison STEP 1: Inmate enters reception area Overview Inmates received are provided orientation regarding key policies and procedures (PREA, ADA, Medical, MH, etc.) and various assessments, including their risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs: California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS), Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE®) Reading, Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) Security Assessments, Healthcare Evaluations. STEP 2: Begin classification process Overview Following reception and once at their home institution, an inmate meets with their correctional counselor and goes through the classification committee process where they are placed on appropriate programming lists, including educational, treatment, and jobs/work assignments. Rehabilitative placements should be driven from CSRA, COMPAS, and TABE® Reading along with an inmate’s discussion of needs/wants and case file information. STEP 3: Programming: Day 90 – Up to 60 months left to serve Overview Inmate may be placed in various programming aimed to focus on gaining any necessary educational achievements along with any voluntary programs: Education, Innovative Grant / Inmate Activity Groups, Library Services, Recreation Programs. STEP 4: Programming: 48 – 60 months left to serve Overview Inmate may be placed in various programming aimed to address criminogenic needs, obtain a higher education level, or both: Career Technical Education (CTE), Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment (CBT), College Programming. STEP 5: Programming: 12 – 15 months left to serve STEP 7: Parole / Back into the community Overview Inmate may continue receiving treatment and educational programming in prison or may elect, if eligible, to participate Overview Parolee successfully rejoins society. The Division of in community-based reentry programs: Custody to Community Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) works closely with the Division of Adult Transitional Reentry Program (CCTRP), Male Community Reentry Parole Operations (DAPO) to provide comprehensive postrelease Program (MCRP). rehabilitative programs and services located in communities throughout the state of California delivered through residential, outpatient, and drop-in centers: Day Reporting Centers (DRC), STEP 6: Programming: 210 days left to serve Community-Based Coalition (CBC), Parolee Service Center (PSC), Overview Inmate may also enroll in community-based programs Transitional Housing Program (THP), Specialized Treatment for designed to help them successfully reenter the community from prison: Optimized Programming (STOP), Computer Literacy Learning Center Transitions Reentry Program, CAL-ID Program, Parole Planning. (CLLC), Substance Abuse Treatment And Recovery Program (STAR). Infographic adapted from “The Roadmap to Rehabilitation,“ created by the Division of Rehabilitative Programs, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (URL: https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/rehabilitation/about/process/; accessed May 5, 2020). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 8 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report In Prison: Assess Needs The department uses concepts identified in the California Logic Model9 to assess its target population for rehabilitative programs. The model determines program placement by calculating an offender’s risk to reoffend and combining that calculation with an assessment of the offender’s criminogenic needs. The department uses the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) to determine an offender’s risk to reoffend and the Core Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessment tool to identify an offender’s criminogenic needs.10 In addition to assessing these risk and needs factors, the department prioritizes placement according to the offenders’ dates of release, focusing on offenders who are within five years of their earliest possible release date. The department explains that the classification process also considers an offender’s needs, interests, and desires, and that this process may supersede any assessment- based prioritization. To improve offenders’ access to rehabilitative programs prior to release, the department in December 2017 redefined eligibility criteria, program waiting-list placement, and assignment prioritization. The department stated it was also working with the Center for Evidence- Based Corrections11 at the University of California, Irvine, to develop a new program-fidelity monitoring tool that will ultimately strengthen the delivery of in-prison programming services. Developing this program- monitoring tool for in-prison programming marked a positive step for the department in assessing its rehabilitation programs. In addition, the department began meeting quarterly with reentry programming contract providers to work collaboratively and improve the delivery of services. Table 1 on the next page displays the data for CSRA and COMPAS assessments as of February 26, 2019. The total offender population numbered 123,105. The department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs identified 1,458 offenders under Community Rehabilitative Program Placements supervision or housed in the Department of State Hospitals. Of the remaining 121,647 offenders, 120,411 (99 percent) had received a 9. The eight basic components of the California Logic Model: assess high risk; assess needs; develop behavior management plans; deliver programs; measure progress; prep for reentry; reintegrate; and follow up. 10. Inclusion in the target population does not necessarily trigger the placement of offenders into specific programs. COMPAS assessment results are used for placement into cognitive behavioral intervention programs and transitions programs, but for placing offenders into other programs, the department uses individual case factors, such as results derived from offenders taking the Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE®), to ensure offenders are placed into the appropriate academic program level. Visit http://tabetest.com to learn more about the origin of these tests. 11. University of California, Irvine, administers a project titled “DRP Program Performance Process Development” in conjunction with the department. Visit http://ucicorrections. seweb.uci.edu/current-projects/ to learn more about the center and its work. Additional information at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/publications/ and https://news.uci. edu/2014/10/27/ uci-corrections-policy-center-receives-2-million-to-continue-work/. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 9 CSRA risk assessment, and of that group, 57,608 (48 percent) had a moderate or high risk to reoffend. Many offenders are excluded from receiving a COMPAS assessment, such as those with the designations of enhanced outpatient program level of care or higher, those serving life without parole, and condemned offenders. Among the total population of 123,105 offenders, 107,905 (88 percent) were eligible to receive a COMPAS assessment. Of the 107,905 eligible offenders, 8,933 were still going through the classification process while housed in a reception center. This resulted in 98,972 (92 percent) eligible and classified offenders, of whom 96,707 (98 percent) had received a COMPAS assessment. Table 1. CSRA and COMPAS Assessments Relation to Cohort Percent of Specific Total Inmate Population 123,105* Total Cohort Inmates with a CSRA risk assessment 120,411 99% Total inmate population Inmates with a moderate or high CSRA score 57,608 48% Inmates with CSRA Inmates eligible to receive a COMPAS assessment† 107,905 88% Total inmate population Inmates located at reception centers who are Inmates eligible to receive a currently unclassified and do not have a qualifying 8,933 8% COMPAS assessment COMPAS assessment Inmates eligible to receive a COMPAS assessment Inmates eligible for a COMPAS 98,972 92% who have been classified assessment Eligible and classified inmates who received a Inmates eligible to receive a 96,707 98% COMPAS assessment COMPAS assessment * The source of this data is from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation weekly population report as of February 26, 2020. † The Division of Rehabilitative Programs excludes inmates on temporary release, such as inmates under supervision as community rehabilitative program placements or those housed within the Department of State Hospitals. Rehabilitation Program Report As the OIG noted in its prior reviews of the delivery of reforms identified in the Blueprint, the department is implementing rehabilitation programs at all institutions. However, the department has not been able to provide in-prison rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of its target population prior to the offenders’ release, and it no longer tracks this metric. Even if the department had met this goal, achieving the goal would have lacked substantive meaning, since the department considered offenders who were enrolled in one program for one day as having their needs Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 10 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report partially met. Accordingly, the department developed a new metric for assessing program participation: the minimum threshold for defining offenders participating in rehabilitative programming is now “minimal participation,” which is the number of offenders who have been enrolled in a program for a minimum of 30 calendar days. This counting rule also requires that there be associated in-classroom time attended by the offender. As we noted in our July 2019 Blueprint report, the department’s new metric for assessing program participation fails to account for whether an offender attends and participates during this 30-day period, and it does not measure whether the program meets the offender’s need. This updated metric simply allows the department to count both the number of offenders who attend for a specific period of time and the number of those who complete the programming. The department has taken actions to improve the OIG’s recommendation regarding minimal participation. According to the department, its Division of Rehabilitative Programs uses minimal participation as an operational measure to indicate whether there is significant turnover in programs that may need further review. The department assesses completion as the appropriate measure of success. During its year-end cohort reviews for participants, the department proposed three measures to indicate the full scope of programming: 1. Those unique offenders assigned at any point to a particular program; 2. Of those unique offenders, those who were enrolled for a 30-day period (minimal participation); and 3. Of those unique offenders, those who completed the identified program (those who have been unassigned with a status of completed). The department states these measures provide a multilevel review of those offenders participating in academic and treatment programming. Division of Rehabilitative Programs staff note that any percentage measure assigned to program completion, such as a targeted benchmark of 50 percent of offenders completing a program, may give the impression that the same percentage measure of offenders will show appropriate outcomes. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs believes that definitive outcome-based research on partial completion of programs is necessary before accurate conclusions can be reached about whether partial completion of programming shows proportionate outcomes. The department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs is using five other measures to actively monitor access to programming for rehabilitation, Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 11 academic education, and career technical education, and to address any operational issues involving the delivery of rehabilitative programming. The division is also working collaboratively with other internal divisions to ensure uniform application of these rules throughout the department when referencing rehabilitative data. The department’s internal “Rehabilitation Program Report,” effective July 1, 2017, outlines budgeted capacity, operational capacity, and active enrollments. The five measures follow: • Budgeted Capacity: The maximum number of available daily program slots based on budgeted staff positions. Budgeted capacity assists in determining the status of rehabilitative programs implemented within institutions statewide, consistent with budgeted staff positions. • Active/Operational Capacity: The maximum number of available daily program slots based on facility and space limitations along with staff vacancies. This information is compared to the budgeted capacity to identify operational impacts on the ideal budgeted capacity. • Enrollment (Assignment): The number of offenders who have an assignment status of “Assigned” in the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS) who are enrolled in a program. This information allows the department to review active or operationally available capacity in an effort to ensure it is filling all available classroom seats or program slots. • Completions: The exit code in SOMS that indicates offenders have completed the course curricula, the required hours of participation in SOMS, and any testing, as applicable. • Attendance Rate: The number of actual classroom hours that offenders attended (excluding absences due to institutional reasons, excused absences, and unexcused absences), divided by the maximum number of hours offered. This formula creates a percentage rate of offender “in-classroom” time. Case Management Plan According to the Blueprint, a critical component for successful rehabilitation and reducing recidivism is an effective case management system. The department developed the SOMS case plan module to address this need. The department’s project team used risk and needs assessments, time left to serve, and program profiles to develop an individual case plan that follows an offender throughout his or her incarceration. Case management plans help ensure that the department assigns offenders to appropriate programs based on their overall risk potential and criminogenic needs. Such plans also help staff determine Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 12 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report the type, frequency, and timing of programming an offender should receive to most effectively reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The offender’s individual case plan should also transfer with the offender upon release to parole or to county supervision since it helps identify the most effective follow-up programming. The department implemented the SOMS rehabilitative case plan in September 2016, a sample of which is shown in Appendix A. This individualized plan outlines an offender’s addressed needs and the department’s recommended plans for future programming, providing an incarceration time line and rehabilitative program recommendations for the offender. Correctional counselors and other in-prison program staff use the plan to help determine an offender’s assessed needs for possible program placement into various rehabilitative programs prior to an offender’s initial classification committee’s actions. The rehabilitative case plan also lists the certificates, diplomas, and milestones the offender has earned or reached. In addition, the department created an offender program overview report containing the same information found in the plan, excluding the incarceration time line, allowing an offender to maintain a copy upon release to parole or county supervision. Since implementation of the SOMS case plan management module, the department has continued to strategically improve case management resources and responsibilities. In October 2018, in an effort to improve caseload management and enhance delivery of rehabilitative services, the department revised correctional counselor caseload ratios and increased the minimum period of time these correctional counselors are available to meet with offenders each week. In January 2019, correctional counselors were provided training to reinforce and further develop case management functions and to increase communication with offenders and resource providers. The department also reiterated guidelines regarding documentation of offender rehabilitation as well as job and vocational interests to ensure effective coordination and collaboration in the future. In March 2020, the department began the next phase of case management enhancements through implementation of the Rehabilitative Case Plan Study (RCPS), which was designed to enhance the use and delivery of rehabilitative services. The RCPS establishes a continuum of rehabilitative support and guidance throughout the offender’s term. Through increased interaction, correctional counselors assist offenders in setting present and future goals, which will be documented in the offender’s file and provided to the offender for future reference. This new case management strategy allows for heightened Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 13 interaction between counseling staff and offenders that will assist in meeting the department’s mission to successfully reintegrate offenders into our communities. The RCPS is composed of a variety of tools and resources for sharing, retaining, and delivering information, including, but not limited to, informational videos and posters, course summaries, offender self- assessment guides, and information documented by the classification committee. The department is also exploring options to increase data use and reduce workload through electronic processes. OIG Fieldwork Review The OIG obtained rehabilitative programming figures for fiscal year 2019–20 from the department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and performed fieldwork to determine the operational status of each institution’s various programs. To determine programs’ operational statuses, the OIG requested figures from the department to learn the number of its authorized rehabilitation staff positions per institution, discussed any discrepancies with rehabilitative program managers at the institutions, reviewed monthly attendance reports, and visited institutions to conduct spot checks of classrooms. The following three elements must be in place before the OIG can deem a program fully operational: a corresponding instructor, an assigned classroom, and data charting monthly offender attendance. Appendix B provides a statewide summary of rehabilitative programs at each institution. It identifies programs the department has planned and the operational status of each, as determined from OIG inspectors’ visits that occurred in February and March 2020. The following section discusses the current status of each of these various programs identified from the Division of Rehabilitative Program’s data for fiscal year 2019–20. Table 2 on the next page shows the results from the fieldwork our staff completed at all of the department’s institutions. We determined that 90 percent of the academic programs, 79 percent of the career technical education programs, and 82 percent of the transitions programs were operational. This represents a 2 percentage point decrease for academic programs, a 3 percentage point decrease for career technical education programs, and an increase of 24 percentage points in transitions programs since the values we published in our 2019 report reviewing the Blueprint. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 14 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Table 2. OIG Fieldwork Summary of Operational Programs Program Staff Differences As of 1/2019–2/2019* As of 2/2020–3/2020 * Actual Final Number Number Number Percentage Proposed of Percent Proposed of Percent of Point Programming Types Staff Persons of Total Staff Persons of Total Persons Difference Academic Education 572 526 92% 561 506 90% –20 –2% Career Technical 304 249 82% 317 251 79% 2 –3% Education Transitions 53 31 58% 57 47 82% 16 24% * The department’s figures for the budgeted (or proposed) staff did not remain constant between FY2018–19 and FY2019–20. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the numbers for the Actual Program Staff category. In January 2020, just a few weeks before the start of our on-site visits, the department initiated new education delivery models and implemented its integrated substance use disorder treatment (ISUDT). At the end of 2019, the department went through a “ramping down” of providing substance use disorder classes and groups, such as “Anger Management,” in preparation for implementation of the new ISUDT programming. These changes are explained further in the respective programming types. Academic Education As part of the department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs, the Office of Correctional Education (OCE) offers various academic and education programs at each of the California’s adult institutions. The department’s goal is to provide offenders with education and career training as part of its broader effort to increase public safety and reduce recidivism. Many of the programs offered are eligible for milestone completion credits and educational merit credits to reduce an offender’s sentence. In early January 2020, the department discontinued the following educational delivery models: general population, voluntary education program, and alternative programming. Our past Blueprint reports monitored progress in each of these delivery models. On January 9, 2020, the department implemented the following new delivery models: traditional education (similar to general population), postsecondary continuing education (similar to voluntary education program), and alternative education (similar to alternative programming). The delivery model for the enhanced outpatient program had no change. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 15 • Traditional Education: Offenders without a United States- recognized and verified high school diploma, high school equivalency, or certificate of completion, and offenders with developmental disabilities will be placed on a waiting list by the unit classification committee. Offenders are to be assigned to adult basic education (ABE) I, II, III courses, general education diploma (GED) courses, or high school diploma courses, based on their most current reading grade level.12 Classes are provided five days per week, two hours per day, for a total of 10 hours per week. • Postsecondary and Continuing Education (College/eLearning): Offenders with a verified high school diploma or high school equivalency may request to be enrolled and placed on a waiting list for college courses by the unit classification committee or an instructor. College courses are offered in person and through distance learning, and offenders primarily participate during third watch13 and outside of assigned work and rehabilitative program hours. Courses provided through eLearning are designed to extend learning outside the traditional classroom environment via the Division of Rehabilitative Programs television system. Classes are provided five days per week, two hours per day, for a total of 10 hours total per week. • Alternative Education: Offenders who are unable to participate in traditional education classes and who also do not have a U.S.-recognized and verified high school diploma, high school equivalency, or certificate of completion, and offenders with developmental disabilities may enroll in alternative education courses. The courses include the same subject matters as those offered in Traditional Education, such as adult basic education I, II, III courses, or high school diploma courses. Classes are provided two hours per week, with eight hours of independent study, for a total of 10 hours per week. • Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP): Offenders who are classified as EOP and who also do not have a U.S.-recognized and verified high school diploma, high school equivalency, or certificate of completion, and offenders with developmental disabilities may take EOP courses. The courses include the same subject matters as those offered in Traditional Education, such as adult basic education or adult secondary education classes, to earn a high school equivalency or a high school diploma. 12. The department-provided applicable reading scores: 0.0 – 3.9 for ABE I; 4.0 – 6.9 for ABE II; 7.0 and 8.9 for ABE III; and 9.0 and above for GED. 13. The department’s custody staff, including those in the ranks of captain, lieutenant, correctional counselor, sergeant, and officer, are assigned daily to three eight-hour shifts, called watches. First-watch staff are on duty from 2200 to 0600 hours, second-watch staff from 0600 to 1400 hours, and third-watch staff from 1400 to 2200 hours. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 16 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report The department provides reasonable accommodations to those offenders with disabilities.14 The department identified a total of 561 academic positions in these delivery models budgeted during fiscal year 2019–20. From February through March 2020, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ records and performed 35 site visits to determine whether these academic positions, as provided by the department, were fully operational (see Appendix B). At the conclusion of our fieldwork, we found 506 of the 561 academic positions were fully operational, a 90 percent compliance rate. This reflects a 2 percentage point decrease in compliance for operational academic programs since our 2019 report reviewing the Blueprint. The primary reason academic courses were not operational was due to position vacancies or instructors who were not at work due to extended leave. Our review found that California Institution for Men and Ironwood State Prison had the highest numbers of vacant academic education positions, at five vacancies each, which provided a vacancy rate of 28 and 24 percent, respectively. We provide further information regarding statewide vacancies in the Standardized Staffing section of this report. Table 3 below summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s academic education programs and Enhanced Outpatient Program. Table 3. Summary of Academic Education Programs / Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) Actual Staff Budgeted Actual Student Academic Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Education Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Traditional Education 400 364 9% 21,600 19,650 91% Postsecondary 107 98 8% 19,260 17,640 92% Continuing Education Alternative 30 24 20% 3,600 2,880 80% Education Enhanced Outpatient 24 20 17% 648 540 83% Totals 561 506 10% 45,108 40,710 90% Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Staff and the Budgeted Student Capacity categories as of January 13, 2020. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the numbers for the Actual Program Staff and the Actual Student Capacity categories. 14. Offenders assigned to the Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) include those with acute onset of a serious mental disorder or significant decompensation because of a serious mental disorder and are unable to function in the prison general population. EOP offenders receive student support services, including specialized classes, due to developmental, learning, and physical disabilities. If an Interdisciplinary Treatment Team determines an EOP offender would be better served with EOP peers in small groups of two to eight offenders, the offender may be referred to an EOP instructor. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 17 Career Technical Education The department assesses an offender’s criminogenic needs based on a needs assessment tool called the Core Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS). Based on the recommendation of an educational administrator, offenders assessed with a medium-to-high need for employment are placed on a waiting list for a career technical education class (CTE) of their choice and one alternate CTE class. Offenders with a medium-to-high need for employment who also have six months to four years remaining on their terms or have a Board of Parole Hearing scheduled receive priority for assignment based on class availability. The most widely available CTE classes offered include Computer and Related Technologies, Building Maintenance, Electronics, and Welding. CTE classes are provided five days per week, 6.5 hours per day, for approximately six to 18 months, until completion of the course.15 The department identified a total of 317 career technical education positions budgeted during fiscal year 2019–20. From February through March 2020, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ records and performed site visits to determine whether 317 career technical education positions were fully operational. When we concluded our fieldwork, we found 251 of the 317 positions were filled and fully operational, which is a compliance rate of 79 percent. This is a decrease of 3 percent in CTE programs being operational since our 2019 report reviewing the Blueprint. On a positive note, we found several CTE classes had no instructor vacancies, including all 15 automotive body repair and refinishing courses and each of the four industrial painting courses. However, our review identified five institutions having four CTE courses each that were not operational due to vacancies or staff out on long-term leave. We provide further information regarding statewide vacancies in the Standardized Staffing section of this report. Table 4 below summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s CTE programs. Table 4. Summary of Career Technical Education Programs Actual Staff Budgeted Actual Student Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Program Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Career Technical 317 251 21% 10,504 8,749 83% Education Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Staff and the Budgeted Student Capacity categories as of January 13, 2020. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the amounts for the Actual Program Staff and the Actual Number of Students categories. 15. DRP’s Reference Guide, Division of Rehabilitative Programs, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Feb. 2020, pp. 6–7. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 18 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Transitions The department designates transitions classes to prepare offenders for release from prison by providing employment preparation and financial literacy skills to aid them in their successful reentry into society. The department offers this program primarily to offenders who are within two years of release and to offenders within two years of a parole consideration hearing.16 The program teaches offenders skills in preparing themselves for entering the workforce and searching for jobs, managing money, and acquiring financial literacy. It also provides offenders with community resources that can help them as they transition back into the community. From February through March 2020, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ records and performed site visits to determine the operational status of transitions classes statewide. We found that 47 of the 57 positions were filled and fully operational, which is a compliance rate of 82 percent. This was an increase of 24 percent from positions filled and fully operational as reported in our 2019 review of the Blueprint. Table 5 below summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s transitions classes. Table 5. Summary of Transitions Actual Staff Budgeted Actual Student Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Program Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Transitions 57 47 18% 3,078 2,538 82% Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Student Capacity and Annual Student Capacity as of January 13, 2020. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the amounts for the Actual Number of Students in Program and the Projected Annual Number of Students categories. Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment In January 2020, the department began implementation of its new integrated substance use disorder treatment (ISUDT) program, replacing its previous substance use disorder treatment programs. The department described the ISUDT as a comprehensive and evidence-based cross-divisional cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) program that will identify offenders at risk for harm related to substance use disorders and provide treatment that reduces risk of overdose or other complications. Treatment may include behavioral interventions or medication-assisted treatment, as clinically indicated. 16. DRP’s Reference Guide, February 2020, p. 7. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 19 As part of the department’s planned roll-out of ISUDT, an integrated offender assignment model was to be implemented that would enable offenders to be assigned to jobs, education, and/or rehabilitative programs concurrently. Also, new ISUDT and education delivery models were to be established, including new assignment prefixes, assignment numbers, class builds, and implementation time lines. The institution’s inmate assignment office planned to create new assignments within the department’s strategic offender management system (SOMS). Wardens were to collaborate locally with their executive team17 to align or modify the institution’s inmate movement schedules to maximize attendance in rehabilitative programs while maintaining safety and security.18 CBI Programs The Division of Rehabilitative Programs also replaced its cognitive behavioral treatment program with a new curriculum, now referred to as cognitive behavioral interventions (CBI). This new program is evidence-based treatment to assist offenders in understanding their thoughts and feelings, which influence behaviors. CBI focuses on helping offenders deal with a specific problem identified through an assessment. According to the department, during the course of treatment, offenders will learn how to identify and change destructive or disturbing thought patterns that have a negative influence on behavior. This treatment program acts as an overarching entity with pathways to treatment that includes ISUDT (both intensive outpatient and outpatient) and life skills programs managed by the Division of Rehabilitative Programs. Offenders are to be placed into one of three program types, based on their clinically assessed need or medical referral: CBI-Intensive Outpatient (ISI), CBI-Outpatient (ISO), or CBI-Life Skills (CBI 2). The goal of CBI programming is to eliminate criminal behavior patterns and substance use, abuse, and dependency. The lengths of these programs are as follows: • CBI – Intensive Outpatient (ISI): Five days per week, two hours per day, for approximately 12 months • CBI – Outpatient (ISO): Three days per week, two hours per day, for approximately 12 months • CBI – Life Skills (CBI 2): Three days per week, two hours per day, for approximately seven months 17. A warden’s executive team would include, but not be limited to, chief deputy warden, associate wardens, custody captain, principal, correctional counselor III, prison industry authority, chief executive officer, chief medical executive, and chief nurse executive. 18. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to Wardens, Principals, DRP Correctional Counselor IIIs, Inmate Assignment Office Lieutenants, memorandum, November 27, 2019. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 20 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Each class is to consist of 12 individual positions and is to have 12 separate offenders assigned to each of three daily class sessions. The department planned to have an initial roll out with 60 percent of its classes to be Intensive Outpatient, 20 percent Outpatient, and 20 percent Life Skills. These programs were planned to “ramp up” in phases until full budgeted capacity at each institution is reached. The ramping-up process involves increasing offender programming seats in phases at the direction of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs. Offenders will receive two weeks of milestone completion credits to reduce their sentences for every 80 hours of participation and one additional week upon successfully completing the program.19 From February through March 2020, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether the department had initiated implementation of its new CBI programs. We met with department staff and found that only two prisons—San Quentin State Prison and California State Prison, Los Angeles County—had initiated these programs. We learned that before enrolling offenders in these new programs, health care staff must first enter appropriate medical assessment and medication-assisted treatment data into the department’s strategic offender management system (SOMS); then the Division of Rehabilitative Programs Correctional Counselor III, or designee, must review this information to place program participants on the appropriate wait list—ISI, ISO, or CBI 2—in SOMS.20 Finally, coordination between the correctional counselor III and the inmate assignment office will allow for activation of a class, typically after 12 assignment positions are filled. During our visits we found that contract staff were actively recruiting and filling vacant counseling positions. Also, several institutions were waiting for offenders to receive medical assessments or recently began adding offenders to the appropriate waiting lists. Some departmental staff stated they were attending training on the new evidence-based curriculum. Many institutions were planning to have offenders enrolled beginning April 2020. The OIG found that offenders only occupied 24 of the 6,084 budgeted capacity for ISI, and no offenders had yet enrolled in ISO and CBI 2, which is a vacancy rate between 97 and 100 percent for these programs. Since these new programming models were planned to begin in January 2020, just a few weeks before many of our visits to the prisons, we anticipated that some institutions may face delays. The enrollment process now requires medical assessments and collaboration with health care staff. With only two institutions (California State Prison, Los Angeles County, and San Quentin State Prison) having any offender 19. DRP’s Reference Guide, February 2020, p. 3. 20. According to the department, this process is to be automated in the near future. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 21 enrollments, the department expects further progress in the future. Table 6 below summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s contract treatment program. Table 6. Summary of Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs Projected Budgeted Actual Annual Annual Contract Treatment Student Students Vacancy Student Number of Annual Program Capacity in Program Rate Capacity Students Rate Cognitive Behavioral Interventions – Intensive 6,084 24 97% 6,084 24 3% Outpatient (ISI) Cognitive Behavioral 2,340 0 100% 2,340 0 0 Interventions – Outpatient (ISO) Cognitive Behavioral 2,290 0 100% 3,894 0 0 Interventions – Life Skills (CBI 2) Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Student Capacity and Annual Student Capacity categories as of January 13, 2020. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the figures for the Actual Students in Program and the projected Annual Number of Students categories. Sex Offender Treatment Program The department intends its Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Sex Offenders (CBI-SO) program to serve offenders who are required to register pursuant to California Penal Code section 290, are within 13 months of their scheduled release date, and are mandated to participate in community-based treatment programs upon release. The program is located at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran, and provides programming for a maximum of 80 offenders. The department is currently in the process of developing regulations for the CBI-SO program.21 Facilitators deliver group treatment up to three hours each day, five days per week, with an average duration of eight months. During the first months of treatment, participants undergo a comprehensive psycho-social assessment that includes two measures to assess the likelihood of recidivism risks for both sexual and general offenses. All departmental staff administering the assessments have been certified in the application of state-authorized risk assessment tools used 21. This program was implemented during the fiscal year 2013-14 and has operated at this single institution since then. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 22 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report for evaluating sex offenders.22 As of February 2020, a total of 219 offenders have completed this curriculum. Each group has 10 offenders per social worker. At the time of our review, six groups of 10 offenders were enrolled in the program. California Identification Card Program The Blueprint indicated that the California Identification Card program (CAL-ID) would be implemented by the department in partnership with the Prison Industry Authority to assist eligible offenders in obtaining state-issued identification cards to satisfy federal requirements for employment documentation. On July 1, 2015, the department entered into an interagency agreement with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) in order to fulfill this task. The agreement expanded the CAL-ID program to all 35 adult institutions. The CAL-ID program is also offered at the three modified community correctional facilities (MCCFs) throughout the state. These facilities work directly with the department and the DMV to facilitate the application, approval, and distribution of identification cards to the offenders they house. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs has implemented the Automated Reentry Management System (ARMS) to provide real-time data to perform program quality reviews. These ARMS reports provide operational information that aims to give correctional counselors the necessary information to provide timely reentry identification services, including CAL-ID. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs tracks the status of CAL-ID applications and identification cards. If an offender is transferred to another institution prior to receiving his or her identification card, departmental staff will update the offender’s CAL-ID status in the ARMS and inform staff at the receiving institution of the status. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs staff at the transferring and receiving institutions work in collaboration to ensure the identification card is appropriately handled and given to the offender upon release. A memorandum was issued in May 2018 to identify departmental procedures for institutional staff to forward the identification cards to parole units. If an offender has been released to parole prior to the institution’s receiving the offender’s identification card, a parole services associate forwards the identification card to the respective parole unit. 22. California Penal Code section 290.09 (b) (1): “The sex offender management professionals certified by the California Sex Offender Management Board in accordance with section 9003 who provide sex offender management programs for any probation department or the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall assess each registered sex offender on formal probation or parole using the [state-authorized risk assessment tools for sex offenders] SARATSO dynamic tool, when a dynamic risk factor changes, and shall do a final dynamic assessment within six months of the offender’s release from supervision.” Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 23 Upon receipt of the identification card, the parole office staff confirms with the institution its receipt of the card and issuance to the offender. This allows departmental staff to ensure that the identification cards are being delivered to paroled individuals. In July 2019, the department expanded these procedures to include forwarding identification cards to probation units for individuals on probation. The department continues to look into the feasibility of providing DMV-eligible cameras inside institutions to use in obtaining photographs of offenders who have been incarcerated for more than 10 years. Although these conversations have taken longer than initially anticipated, they continue to occur among the department, the Governor’s Office, and the DMV. This will potentially increase the number of participants eligible to receive CAL-IDs, as DMV requires a usable photo that is not more than 10 years old. In July 2019, the CAL-ID program eligibility was expanded by increasing the screening period of offenders from three to seven months prior to release to include offenders from zero to 13 months prior to release. This change proved to be effective and allowed the program to screen more offenders and ultimately to submit more applications to the DMV for processing. The department is currently working with the DMV to incorporate technologic upgrades for the expedited processing of applications. The DMV is in the process of creating a platform for a virtual field office to allow for electronic submission of documents. The department states it sent 9,884 applications to the DMV for processing between July 1, 2019, and February 29, 2020. The DMV approved and issued 8,175 identification cards (83 percent of applications); 6,385 offenders (78 percent of approved applications) were released with an identification card, while the remaining 1,790 were released without an identification card. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 24 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 25 Standardized Staffing for Education Programs To address issues of population growth and overcrowding, the department established a standardized budget methodology to provide ratio-driven staffing adjustments as the offender population fluctuated. The department developed a standardized staffing component for its adult institutions, and in the Blueprint, the department identified the planned staffing patterns for each site. The OIG has conducted reviews of the operational status of the department’s rehabilitative education and career technical education programs in each Blueprint review.23 In order to determine the operational status of these rehabilitative programs, we acquired the final rehabilitation authorized position counts per institution from the department. Our office recognized an actual instructor (Table 7, below) only if a course was determined to be operational; we considered a course operational if it had an instructor, an assigned classroom, and data showing offender attendance. Table 7 below provides our past three reviews of the department’s vacancy rates based on operational status for academic education and career technical education. Table 7. Program Vacancies in Academic Education and Career Technical Education Over Three Reporting Periods * Number Budgeted Actual of Vacant Vacancy Type of Programming Review Period Instructors Instructors Positions Rate Feb 2020 to Mar 2020 561 506 55 10% Academic Education Jan 2019 to Feb 2019 572 526 46 8% Dec 2017 to Jan 2018 543 491 52 10% Feb 2020 to Mar 2020 317 251 66 21% Career Technical Education Jan 2019 to Feb 2019 304 249 55 18% Dec 2017 to Jan 2018 304 250 54 18% * The vacant positions and vacancy rate are based on whether a course was determined to be operational by OIG staff. When a course was not found to be operational, it was primarily due to a true instructor vacancy. Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures as of January 13, 2020, for the Budgeted Staff category in the last review period. OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the amounts for the Actual Program Staff category in the last review period. 23. The OIG has issued 10 reports on the department’s implementation of the Blueprint since April 2013. In September 2015, the OIG included its statewide summary of the department’s rehabilitation programs and staffing levels in the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board annual report. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 26 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report According to the California State Auditor’s January 2019 report on the department’s in-prison rehabilitation programs,24 the department’s deputy director of rehabilitation programs believes that an appropriate level of vacancies for rehabilitative programming would be less than 10 percent of budgeted positions. As shown in Table 7 (previous page), the vacancy rate in academic positions increased slightly to 10 percent during our current review. The department equaled the vacancy rate from approximately two years ago, although it gained 18 academic education positions. The vacancy rate for career technical education also increased slightly from 18 to 21 percent, with an increase of 13 positions from the past two years. These vacancy rates are notable as the department has had over 100 total vacancies in academic education and career technical education in each of our past three reporting periods and is not gaining any ground in filling these vacancies. Academic Education As shown in Table 8 below, our review of vacancy rates for academic education positions showed 19 of 35 institutions (54 percent) had a vacancy rate at 10 percent or below. We found 10 institutions with instructor vacancy rates between 11 and 20 percent and six institutions with instructor vacancy rates between 21 and 40 percent. Table 8. Vacancy Rates for Academic Education Instructors Across Institutions Number of Vacancy Instructor Number of Percent of Type of Programming Rate Vacancies * Prisons † Total Prisons 0 to 10% 7 19 54% Academic Education 11% to 20% 25 10 29% 21% to 40% 23 6 17% Total Among All Prisons 55 35 100% * This column represents the number of prisons which have a particular vacancy rate. For example, there are 19 prisons that have a vacancy rate of 0 to 10%, the total number of vacancies is seven (among these 19 prisons). † The positions for Folsom State Prison and Folsom Women’s Facility were combined for calculation of vacancy rates by prison. Source: OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified vacancy rate by type of programming. 24. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation: Several Poor Administrative Practices Have Hindered Reductions in Recidivism and Denied Inmates Access to In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs, California State Auditor, January 2019. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 27 From the institutions with the highest vacancy rates, we found that the California Institution for Men (CIM) and Ironwood State Prison (ISP) had the two highest academic instructor vacancy figures, each with five vacancies. As shown in Table 9 below, our visits in February 2020 showed that four of CIM’s vacancies were anticipated to be filled within 60 days of our visit, while the remaining position was not operational because the instructor was unavailable to teach.25 ISP’s records showed that four of the five positions were vacant and that the remaining position was vacant because one instructor was on leave. Table 9. Academic Education Positions for the California Institution for Men and Ironwood State Prison Combined Actual Staff Traditional as of and Employment Proposed February Postsecondary Institution Programs Staff 2020 Difference Vacancy Rate Traditional Education 16 11 5 CIM Postsecondary 28% Continuing 2 2 0 Education Traditional Education 13 10 3 ISP Postsecondary 24% Continuing 8 6 2 Education Total 39 29 10 Source: OIG site visit reviews during February 2020 identified the figures for the Actual Staff category to determine the vacancy rate by type of programming. Career Technical Education As shown in Table 10 on the next page, the review of instructor vacancy rates statewide for career technical education showed that 25 of 35 institutions (71 percent) had a vacancy rate over 10 percent. Four institutions had an instructor vacancy rate exceeding 40 percent, as described further below. 25. In May 2020, the California Institution for Men notified the OIG that one of its five vacancies had been filled, but that the instructor had yet to start employment. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 28 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Table 10. Instructor Vacancy Rates for Career Technical Education Number of Instructor Number of Percent of Type of Programming Vacancy Rate Vacancies Prisons * Total Prisons 0 to 10% 3 10 29% 11% to 20% 11 7 20% Career Technical Education 21% to 30% 24 9 26% 31% to 40% 17 5 14% > 40% 11 4 11% Total 66 35 100% * The positions for Folsom State Prison and Folsom Women’s Facility were combined for calculation of vacancy rates by prison. Source: OIG site visit reviews during February and March 2020 identified the vacancy rate by type of programming. For the institutions with vacancies greater than 40 percent that we visited in February 2020, we found the following: • At the California Health Care Facility, the instructor for a computer and related technology course was on leave. • At the California Institution for Women, we found three of the institution’s six career technical education courses (50 percent) not operational due to instructor vacancies and absences. A building maintenance course was pending activation due to the recent hiring of an instructor, and the instructor position for a computer coding course was vacant; the instructor in the remaining position, for a computer and related technology course, was on leave. • At Pelican Bay State Prison, we found three of its seven career technical education courses (43 percent) not operational due to instructor vacancies and absences. The instructor positions for a computer-aided design course and a computer coding course were not filled pending program evaluations at other institutions, since the department was determining the best method of program delivery. The instructor in the remaining position, for a course in electronics, was on leave. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 29 • At Salinas Valley State Prison, we found that three of the prison’s six career technical education courses (50 percent) were not operational due to instructor vacancies and delays in activating courses. The vacant courses were in building maintenance, electronics, and HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning). A recruitment was under way for one of the vacancies, one had been filled but the course was not activated, and one vacancy could not be recruited for until the move to the new HVAC classroom location was completed. Table 11. Career Technical Education Positions at Institutions With an Instructor Vacancy Rate Over 40 Percent Actual Staff Proposed as of Vacancy Institution Type of Programming Staff February 2020 Difference Rate CHCF Career Technical Education 1 0 1 100% CIW Career Technical Education 6 3 3 50% PBSP Career Technical Education 7 4 3 43% SVSP Career Technical Education 6 3 3 50% Total 39 29 10 Source: OIG site visit reviews during February 2020 identified the vacancy rate by type of programming. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 30 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 31 Classification and Housing Since the Blueprint was issued in 2012, the department has updated its comprehensive housing plan and incorporated various components identified in the report. Those components included changes to the offender classification score system, changes in housing and population density levels, construction, renovations, conversions, activations, closures, and changes to contract beds and the fire camp population. The results of the comprehensive housing plan at the institutional level are summarized in Appendix B of the department’s 2012 Blueprint, and we last provided a status accounting in our March 2016 report reviewing the Blueprint. Released in January 2016, the department’s Update detailed its shifting of focus to offenders’ custody designations. The Update reported that the department was revising existing regulations related to custody designations. Table 12 below shows the security levels that allow more programming opportunities for those with lower security level designations and reduced levels of supervision.26 Table 12. Custody Designations Security Level Classification Score I 0–18 points II 19–35 points III 36–59 points IV 60 points and above Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The security level and classification score are defined in the Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Section 3375.1. In November 2016, California passed Proposition 57, a ballot initiative titled California Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements,27 which required the department to adopt regulations 26. Update, January 2016, p. 36. 27. “California Proposition 57 (2016),” Ballotpedia, accessed June 26, 2020, (https:// ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_57,_Parole_for_Non-Violent_Criminals_and_ Juvenile_Court_Trial_Requirements_(2016)#Election_results). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 32 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report implementing new parole and sentence credit provisions to enhance public safety and authorized the department to award sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, or educational achievements.28 The department projected a reduction of approximately 10,600 offenders by 2021–22 as a result of these changes.29 The department reported that in June 2020, a total of 1,432 inmates were released due to their advanced release date authorized by Proposition 57. According to the department, these inmates had earned an estimated average of 153.8 days of additional credit, excluding inmates released from fire camps. We will continue to monitor the department’s progress in its reduction of offenders due to Proposition 57 in future Blueprint reports. Housing Plan: Global Benchmarks The Blueprint noted the department was under a federal court order30 to reduce overall prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent of design capacity.31 The department met the court-ordered prison population cap of 137.5 percent, as required, by February 28, 2016.32 The department’s Update noted that the court reaffirmed that the department would remain under the jurisdiction of the court for as long as necessary to continue compliance with this benchmark.33 In 2016, the department activated 2,376 infill beds at Mule Creek State Prison and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.34 According to the department’s April 2020 Status Report to the three-judge court panel, the department has been in full compliance with the court’s population- reduction order—population at or below 137.5 percent of design capacity—for over five years.35 As of April 29, 2020, departmental figures 28. “Proposition 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 Frequently Asked Questions,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed June 26, 2020 (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/blog/proposition-57-the-public-safety-and-rehabilitation- act-of-2016-frequently-asked-questions/). 29. California State Budget, 2019–20, p. 82. 30. Brown v. Plata, 563 U.S. 493 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that a court-ordered mandated population limit was necessary to remedy a violation of prisoners’ Eighth Amendment constitutional rights. The court ordered California to reduce its prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. 31. The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2012, p. 49. 32. California’s Prison Crowding Reduction Plans and Credit Laws Information Letter, March 16, 2016, p. 1, Prison Law Office (http://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ pop-reduction-credit-laws-info-letter-March-2016-final.pdf). 33. Update, January 2016, p. 7. 34. Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown, Defendants’ August 2017 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, Case Nos 2:90-cv-00520 KJM-DB & C01-1351 JST, California State Association of Counties (https://www.counties.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/ cdcr_3jp-aug-2017_status_report_0.pdf?1502926464). 35. “Three-Judge Court Monthly Update,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed May 6, 2020 (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/3-judge-court-update). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 33 Table 13. Modified Community Correctional Facilities’ Capacity and Population * Total Inmate Modified Community Correctional Facility Type Bed Capacity Population Delano, Shafter, and Taft Public 1,818 1,547 Totals 3,218 1,547 * The figures for the MCCFs do not include the other in-state contract beds, which include the Female Community Reentry Facility (260-bed facility) and the Community Prisoner Mother Program (24-bed facility). Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, data as of June 17, 2020. showed an in-state prison population of 109,510 offenders housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions36 with a design capacity of 85,083, equaling 128.7 percent of design capacity.37 Contract Capacity In January 2016, the department’s Update indicated that the department planned to reduce the out-of-state inmate population to 4,900 offenders for fiscal year 2015–16 to maintain compliance with the inmate population cap. Due to the implementation of Proposition 57 and other actions to reduce its inmate population, the department eliminated the use of out-of-state beds at the end of June 2019. Our 2019 Blueprint report had identified that the department had housed 677 offenders at its Arizona out-of-state facility.38 In September 2013, the passage of California Senate Bill 105 authorized the department to increase its level of contracted beds both in and out of state. The bill provided an immediate measure to avoid early release of offenders and allowed the state to comply with the three-judge panel’s court order. The bill authorized activating a private prison located in Kern County, California City Correctional Facility (CAC), which is the first leased facility the department has operated. As of June 17, 2019, CAC housed 2,196 offenders, an increase of 233 prisoners since our 2019 report reviewing the Blueprint. Housing offenders in modified community correctional facilities (MCCFs) helps reduce prison overcrowding. In December 2013, the department requested activation of approximately 1,200 contracted 36. The three-judge panel’s February 10, 2014, court order included 34 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation institutions. California City Correctional Facility was classified as a private prison (leased facility), and its inmate population is not included in the count of the rate of overcrowding at the department’s institutions. 37. “Office of Research,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, April 29, 2020 (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2020/04/ Tpop1d200429.pdf). 38. Blueprint Monitoring: Tenth Report, The Office of the Inspector General, June 2019, p. 33. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 34 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report beds in the cities of Delano and Shafter, and in March 2014, the department activated the Taft facility with plans to accommodate up to 600 offenders. The department initially activated and increased capacity at several private MCCFs, including Central Valley, Desert View, and Golden State. However, with decreasing population levels, each of these private MCCFs subsequently closed: Central Valley on October 1, 2019; Desert View on March 1, 2020; and Golden State on June 1, 2020. As of June 17, 2020, the department housed 1,547 offenders in its public MCCFs,39 as shown in Table 13 on the next page. This reflects a total decrease of 2,292 offenders since our 2019 report reviewing the Blueprint, which reported that 3,839 offenders were housed in MCCFs. Proposition 57 In early 2017, the department promulgated emergency regulations implementing Proposition 57. Those regulations were approved by the California Office of Administrative Law on April 13, 2017, and adopted on May 1, 2018. The new law enacts the following three key items: • Gives offenders the opportunity to earn additional credits for good behavior and participation in rehabilitative, educational, and career training programs; • Increases the number of nonviolent offenders eligible for parole consideration and allows parole consideration after nonviolent offenders serve the full term for their primary criminal offense; and • Provides juvenile court judges authority over whether juveniles should be sentenced as adults for specified offenses. As a result of these emergency regulations, a new Good Conduct Credit was implemented on May 1, 2017, and other credit-earning programs, such as Milestone Completion, Rehabilitative Achievement, and Educational Merit,40 were implemented on August 1, 2017. On October 24, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved regulatory action that allows offenders to earn credits to advance release dates and parole dates and increases the amount of credits offenders may earn in several categories, including education merit credits. All offenders, 39. “Office of Research,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, June 17, 2020 (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/174/2020/06/ Tpop1d200617.pdf). 40. Effective May 1, 2019, educational merit credits of 180 calendar days are awarded for a high school diploma or high school equivalency approved by the California Department of Education; for completion of the Offender Mentor Certification Program; for an associate in arts or science degree, a bachelor of arts or science degree, and a postgraduate degree. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 35 with the exceptions of condemned offenders and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, will be eligible to earn credit.41 According to the department, the earning of credits may advance an offender’s release date if he or she is serving a determinate term or may advance an offender’s initial parole suitability consideration hearing if he or she is serving an indeterminate term. In March 2020, 1,734 offenders earned credit authorized by Proposition 57 toward their advanced release dates.42 According to the department, these offenders, excluding offenders released from fire camps, earned an estimated average of 137 days of additional credit. The department also implemented a new nonviolent offender parole consideration process on July 1, 2017. According to departmental figures, from July 1, 2017, through March 31, 2020, the department made 19,041 referrals to the Parole Board, and the Parole Board reviewed 15,260 referrals on their merits, with 2,983 offenders approved for release and 12,277 denied release. According to the department, many referrals are pending review, which includes the 30-day period for written input from offenders, victims, prosecutors, and the jurisdictional review process by the Board of Parole Hearings. In December 2018, the Office of Administrative Law approved two emergency regulation packages as outlined in the department’s May 2019 update to the three-judge panel’s court order. The first item amended the nonviolent offender parole process to distinguish between offenders who were determinately or indeterminately sentenced. A parole consideration process was implemented for indeterminately sentenced offenders. In addition, credit-earning opportunities were expanded for offenders who achieved a high school diploma or its equivalent or who completed 52 hours of programming under the rehabilitative achievement credit program. The credit-earning package also reduced the minimum amount of time an offender must serve until release following a sudden award of substantial credit. Milestone Credits As an offender progresses through the various rehabilitative programs, the department notes the offender has completed certain components, or “milestones,” with varying amounts of credit awarded upon final program completion. These credits can reduce the amount of time the offender spends in prison. Following the passage of Proposition 57, the department initiated several changes to enhance and expand these milestone credits. 41. “Certificate of Compliance,” Office of Administrative Law, State of California, October 24, 2019 (https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/regulations/wp-content/uploads/sites/171/2019/10/ Adopted-Regulations-NCR-19-04_ADA.pdf). 42. The department’s update to the three-judge panel’s court order, April 15, 2020. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 36 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report To improve the benefits of milestone credits, effective August 1, 2017, the milestone credit-earning eligibility categories were expanded and credit-earning capacities were increased. Credit-earning categories were modified to enable credit-earning by violent offenders, indeterminate sentence offenders, and offenders serving life-term sentences.43 Offenders now can earn up to 12 weeks of credit in a 12-month consecutive period; prior to August 1, 2017, offenders could earn a maximum of six weeks of credit in a 12-month consecutive period. Nonviolent offenders housed at fire conservation camps became eligible for greater credit-earning capacity, up to day-for-day credit. Table 14 below presents a sample of various milestone credit changes, which includes the complete Milestone Completion Credit Schedule in the department’s Proposition 57 Revised Regulations. Table 14. Sample of Milestone Completion Credit Schedule Changes Course Value Course Value Before Effective Milestone Type Course Title Course Description Aug. 1, 2017 July 1, 2018 High School English 1st course 4 weeks 3 weeks Academic Each 3 semester or 4–5 quarter College 3 weeks 2 weeks units completed Core Programs Anger Management Controlling Anger N/A 1 week Auto Mechanics Basic Auto 2 weeks 7 weeks Career Technical Carpentry Level I 2 weeks 5 weeks Education Computer and Computer Literacy Core 1 week 4 weeks Related Technology State Fire Marshal-approved General Firefighting 2 weeks 7 weeks Firefighter I Training Source: CDCR—Proposition 57 Revised Regulations, Milestone Completion Credit Schedule, as of July 2018. In addition, the department created an education merit credit, allowing offenders who earned a high school diploma or equivalency, a college degree, or offender mentor certification while incarcerated to earn 180 days of credit. The department applies this credit retroactively. The new rehabilitative achievement credit allows offenders who participate in approved self-help programs to earn an additional four weeks of credit per calendar year. The department has determined that for every 52 hours of program participation, one week can be earned, with a maximum of 208 hours in a continuous 12-month period. However, any milestone and rehabilitative achievements credit lost as a result of disciplinary behavior will not be restored. 43. Condemned offenders and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole remain ineligible for credit-earning programs. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 37 Sensitive Needs Yards The department continues its efforts to implement changes for its population in sensitive needs yards (SNYs). The department’s Update, issued in January 2016, noted that the SNY cohort is the fastest-growing population group within the prison system, with approximately 41,000 offenders. Departmental goals include allowing greater access to lower-level housing and the consideration of other measures, such as programming facilities, that may be effective with this population.44 The department initiated nondesignated programming facilities (NDPFs) to provide housing environments for those offenders demonstrating positive programming efforts and a desire to refrain from committing violence. In late 2016, Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility was the first institution with an NDPF, and in April 2019, the most recent transition to an NDPF was California Men’s Colony. The department currently has 28 SNYs at 15 institutions, with a population of approximately 20,000 offenders. According to the department, the change to NDPFs allows for greater access to lower-level housing and commensurate privileges, along with various rehabilitative programs, including educational, vocational, and religious activities. The department has a goal of maintaining higher- level III and IV SNYs while transitioning lower-level facilities to NDPFs. This includes allowing all lower-level offenders demonstrating positive behavior and refraining from committing violence access to enhanced credit-earning opportunities at NDPF locations. Offenders recommended for transfer to an NDPF are not required to waive their SNY designation or display a willingness to attend rehabilitative programming before transfer. If an offender refuses a transfer to an NDPF, the offender is subject to the department’s disciplinary process and may be placed into a higher-level housing designation. The department currently operates NDPFs at 31 of its 35 institutions, with a population of approximately 44,000 offenders. All camps, firehouses, minimum-support facilities, secure Level I facilities, most Level II institutions, and two medical care Level III facilities offer NDPF housing. During 2018, the department included all enhanced outpatient program and inpatient mental health beds as NDPFs. The department is making ongoing population and program need assessments through its bed-planning processes. This ensures that appropriate housing and program availability is aligned with population needs. 44. Update, January 2016, pp. 36–37. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 38 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Security Threat Group Regulations and the Step‑Down Program The Blueprint identified several measures recommended as a result of a 2007 study performed by California State University, Sacramento, titled Security Threat Group Identification and Management. The Blueprint stated the department could begin carefully implementing the study’s recommended measures, such as offering graduated housing, a step-down program (SDP) for offenders, support and education for disengaging from gangs, a weighted point system for gang validation, specific use of segregated housing, and social-value programs45 in preparation for the offenders’ return to a general population or SNY facility.46 The department initiated the SDP to provide offenders with increased incentives with the objective of promoting positive behavior and stopping participation in security threat group (STG) activities, with the ultimate goal of release from the security housing unit (SHU). The SDP was implemented in October 2012 at each of the four SHU institutions: California Correctional Institution; California State Prison, Sacramento; California State Prison, Corcoran; and Pelican Bay State Prison. In December 2015, more than 1,300 offenders were enrolled in the SDP. However, as a result of the January 2016 settlement agreement reached in Ashker v. Brown, the department expedited its review of SDP offenders to determine their eligibility for release from the SHU and to receive a transfer to a general population facility. This has resulted in a substantial decrease of SDP offenders, with the result that, as of this report, SDP offenders are located at only two institutions: California State Prison, Corcoran, and Pelican Bay State Prison. As of April 2020, five SDP offenders were housed at California State Prison, Corcoran, in the SHU. One SDP facilitator organizes and facilitates the evidence-based rehabilitative programs. The step-down program includes the “Building Resilience” curriculum and written journals with topics such as “Communications,” “Adjustment to Incarceration,” and “Your Drug Use,” among numerous others. The SDP facilitator conducts journal reviews, holds weekly group sessions, and facilitates a book club. As of April 2020, eight SDP offenders were in the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison, which has one SDP facilitator. Weekly programming is provided to approximately 80–90 offenders in the SHU. The following programs are offered to the SHU population: “Communication Skills,” “Building Resilience,” “Money Smart,” “Flashpoint Religious Studies,” “Art,” “Book Club,” and “Creative Writing.” In addition, the 45. Rehabilitative programs designed to assist offenders in acquiring the social values and behaviors that will aid them as they reintegrate into society. 46. Blueprint, May 2012, pp. 18–19. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 39 Anti-Recidivism Coalition (ARC) is providing three programs to SHU offenders, which include “Youth Offender Program,” “Board Prep” and “Criminal/Gangs Anonymous.” The Division of Rehabilitative Programs continues to look for additional opportunities to make use of its facilitators. The division is currently in the process of expanding its Offender Mentor Certification Program and anticipates the SDP facilitators assisting with this program. The OIG will continue to report on the status of SDP offenders and consult with the department with a shared interest in achieving the goals set out in both the department’s Blueprint and the Ashker settlement agreement. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 40 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 41 Recommendations The Office of the Inspector General recommends the department take the following actions:  To increase offender enrollments and participation in its new in-prison integrated substance use disorder treatment programs, the department should consider decreasing its prescribed class build of 12 inmate positions per class and prioritize automation of its waitlist process to maximize offender participation. The extremely low levels of class participation suggest that decreasing the class build to 12 would allow a smaller number of inmates to enroll in and participate in a class. We were informed that activation of a class occurs after 12 assignment / inmate positions per class were available.  To increase offenders’ access to rehabilitative programs, the department should expand the use of eLearning,47 video conferencing technology, and Internet Protocol Television Integration (IPTVI), also referred to as DRP-TV.48 47. Governor Newsom Issues Executive Order on State Prisons and Juvenile Facilities in Response to the COVID-19 Outbreak, Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, March 23, 2020 (https:// www.gov.ca.gov/2020/03/24/governor-newsom-issues-executive-order-on-state-prisons- and-juvenile-facilities-in-response-to-the-covid-19-outbreak). The department’s Board of Parole Hearings began using video conferencing technology when conducting parole suitability hearings to allow people be present at a parole hearing by videoconference. 48. C-ROB Report, California Rehabilitation Oversight Board, September 13, 2019 (https:// crob.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/C-ROB-Annual-Report-September-2019.pdf), Internet Protocol Television Integration: DRP-TV. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 42 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 43 Appendices Appendix A—Rehabilitative Case Plan: Example Logout CPED: Name: CDC#: PID #: Curr. Loc.: Control Date: Control Date Type: EPRD Housing PGM: Non-Designated Area/Bed: Job Title: CLK / Clerk Program Facility (PF) Custody: Medium (A) (C4) Security Level: Level 1 (10) WK/PV Group: A1 / A DOB: Ethnicity: TABE (Read): 12.9 Mental Health: CCCMS- DDP: Adequate Cognitive Correction Clinical Case Mgt DPPV: None Functioning (NCF) System (B) Date: 5/15/2020 Risk (CSRA Score): 1 (L) TABE Reading Score: 12.9 TABE Math: 08.9 Verified GED: Y Verified HS Diploma: N Needs (from COMPAS) Assessment Date: 02/26/2014 Version: Core Men's v.4 Needs Assessment Substance Abuse: 50 - Medium Educational Problems: 50 - Medium Criminal Personality: 100 - High Employment Problems: 50 - Medium Anger: 100 - High Support from Family of Origin: 0 - Low Recommended Rehabilitative Programs Timeline Color Legend Current Future Recommended Program Current Recommended Program After CPED Program Name Program Start Program End 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Date Date College (Correspondence) 05/15/2020 03/20/2023 Voc Career Core 05/15/2020 05/10/2021 Transitions 03/20/2021 04/24/2021 Current and Completed Rehabilitative Programs Timeline Color Legend Current Current or Completed Program Before Start of Term Program Program Program Name Start End 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Date Date Certificates and Diplomas Date Certificate or Diploma Name Program Name Completed 05/30/2012GED Milestones Date Milestone Credit Value Milestone Name (MCC) Completed in weeks 03/14/2019TPC Training System Industrial safety and Health 03 Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Strategic Offender Management System, Rehabilitative Case Plan, for an inmate housed at the Correctional Training Facility. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 44 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Appendix B—Statewide Programming Totals The information displayed on the following page identifies the statewide operational status of the rehabilitation programs in fiscal year 2019–20, in summary format for each type of rehabilitation program, including academic education, career technical education, and transitions, as well as the contract treatment programs for integrated substance use disorder treatment and cognitive behavioral interventions. The OIG performed fieldwork to assess these programs’ operational status at each institution. The first set of columns identifies the number of proposed instructor positions and the number of budgeted student capacity, as identified by the department. For the contract treatment programs, the first set displays the budgeted student capacity for each program as well as its budgeted annual capacity. The next set of columns displays the results from the OIG’s fieldwork, identifying the number of programs or program slots that were fully operational when the fieldwork was performed. These columns also display the projected annual capacity for the contract programs based on existing enrollment figures. The third set of columns identifies the differences between the number of courses that were supposed to be operational and corresponding student capacity, and the number of courses found by the OIG to be operational and the actual number of students served. The OIG conducted its fieldwork from February 2020 through March 2020. Therefore, the numbers presented herein may have changed since the date we published this report. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 45 Appendix B—Statewide Programming Totals: Exhibit STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTALS – REHABILITATION PROGRAMS OIG Fieldwork OIG Fieldwork CDCR Figures Feb. 2020– CDCR Figures Feb. 2020– Differences Types of Programming FY 2019–20 March 2020 FY 2019–20 March 2020 (Actuals – Proposed) Actual Program Budgeted Actual Student Academic Education Proposed Staff Staff Capacity Capacity Differences Differences Traditional Education (TE) 400 364 21,600 19,650 –36 –1,950 Postsecondary Continuing 107 98 19,260 17,640 –9 –1,620 Education (PSCE) Alternative Education 30 24 3,600 2,880 –6 –720 EOP 24 20 648 540 –4 –108 TOTALS 561 506 45,108 40,710 –55 –4,398 Actual Program Budgeted Actual Student Career Technical Education Proposed Staff Staff Capacity Capacity Differences Differences Auto Body 15 15 405 405 0 0 Auto Mechanics 18 17 486 459 –1 –27 Building Maintenance 33 24 865 622 –9 –243 Carpentry 16 14 432 378 –2 –54 Computer & Related Technology 81 74 4,158 3,996 –7 –162 Computer AutoCAD 1 0 27 0 –1 –27 Computer Coding 6 1 162 27 –5 –135 Cosmetology/Manicure 3 2 81 54 –1 –27 Electrical Works 21 14 567 378 –7 –189 Electronics 31 21 837 567 –10 –270 HVAC 16 11 432 297 –5 –135 Landscaping 1 1 27 27 0 0 Machine Shop 4 2 108 54 –2 –54 Masonry 14 11 378 297 –3 –81 Painting (Industrial) 4 4 108 108 0 0 Plumbing 16 12 432 324 –4 –108 Roofing 1 1 27 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 2 2 54 54 0 0 Small Engine Repair 10 6 270 162 –4 –108 Welding 24 19 648 513 –5 –135 TOTALS 317 251 10,504 8,749 –66 –1,755 Student Capacity Actual Students Annual Student Projected Annual Contract Treatment Programs (Program) in Program Capacity Student Capacity Differences Differences Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) Intensive 6,096 24 6,096 24 –6,072 –6,072 Outpatient Integrated Substance Use Disorder 2,316 0 2,316 0 –2,316 –2,316 Treatment (ISUDT) Outpatient Cognitive Behavioral Interventions 2,316 0 3,937 0 –2,316 –3,937 (CBI) – Life Skills TOTALS 10,728 24 12,349 24 –10,704 –12,325 Actual Students Annual Student Projected Annual Employment Programs Program Slots in Program Capacity Student Capacity Differences Differences Transitions 57 47 3,078 2,538 –10 –540 TOTALS 57 47 3,078 2,538 –10 –540 Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs provided the types of programming and departmental figures for FY2019–20, and OIG actual figures were from site-visit reviews conducted from February 2020 to March 2020. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 46 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report Appendix C. Status of Blueprint Recommendations, 2019 Implementation Status as Determined Description of Recommendation The Department’s Proposed Action Plan by the OIG The Office of the Inspector General On a monthly basis, the department’s Division of Fully recommends that the department Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) personnel team is to Implemented take the following actions to meet its compare reported vacancies with job ads posted on staffing level goals for rehabilitative California Human Resources’ (CalHR) VPOS website, programming: and reach out to institution Personnel Officers (IPO) for status of any vacancies not currently posted.  Promptly advertise and recruit for all statewide vacant academic and career DRP will continue to generate interest in educational technical education teacher positions opportunities through local hiring forums and and utilize the “Substitute Academic focused recruitment. Also, DRP is exploring the Teacher (Correctional Facility)” job use of the Substitute Academic Teacher (SAT) classification. This report shows that classification. DRP has previously attempted the department has 101 courses that to use this classification, but this practice was are not operational, primarily due to suspended pending outcome of arbitration with teacher vacancies. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and fiscal availability.  Prioritize its recruitment and filling DRP tracks academic and career technical vacancies Fully of the longest-running vacancies monthly (including the length of the vacancy), and Implemented (over one year, over six months, etc.) DRP Headquarters Personnel engage in a semi- and teacher vacancies of the highest monthly call identifying those institutions with number. Determine whether the vacant vacancy issues and troubleshooting and engaging positions at each prison are critical to in the hiring process to assist. DRP is preparing a the department, and if so, determine if comprehensive report of current program space. the positions should be transferred to Once available space, offender needs, and teacher another prison with a greater need or availability have been assessed, DRP will consider ability to fill the position. moving vacant teacher positions to locations with higher needs while assessing the criminogenic needs of the population.  Establish an experienced worker DRP is working with the Office of Personnel Services Partially program to identify a pool of (OPS) to facilitate the hiring of Retired Annuitants Implemented experienced former teachers who using the CalHR “boomerang” site, on which retired would be willing to come back to work state employees can register and departments can as retired annuitants. These teachers search for qualified applicants. OPS will request a could be utilized to fill vacancies at their statewide exemption from CalHR to allow teachers most recent prisons of employment or at the department’s institutions to return as retired at other prisons with vacancies. annuitants in less than the required 180-day postretirement period. During the Statewide Principal’s Call, DRP will instruct principals to discuss the retired annuitant classifications with teachers who are retiring and provide them with information on how to return as a retired annuitant.  Require monthly updates from each Institution principals are required to update a Fully supervisor of correctional education position control spreadsheet on a weekly basis. Implemented programs (principal) of courses that This spreadsheet identifies all vacancies, as well as are not operational for which a teacher all teachers that have been hired but are unable to is assigned but unable to provide deliver programming. instruction. Consider other alternative duties, such as providing support to The Office of Correctional Education has outlined other teachers by providing educational expectations or alternate duties for those teachers services to assigned/enrolled students. who are unable to deliver assigned programs. Continued on next page. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report | 47 Appendix C. Status of Blueprint Recommendations, 2019 (continued) Implementation Status as Determined Description of Recommendation The Department’s Proposed Action Plan by the OIG The Office of the Inspector General The DRP’s Office of Correctional Education submits Implemented/ recommends that the department take monthly reports from submissions within the field Ongoing the following actions to increase the that identifies those positions which have been percentage of operational courses: vacant for a number of months noting the following categories, by specific position: vacant for less than 30 days; vacant one to six months; and vacant six Require each Supervisor of Correctional months or greater. Education Programs to provide regular updates to the Director of the Division Beginning in January 2019, DRP has taken a of Rehabilitation Programs regarding the multifaceted approach to identifying and planning/ difficulties programs face in recruiting and prioritizing filling of those identified vacancies: retaining sufficient teachers, especially for positions remaining vacant for more than • Monthly vacancy information is being 90 days. collected and analyzed. For teacher positions considered “hard to fill” or those the department has actively • Bimonthly, the DRP headquarters personnel “attempted to fill,” develop a plan to staff are included on a statewide principal assess and prioritize the impact a teacher call to discuss difficulties in hiring and could make for the inmates in providing notate those hires that appear to be rehabilitative services to them. stagnating or where they could have the largest impact in targeted assistance (i.e., those institutions with the highest number and / or longest running vacancies). • Coordinating with the local institutions and Human Resource Recruitment to assist the local institution if necessary, including assisting with job advertisements, local interviewing/ scheduling, or potentially participating in local employment forums. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 48 | Blueprint Monitoring: Eleventh Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring 11th Report OFFICE of the INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley Inspector General Bryan B. Beyer Chief Deputy Inspector General STATE of CALIFORNIA August 2020 OIG