12th Blueprint Monitoring Report

Roy W. Wesley, Inspector General Bryan B. Beyer, Chief Deputy Inspector General of the OFFICE OIG INSPECTOR GENERAL Independent Prison Oversight December 2021 Blueprint Monitoring Twelfth 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: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | iii Contents Illustrations iv Summary 1 Introduction 5 Rehabilitative Programs 7 In Prison: Assess Needs 8 Rehabilitation Program Report 9 Case Management Plan 11 OIG Fieldwork Review 12 Academic Education 13 Career Technical Education 16 Transitions 17 Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment 17 Sex Offender Treatment Program 19 California Identification Card Program 20 Standardized Staffing for Education Programs 23 Academic Education 24 Career Technical Education 25 Classification and Housing 29 Housing Plan: Global Benchmarks 30 Contract Capacity 31 Proposition 57 31 Milestone Credits 33 Nondesignated Program Facilities 34 Security Threat Group Regulations and the Step-Down Program 35 Recommendations 37 Appendices 39 Appendix A. Rehabilitative Case Plan: Example 39 Appendix B. Statewide Programming Totals 40 Appendix B. Statewide Programming Totals: Exhibit 41 Appendix C. Status of Blueprint Recommendations, 2020 43 Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents iv | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Illustrations Tables Terms Used in This Report v 1. CSRA and COMPAS Assessments 9 2. OIG Fieldwork Summary of Program Staff by Type 13 3. Summary of Academic Education Programs / Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) 15 4. Summary of Career Technical Education Programs 16 5. Summary of Transitions 17 6. Summary of Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs 19 7. Program Vacancies in Academic Education and Career Technical Education Over Three Reporting Periods 24 8. Vacancy Rates for Academic Education Instructors Across Institutions 24 9. Academic Education Positions for the California Health Care Facility and Deuel Vocational Institute 25 10. Instructor Vacancy Rates for Career Technical Education Instructors Across Institutions 26 11. Career Technical Education Positions at Institutions With an Instructor Vacancy Rate Over 40 Percent 27 12. Custody Designations 29 13. Sample of Milestone Completion Credit Schedule Changes 34 Graphics The OIG’s Mandate i The Road Map to Rehabilitation 7 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. i The Noun Project: Iconography 7 Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth 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 December 16, 2021, 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: Twelfth 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: Twelfth Report | 1 Summary California Penal Code section 6126 mandates that 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. This report presents our twelfth review of the Blueprint; our findings are based on information collected in March 2021, except for departmental population figures, which extend through June 30, 2021. The OIG sent staff to each of the department’s 35 adult institutions, where they reviewed and reconciled departmental documents2 and observed departmental programs in operation. These on-site visits occurred during the department’s ongoing response to the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) that began 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. As of June 30, 2021, most institutions had resumed limited in-person programming. Since January 2020, the department has experienced serious challenges implementing the new substance use disorder treatment model. The department suspended the entire program in March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing effective capacity to zero, and suspended the proposed process to “ramp-up” the program to full budgeted capacity at each institution.3 1. View the online version of the department’s original report here. 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 incarcerated persons’ activity groups. 3. Memorandum from the Director of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs to CDCR and CCHCS Extended Executive Staff, Institution Wardens, and Institution Executive Staff, dated March 23, 2020. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 2 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Regarding the department’s standardized staffing for education and career technical education, the OIG found that 87 percent of academic education programs, 77 percent of career technical education programs, and 87 percent of transitions programs were operational. Since our 2020 report on monitoring the department’s Blueprint, our eleventh, the vacancy rate has increased three percentage points for positions in academic education and two percentage points for positions in career technical education, and has decreased five percentage points for positions in transitions programs. In our past Blueprint monitoring reports, we found the department was not able to meet its initial 2012 goal of ensuring that at least 70 percent of incarcerated persons 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 incarcerated persons reentered society. The department demonstrated that only 52 percent of incarcerated persons in its target population met this objective during fiscal year 2015–16, the last fiscal year the department tracked this benchmark. Subsequently, the department developed a new counting rule, which would track program information for all incarcerated persons rather than focus on a target population. Minimum participation in a program is now defined as the number of incarcerated persons who have been enrolled in a program for a minimum of 30 calendar days, with associated in-classroom time (or in-cell packet time during COVID-19 restrictions). 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 by the department in January 2016 identified new goals and detailed the department’s focus on modifying custody regulations to create additional programming opportunities for incarcerated persons with lower supervision needs. The passage of Proposition 57 in November 2016 established a parole consideration process for persons incarcerated for nonviolent offenses and gave incarcerated persons an opportunity to earn additional credits for good behavior and to participate in rehabilitative, educational, and career training programs. Between July 2020 and June 2021, the department released 17,804 incarcerated persons due to earned credits authorized by Proposition 57 that advanced their release dates. According to the department, these individuals, excluding those released from fire camps, earned an estimated average of 173.6 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 Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 3 through implementation of the Rehabilitative Case Plan Study, which was designed to enhance the use and delivery of rehabilitative services. As of June 2021, 232 incarcerated persons have completed the department’s sex offender treatment program, an increase of 13 incarcerated persons from February 2020. The department also expanded its Offender Mentor Certification Program from three to four sessions per year and continues to ensure incarcerated persons have the opportunity to obtain a State-issued ID card prior to release. The department continues to expand its nondesignated programming facilities (NDPFs). During the reporting, NDPFs were located at 33 of its 35 institutions, comprised a population of approximately 30,500, and included all minimum support facilities and enhanced outpatient program (EOP) housing units.4 These facilities are designed to provide rehabilitative environments for incarcerated persons who have demonstrated positive programming efforts and a desire to refrain from violent behaviors. By July 2021, only seven step-down program (SDP) participants and two SDP facilitators remained; our 2020 monitoring report on the Blueprint noted 13 SDP participants and two 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. 4. The department converted to NDPF housing units for all of its enhanced outpatient programs (EOP) 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: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth 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 incarcerated person 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 incarcerated persons served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to the incarcerated persons’ 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.5 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 access to community college courses and in-prison sex-offender treatment.6 5. California Penal Code section 6126, California State Legislature (accessed November 30, 2021). 6. 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: Twelfth 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 twelfth review of the department’s implementation of its Blueprint and our sixth review of its Update and is based on information collected in March 2021, with the exception of departmental population figures, which extend through June 30, 2021. 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 incarcerated individuals 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 section on 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.7 7. Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., Settlement Agreement, C 09-05796 CW, Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (accessed November 1, 2021). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 7 Rehabilitative Programs The department provides rehabilitative programs to adults during their incarceration and upon their release. In-prison programming includes academic education, career technical education, transitions (workforce readiness and financial literacy), substance use disorder treatment, and cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) treatment, among others. Upon release, the department provides formerly incarcerated individuals with substance use disorder treatment, education programs, and employment services. The illustration below depicts the rehabilitative process an individual may travel from incarceration to release. The Road Map to any voluntary programs: Education, Innovative Grant / Offender Activity Groups, Library Services, Recreation Programs. Rehabilitation STEP 4: Programming: 48 – 60 Months Left to Serve Overview Offenders may be placed in various programming aimed to address criminogenic needs, obtain a higher education level, or both: The Step-by-Step Process Career Technical Education (CTE), College Programming. Offender enters prison STEP 5: Programming: 12 – 24 Months Left to Serve Overview Offender may continue receiving treatment and educational STEP 1: Offender Enters Reception Area programming in prison or may elect, if eligible, to participate in Overview Offenders received are provided orientation regarding key community-based reentry programs: Custody to Community Transitional policies and procedures (PREA, ADA, Medical, MH, etc.) and various Reentry Program (CCTRP) and Male Community Reentry Program (MCRP) assessments, including their risk to reoffend and criminogenic needs: are community-based programs reentry programs. Transitions Reentry California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), Correctional Offender Program, CAL-ID Program, Cognitive Behavioral Interventions (CBI) are Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS), Test of in-prison programs. Adult Basic Education (TABE®) Reading, Division of Adult Institutions (DAI) Security Assessments, Healthcare Evaluations. STEP 6: Programming: 210 Days Left to Serve Overview Offenders may also enroll in community-based programs STEP 2: Begin Classification Process designed to help them successfully reenter the community from prison Overview Following reception and once at their home institution, an and participate in Parole Planning. offender meets with their correctional counselor and goes through the classification committee process where they are placed on appropriate STEP 7: Parole / Back Into the Community programming lists, including educational, treatment, and jobs/work assignments. Rehabilitative placements should be driven from CSRA, Overview Parolee successfully rejoins society. The Division of COMPAS, and TABE® Reading along with an offender’s discussion of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) works closely with the Division of Adult needs/wants and case file information. Parole Operations (DAPO) to provide comprehensive postrelease rehabilitative programs and services located in communities throughout the State of California delivered through residential, outpatient, and drop- STEP 3: Programming: Day 30 – Up to 60 Months Left to Serve in centers: Day Reporting Centers (DRC), Community-Based Coalition Overview Offenders may be placed in various programming aimed to (CBC), Parolee Service Center (PSC), Transitional Housing Program (THP), focus on gaining any necessary educational achievements along with Specialized Treatment for Optimized Programming (STOP). Day 30+ Classification 48 to 60 Months 1 2 3 Co L n e tin ft u e to d E S d e u r c v a e tion & Assessing Other Needs Day 1 – 30 Day 30 – Up to 4 210 Days 60 Months Left to Serve Enter Prison Le P f r t o t g o ra S m e s r & v e 5 Reen P t a r r y o P le ro P g la ra n m ni m ng ing & 7 Education 6 12 to 24 Months Parole & Left to Serve Release Continued Treatment & Reentry Programming From The Roadmap to Rehabilitation, courtesy of the Division of Rehabilitative Programs, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 8 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report In Prison: Assess Needs The department uses concepts identified in the California Logic Model8 to assess its population for rehabilitative programs. The model determines program placement by calculating an incarcerated individual’s risk to reoffend and combining that calculation with an assessment of that person’s criminogenic needs. The department uses the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) to determine risk to reoffend and the Core Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessment tool to identify criminogenic needs.9 In addition to assessing these risks and needs factors, the department prioritizes placement according to incarcerated persons’ dates of release, focusing on those who are within five years of their earliest possible release date. The department explains that the classification process also considers the individual’s needs, interests, and desires, and that this process may supersede any assessment- based prioritization. To improve 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 Corrections10 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 displays the data for CSRA and COMPAS assessments as of June 30, 2021. The total incarcerated population numbered 98,472, of whom 95,677 individuals (97 percent) had received a CSRA risk assessment. Of that group, 39,299 individuals (41 percent) had a moderate or high risk to reoffend. Some incarcerated individuals are excluded from 8. The eight basic components of the California Logic Model: assess high risk; assess needs; develop behavior management plans; deliver programs; measure progress; prepare for reentry; reintegrate; and follow up. 9. Inclusion in the target population does not necessarily trigger the placement of incarcerated persons into specific programs. COMPAS assessment results are used for placement into cognitive behavioral intervention programs and transitions programs, but for placing incarcerated persons into other programs, the department uses individual case factors, such as results derived from individuals’ taking the Tests of Adult Basic Education (TABE®), to ensure the individuals are placed into the appropriate academic program level. Visit https://tabetest.com to learn more about the origin of these tests. 10. 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. See 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: Twelfth Report | 9 receiving a COMPAS assessment, such as those with the designations of enhanced outpatient program (EOP) level of care or higher, those serving life without parole, and condemned incarcerated individuals. Among the total population of 98,472 incarcerated individuals, 84,856 (86 percent) were eligible to receive a COMPAS assessment, all of whom were classified (an improvement from prior reporting periods in which there were many incarcerated individuals still awaiting classification). Of the eligible and classified incarcerated individuals, 82,248 (97 percent) had received a COMPAS assessment. Table 1. CSRA and COMPAS Assessments Relation to Cohort Percent of Specific Total Incarcerated Population 98,472* Total Cohort Incarcerated persons with a CSRA risk assessment 95,677 97% Total incarcerated population Incarcerated persons with a moderate or high Incarcerated persons 39,299 41% CSRA score with CSRA Incarcerated persons eligible to receive 84,856 86% Total incarcerated population a COMPAS assessment† Incarcerated persons located at reception centers Incarcerated persons eligible to who are currently unclassified and do not have 0 0 receive a COMPAS assessment a qualifying COMPAS assessment Incarcerated persons eligible to receive a COMPAS Incarcerated persons eligible for 84,856 100% assessment who have been classified a COMPAS assessment Eligible and classified incarcerated persons who Incarcerated persons eligible to 82,248 97% received a COMPAS assessment receive a COMPAS assessment * The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation weekly population report as of June 30, 2021, published on its website, provided the figure for the Total Incarcerated Population. All other figures were provided to us by the department. † The Division of Rehabilitative Programs excludes incarcerated persons on temporary release, such as those under supervision as community rehabilitative program placements or those housed within the Department of State Hospitals. Rehabilitation Program Report Rehabilitation programs are available at all institutions. The department’s current metric for assessing program participation is to count the number of incarcerated persons participating in rehabilitative programming at “minimal participation,” which is defined as having been enrolled in a program for a minimum of 30 calendar days. This counting rule also requires that there be associated in-classroom education time (or packet education11 time during COVID-19 restrictions). 11. During COVID-19, in-classroom education time was replaced with in-cell education, in the form of paper packets containing instructional material appropriate for the student’s current academic level. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 10 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report The department has taken actions to implement the OIG’s 2018 recommendation that metrics for minimal participation include an attendance participation rate. 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. In the 2020-21 fiscal year, the department’s minimum participation rules required either in-classroom hours or packet education hours in addition to enrollment. Further, via the Automated Reentry Management System (ARMS), providers were able to capture individual participation attendance, curriculum advancement, and case notes. The department assesses completion as the appropriate measure of success. The department states these measures provide a multilevel review of those incarcerated persons 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 individuals completing a program, may give the impression that the same percentage 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, 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. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 11 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 risks and needs assessments, time left to serve, and program profiles to develop an individual case plan that follows an incarcerated person throughout his or her incarceration. Case management plans help ensure that the department assigns incarcerated individuals to appropriate programs based on their overall risk potential and criminogenic needs. Such plans also help staff determine the type, frequency, and timing of programming an incarcerated person should receive to effectively reduce the likelihood of reoffending. The individual’s case plan should also transfer with the incarcerated person upon release to parole or 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 the addressed needs and the department’s recommended plans for future programming, providing an incarceration timeline and rehabilitative program recommendations for the individual. Correctional counselors and other in-prison program staff use the plan to help determine an incarcerated individual’s assessed needs for possible program placement into various rehabilitative programs prior to the individual’s initial classification committee’s actions. The rehabilitative case plan also lists the certificates, diplomas, and milestones the individual has earned or reached. In addition, the department created a program overview report containing the same information found in the plan, excluding the incarceration timeline, allowing an incarcerated person to obtain 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 Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 12 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report resources and responsibilities. In October 2018, 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 individuals each week. In January 2019, the department trained correctional counselors to maintain and further develop case management functions and to increase communication with incarcerated individuals and resource providers. The department also reiterated guidelines regarding documentation of 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). 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, self-assessment guides, and information documented by the classification committee. The RCPS remains a valuable tool for correctional counselors and classification committees in assessing rehabilitative needs for incarcerated persons. The RCPS establishes a continuum of rehabilitative support and guidance throughout the individual’s term. Through increased interaction, correctional counselors assist individuals in setting present and future goals, which they document in the individual’s file and provide to the individual for future reference. This new case management strategy allows for heightened interaction between counseling staff and incarcerated persons and will assist in the department’s mission to successfully reintegrate formerly incarcerated persons into our communities. OIG Fieldwork Review The OIG obtained rehabilitative programming figures for fiscal year 2020–21 from the department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs and performed fieldwork to determine the operational status of each institution’s various programs. To make this determination, the OIG reviewed authorized rehabilitation staff position figures per institution, visited institutions to conduct spot checks of classrooms, reviewed monthly attendance reports, and discussed any discrepancies with rehabilitative program managers at the institutions. The OIG deems a program fully operational only when all three of the following elements are in place: an assigned classroom, a corresponding instructor, and data charting monthly attendance. The following section discusses the current status of each of the various programs identified from the Division of Rehabilitative Program’s Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 13 data for fiscal year 2020–21. Appendix B provides a statewide summary of rehabilitative programs at each institution. It identifies programs the department has authorized and the operational status of each as determined at the time of the OIG site visits. Table 2 shows program staffing levels as determined from the fieldwork our staff completed at all the department’s institutions. This year’s figures for academic and career technical education have declined from those of last year, while the figures for transitions have increased. We determined there was an operational program for 87 percent of the proposed academic education staff (three percentage point decrease), for 77 percent of the proposed career technical education staff (two percentage point decrease), and for 87 percent of the proposed transitions staff (five percentage point increase). Table 2. OIG Fieldwork Summary of Program Staff by Type Program Staff Differences As of 2/2020–3/2020 * As of March 2021 * Active 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 561 506 90% 568 492 87% –21 –3% Career Technical 317 251 79% 317 243 77% –8 –2% Education Transitions 57 47 82% 54 47 87% –3 5% * The department’s figures for the budgeted (or proposed) staff did not remain constant between FY2019–20 and FY2020–21. Note: The department provided the figures for the Proposed Staff categories. Source: OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the figures for the Number of Persons categories. 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 California’s adult institutions. The department’s goal is to provide incarcerated persons with education and career training as part of its broader effort to increase public safety and reduce recidivism. All education programs offered are eligible for milestone completion credits, and many are eligible for educational merit credits, both of which reduce an individual’s sentence. In March 2020, due to COVID-19 restrictions, correctional education programs moved to an in-cell distance-learning format. In the Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 14 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report fall of 2020, the department implemented a phased reopening for rehabilitation programs. Most institutions have reinstated limited in-person education. Institutions are continuously monitoring and evaluating COVID-19 outbreaks and will reinstate precautionary measures as needed. Under normal circumstances, academic education models are as follows: • Traditional Education: Incarcerated persons without a United States-recognized and verified high school diploma, high school diploma equivalency, or certificate of completion, will be placed on a waiting list by the unit classification committee. Incarcerated persons 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): Incarcerated persons with a verified high school diploma or high school diploma equivalency may request to be enrolled and placed on a waiting list by the unit classification committee or by an instructor for college courses. College courses are offered in person and through distance learning; incarcerated persons 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: Incarcerated persons who are unable to participate in traditional education classes and who also do not have a verified high school diploma, high school diploma equivalency, or certificate of completion, and those with developmental disabilities, may enroll in alternative education courses. These courses include the same subjects 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. 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 Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 15 • Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP): Incarcerated persons classified as EOP, who do not have a verified high school diploma, high school diploma equivalency, or certificate of completion, may take EOP courses to earn a high school diploma equivalency or a high school diploma. These courses include the same subjects offered in Traditional Education, such as adult basic education or adult secondary education classes. The department provides reasonable accommodations to incarcerated persons with disabilities.14 The department budgeted a total of 568 academic positions for these delivery models during fiscal year 2020–21. At the conclusion of our fieldwork, we found that 492 of the 568 academic positions were fully operational, which is a 87 percent compliance rate. This percentage decreased by three points since our 2020 report reviewing the Blueprint. The primary reason academic courses were not operational was due to position vacancies or instructors on extended leave. We provided further information regarding statewide vacancies in the Standardized Staffing section of this report. Table 3 summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s academic education programs and EOP. Table 3. Summary of Academic Education Programs/Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) Active Staff Budgeted Actual Student Academic Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Education Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Traditional Education 413 354 14% 22,086 18,838 85% Alternative 26 19 27% 3,240 2,058 64% Education Enhanced Outpatient 25 20 20% 675 540 80% Postsecondary 104 99 5% 18,900 18,678 99% Continuing Education Totals 568 492 13% 44,901 40,114 89% Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Staff and the Budgeted Student Capacity categories as of November 2020. OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the figures for the Active Program Staff and the Actual Student Capacity categories. 14. Incarcerated persons 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, who are unable to function in the prison general population. EOP-designated incarcerated persons receive student support services, including specialized classes, due to developmental, learning, and physical disabilities. If an Interdisciplinary Treatment Team determines an EOP-designated incarcerated person would be better served with EOP peers in small groups of two to eight incarcerated persons, the incarcerated person may be referred to an EOP instructor. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 16 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Career Technical Education The department assesses an incarcerated person’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, individuals assessed with a medium-to-high need for employment are placed on a waiting list for a career technical education (CTE) class of their choice and one alternate CTE class. Individuals with a medium-to-high need for employment, who also have six months to four years remaining on their sentence, or have a Board of Parole Hearing scheduled, receive priority for assignment, dependent on class availability. The most widely available CTE classes offered include Computer and Related Technologies, Building Maintenance, Electronics, and Welding. CTE classes are held five days per week, 6.5 hours per day, for approximately six to 18 months, depending on the course.15 The department identified a total of 317 career technical education positions budgeted during fiscal year 2020–21. The OIG found 243 of the 317 positions were filled and fully operational, which is a vacancy rate of 23 percent. This is an increase of two percentage points in nonoperational CTE programs since our 2020 monitoring report on the Blueprint. During our review, we found no instructor vacancies in the CTE courses of industrial painting, machine shop, roofing, or sheet metal work. However, carpentry, cosmetology, electrical works, electronics and small engine repair courses all had instructor vacancy rates higher than 30 percent statewide. In addition, seven of the eight computer coding classes were vacant (87 percent), which the department noted was due to COVID-19 restrictions. We provide further information regarding statewide vacancies in the section on standardized staffing in this report. Table 4 summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s CTE programs. Table 4. Summary of Career Technical Education Programs Active Staff Budgeted Actual Student Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Program Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Career Technical 317 243 23% 10,719 8,460 79% Education Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Staff and the Budgeted Student Capacity categories as of November 2020. OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the figures for the Active Program Staff and the Actual Student Capacity 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 Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 17 Transitions The department designates transitions classes to provide incarcerated persons with skills to aid them in their successful reentry into society. The department offers this program primarily to incarcerated persons who are within two years of release or a parole consideration hearing.16 The program teaches job readiness, job search skills, and financial literacy, and provides students with community resources that may assist as they transition back into the community. The OIG found that 47 of the 54 positions were filled and fully operational, which is a compliance rate of 87 percent. This was an increase of five percentage points from our 2020 monitoring report on the Blueprint. Table 5 summarizes our fieldwork review of the department’s transitions classes. Table 5. Summary of Transitions Active Staff Budgeted Actual Student Budgeted Program Vacancy Student Student Capacity Program Staff Staff Rate Capacity Capacity Rate Transitions 54 47 18% 2,916 2,526 87% Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for the Budgeted Student Capacity and Annual Student Capacity as of November 2020. OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the figures for the Active Program Staff and the Actual Student Capacity categories. Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment In January 2020, the department began implementation of its new integrated substance use disorder treatment (ISUDT) program. The department describes the ISUDT program as a comprehensive and evidence-based cross-divisional cognitive behavioral intervention (CBI) program that will identify individuals 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. In March 2020, the ISUDT program ceased due to COVID-19 restrictions, and the enrollment and completion rates fell to zero. In September 2020, the department began to re-introduce these programs as permitted by COVID-19 restrictions. 16. DRP’s Reference Guide, February 2020, p. 7. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 18 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Programs The Division of Rehabilitative Programs also replaced its cognitive behavioral treatment program with a new curriculum, now referred to as cognitive behavioral interventions, or CBI. This new program is evidence-based treatment to assist incarcerated individuals to understand their own behavior and learn strategies to address their own thoughts and emotions. CBI focuses on helping individuals deal with a specific problem identified through clinical assessments. According to the department, during treatment in CBI, participants 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 other treatments, which include ISUDT (both intensive outpatient and outpatient) and life skills programs. The department will assign individuals 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 follow: • 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 Each course is to consist of three classes per day with 12 individuals assigned to each class. For every 80 hours of participation, incarcerated persons will receive a two-week sentence reduction through milestone completion credits, and one additional week’s reduction upon successfully completing the program.17 The enrollment process requires medical assessments and collaboration with health care staff. Incarcerated persons in these new programs must first complete a medical assessment, and health care staff must enter the results, along with 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.18 Finally, 17. DRP’s Reference Guide, February 2020, p. 3. 18. 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: Twelfth Report | 19 coordination between the Correctional Counselor III and the incarcerated persons’ assignment office will allow for activation of a class, typically after 12 assignment positions are filled. In March 2021, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether the department had started the implementation of the CBI programs as COVID-19 restrictions eased. Table 6 presents the numbers of individuals who completed the programs despite the pandemic. Table 6. Summary of Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment Programs FY 2020–21 Contract Treatment Program Completions Cognitive Behavioral Interventions: 2 Intensive Outpatient (ISI) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions: 0 Outpatient (ISO) Cognitive Behavioral Interventions: 120 Life Skills (CBI 2) Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures for completion in each treatment program. Sex Offender Treatment Program The Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Sex Offenders (CBI-SO) program is designed for incarcerated persons who are required to register as a sex offender 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 (SATF), and provides programming for a maximum of 80 incarcerated persons at a time. The department is researching the feasibility of expanding the program to additional institutions. 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 psychosocial assessment that includes two measures to assess the likelihood of recidivism for both sexual and general offenses. All departmental staff administering the assessments are certified in the application of State- Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 20 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report authorized risk assessment tools used for evaluating sex offenders.19 Due to COVID-19 restrictions, as of June 30, 2021, only one group of seven individuals was participating 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 incarcerated persons 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) to fulfill this task. The agreement expanded the CAL-ID program to all 35 adult institutions. These facilities work directly with the department and the DMV to facilitate the application, approval, and distribution of identification cards to the incarcerated persons 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 staff the necessary information to provide timely reentry identification services, including providing CAL-ID. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs tracks the status of CAL-ID applications and identification cards. If an incarcerated person is transferred to another institution prior to receiving his or her identification card, departmental staff will update the incarcerated person’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 incarcerated person upon release. If an incarcerated person has been released to parole prior to the institution’s receiving the incarcerated person’s identification card, a parole services associate forwards the identification card to the respective parole unit. Upon receipt of the identification card, the parole office staff confirms with the institution its receipt of the card and its issuance of the card to the parolee. These services also include forwarding identification cards to probation units for individuals on probation. 19. 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: Twelfth Report | 21 The department continues to look into the feasibility of the DMV’s providing cameras and software inside institutions to use to photograph individuals 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, since State-issued identification cards must include a photo that is not more than 10 years old. The CAL-ID program eligibility screening period for incarcerated persons ranges from zero to 13 months prior to release. The department is currently working with the DMV to incorporate technological upgrades for the expedited processing of applications. The DMV is in the process of creating a platform for a virtual field office, to allow electronic submission of documents. The department reported that between July 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, it sent 15,863 applications to the DMV for processing (indicating that the individuals were both interested in and eligible to receive identification cards). The DMV approved and issued 12,196 identification cards (77 percent of applications); 8,726 individuals (72 percent of approved applications) were released with an identification card, while the remaining 2,996 were released without one; 474 identification cards were held at the institutions to be released to formerly incarcerated persons at their reporting parole or probation office. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 22 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 23 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 incarcerated person population fluctuated. 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.20 To determine the operational status of these rehabilitative programs, we first acquired the final rehabilitation authorized position counts per institution from the department. Our office recognized an operational program only if we determined the course as having an active instructor, an assigned classroom, and data showing attendance. Table 7 provides our past three reviews of the department’s instructor vacancy rates, according to the operational status for academic education and career technical education programs. According to the California State Auditor’s January 2019 report on the department’s in-prison rehabilitation programs,21 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 on the next page, the vacancy rate in academic positions increased by three percentage points since our previous review. The vacancy rate for career technical education positions increased from 21 percent to 23 percent. The department continues to have a combined total of over 100 total vacancies in academic education and career technical education positions. 20. The OIG has issued 11 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. 21. 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, accessed November 30, 2021. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 24 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Table 7. Program Vacancies in Academic Education and Career Technical Education Over Three Reporting Periods Number Budgeted Active of Vacant Vacancy Type of Programming Review Period Instructors Instructors Positions Rate March 2021 568 492 76 13% Academic Education Feb 2020 to Mar 2020 561 506 55 10% Jan 2019 to Feb 2019 572 526 46 8% March 2021 317 243 74 23% Career Technical Education Feb 2020 to Mar 2020 317 251 66 21% Jan 2019 to Feb 2019 304 249 55 18% Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation provided the figures as of November 2020 for the Budgeted Instructors category. OIG site visit reviews identified the amounts for the Active Instructors category. Academic Education As shown in Table 8, our review of vacancy rates for academic education positions showed 16 of 35 institutions (45 percent) had a vacancy rate at 10 percent or below, a decrease of three institutions at that rate since our previous reporting period. Eight of the 16 institutions had zero vacancies among academic instructors. Table 8. Vacancy Rates for Academic Education Instructors Across Institutions Percent Number of of Total Type of Programming Vacancy Rate Institutions * Institutions 0 to 10% 16 45% 11% to 20% 10 29% Academic Education 21% to 30% 4 11% 31% to 40% 2 6% 41% to 50% 3 9% Total Among All Institutions 35 100% * The positions for Folsom State Prison and Folsom Women’s Facility were combined for calculation of vacancy rates by institution. Source: OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the vacancy rate by type of programming. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 25 As shown in Table 9, California Health Care Facility (CHCF) and Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) held the two highest academic instructor vacancy figures, each with a 50 percent vacancy rate. California City Correctional Facility (CAC) held the next highest academic instructor vacancy rate at 43 percent. This figure for DVI is explained by the institution’s being in the process of deactivating with a set date of September 30, 2021.22 CHCF expected to fill multiple vacancies shortly after our visit. Table 9. Academic Education Positions for the California Health Care Facility and Deuel Vocational Institution Active Staff Education Proposed as of Vacancy Institution Programs Staff March 2021 Difference Rate Traditional Education 3 2 1 Alternative Education 1 0 1 CHCF 50% Enhanced Outpatient 1 0 1 Program (EOP) Postsecondary 1 1 0 Continuing Education Traditional Education 3 2 1 Alternative Education 2 0 2 DVI 50% Enhanced Outpatient N/A N/A N/A Program (EOP) Postsecondary 1 1 0 Continuing Education Traditional 6 3 3 Alternative N/A N/A N/A CAC 43% EOP N/A N/A N/A Postsecondary 1 1 0 Source: OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the figures for the Active Staff category to determine the vacancy rate by type of programming. Career Technical Education As shown in Table 10 on the next page, our review of instructor vacancy rates statewide for career technical education showed that 27 of the 35 institutions (77 percent) had a vacancy rate over 10 percent, which 22. The department deactivated DVI as of September 30, 2021 (see https://www.cdcr.ca.gov/ prison-closures/). Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 26 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report represents a decrease from the prior year, when 25 institutions had vacancy rates over 10 percent. Three institutions had an instructor vacancy rate exceeding 50 percent, as described on the next page (see Table 11, page 27). Table 10. Vacancy Rates for Career Technical Education Instructors Across Institutions Percent Number of of Total Type of Programming Vacancy Rate Institutions* Institutions 0 to 10% 13 37% 11% to 20% 8 23% 21% to 30% 2 6% Career Technical Education 31% to 40% 6 17% 41% to 50% 4 11% 51% to 60% 1 3% 61% to 70% 1 3% Total Among All Institutions 35 100% *The positions for Folsom State Prison and Folsom Women’s Facility were combined for calculation of vacancy rates by institution. Source: OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the vacancy rate by type of programming. Among the institutions we visited in March 2021 with vacancy rates greater than 50 percent, we found the following: • California Healthcare Facility had one career technical education course in Computer and Related Technologies. The instructor for this course was on an extended leave of absence, which left the course not operating. The institution noted the instructor was due to be back the week following our on-site visit. • Deuel Vocational Institution (deactivated as of September 30, 2021) had the largest vacancy rate of career technical instructors, with only two of the six career technical education courses operational (67 percent). Building maintenance and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) courses were vacant due to retirements. The construction course became vacant on June 12, 2020. The electrical course has remained vacant since our last report. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 27 • At California State Prison, Los Angeles County, we found three of the seven career technical education courses (43 percent) were not operating due to instructor vacancies and absences. One electrical course was due to be operational, pending the start date of a recently hired instructor. The instructor position for electronics courses has been advertised multiple times, but the institution has not received any candidates eligible for hiring. The institution is currently advertising again to fill the remaining vacant positions in masonry and plumbing courses. Table 11. Career Technical Education Positions at Institutions With an Instructor Vacancy Rate Over 40 Percent Active Staff Proposed as of Vacancy Institution Staff March 2021 Difference Rate CHCF 1 0 1 100% DVI * 6 2 4 67% LAC 7 3 4 57% * Deuel Vocational Institution was deactivated as of September 30, 2021. Source: The department the figures for the proposed staff category, and OIG site visits identified the active staff category. OIG site visit reviews during March 2021 identified the vacancy rate by type of programming. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 28 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 29 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 construction, renovations, conversions, activations, closures, changes to the incarcerated person classification score system, changes in housing and population density levels, and changes to contract beds. In January 2016, the department’s Update detailed its shifting of focus to incarcerated persons’ custody designations. The Update reported that the department was revising existing regulations related to custody designations. Table 12 details the security levels that help determine programming opportunities. Those incarcerated persons with lower security level designations have reduced levels of supervision and are allowed more programming opportunities.23 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 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.24 Proposition 57 required the department to implement regulations on 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.25 The department projected a reduction of approximately 23. Update, January 2016, p. 36. 24. “California Proposition 57 (2016),” Ballotpedia, accessed November 30, 2021. 25. “Proposition 57: The Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016 Frequently Asked Questions,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed November 30, 2021. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 30 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report 10,600 incarcerated persons by 2021–22 as a result of these changes.26 The department reported that, between July 2020 and June 2021, a total of 17,804 incarcerated persons were released due to their advanced release date authorized by Proposition 57. According to the department, the incarcerated persons who were released, excluding those released from fire camps, had earned an estimated average of 173.6 days of additional credit. We will continue to monitor the department’s progress in its reduction of the population of incarcerated persons due to Proposition 57, and we will report our findings in future monitoring reports concerning the Blueprint. Housing Plan: Global Benchmarks The Blueprint noted the department was under a federal court order27 to reduce overall prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent of design capacity.28 The department met the court-ordered prison population cap of 137.5 percent, as required, by February 28, 2016.29 The department’s Update noted the court reaffirmed that the department was to remain under the jurisdiction of the court for as long as necessary to continue compliance with this benchmark.30 In 2016, the department activated 2,376 infill beds at Mule Creek State Prison and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility.31 According to the department’s September 2021 Status Report to the three-judge court panel, the department has been in full compliance with the court’s population reduction order for over seven years.32 As of June 30, 2021, departmental figures showed an in-State prison population of 93,612 incarcerated persons in 34 adult institutions with a design capacity of 85,083, equaling 26. California State Budget, 2019–20, p. 82. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. California’s Prison Crowding Reduction Plans and Credit Laws Information Letter, March 16, 2016, p. 1, Prison Law Office, accessed November 30, 2021. 30. Update, January 2016, p. 7. 31. 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, accessed November 30, 2021. 32. “Three-Judge Court Monthly Update,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed November 30, 2021. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 31 110 percent of design capacity.33 As of July 1, 2021, the department updated the design capacity to 84,710.34 Contract Capacity 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 incarcerated persons and allowed the State to comply with the three- judge panel’s court order. The bill authorized activating a private prison, California City Correctional Facility, in Kern County. This facility is the first leased facility the department has operated, and as of June 30, 2021, it housed 2,088 incarcerated persons. As of May 31, 2021, the department had closed all of its modified community correctional facilities.35 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 incarcerated persons the opportunity to earn additional credits for good behavior and participation in rehabilitative, educational, and career training programs; • Increases the number of nonviolent incarcerated persons eligible for parole consideration and allows parole consideration after nonviolent incarcerated persons 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 credit titled Good Conduct Credit was implemented on May 1, 2017, and other credit- earning programs, such as Milestone Completion, Rehabilitative 33. 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 incarcerated person population is not included in the count of the rate of overcrowding at the department’s institutions. 34. “Three-Judge Court Monthly Update,” California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, accessed November 30, 2021. 35. Modified community correctional facilities (MCCF) were public and private facilities the department employed in addition to its 35 adult prisons to reduce overcrowding. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 32 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Achievement, and Educational Merit,36 were implemented on August 1, 2017. On October 24, 2019, the Office of Administrative Law approved regulatory action that allows incarcerated persons to earn credits that advance release and parole dates and increases the number of credits incarcerated persons may earn in several categories, including education merit credits. All incarcerated persons, with the exceptions of condemned incarcerated persons and those sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, are eligible to earn credit. According to the department, the earning of credits may advance an incarcerated person’s release date if the individual is serving a determinate term or may advance an incarcerated person’s initial parole suitability consideration hearing if the individual is serving an indeterminate term. In the month of July 2021, 1,517 incarcerated persons across the adult prison population earned credit authorized by Proposition 57 toward their advanced release dates. According to the department, these incarcerated persons, excluding those released from fire camps, earned an estimated average of 158.7 days of additional credit. Due to COVID-19 restrictions, however, access to these credits may not be currently available at every institution. The department also implemented a new nonviolent individual parole consideration process on July 1, 2017. According to departmental figures, from July 1, 2017, through May 31, 2021, the department made 26,207 referrals to the Parole Board. As of June 30, 2021, the Parole Board reviewed 26,881 referrals on their merits, with 4,166 incarcerated persons approved for release and 19,554 denied release. In addition, 2,155 referrals were closed because the individuals were, upon further review, found not to be eligible for parole consideration. According to the department, the remaining referrals are pending review. 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 individual parole process to distinguish between incarcerated persons who were determinately sentenced and those who were indeterminately sentenced. A parole consideration process was implemented for indeterminately sentenced incarcerated persons. In addition, credit-earning opportunities were expanded for incarcerated persons who achieved a high school diploma or 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 incarcerated person must serve following a sudden award of substantial credit. 36. Effective May 1, 2019, educational merit credits of 180 calendar days are awarded for a high school diploma or high school diploma 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: Twelfth Report | 33 Effective May 2021, the department made changes under emergency regulations, which increased the rate of earning good conduct credits. Persons incarcerated for violent offenses began earning good conduct credits at a rate of 33.3 percent (one day of credit for every two days served), and persons incarcerated for nonviolent, second- and third-strike offenses began earning good conduct credits at a rate of 50 percent (one day of credit for every one day served). In response, later in May 2021, a group of District Attorneys filed a lawsuit in Sacramento County Superior Court requesting the department stop giving additional credit. As of the publication of this report, the lawsuit remains pending.37 Milestone Credits As an incarcerated person progresses through various rehabilitative program components, he or she earns milestone credits, which are awarded upon final program completion. These credits can reduce an incarcerated person’s sentence. Following Proposition 57, the department initiated several changes to enhance and expand these milestone credits. 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 persons incarcerated for violent offenses, individuals serving indeterminate sentences, and incarcerated persons serving life term sentences.38 Incarcerated persons can earn up to 12 weeks of credit in 12 consecutive months. Incarcerated persons housed at fire camps became eligible for greater credit-earning capacity, up to day-for-day credit. Table 13 on the next page presents a sample of the various milestone credit changes, which includes the entire Milestone Completion Credit Schedule from the department’s Proposition 57 revised regulations. In addition, the department created an education merit credit, allowing incarcerated persons who earned a high school diploma or equivalency, a college degree, or a mentor certification while incarcerated to receive 180 days of credit. The department applies this credit retroactively. The new rehabilitative achievement credit allows incarcerated persons 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. However, any milestone and rehabilitative achievement credit lost because of any disciplinary action will not be restored. 37. District Attorney of Sacramento County v. CDCR, Sac. Superior Ct. No. 2021-00301253- CU-MC. 38. Condemned individuals 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 34 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Table 13. 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. Nondesignated Program Facilities In May 2018, the department began converting facilities to nondesignated program facilities (NDPFs), which house incarcerated persons together regardless of their designation as either Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) or General Population (GP). 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 programs. The department has a goal of maintaining higher-level III and IV SNYs. This allows all lower-level incarcerated persons who refrain from violence and demonstrate positive behavior access to enhanced credit-earning opportunities at NDPF locations. Incarcerated persons 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 incarcerated person refuses a transfer to an NDPF, the incarcerated person is subject to the department’s disciplinary process and may be placed into a higher-level housing designation. NDPFs are located at 33 of the department’s 35 institutions and comprise a population of approximately 30,537 incarcerated persons. These NDPFs include all minimum-support facilities and EOP housing units. The department is making ongoing population and program need assessments through its bed-planning processes. This ensures housing and program availability are aligned with population needs. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 35 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), support and education for disengaging from gangs, a weighted point system for gang validation, specific use of segregated housing, and social-value programs39 in preparation for incarcerated persons’ return to a general population or SNY facility.40 The SDP was implemented in October 2012 at each of the four Security Housing Unit (SHU) institutions: California Correctional Institution; California State Prison, Sacramento; California State Prison, Corcoran; and Pelican Bay State Prison. It was designed to increase incentives, with the objective of promoting positive behavior and stopping participation in security threat group (STG) activities, and with the ultimate goal of releasing incarcerated persons from the SHU. In December 2015, more than 1,300 incarcerated persons 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 participants to determine their eligibility for release from the SHU and to receive a transfer to a general population facility. This resulted in a substantial decrease of SDP participants. As of this report, SDP participants are located at only two institutions: California State Prison, Corcoran, and Pelican Bay State Prison. As of June 2021, six SDP participants were housed at California State Prison, Corcoran, in the SHU, and one SDP participant was in the SHU at Pelican Bay State Prison. The Division of Rehabilitative Programs continues to look for additional opportunities to make use of its two remaining facilitators. SDP facilitators organize and facilitate evidence-based rehabilitative programs. 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 participants 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. 39. These are rehabilitative programs designed to assist incarcerated persons in acquiring the social values and behaviors that will aid them as they reintegrate into society. 40. Blueprint, May 2012, pp. 18–19. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 36 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 37 Recommendations The Office of the Inspector General recommends the department take the following actions:  The department should resolve hiring challenges for some Career Technical Education (CTE) programs to address their high vacancy rates in instructor positions. There are specific CTE programs, such as those in carpentry, electrical works, and small engine repair, with high vacancy rates in instructor positions statewide. There are also six institutions with overall CTE instructor position vacancy rates above 40 percent. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 38 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 39 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 40 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth 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 2020–21, in summary format for each type of rehabilitation program, including academic education, career technical education, and transitions programs, 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 lists figures for proposed instructor positions and 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 the corresponding student capacity, and the number of courses the OIG found to be operational and the actual number of students served. The OIG conducted its fieldwork in March 2021. 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: Twelfth Report | 41 Appendix B. Statewide Programming Totals: Exhibit STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTALS – REHABILITATION PROGRAMS OIG Fieldwork OIG Fieldwork CDCR Figures March 2021– CDCR Figures March 2021– Differences Types of Programming FY 2020–21 April 2020 FY 2020–21 April 2021 (Actuals – Proposed) Actual Budgeted Actual Student Academic Education Proposed Staff Program Staff Capacity Capacity Differences Differences Traditional Education (TE) 413 354 22,086 18,838 –59 –3,248 Postsecondary Continuing 104 99 18,900 18,678 –5 –222 Education (PSCE) Alternative Education 26 19 3,240 2,058 –7 –1,182 DDP 14 9 N/A N/A –5 N/A DPP 6 5 N/A N/A –1 N/A EOP 25 20 675 540 –5 –135 ESSA 7 6 189 162 –1 –27 Peer Literacy 35 35 700 700 0 0 Mentorship Program (PLMP) Testing Coordinator 75 67 N/A N/A –8 N/A Physical Education 48 45 N/A N/A –3 N/A TOTALS 753 659 45,790 40,976 –94 –4,814 Actual Program Budgeted Actual Student Career Technical Education Proposed Staff Staff Capacity Capacity Differences Differences Auto Body 15 13 405 351 –2 –54 Auto Mechanics 18 15 486 405 –3 –81 Building Maintenance 28 21 756 567 –7 –189 Carpentry 15 10 405 270 –5 –135 Construction 101–CORE 7 6 189 162 –1 –27 Computer & Related Technology 80 70 4,320 3762 –10 –558 Computer AutoCAD 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Coding 8 1 216 54 –7 –162 Cosmetology/Manicure 3 2 81 54 –1 –27 Electrical Works 20 12 540 324 –8 –216 Electronics 30 19 810 513 –11 –297 HVAC 17 13 459 351 –4 –108 Landscaping 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 4 4 108 108 0 0 Masonry 15 11 405 297 –4 –108 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 21 648 567 –3 –81 TOTALS 317 243 10,719 8,460 –74 –2,259 Continued on next page. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 42 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report Appendix B. Statewide Programming Totals: Exhibit (continued) STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTALS – REHABILITATION PROGRAMS (continued) OIG Fieldwork OIG Fieldwork CDCR Figures March 2021– CDCR Figures March 2021– Differences Types of Programming FY 2020–21 April 2021 FY 2020–21 April 2021 (Actuals – Proposed) 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) 0 3,709 0 3,709 3,709 3,709 Intensive Outpatient Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment (ISUDT) 0 278 0 278 278 278 Outpatient Cognitive Behavioral Interventions 16 1,614 27 2,744 1,598 2,717 (CBI) – Life Skills TOTALS 16 5,601 27 6,731 5,585 6,704 Actual Students Annual Student Projected Annual Employment Programs Program Slots in Program Capacity Student Capacity Differences Differences Transitions 54 47 2,916 2,526 –7 –390 TOTALS 54 47 2,916 2,526 –7 –390 Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs provided the types of programming and departmental figures for FY2020–21, and OIG actual figures were from site-visit reviews conducted during March 2021. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report | 43 Appendix C. Status of Blueprint Recommendations, 2020 Implementation Status as Determined Description of Recommendation The Department’s Proposed Action Plan by the OIG The Office of the Inspector General The integrated substance use disorder treatment Fully recommends that the department (ISUDT) contract requires group ratios be no greater Implemented take the following actions to increase than 1 AOD counselor to 12 participants (1:12) and is incarcerated persons’ enrollment in line with the OIG’s recommendations. and participation in its new in-prison integrated substance use disorder In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the treatment programs: need to deliver vital ISUDT programming services safely, CDCR and CCHCS have modified group  ratios. The CDCR-CCHCS Institutional Roadmap to Decrease its prescribed class build to Reopening incorporates a multiphased approach to 12 incarcerated person positions per reopen statewide operations safely by relying on the class. The extremely low levels of class recommended guidelines set forth by the Centers for participation suggest that decreasing Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the California the class build to 12 would allow a Department of Public Health (CDPH), and other smaller number of incarcerated persons stakeholders. Depending on an institution’s available to enroll in and participate in a class. space, CDCR and CCHCS are using social distancing, We were informed that activation of smaller group sizes, and the use of personal a class occurs after 12 assignment/ protective equipment (PPE) to provide ISUDT incarcerated person positions per class programming services to incarcerated persons. were filled.  Prioritize automation of its waitlist ISUDT waitlists are automated to support the Fully process to maximize incarcerated prioritization of programming for the target Implemented persons’ participation. populations. The Office of the Inspector General CDCR has several education technology efforts to Fully recommends that the department expand access to rehabilitative programs, including Implemented take the following actions to increase building the infrastructure to support a limited incarcerated persons’ access to number of IT devices and concurrent users. CDCR rehabilitative programs: has worked to upgrade its education tools to secure online tools instead of paper-based instruction.  Expand the use of eLearning, video conferencing technology, and Internet A Learning Management System (LMS) is in the Protocol Television Integration (IPTVI), process of implementation and will be used initially also referred to as DRP-TV. for college courses. The LMS provides the ability to host educational content, complete classwork electronically, and participate in secure video conferences with remote instructors. DRP-TV continues to add new content available to viewers, streaming on four channels across the state’s institutions. Currently, there are three courses on DRP-TV that result in milestone credits upon completion. Additional rehabilitative content is also routinely streamed over DRP-TV, including videos from Oprah Winfrey’s Network, CNN, National Science Foundation, TED Talks, and other learning materials. DRP-TV also now offers over 2,000 videos for instructional viewing through its Video On Demand system. Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents 44 | Blueprint Monitoring: Twelfth Report (This page left blank for reproduction purposes.) Office of the Inspector General, State of California Return to Contents Blueprint Monitoring 12th Report OFFICE of the INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley Inspector General Bryan B. Beyer Chief Deputy Inspector General STATE of CALIFORNIA December 2021 OIG