OIG
Centralized Screening Monitoring Report
Amarik K. Singh, Inspector General Shaun Spillane, Chief Deputy Inspector General
of the
OFFICE
OIG
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Independent Prison Oversight March 2025
The Office of the Inspector General’s
Monitoring in 2024 of the
Centralized Screening Team
Process of the California
Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
2024 Annual Report
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 916-288-4233.
Connect with us on social media
STATE of CALIFORNIA
OIG OFFICE of the Amarik K. Singh, Inspector General
INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane, Chief Deputy Inspector General
Independent Prison Oversight
Regional Offices
Sacramento
Bakersfield
Rancho Cucamonga
March 4, 2025
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 6126(i), the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) is responsible for the contemporaneous oversight of staff misconduct screening
decisions made by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the
department). The Centralized Screening Team is an entity within the department that
initially reviews complaints the department receives containing allegations of employee
misconduct and makes a screening decision. This report concerns the OIG’s monitoring of
screening decisions the department’s Centralized Screening Team made in 2024.
The OIG monitored the Centralized Screening Team’s performance in making screening
decisions based on whether complaints the department received contained a routine
issue or allegations of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated or supervised person.
Under departmental policy in 2024, the Centralized Screening Team was required to route
allegations in complaints the department received in one of three ways:
• Allegations of staff misconduct that include complex issues requiring
specialized investigative skills or resources are routed to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigations Unit for a full investigation.
• Allegations of staff misconduct that do not include complex issues requiring
specialized investigative skills or resources are routed to the prison or parole
office where the alleged misconduct occurred. There, they are assigned to a
locally designated investigator for a local inquiry.
• Complaints that do not contain an allegation of staff misconduct are routed to
the prison or parole office to be handled as routine matters.
From January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, the OIG reviewed and monitored 9,245
complaints to determine whether the Centralized Screening Team identified and routed
allegations of staff misconduct to the appropriate entity within the department. The OIG
assigned one of three overall ratings for each complaint received: superior, satisfactory,
or poor. Of the 9,245 complaints the Centralized Screening Team received and screened,
Gavin Newsom, Governor
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95827
Telephone: (916) 288-4212
www.oig.ca.gov
Governor and Legislative Leaders
March 4, 2025
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process
Page 2
8,219, or 89 percent, were satisfactory decisions, and 1,024, or 11 percent, were poor
decisions. We found the Centralized Screening Team performed in a superior manner when
it made screening decisions for two complaints it received.
This report is part one of a three-part series that discusses the department’s performance
in identifying and addressing allegations of staff misconduct involving incarcerated or
supervised people.
Sincerely,
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | iii
Contents
Illustrations iv
Introduction 1
The Centralized Screening Monitoring Team 3
Oversight Areas Reported During the 2024 Reporting Period 3
The Department Has Generated Duplicative Case Numbers
on Hundreds of Grievances, Thereby Inflating the Reported
Number of Complaints Submitted by the Incarcerated
Population, and Has Unnecessarily Duplicated Its Own
Reviews of Certain Complaints 13
The OIG Determined the Centralized Screening Team Failed
to Properly Screen Complaints at “Face Value” in 15 Percent
of the Cases We Monitored 19
The Department Unnecessarily Wasted Time and Resources
by Rerouting Grievances Multiple Times in Contradiction of
Policy and Best Practices to Clear a Backlog at Two Prisons 25
The OIG’s Recommendations to the Department Regarding
Its Centralized Screening Team Process 29
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
iv | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
Illustrations
Figures
1. The Frequency With Which the Centralized Screening Team
Agreed With the OIG’s Recommendations When We
Elevated Its Screening Decisions 5
Tables
1. The OIG’s Ratings of the Centralized Screening Team’s
Screening Decisions 4
2. Face-Value Screening Decisions Monitored
and Elevated by the OIG 20
Exhibits
1. Reasonable Accommodation Request 17
2. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint 20
3. Excerpt From Prison Staff’s Summary of
a Third-Party Complaint 21
4. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint 21
5. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint 22
6. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint 22
7. Excerpts From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint 23
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 1
Introduction
An allegation of staff misconduct generally originates from a complaint
against any employee of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation (the department) that alleges a violation of a law, a
regulation, a departmental policy, or an ethical or professional standard.
Any individual, including incarcerated people, supervised people,
or third-party individuals or groups, can make an allegation of staff
misconduct and submit a complaint to the department.
The department’s Centralized Screening Team is responsible for
screening each complaint to determine whether it contains an allegation
of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated person and then forwarding
the complaint to the appropriate departmental entity for resolution.
The department maintains a list of the most serious allegations; this is
called the allegation decision index. The Centralized Screening Team
uses the allegation decision index to determine whether to route a
staff misconduct complaint to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit for investigation.
Under departmental policy in 2024,1 the Centralized Screening Team is
required to route an allegation from a complaint in one of three ways:
1. Allegations that are serious in nature and listed on
the allegation decision index, or any allegation of
misconduct with complex issues, are routed to the Office
of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigations Unit for a
full investigation.
2. Allegations of misconduct that are not listed on the
allegation decision index and are not complex are routed
to the prison or parole office where the alleged misconduct
occurred. They are then assigned to a locally designated
investigator for a local inquiry.
3. Complaints that do not contain an allegation of staff
misconduct are routed to the prison or parole office to be
handled as routine matters.
When the nature of an allegation is too unclear to make a screening
decision, the Centralized Screening Team is required to conduct a
clarification interview with the incarcerated person who filed the
complaint. The Centralized Screening Team must log the information
obtained during the interview into the department’s staff misconduct
complaint database. Moreover, the Centralized Screening Team must
update the staff misconduct complaint database to track the status of all
complaints and to record the disposition of all routing decisions.
1. The department has implemented emergency regulations that took effect on
January 1, 2025, which changed the options for routing allegations.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
This report summarizes our monitoring of the department’s Centralized
Screening Team’s screening decisions completed from January 1, 2024,
through December 31, 2024. Pursuant to California Penal Code section
6126 (i), the Inspector General “shall provide contemporaneous oversight
of grievances that fall within the department’s process for reviewing
and investigating [incarcerated person] allegations of staff misconduct
and other specialty grievances, examining compliance with regulations,
department policy, and best practices.” In this report, we use the terms
grievances and complaints synonymously.
The law requires that we issue reports annually. Hence, this report is
part one of a three-part series. Parts two and three will present our
assessment and findings of the department’s performance in conducting
local inquiries, and our monitoring and assessment of staff misconduct
investigations and the employee disciplinary process for those cases.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 3
The Centralized Screening
Monitoring Team
The OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team monitored the
department’s Centralized Screening Team’s screening and routing
decisions. We randomly selected complaints and performed research
using records, documents, and departmental databases. We analyzed
each screening decision to assess how the Centralized Screening Team
processed each allegation included in a complaint. If we encountered
discrepancies during the screening process, we contacted the department
and elevated our concerns. We also monitored interviews Centralized
Screening Team staff conducted with incarcerated people to obtain
clarification about their allegations. The OIG assessed the performance
of departmental staff and assigned an overall rating of superior,
satisfactory, or poor to each complaint monitored.
Throughout this process, we used our assessment methodology, which
is based on performance-related questions and their responses, to
determine the ratings. We used an assessment tool that consisted of an
overarching question, with a series of subquestions to determine whether
the Centralized Screening Team appropriately screened and referred
allegations of employee misconduct and other related complaints.
From the Centralized Screening Team’s screening decisions that we
monitored in 2024, we produced and published a select number of case
blocks monthly. The case blocks included a summary of the incident,
the department’s screening decision, and the OIG’s assessment of the
screening decision. These case blocks can be found on the OIG’s website.
Oversight Areas Reported During the 2024
Reporting Period
From January 1, 2024, through December 31, 2024, the department
reported2 it received 208,886 complaints and processed 209,6683
complaints from incarcerated people, supervised people, and third-
party individuals or entities. The department reported it made 210,3214
screening decisions in 2024 and routed those decisions as follows:
• 186,828 screening decisions were routed and returned to
prisons as routine issues.
• 10,891 screening decisions were routed to prisons for a
local inquiry.
2. We received data from the department on January 9, 2025.
3. This number includes 782 complaints processed in 2024 but received before
January 1, 2024.
4. The department reported that one source document may contain multiple complaints.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
4 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
• 11,392 screening decisions were routed to the Office of
Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for
an investigation.
• 1,210 screening decisions were routed to the Office of
Internal Affairs.5
The OIG reviewed and monitored 9,245 of the 210,321 screening
decisions the Centralized Screening Team made to determine whether
the Centralized Screening Team routed allegations of staff misconduct to
the appropriate entity within the department.
• The Centralized Screening Team made satisfactory
screening decisions in 8,219 of the 9,245 complaints, or
89 percent.
• The Centralized Screening Team made poor screening
decisions in 1,024 of the 9,245 complaints, or 11 percent.
• The Centralized Screening Team performed in a superior
manner when making screening decisions in two of the
9,245 complaints.
Table 1. The OIG’s Ratings of the Centralized Screening
Team’s Screening Decisions
Number of
OIG Ratings
Complaints
Superior 2
Satisfactory 8,219
Poor 1,024
Total 9,245
Source: The Office of the Inspector General.
5. The Centralized Screening Team rerouted 1,210 complaints back to the hiring authority,
which the hiring authorities then referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because
those complaints did not involve an incarcerated person or parolee, and the Centralized
Screening Team only processes allegations of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated
person or parolee. Per CCR, Title 15, section 3486.1 (b), “allegations of staff misconduct not
involving an inmate or parolee” shall not be referred to the Centralized Screening Team. If
a complaint is received by the Centralized Screening Team that does not include allegations
involving misconduct toward an incarcerated person or parolee, the Centralized Screening
Team shall refer the complaint to the hiring authority for disposition.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 5
When the OIG disagrees with a screening decision involving staff
misconduct, we elevate our recommendations to the Centralized
Screening Team’s management for additional review. This year, we
monitored 9,245 and elevated 498 screening decisions, or 5 percent. Of
those 498 decisions, the Centralized Screening Team disagreed with
the OIG in 38 instances or 8 percent and agreed and implemented our
recommendations in 459 decisions we elevated or 92 percent.
Figure 1. The Frequency With Which the Centralized Screening Team Agreed With
the OIG’s Recommendations When We Elevated Its Screening Decisions
CST Ultimately Determined
No Action Was Warranted
CST Disagreed
1 Decision
38 Decisions
(<1%)
(8%)
CST Agreed
N = 498
459 Decisions
Complaints (92%)
Elevated
Note: CST refers to the department’s Centralized Screening Team.
Source: The Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
6 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
The Centralized Screening Team failed to implement our
recommendations in 38 decisions we elevated. Below are a few examples
we identified.
• On November 4, 2024, a canteen6 supervisor allegedly
allowed incarcerated workers to tax incarcerated people
shopping in the canteen to allow them to move to the front
of the canteen line.
The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation
to the hiring authority for a local inquiry instead of to the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit
even though the allegation of soliciting favors or gratuities
is listed on the allegation decision index. Following the
OIG’s elevation, the Centralized Screening Team responded
that the allegation “at best” warranted a local inquiry. The
Centralized Screening Team upheld its decision.
• On September 27, 2024, an officer allegedly denied an
incarcerated person’s request to return to his housing
unit to use the bathroom when the temperature outside
exceeded 100 degrees, which made it impossible to sit on
metal toilets on the yard. The incarcerated person alleged
other incarcerated people defecated in the outdoor showers.
On September 30, 2024, a second officer allegedly denied
repeated requests from multiple incarcerated people to use
the bathroom in their housing unit because the outdoor
temperature exceeded 100 degrees. This resulted in multiple
incarcerated people defecating in the outdoor showers. On
October 7, 2024, the incarcerated person allegedly told a
captain about the ongoing bathroom issues, but the captain
allegedly failed to address the problem.
Initially, the Centralized Screening Team referred the
allegation that officers did not allow incarcerated people
to access a usable toilet, which resulted in incarcerated
people creating an unsanitary environment by defecating
in the showers, to the hiring authority for a local inquiry.
Before the OIG’s review, the assigned locally designated
investigator disputed the decision, and the Centralized
Screening Team routed the claim back to the prison as
a routine issue without a sufficient explanation. After
the OIG’s elevation and request for an explanation of
the change in decision, the Centralized Screening Team
upheld its decision to route the claim as a routine issue.
The Centralized Screening Team responded that allowing
incarcerated people to request access to the building
would create an unreasonable “free-for-all,” even though
6. California Penal Code, Section 5005.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 7
departmental policy already allowed for this exception
during heat alerts. The Centralized Screening Team failed
to respond to the OIG’s second elevation and proceeded
with its decision to route the claim as a routine issue.
• On July 2, 2024, after a verbal encounter, officers
allegedly used unreasonable force when handcuffing an
incarcerated person.
Prison staff who documented the incarcerated person’s
verbal complaint failed to report specific details, including
the incarcerated person’s exact statement, the names
of involved staff, and specific details about the alleged
incident. The Centralized Screening Team also failed to
request the details from prison staff. Rather than requesting
the information from the prison, the Centralized Screening
Team attempted to obtain additional details from the
incarcerated person during a clarification interview.
When the incarcerated person refused to participate in the
interview, the Centralized Screening Team inappropriately
determined the unreasonable force allegation was a
routine matter despite having access to a rules violation
report issued to the incarcerated person that included the
necessary details. After the OIG elevated the matter, the
Centralized Screening Team agreed that prison staff had
failed to document the necessary details in the complaint
but upheld its decision that because of the lack of details, it
would not process the unreasonable force allegation as an
allegation of staff misconduct.
• On March 9, 2024, an officer allegedly harassed a disabled
incarcerated person of a specific race who wore a mobility-
impaired vest and remained standing during an alarm
after the officer told him to get on the ground. The officer
allegedly permitted other incarcerated people of a different
race than the first incarcerated person to remain standing
during the alarm. The officer allegedly refused to reveal
her name to the incarcerated person, and a second officer
allegedly refused to provide his badge number when the
incarcerated person requested it to file a complaint. After
the alarm had cleared, a sergeant allegedly told the first
officer she was wrong in suggesting the incarcerated
person must sit down despite his mobility impairment. The
incarcerated person alleged the first officer frequently acted
rudely toward incarcerated people of a specific race and
only searched the bunks of incarcerated people of that race.
The Centralized Screening Team inappropriately referred
the allegation of racial discrimination to the hiring
authority for a local inquiry instead of referring it to the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
8 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
After the OIG disputed the decision, the Centralized
Screening Team, arbitrarily cited details not presented in
the grievance and upheld its decision based on supposition
and conjecture. The Centralized Screening Team
determined it was likely the officer did not tell the other
incarcerated people to get down during the alarm because
she and the first incarcerated person were engaged in
an argument.
• On April 26, 2024, an officer allegedly dropped a food
item on the floor and placed it on an incarcerated person’s
food tray. The same officer allegedly failed to provide
the incarcerated person with a complaint form on four
occasions. Because the incarcerated person was housed in
the restricted housing unit, he was unable to pick up the
forms himself.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to consider the allegation
that the officer had hindered the incarcerated person’s ability to
report staff misconduct. Although the officer refused to provide
complaint forms on four occasions, the Centralized Screening
Team failed to identify staff misconduct warranting a referral
to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
After the OIG elevated the issue, the Centralized Screening
Team maintained its decision that the alleged staff misconduct
was only a routine complaint form request issue. The Centralized
Screening Team cited in its response that the officer had
reported the housing unit was “out of a few different supplies for
a couple of days,” but had since received all necessary supplies
and issued them to the incarcerated population when available,
which is information the Centralized Screening Team obtained
after it had made its initial decision. Neither the officer nor the
Centralized Screening Team confirmed the “supplies” included
complaint forms, nor did they address the incarcerated person’s
allegation specifically. They only stated staff issued items to the
incarcerated population when they were available.
• From November 25, 2024, through December 6, 2024, staff
allegedly lost an incarcerated person’s legal documents
and durable medical equipment, racially profiled the
incarcerated person, and denied his request to speak to
a lieutenant.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify an allegation
of racial discrimination and misidentified the allegation that
staff had lost legal documents and durable medical equipment
as a routine issue, even though it consistently referred similar
allegations to the hiring authority for local inquiries. After
the OIG elevated the matter, the Centralized Screening Team
appropriately referred the allegation that staff had lost the
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 9
incarcerated person’s prescription eyeglasses and other durable
medical equipment to the hiring authority. However, despite the
requirement to screen at face value,7 the Centralized Screening
Team did not refer the allegation of racial discrimination as
staff misconduct, and it processed the allegation of lost legal
documents as a routine property claim. It explained to the OIG,
“The claimant does not state he was racial[ly] profiled he stated
he felt racially profiled . . .” (emphasis added). The incarcerated
person made three separate statements in his complaint: “I
feel racially profiled,” “I am being racially profiled,” and “I
am being racially profiled by 2 facilities.” Nevertheless, the
Centralized Screening Team only considered the first statement
in its decision.
In 468 cases, the Centralized Screening Team agreed with the OIG’s
recommendations and reconsidered its screening decisions. However,
if it were not for the OIG’s intervention, the department would have
failed to investigate allegations of staff misconduct. Below are examples
of instances in which the Centralized Screening Team made an overtly
incorrect screening decision but corrected it after the OIG provided
a recommendation.
• An incarcerated person alleged, in part, that from
September 26, 2024, through September 27, 2024, an officer
drove recklessly by swerving in and out of traffic, sped,
braked hard, made an illegal U-turn, smoked, drank, and
used his mobile phone while transporting an incarcerated
person from one prison to another. Moreover, the officer
allegedly solicited a sex worker when he stopped the
transport vehicle at a gas station.
The Centralized Screening Team incorrectly referred the
allegation that the officer drove recklessly to the hiring authority
for a local inquiry, even though allegations of negligent or
reckless driving are listed on the allegation decision index.
The Centralized Screening Team also failed to acknowledge
the allegation that an officer had solicited a sex worker while
on duty. After the OIG elevated the matter, the Centralized
Screening Team inappropriately upheld its original decision.
It claimed the incarcerated person could not have seen the
speedometer from the transport van’s holding cell, that a
mountainous winding road would have caused the incarcerated
person to move around in the van, and that the incarcerated
person did not sustain any injuries. The Centralized Screening
Team still did not address the allegation that the officer had
7. Face-value screening is based only on what the incarcerated person alleged, without
question, and regardless of the specific behavior described or the lack of substantiating
facts to support the allegation. Face-value screening is based solely on the face of the
complaint, rather than the merits of the complaint. We discuss face-value screening further
in this report.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
10 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
solicited a sex worker while on duty. After we elevated the matter
a second time, the Centralized Screening Team’s management
referred the allegations that an officer drove recklessly and
solicited a sex worker to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit.
• On May 25, 2024, three nurses allegedly failed to provide
an incarcerated person with proper medical care and
made unprofessional comments toward the incarcerated
person. The first nurse allegedly stated to the incarcerated
person, “Stop smoking dope,” and “I don’t have time for
your theatrics.” The second nurse allegedly stated to the
incarcerated person, “Inmates, especially you trannies [sic],
manipulate your way to the hospital by playing the system.”
The third nurse allegedly stated to the incarcerated person,
“You heard what my coworkers said: nothing is wrong with
you. Your [sic] not going to the hospital—bottom line, there
is no doctor. I am the doctor!”
The Centralized Screening Team routed the discrimination
allegation against one of the nurses to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. Although the OIG
concurred with the decision, the Centralized Screening Team
initially failed to identify the additional allegations that
two other nurses had made inappropriate statements to the
incarcerated person, that the two nurses denied the incarcerated
person medical care, and that one of those nurses deviated from
her scope of licensure. After the OIG elevated the matter, the
Centralized Screening Team took appropriate steps to amend its
decision and referred the allegations against the two nurses to
the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
• Among numerous other allegations, on November 6, 2024,
an incarcerated person wrote, “. . . I wasn’t the person who
got the gun in, it got in [by another incarcerated person]
& it’s still on [the facility].” Although the incarcerated
person did not provide a date in connection with this
statement, she bookended the statement with allegations
from April 20, 2024, and November 1, 2024. Neither the
prison’s Office of Grievances nor the Centralized Screening
Team identified the statement as an imminent risk to the
safety and security of the prison, and both failed to alert
appropriate staff.
The OIG notified the Centralized Screening Team and the Office
of Grievances that they had overlooked a risk to the prison’s
safety and security. The Centralized Screening Team did not
respond, but the Office of Grievances responded it would notify
facility staff. Out of an abundance of caution and due to the
severity of the safety and security risk, the OIG also directly
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 11
notified the hiring authority, who immediately initiated an
interview between the prison’s investigative services unit and the
incarcerated person. In the interview, the incarcerated person
reported the statement about the gun stemmed from an incident
that had occurred in 2018, and that the gun was not on-site.
• On October 25, 2024, a parole agent allegedly pushed a
supervised person down a flight of stairs.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to consider the allegation
that a parole agent had pushed a supervised person down a flight
of stairs to be an allegation of staff misconduct. The Centralized
Screening Team acknowledged the supervised person alleged
unreasonable force; however, it arbitrarily concluded, “It is
claimant’s belief that they were pushed but claimant does not
say they were pushed.” Multiple staff involved in the incident
reported the supervised person had stated, “You guys pushed
me.” After the OIG elevated the matter, the Centralized
Screening Team appropriately referred the allegation to the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
• On June 27, 2024, an officer allegedly made threats over
the public address system to have “gang members” rape
an incarcerated person. That night, “someone” allegedly
sexually assaulted the incarcerated person.
The Centralized Screening Team routed an allegation against
another incarcerated person for sexual assault but did not
identify any allegation against the officer. After the OIG
elevated the matter, the Centralized Screening Team conducted
an unnecessary clarification interview based on an illegible
sentence in the complaint even though we had only quoted the
legible sentence in our dispute. Subsequently, the Centralized
Screening Team illogically determined the allegation that the
officer had publicly threatened to have “gang members” rape
an incarcerated person was not staff misconduct because the
incarcerated person “did not witness any rapes.” However,
the Centralized Screening Team simultaneously identified an
allegation that another incarcerated person sexually assaulted
the incarcerated person after the officer allegedly made
the threat. After we elevated the matter a second time, the
Centralized Screening Team’s management agreed the officer’s
alleged threat alone warranted a referral to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
• On April 15, 2024, a nurse allegedly failed to schedule an
appointment for an incarcerated person to see either a
nurse or a physician after the incarcerated person reported
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
12 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
continued shortness of breath with any exertion. The
nurse allegedly documented that medical staff saw the
incarcerated person for the issue the day before, while the
incarcerated person documented he had not been seen since
March 13, 2024. On April 22, 2024, the incarcerated person
experienced a medical emergency consisting of shortness of
breath and had to be transported to an outside hospital. The
incarcerated person later died at the hospital.
The Centralized Screening Team determined the allegation
against the nurse to be a “practice issue” and a “departure
from policy,” not involving an incarcerated person. The OIG
disagreed with the Centralized Screening Team’s assertion that
misconduct that had potentially contributed to an incarcerated
person’s death “did not involve an incarcerated person.”
However, although the Centralized Screening Team did not
refer the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit, it did refer the allegation to another unit
within the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation, so the
OIG did not dispute the matter.
As discussed earlier in this report, the OIG publishes monthly notable
screening decisions consisting of examples of cases in which the
Centralized Screening Team performed satisfactorily, cases in which the
Centralized Screening Team made overtly incorrect decisions, and cases
in which the Centralized Screening Team and the OIG disagreed on
screening decisions.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 13
The Department Has Generated Duplicative Case
Numbers on Hundreds of Grievances, Thereby
Inflating the Reported Number of Complaints
Submitted by the Incarcerated Population, and
Has Unnecessarily Duplicated Its Own Reviews
of Certain Complaints
On May 2, 2024, the Legislature criticized the department for the number
of complaints submitted by incarcerated people under its care.
120,000 complaints in a single year, that’s concerning . . .
especially considering that we have a shrinking prison
population . . . it does not make sense . . . 120,000
complaints, whether small complaints or big complaints,
that’s a problem.8
During the OIG’s monitoring of the department’s screening decisions,
we found that because of its inefficient business processes that failed
to track the number of unique9 complaints it received, the department
overreported the number of complaints it received. Specifically, the
department regularly created two, and sometimes created three or more
grievance records, hereinafter referred to as log numbers, for a single
complaint form. We found four common occurrences in which the
department assigned secondary log numbers to the same complaint form.
Below are the four common occurrences we found:
1. reassigning the complaint form from one prison to another,
2. creating both a log number and a direct-entry record based on
the same complaint form,
3. remedying a dispute after a decision letter has already been sent
to the incarcerated person who had filed the complaint, and
4. handling complaints related to the reasonable
accommodation panel.
Reassignments
When an incarcerated person submits a complaint at one prison about an
incident that occurred at another prison, the department must reassign
8. The Honorable Aisha Wahab, California State Senator, Senate Budget and Fiscal Review
Subcommittee No. 5 on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation,
May 2, 2024.
9. We consider unique complaints to be individual complaints, including when an
incarcerated person submits multiple complaints of the same allegation. Additional
log numbers the department creates for the existing complaint are not considered
unique complaints.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
14 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
the allegation to the prison where the incident occurred. As a result, the
department generates two separate log numbers for the single grievance,
thereby overreporting its volume of grievances. In doing so, it causes
inconsistencies and duplicates work.
For example, on August 23, 2022, an incarcerated person submitted a
staff misconduct complaint form alleging that on August 4, 2022, officers
threw him into a cell, which caused him to hit his head and suffer a
laceration to his eyebrow at Prison 1. The Prison 1 Office of Grievances
assigned the complaint a log number of 01 at Prison 1, and the
Centralized Screening Team reassigned the unreasonable force allegation
to Prison 2 because it believed the unreasonable force occurred at
Prison 2. The Prison 2 Office of Grievances then opened log number 02
at Prison 2. On September 7, 2022, the Centralized Screening Team
reassigned the unreasonable force allegation back to Prison 1 because the
incarcerated person was housed at Prison 1 on the date of the incident.
The Office of Grievances at Prison 1 then opened log number 03, and
on September 14, 2022, the Centralized Screening Team incorrectly
referred the unreasonable force allegation to the hiring authority for a
local inquiry at Prison 1 rather than referring it to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation.
On January 30, 2024, the Centralized Screening Team sent the
incarcerated person an amended decision letter for log number 03,
indicating the Centralized Screening Team had failed to assign the
complaint to the correct prison before processing the allegation. The
Prison 1 Office of Grievances then created log number 04 at Prison 1,
which the Centralized Screening Team immediately reassigned to
Prison 2 for a local inquiry into the unreasonable force allegation. This
reassignment resulted in the creation of log number 05.10
On February 7, 2024, the Centralized Screening Team, once again,
reassigned the unreasonable force allegation from Prison 2 back to
Prison 1, and for the first time, correctly determined the allegation
warranted a referral to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit. The Prison 1 Office of Grievances opened log
number 06 at Prison 1, and the Centralized Screening Team finally
referred the unreasonable force allegation to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation on
February 9, 2024, six log numbers and 535 calendars days after the
Centralized Screening Team first received the complaint.
This single complaint an incarcerated person had submitted on
August 23, 2022, resulted in six different log numbers over the course
of two years. The department counted the log numbers as though it had
received six distinct complaints instead of one. Furthermore, because the
department lacks a method of tracking and linking log numbers assigned
to a single, original complaint form, it failed to readily identify that it had
10. Log number 05 was the first log number in this chain of log numbers that fell into the
OIG’s sample. We then also monitored the decision for log number 06.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 15
routed this complaint between two prisons and unnecessarily reassigned
it several times.
Of the 9,245 complaints the OIG monitored, we processed at least
320 reassignments.11
Direct Entries
Complaints the hiring authority submits to the Centralized Screening
Team via the central repository12 are labeled “direct entry.” Direct entries
usually stem from either a verbal complaint by an incarcerated person
or a complaint (either written or verbal) from a third-party group or
individual. However, upon receiving allegations of unreasonable force
or staff sexual misconduct, prison staff must interview the incarcerated
person within 48 hours of receiving the complaint. When an incarcerated
person’s written staff misconduct grievance is the first notification of
such an allegation, the Office of Grievances and Centralized Screening
Team are responsible for requesting that appropriate prison staff
promptly conduct the required interview. The OIG found this practice
caused prison staff to create an unnecessary direct-entry duplicate of the
staff misconduct grievance instead of including the additional details in
the original grievance record.
On September 3, 2024, a prison (Prison 1) received a complaint from an
incarcerated person alleging an officer touched the incarcerated person
inappropriately during a clothed body search, and a lieutenant and a
second officer allegedly ignored the incarcerated person’s report of the
first officer’s alleged sexual misconduct. Prison 1’s Office of Grievances
notified prison staff to interview the incarcerated person about the
alleged staff sexual misconduct on September 4, 2024. Simultaneously,
Prison 1 reassigned the complaint to Prison 2, where the incident
allegedly occurred, which led the department to generate a second
log number for this complaint. Prison 2 staff conducted the required
interview with the incarcerated person, but instead of reporting the
relevant information back to Prison 1’s Office of Grievances to include
in the staff misconduct record, they created a new direct-entry record—a
third record—also stemming from the same complaint form. In the
direct-entry record, the staff member documented, “[Prison 1] ISU
[investigative services unit] was notified of a possible PREA [Prison Rape
Elimination Act] violation. This followed a complaint submitted via [a
staff misconduct grievance form] to the [Prison 1] Office of Grievances
. . .” Moreover, the Centralized Screening Team referred this direct-
entry record to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation
Unit for an investigation of staff sexual misconduct. However, after the
11. We manually documented this number of cases to be reassignments. However, because
these complaints are difficult to identify, there may have been more that we failed to
manually capture.
12. A central repository is a secure collection location for submission of staff misconduct
allegations documented or received by departmental staff. A central repository may be
either a physical location at a work site or an email address provided for the purpose of
submitting allegations of staff misconduct.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
16 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
complaint was reassigned to Prison 2, the Centralized Screening Team
had contradictorily determined the allegation to be a routine matter and
not staff sexual misconduct.
This single complaint form resulted in three distinct records, and the
Centralized Screening Team informed us that “Even though it stems
from a [grievance log] many of the institutions also create the [direct
entries] to go with them, we just note them as sub[sequent] sources [to
the existing grievance log].”
Of the 9,245 complaints monitored by the OIG, we processed two
duplicative case records the department had unnecessarily created.
After the Office of Grievances requested an interview for the written
complaint, the department unnecessarily created a duplicative record
to document the interview rather than adding to the existing complaint
record. Although we only found two duplicative case records the
department unnecessarily created, we are concerned this is a widespread
issue because we were only able to monitor 4 percent of the total
complaints the department received.
Disputes
If any departmental stakeholder or the OIG disputes a screening
decision the Centralized Screening Team has made, the department
creates a new log number. The department informed us the Centralized
Screening Team cannot make the change in the existing entry once it
has issued a decision letter. Thus, the Centralized Screening Team must
create a new log number and grievance record to amend its error in the
original complaint.
In one case, an incarcerated person submitted an 18-page staff
misconduct complaint in which the Centralized Screening Team
identified a single routine allegation about a power outage. The OIG
disputed the Centralized Screening Team’s decision within two business
days because the complaint included several staff misconduct allegations.
The OIG recommended the Centralized Screening Team rereview the
entirety of the complaint. Subsequently, the Centralized Screening
Team rereviewed the complaint and conducted a clarification interview
with the incarcerated person, which identified 15 additional allegations.
The Centralized Screening Team determined 13 of the previously
unidentified allegations, such as unreasonable force, sexual harassment,
and dishonesty, warranted referrals to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Allegation Investigation Unit. However, by the time the Centralized
Screening Team rescreened the complaint, interviewed the incarcerated
person, and identified the additional allegations, the prison’s Office of
Grievances had already sent the incarcerated person a decision letter
regarding the power outage allegation. Therefore, the Centralized
Screening Team could not correct the errors in the existing case, but had
to open a new grievance log number to address all the allegations.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 17
Surprisingly, the department creates a new grievance record when any
case is disputed after the Office of Grievances has already sent a decision
letter to the incarcerated person. The process also applies to amended
decision letters13 authored by the Centralized Screening Team. The OIG
monitored at least 632 log numbers that had been opened because an
amended decision was disputed.
Reasonable Accommodation Responses
Effective September 3, 2024, the department elected to create
two separate log numbers for any complaint that also required a response
from the reasonable accommodation panel.14 In one complaint, an
incarcerated person reported that, because of his visual impairment, he
could not lock the locker in his bunk area. Therefore, the incarcerated
person requested a lock “a blind person could use.”
The department assigned the single complaint two distinct log numbers.
It processed the first log number as a routine complaint concerning
the incarcerated person’s inability to lock up any personal items, and
it processed the second log number for the reasonable accommodation
panel to address the request for a special lock. See Exhibit 1: Reasonable
Accommodation Request below.
Exhibit 1. Reasonable Accommodation Request
Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
13. An amended decision letter is a document sent to an incarcerated person notifying the
incarcerated person that a previous screening decision regarding a claim the incarcerated
person made has been changed. The document also contains information regarding the new
decision and how the claim will be processed.
14. Reasonable accommodations are modifications to programs, services, or activities,
or the issuance of assistive devices, which make it possible for a qualified incarcerated
person with a disability to achieve equal access to the department’s programs, services, or
activities, without imposing an undue hardship on the department or posing a direct threat
to the health, safety, or security of the incarcerated person, parolee, staff, prison, or anyone
else. The reasonable accommodation panel is the group of individuals who determine an
incarcerated person’s eligibility for reasonable accommodations.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
18 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
From September 3, 2024, through December 31, 2024, the OIG monitored
54 complaints15 for which the department created two separate log
numbers. To accurately count unique grievances, the Centralized
Screening Team reported it could subtract any “RAP [reasonable
accommodation panel] only” complaints from the total number of
complaints received for the year based on the reasonable accommodation
panel claim.
Before September 3, 2024, any complaint requiring a response from the
reasonable accommodation panel included a reasonable accommodation
panel claim. However, this was not true for all complaints received after
September 3, 2024, due to inconsistencies across prisons’ respective
Offices of Grievances. The department often included the reasonable
accommodation panel claim in the initial grievance record rather
than creating a separate, distinct log number for the reasonable
accommodation panel claim. Because of this inconsistency, subtracting
reasonable accommodation panel complaints would likely result in
subtracting too many complaints from the total.
On October 11, 2024, the department confirmed it has no way of tracking
unique grievance form submissions. When it created multiple records for
the same complaint form, it did not link those additional records to the
original records in its database.
At a minimum, the OIG monitored 1,008 duplicative grievance log
records, which the department could not track or link to the original
source record to determine the number of unique complaints it received
in 2024. Moreover, every time the department creates a duplicative
record, the Centralized Screening Team must rereview the complaint
because the duplicative record does not note that the Centralized
Screening Team had previously reviewed the complaint. The department
has done itself a disservice by allowing these inefficient business
processes that result in duplicating reviews and overinflating the number
of complaints submitted by the incarcerated population.
Recommendations
• The OIG recommends the department consider ending
its practice of creating new log numbers and instead
implement a practice of reopening the original log number
to make corrections.
• The OIG recommends the department develop a
method of linking reassigned complaints and reasonable
accommodation responses to ensure that the complaint is
assigned to the correct entity and to accurately track and
report unique complaints.
15. These 54 cases are not included in the OIG’s total of 9,245, as we discontinued
our monitoring of any RAP-only complaint and added the associated non-RAP-related
complaint for monitoring.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 19
The OIG Determined the Centralized Screening
Team Failed to Properly Screen Complaints
at “Face-Value” in 15 Percent of the Cases
We Monitored
Effective March 19, 2024, the Centralized Screening Team implemented
“face-value screening” at two16 of the 33 departmental prisons.17 On
May 1, 2024, the Centralized Screening Team began screening complaints
from the six Armstrong18 prisons at face value. Although the department
does not have a definition of “face-value screening,” it reported its intent
to route complaints based only on what the incarcerated person alleged,
without question, and regardless of the specific behavior described, lack
of substantiating facts to support the allegation, or other appropriate and
plausible reasons for the alleged misconduct. The OIG became aware of
the face-value screening process in May 2024, when we began reviewing
claims the Centralized Screening Team summarized by referencing a
decision “based on face value.” On May 17, 2024, we asked Centralized
Screening Team managers about the new verbiage, and they informed us
that the Centralized Screening Team screens all complaints according
“to the regulations and the remedial plan,” but screens the complaints
from eight prisons based solely on the “face” of the complaint, rather
than the merits of the complaint.
The OIG tracked all complaints we monitored and elevated from
March 19, 2024, through December 31, 2024, at those eight prisons. As
displayed in the table on the next page, we elevated 208 complaints,
which we determined the Centralized Screening Team did not screen at
face value.
16. These two prisons are California State Prison, Sacramento, and Folsom State Prison.
17. California City Correctional Facility closed in March 2024, and Chuckawalla Valley
State Prison closed in October 2024.
18. The six Armstrong prisons are California Institution for Women; California State
Prison, Corcoran; California State Prison, Los Angeles County; Kern Valley State Prison;
Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility; and Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and
State Prison, Corcoran.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
20 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
Table 2. Face-Value Screening Decisions Monitored and Elevated by the OIG
Number of Cases Number of Elevated
Monitored by the OIG Decisions Based on
Prison at Face Value Face-Value Screening
California Institution for Women 116 5
California State Prison, Corcoran 239 21
California State Prison, Los Angeles 507 32
County
California State Prison, Sacramento 361 20
Folsom State Prison 76 3
Kern Valley State Prison 236 10
Richard J. Donovan Correctional 698 76
Facility
Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 531 41
and State Prison, Corcoran
Total 2,764 208
Note: Elevations included, but were not limited to, allegations of staff sexual misconduct, use of force,
falsification of documents, introducing contraband into the prison, retaliation for filing grievances, discrimination,
and harassment.
Source: The Office of the Inspector General.
Of the 208 complaints the OIG elevated, the Centralized Screening Team agreed and
amended its screening decision in 200 complaints or 96 percent.
Several examples of complaints we determined the Centralized Screening Team did not
assess at face value are included below.
In one example as noted in Exhibit 2, the Centralized Screening Team referred the
allegation of harassment for a local inquiry. The OIG did not concur and recommended
referring the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
Exhibit 2. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 21
We advised that if the Centralized Screening Team disagreed with our recommendation, it
should at least conduct a clarification interview with the incarcerated person who submitted
the complaint regarding the alleged harassment. The Centralized Screening Team declined
to conduct an interview, claiming the local inquiry referral of the allegation of harassment
was “at face value.” The OIG disagreed with the Centralized Screening Team’s decision
because “harassment” is listed on the allegation decision index and, therefore, warrants a
referral to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation,
not to the hiring authority for a local inquiry.
In another example noted below in Exhibit 3, the Centralized Screening Team failed
to refer to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit an incarcerated
person’s allegation that he had received a rules violation report in retaliation for filing staff
misconduct complaints.
Exhibit 3. Excerpt From Prison Staff’s Summary of a Third-Party Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The Centralized Screening Team also found the incarcerated person’s staff sexual
misconduct allegations had been handled under a prior complaint, and based on a report
by the prison’s investigative services unit, the Centralized Screening Team determined the
allegation of staff sexual misconduct did not to meet Prison Rape Elimination Act criteria.
The Centralized Screening Team based its screening decision for the most recent complaint
on the same report rather than considering the complaint at face value, and routed the
allegation as a routine issue. After the OIG disputed the decision, the Centralized Screening
Team referred both the retaliation and staff sexual misconduct allegations to the Office of
Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
In another example depicted in Exhibit 4, an incarcerated person alleged a staff member
provided incarcerated people with tobacco.
Exhibit 4. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
22 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the incarcerated person’s
statement as an allegation at all, and therefore, did not refer the allegation
at face value. After the OIG elevated the issue, the Centralized Screening
Team appropriately referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit the allegation that a staff member had provided tobacco to
incarcerated people.
In another example shown in Exhibit 5, the Centralized Screening Team referred
an incarcerated person’s allegation that a sergeant had conducted an unclothed
body search of the incarcerated person in front of others to the hiring authority
for a local inquiry, instead of identifying the allegation as staff sexual misconduct.
Exhibit 5. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
After the OIG disputed the decision, the Centralized Screening Team conducted
a clarification interview with the incarcerated person and subsequently referred
the allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
In another example shown in Exhibit 6 below, the Centralized Screening Team
failed to identify and refer an incarcerated person’s allegation that an officer had
assaulted multiple incarcerated people as an allegation of staff misconduct.
Exhibit 6. Excerpt From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 23
After the OIG disputed the matter, the Centralized Screening Team referred the
unreasonable force allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
In this last example shown in Exhibit 7, the Centralized Screening Team only referred to
the hiring authority the allegations that the counselor had used discriminatory language
and unreasonable force, engaged in threatening behavior, and created an opportunity
for harm even though the allegations, if taken at face value, were listed on the allegation
decision index.
Exhibit 7. Excerpts From an Incarcerated Person’s Complaint
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
After the OIG disputed the decision, the Centralized Screening Team appropriately
referred all allegations against the counselor to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit.
For the 2024 monitoring period, we rated the Centralized Screening Team’s decisions poor
overall in 11 percent of cases, and we determined its decisions specific to these eight prisons
(3,650 complaints) were poor in 15 percent of cases. That is an alarmingly high rate of poor
routing decisions, especially when the Centralized Screening Team should have based its
decision solely on the face value of the complaint.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
24 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
Screening a complaint on its face, rather than on its merits, should
be straightforward. If the incarcerated person alleged anything listed
on the allegation decision index, including but not limited to staff
sexual misconduct, unreasonable force, discrimination, harassment, or
dishonesty, the Centralized Screening Team should refer the allegation
to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
Recommendation
The OIG recommends the Centralized Screening Team train its staff
to accurately identify allegations it receives in complaints and not
minimize them. The OIG made a standing request to be included in any
substantive training with the Centralized Screening Team, and we were
neither informed of nor invited to attend any training related to face-
value screening.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 25
The Department Unnecessarily Wasted Time
and Resources by Rerouting Grievances Multiple
Times in Contradiction of Policy and Best
Practices to Clear a Backlog at Two Prisons
In January 2024, the department established a strike team to address a
backlog of local inquiry cases at two prisons. During the initial screening
of those cases, the Centralized Screening Team had determined the
cases included allegations of staff misconduct that were not listed on
the allegation decision index and, therefore, routed the cases to the
prisons where the alleged misconduct occurred for a local inquiry. The
OIG became aware of the department’s strike team when we observed an
increase in the number of cases that included amended decision letters.
When we raised our finding regarding the increase in amended decision
letters, the Centralized Screening Team advised us the letters were
related to a strike team the department had created to address a backlog
of local inquiry cases at two prisons. The strike team was tasked with
reviewing the backlog to determine whether the Centralized Screening
Team’s original decision to refer the case for a local inquiry was
appropriate, and if so, the prison would conduct a local inquiry. Based
on its review, the strike team could either proceed with the local inquiry,
request to route the allegations to the prison to conduct a routine
fact-finding, or route the allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Allegation Investigation Unit to conduct an investigation. Centralized
Screening Team managers stated they reviewed all the cases the strike
team had submitted for rerouting.
The OIG requested the department provide us with all information
related to the cases the strike team and the Centralized Screening Team
had reviewed. We reviewed a total of 370 cases the prisons had returned
to the Centralized Screening Team. Of the 370 cases we reviewed, the
Centralized Screening Team changed the routing designation from local
inquiry to routine fact-finding in 229 cases.
Based on our review of the 229 cases the strike team changed from a local
inquiry to a routine fact-finding, we disagreed with 48 of the decisions.
We determined most of the decisions we disagreed with contained
allegations of staff misconduct and should have remained at the local-
inquiry level. Moreover, we found some cases included allegations of
staff misconduct listed on the allegation decision index that warranted
a referral to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit
for an investigation. The OIG elevated the 48 decisions that we disagreed
with back to the Centralized Screening Team for reconsideration. The
Centralized Screening Team agreed with us in all 48 cases in which we
disputed the decision for routine fact-finding. Of the 48 cases, 26 were
referred back to the prisons for the local inquiry process, and 10 were
referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit
for an investigation. Although we only disagreed with 48 of the 292 initial
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
26 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
rerouting decisions or 16 percent of decisions the Centralized Screening
Team had made, the error rate was much higher when compared to the
rest of the Centralized Screening Team’s routing decisions we reviewed
in 2024, which resulted in an 8 percent disagreement rate. However, we
commend the Centralized Screening Team for considering our feedback,
as it eventually agreed with every dispute we elevated regarding
these cases.
In addition to the department’s poor initial rerouting decisions, the OIG
is also concerned with the department’s apparent waste of resources.
The department unnecessarily reviewed and processed 36 cases multiple
times to reanalyze the secondary routing decision. Because prisons
unnecessarily requested to reroute cases that clearly met the criteria
for staff misconduct, the department experienced long delays and
wasted several weeks. After the prisons’ rerouting requests were made,
the Centralized Screening Team and the OIG analyzed the complaints
multiple times until, finally, the complaints were either returned to the
corresponding prison to proceed with its original decision, or routed to
the Office of Internal Affairs for an investigation.
Lastly, because the prisons caused extensive delays in addressing
grievances, we found that the legal deadline for taking disciplinary action
had expired in four of the 10 cases we had recommended the department
refer to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit
for an investigation. Therefore, the department could not impose any
discipline on subject employees in those cases, even if the allegations
were found to be true. Below are two examples of cases the department
eventually referred for investigation after the deadline to take
disciplinary action had passed.
In one case, an incarcerated person alleged that an officer of a certain
race would not let him go to the dayroom on Wednesday and Thursday
and advised the incarcerated person he must either remain in his cell or
go outside because of his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) worker
status. The incarcerated person stated the officer allowed other ADA
workers out of their cells and in the dayroom whenever they wanted
because they were the same race as the officer. The incarcerated person
further stated the officer did not like the incarcerated person because he
was of another race. The Centralized Screening Team’s original decision
to refer the case for a local inquiry was amended by the strike team for a
routine fact-finding. The OIG elevated the case back to the Centralized
Screening Team based on the incarcerated person’s allegations that the
officer had discriminated against the incarcerated person based on his
race. The Centralized Screening Team then appropriately referred the
allegations to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation
Unit. A total of 545 calendar days elapsed from when the department
had initially received the case on December 14, 2022, until the case was
referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit
for an investigation on June 11, 2024. During this delay, the one-year
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 27
statute of limitations passed, which precluded the department from
imposing discipline if the investigation were to uncover sufficient
evidence to support claims of staff misconduct.
In another case, an incarcerated person alleged a sergeant and officers
used chemicals in an attempt to poison him while he was in his cell.
The incarcerated person further alleged that after being transferred to
another facility within the prison, officers enlisted other incarcerated
people to put chemicals in his food, drinks, bowls, and cups. The
incarcerated person alleged he had been poisoned multiple times to the
extent he required medical attention.
The Centralized Screening Team initially routed this complaint for a
local inquiry. Subsequently, the strike team amended the decision and
routed the complaint as a routine issue. The OIG reviewed the amended
decision and elevated the case back to the Centralized Screening Team
stating the incarcerated person’s allegation that staff had tampered
with his food was factually plausible, as was the allegation that staff
had used other incarcerated people to commit acts on the staff’s behalf.
The Centralized Screening Team then appropriately referred the case to
the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. A total of
460 calendar days elapsed from the time the department initially received
the case on November 2, 2022, until it referred the case to the Office of
Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation on
February 5, 2024. During the delay, the one-year statute of limitations
passed, thereby precluding the department from imposing discipline
against the sergeant and officers if the investigation were to uncover
sufficient evidence to support claims of staff misconduct.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
28 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report | 29
The OIG’s Recommendations to the
Department Regarding Its Centralized
Screening Team Process
• The OIG recommends the department consider ending
its practice of creating new log numbers and instead
implement a practice of reopening the original log number
to make corrections.
• The OIG recommends the department develop a
method of linking reassigned complaints and reasonable
accommodation responses to ensure that the complaint is
assigned to the correct entity and to accurately track and
report unique complaints.
• The OIG recommends the Centralized Screening Team
train its staff to accurately identify allegations it receives
in complaints and not minimize them. The OIG made a
standing request to be included in any substantive training
with the Centralized Screening Team, and we were neither
informed of nor invited to attend any training related to
face-value screening.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
30 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Team Process, 2024 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
The Office of the Inspector General’s
Monitoring in 2024 of the
Centralized Screening Team Process
of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation
2024 Annual Report
OFFICE of the INSPECTOR GENERAL
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy Inspector General
STATE of CALIFORNIA
March 2025
OIG