OIG
Annual Report
Amarik K. Singh, Inspector General Shaun Spillane, Chief Deputy Inspector General
of the
OFFICE
OIG
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Independent Prison Oversight March 2026
2025 Annual Report
AA SSuummmmaarryy ooff PPuubblliiccaattiioonnss OIG
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 916-288-4212.
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 17, 2026
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
Enclosed please find our annual report summarizing the work that the
Office of the Inspector General completed in 2025. In 2025, we issued
28 public reports detailing our oversight of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation: 17 reports on medical inspection
results; one report on our monitoring of the department’s staff
misconduct complaints process; one report on the department’s internal
investigations and employee disciplinary process, one report on both the
department’s staff complaints investigations and employee disciplinary
process, one annual report on our monitoring of the department’s local
inquiry process; one report on our monitoring of the department’s
centralized screening team process, two audit reports, one special review,
two semiannual reports on our monitoring of incarcerated-person
advisory council meetings, and our 2024 annual report. We also released
22 sets of case blocks.
Respectfully submitted,
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Gavin Newsom, Governor
10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110
Sacramento, California 95827
Telephone: (916) 288-4212
www.oig.ca.gov
Return to Contents
ii 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report iii
Contents
Illustrations iv
Foreword v
Vision v
Mission v
Organizational Overview and Functions 1
Reports Published in 2025 5
Internal Investigations and Employee Discipline Monitoring 5
Medical Inspection Reports: Cycle 7 8
Audit Reports and Special Reviews 10
Audit of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Natural Disaster Emergency Preparedness
and Mitigation Efforts 10
Audit of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Management of Temperature Conditions
Within California’s Prisons 11
Special Review: The California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Response to Incarcerated-Person-on-
Incarcerated-Person Allegations Under the Prison Rape
Elimination Act 13
Other OIG Operational Units: Status Updates 17
Complaint Intake 17
Prison Rape Elimination Act 20
Incarcerated-Person Advisory Council Meetings 21
Disapproved Publications 21
Whistleblower Retaliation Claims 23
Institutional Executive Review Committee Monitoring 24
New Teams Established in 2025 26
Force Investigation Review Team 26
Sexual Misconduct Monitoring and Investigations Team 27
Recommendations Made to the Department 29
Appendix: Publications Released in 2025 31
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
iv 2025 Annual Report
Illustrations
Figures
The OIG’s Mandate vi
1. The Office of the Inspector General Organizational Chart,
2024 and 2025 3
2. PREA Allegation Reporting Times Post Incident 14
3. Total Number of Complaints and Claims the OIG Received
in 2024 and 2025 17
4. Complaints Received by the OIG Hotline in 2025 18
5. Number of Allegations the OIG Received in 2025
by Category 19
Tables
1. The OIG’s Medical Inspections for Cycle 7: Final Reports
Published in 2025 9
Photographs
1. Mobile Phone Charger Found in Cell 20
Exhibits
1. The Office of the Inspector General’s Dashboard
of Recommendations 29
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report v
Foreword
Vision
The California prison system, by its very nature, operates almost entirely
behind walls, both literal and figurative. The Office of the Inspector
General (the OIG) exists to provide a window through which the citizens
of the State can witness that system and be assured of its soundness. By
statutory mandate, our agency oversees and reports on several operations
of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the
department). We act as the eyes and ears of the public, measuring the
department’s adherence to its own policies and, when appropriate,
recommending changes to improve its operations.
The OIG serves as a model oversight agency that ensures transparency
and accountability within California’s correctional system by
providing clear, objective, and reliable assessments, accompanied by
well-supported recommendations that promote systemic improvement.
We are committed to strengthening public trust and delivering
exemplary service to our stakeholders through diligent monitoring and
impartial evaluation.
Mission
Although the OIG’s singular vision is to provide transparency, our
mission encompasses multiple areas, and our staff serve in numerous
roles providing oversight and transparency concerning distinct aspects
of the department’s operations, which include discipline monitoring,
complaint intake, warden vetting, medical inspections, sexual
misconduct monitoring, and a variety of special assignments.
Therefore, to safeguard the integrity of the State’s correctional system,
we work to provide oversight and transparency through monitoring,
reporting, and recommending improvements on the policies and
practices of the department.
— Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
vi 2025 Annual Report
T
here is hereby
created
the independent
Office of the
Inspector General
which shall not be
a subdivision of
any other
governmental
entity.
— State of California
Penal Code section 6125
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 1
Organizational Overview
and Functions
The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) is an independent agency
of the State of California. The OIG was first established by State
statute in 1994 to conduct investigations, review policy, and conduct
management review audits within California’s correctional system.
California Penal Code sections 2641 and 6125–6141 provide our agency’s
statutory authority in detail, outlining our establishment and operations.
The Governor appoints the Inspector General to a six-year term, subject
to California State Senate confirmation. The Governor appointed our
current Inspector General, Amarik K. Singh, on December 22, 2021; her
term will expire on August 25, 2028.
The OIG is organized into a headquarters operation, which encompasses
executive and administrative functions and is located in Sacramento, and
three regional offices: north, central, and south. The northern regional
office is located in Sacramento, colocated with our headquarters; the
central regional office is in Bakersfield; and the southern regional office
is in Rancho Cucamonga.
Our staff consist of a skilled team of professionals, including attorneys
with expertise in investigations, criminal law, and employment law, as
well as inspectors knowledgeable in correctional policy, operations,
and auditing.
The OIG also employs a team of medical professionals, including
physicians and nurses, in the Medical Inspection Unit. These
practitioners evaluate policy adherence and quality of care within the
prison system. Analysts, editors, and administrative staff within the OIG
contribute in various capacities, all of which are integral in achieving
our mission.
Staff in our office perform a variety of oversight functions relative to the
department, including those listed below:
• Conduct medical inspections
• Carry out audits and special reviews authorized by the
Governor’s Office or Legislature, or at the Inspector General’s
own accord
• Staff the complaint hotline and intake unit
• Review, and when appropriate, investigate whistleblower
retaliation complaints
• Handle complaints filed directly with the OIG by incarcerated
people, employees, and other stakeholders regarding
the department
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2 2025 Annual Report
• As ombudsperson, monitor Sexual Abuse in Detention
Elimination Act (SADEA) and Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) cases
• Conduct warden and superintendent vettings
• Monitor the following:
◦ Internal investigations and litigation of employee
disciplinary actions
◦ Critical incidents, including deaths of incarcerated people,
large-scale riots, hunger strikes, and so forth
◦ Staff complaint grievances filed by incarcerated people
◦ Uses of force
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 3
Figure 1. The Office of the Inspector General Organizational Chart, 2024 and 2025
Executive
Team
2024
C-ROB * Chief
Counsel
Legal
Services
Unit
A T u e d am its M D o is n U c i i n t p o it l r in in e g In M ve o s F n U t i i i e n t g o l i a d t r t i i n o g n s Pro In c U t e a n s k i s t e i n g In M sp U e e d n c i i c t ti a o l n M M i o s S c n U o t i n t a n o i f t d f r i u n c g t ( V H e e W t a t d i a n q r u g d a e r U t n e n r i s t ) I T n e f c o h U r n m n o i a t l t o i g on y Administration
Enga A g u e d m it e nts M D o is n c i i t p o l r in in e g U M se o - n o i f t - o F r o in rc g e Co In m ta p k la e int In M sp e e d c i t c io al n s In M ve o s T n t e i i g a to m a r t i i n o g n s V W e a tt r i d n e g n s D H e e s lp k B S u e U s r i v n n i i e c t e ss s
R S e p v e ie ci w al s O ( f A fic d e m r A i o n O f is t t D h ra e t i D ve ay) M I o C n n c r i i i d t t i o c e r a n i l n t g C M S e c o n T r n e t e i r e t a a o n m li r i z n in e g g d M B o lu n e it p o r r i i n n t g Ma P na ro g j e e m ct e nt Re H s U u o m n u i r a t c n es
Development
Local Publications
Inquiry Team
Team
* C-ROB is the abbreviation for the California Rehabilitation Oversight Board. Infrastructure
Training
Headquarters
Team
Security
Executive
2025 Team
Chief
Counsel
Legal
Services
Unit
A T u e d am its Pro In c U t e a n s k i s t e i n g In M sp U e e d n c i i c t ti a o l n M M i o s S c n U o t i n t a n o i f t d f r i u n c g t Ve W tti a n r g d e U n n it I T n e f c o h U r n m n o i a t lo ti g on y Administration Re H s U u o m n u i r a t c n e s
Enga A g u e d m it e nts Co In m ta p k la e int In M sp e e d c i t c io al n s C M S e c o n r T n e t e i r e t a a o n m li r i z n i n e g g d V W e a tt r i d n e g n s Infrastructure B S u e s r i v n i e ce ss s T B r a a B c n e k s n g a e r c o fi ti u t o s n n d s
Special Investigation Recruitment
Reviews Monitoring Security Publications Exams
Classification
Sexual
Misconduct
Monitoring and Development Training
Investigations
Routine
Review Data
Monitoring
Use-of-Force
Monitoring
Critical
Incident
Monitoring
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
4 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 5
Reports Published in 2025
Internal Investigations and Employee
Discipline Monitoring
Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit (SMMU) attorneys are responsible
for the contemporaneous oversight of the department’s internal
investigations and employee disciplinary process. California Penal
Code requires that the OIG publish its findings at least semiannually.
We released three misconduct monitoring reports in 2025. The first
report, released in March 2025, covered investigations conducted by
the traditional section1 of the Office of Internal Affairs during the July
2024 through December 2024 reporting period. The second report,
also released in March 2025, covered investigations conducted by the
Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit from January
2024 through December 2024. The third report, released in December
2025, covered both types of investigations conducted from January 2025
through June 2025.
In 2025, we merged our team that monitors cases hiring authorities
refer to the traditional section of the Office of Internal Affairs, with
our team that monitors cases involving allegations of staff misconduct
incarcerated people report, which the Centralized Screening Team
routes to the Allegation Investigation Unit. Our staff monitored and
assessed the department’s more serious internal investigations of alleged
employee misconduct, such as cases involving alleged dishonesty, code
of silence, use of force, and criminal activity. During the two reporting
periods (July 2024 through December 2024 and January 2025 through
June 2025), we monitored and closed 411 administrative disciplinary
cases and criminal cases. In 2024, we monitored 162 staff misconduct
complaint cases, and we monitored 89 staff misconduct complaint cases
in the first half of 2025.
We also introduced a new ratings system in 2025. Instead of rating
each entity’s performance as sufficient, sufficient with recommendations,
or insufficient we now rate each entity’s performance as adequate,
improvement needed, or inadequate.
Each assessment is made across three separate indicators, and we use
each of the three indicators to assess the performance of three CDCR
entities as follows:
1. The Office of Internal Affairs’ Field Operations and Special Investigation Unit, known as
the Office of Internal Affairs’ traditional section, generally investigates allegations of staff
misconduct that are not directed toward an incarcerated or supervised person, allegations
of criminal misconduct, and four of the most serious types of allegations that are directed
toward an incarcerated person: sexual violence; involvement in a coordinated effort to
prohibit the reporting of misconduct; intimidating, dissuading, or threatening witnesses;
and misconduct resulting in significant injury or death.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
6 2025 Annual Report
1. The performance of hiring authorities in discovering
alleged employee misconduct, referring the allegations
to the Office of Internal Affairs, and making findings
concerning investigations, allegations, and disciplinary
determinations.
2. The performance of the Office of Internal Affairs in
processing and analyzing referrals and investigating
the allegations.
3. The performance of department attorneys in providing
legal advice to the Office of Internal Affairs and hiring
authorities and in representing the department in
litigation regarding employee discipline.
These indicators are organized to reflect the performance of the
three groups within CDCR across all stages of the investigative and
disciplinary process from a case’s inception to its ultimate conclusion.
One indicator is used to assess the hiring authority’s performance,
usually a warden. A second indicator is used to assess the Office
of Internal Affairs’ performance during the investigation. A third
indicator is used to assess the Employment Advocacy and Prosecution
Team (EAPT) attorney’s performance during the investigative and
disciplinary phases.
The OIG has developed compliance- and performance-related questions
concerning each indicator. Our attorneys assigned to monitor each case
answered these questions and rated each of the three indicators for
each case.
We found that during the July 2024 through December 2024 reporting
period, the department’s performance was sufficient in 21 percent,
sufficient with recommendations in 43 percent, and insufficient in 36 percent
of the administrative disciplinary and criminal cases we monitored.
We found that during the January 2025 through June 2025 reporting
period, the department’s performance was adequate in 14 percent,
improvement needed in 43 percent, and inadequate in 43 percent of the
administrative disciplinary and criminal cases we monitored. We also
found that the department’s performance was adequate in 11 percent,
improvement needed in 35 percent, and inadequate in 54 percent of the staff
complaint misconduct cases we monitored.
Before we merged our teams, staff misconduct complaint cases were
rated as superior, satisfactory, and poor. We found that in 2024, the
department’s overall performance was poor in 73 percent and satisfactory
in 27 percent of staff misconduct complaint cases. No cases were rated
as superior.
The OIG also identified and made recommendations regarding the
disciplinary process. In our discipline monitoring report released in
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 7
March 2025, which covered the July 2024 through December 2024
reporting period, we made the following recommendation:
• We recommended that the department establish a policy
or guideline requiring special agents to advise employees
as to whether they are required to cooperate with criminal
investigations, including whether they are compelled to provide
a statement.
In our Staff Misconduct Complaint Report for the year 2024, also
released in March 2025, we made the following recommendations:
• We recommended that investigators conduct initial interviews
and request all video recordings within one month of case
assignment, that the department implement a process to
identify allegations that have already been investigated to avoid
duplicative investigations, and that the department provide
more robust training to employee relations officers about the
disciplinary process and how to represent the department
at hearings.
• We also recommended the department update its Department
Operations Manual to prohibit officers from using neck
restraints, hold in-depth training for officers regarding neck
restraints, and update the manual to clarify specific information
that hiring authorities need to provide to complainants.
In addition to publishing reports,, we also publish our findings regarding
individual cases monthly on our public-facing website. To read our
findings, visit www.oig.ca.gov and click on our Data Explorer tab. Select
the section labeled Employee Discipline for cases investigated by the
traditional section of the Office of Internal Affairs and Staff Misconduct
for cases investigated by the Allegation Investigation Unit.
The OIG also monitors several types of critical incidents, including uses
of deadly force and unexpected deaths of incarcerated people such as
homicides, suicides, and deaths caused by an overdose of narcotics. Our
findings regarding the department’s performance in handling critical
incidents can also be found on our public-facing website.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
8 2025 Annual Report
Medical Inspection Reports: Cycle 7
In 2025, the OIG completed its seventh cycle of medical inspections.
We published Cycle 7 medical inspection reports for institutions
11 through 27, for a total of 17 published reports. Early in 2024, the OIG
had retroactively amended the format of our reporting to bifurcate the
overall institution ratings into individual ratings for the case review
and compliance components of each report to promote greater clarity
regarding our findings. The OIG then used this new format to publish
medical inspection reports for the first 10 institutions in Cycle 7 in 2024.
In 2025, using our updated format, the OIG published 17 more medical
inspection reports for Cycle 7 for the following institutions: Salinas
Valley State Prison; California Correctional Institution; Avenal State
Prison; Central California Women’s Facility; Kern Valley State Prison;
Correctional Training Facility; Centinela State Prison; Folsom State
Prison; California Institution for Women; High Desert State Prison;
California Men’s Colony; Pelican Bay State Prison; Calipatria State
Prison; Pleasant Valley State Prison; California State Prison, Sacramento;
Mule Creek State Prison; and Sierra Conservation Center. Through these
reports, the OIG made several recommendations to the department
to further improve the delivery of medical care to its patients; these
recommendations can be viewed on the OIG’s dashboard at
www.oig.ca.gov.
In addition to our individual institution medical inspection reports,
the OIG’s Medical Inspection Unit has undertaken an analysis of
cross-institution and cross-cycle trends over all institutions in Cycle 7.
Following the publication of our report for the final institution of Cycle 7
in early 2026, the OIG plans to publish its first Medical Inspection Unit
Cycle Analysis, summarizing these trends for Cycle 7, comparing them
with Cycles 5 and 6, and providing graphs to illustrate our findings.
In 2025, as anticipated, the OIG further completed all inspections of the
last four remaining institutions for Cycle 7: California Institution for
Men; San Quentin Rehabilitation Center; Ironwood State Prison; and
California Health Care Facility. We also met with stakeholders in July
2025 and August 2025 to discuss updates and changes to our medical
inspection process for Cycle 8. After these meetings, we transitioned to
our enhanced medical inspection process, and we initiated the inspection
of Salinas Valley State Prison, the first institution for Cycle 8. We also
submitted our preinspection document request for Substance Abuse
Treatment Facility and State Prison, the second institution for Cycle 8.
In 2026, we anticipate publishing our last four Cycle 7 inspection
Styling for the bifurcated rating reports, our Cycle 7 Summary Report, and our first cross-institution
seals used in MIU reports as
trend analysis of the 31 institutions we inspected in Cycle 7. Based
introduced for Cycle 7.
on our updated inspection process, we also anticipate completing all
on-site inspection processes for the first 11 institutions of Cycle 8 and
publishing Cycle 8 medical inspection reports for the first seven of
those institutions.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 9
Table 1 below lists the institutions for which we completed our
Cycle 7 inspections and issued final reports in 2025, the month each
report was published, and our case review and compliance ratings for
each institution.
Adequate Inadequate
Table 1. The OIG’s Medical Inspections for Cycle 7:
Final Reports Published in 2025
Publication Overall Rating
Institution Inspected Month Case Review Compliance
Salinas Valley State Prison February
California Correctional Institution February
Avenal State Prison February
Central California Womens Facility April
Kern Valley State Prison May
Correctional Training Facility May
Centinela State Prison May
Folsom State Prison May
California Institution for Women June
High Desert State Prison June
California Men’s Colony Prison July
Pelican Bay State Prison July
Calipatria State Prison September
Pleasant Valley State Prison September
California State Prison, Sacramento September
Mule Creek State Prison October
Sierra Conservation Center December
Source: The Office of the Inspector General medical inspection results.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
10 2025 Annual Report
Audit Reports and Special Reviews
California Penal Code section 6126, subdivisions (b) and (c), authorize
the OIG to initiate audits of departmental policies, practices, and
procedures. In 2025, the OIG’s Audits Unit issued two audit reports
regarding the department’s operational practices in preparing for natural
disasters and in managing temperature conditions within California’s
prisons. In addition, the OIG conducted a special review of the
department’s response to incarcerated-person-on-incarcerated-person
allegations under the Prison Rape Elimination Act.
Audit of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Natural Disaster Emergency Preparedness and
Mitigation Efforts
On May 1, 2025, the OIG issued an audit report of the department’s
emergency preparedness for natural disasters. During our audit, we
reviewed the department’s policies, procedures, and mandated staff
trainings that it implemented to prepare for and respond to wildfires,
floods, and earthquakes. We examined its coordination with federal,
State, and local entities for emergency preparedness. We assessed the
department’s ability to evacuate prisons threatened by wildfires, floods,
and earthquakes. Finally, we evaluated the 2024 emergency operations
plans from 30 prisons to determine their compliance with laws, policies,
and industry standards. We also evaluated the prisons’ methods of
assessing their risk of natural disasters, as well as the adequacy and
management of on-site supplies and emergency essentials.
The results of our audit showed that California’s overcrowded prisons are
vulnerable to wildfires, floods, and earthquakes. The department lacked
specific plans for externally evacuating prisons in response to natural
disasters. Although all prisons had individual plans in place, those plans
were general in nature and inadequate if large-scale external evacuations
were necessary. The plans we reviewed included general language
about coordinating evacuation routes with departmental headquarters
staff who would be responsible for determining where evacuees would
be transferred based on the availability of temporary housing with
appropriate security. We also found that any effort to evacuate any of the
31 prisons would likely exceed 72 hours, a critical time frame to respond
in an emergency. The department’s inability to evacuate prisons within
72 hours significantly increases the threat to the safety of incarcerated
people and overall stability of the prison in the event of a natural
disaster. Moreover, the location and high mileage of transportation
buses and other vehicles likely limit the department’s ability to evacuate
most prisons within 72 hours, and the overcrowding and proximity of
neighboring prisons roughly doubles the incarcerated population to be
evacuated during an emergency.
We also found that although almost all prisons assess their risk of natural
disasters, they do so inconsistently. Generally, prisons used multiple
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 11
methods to assess their risk of wildfires, floods, and earthquakes.
Because prisons used multiple methodologies to develop their risk
assessment plans, the department could not easily review prisons’ risk
assessments to ensure compliance with departmental policy. The use of
multiple risk assessment plans also likely caused inconsistent risk ratings
between prisons. We even found inconsistency in ratings for prisons that
were in close proximity to each other. For example, Folsom State Prison
rated its risk of wildfire damage as moderate, while California State
Prison, Sacramento, which is less than one mile away, rated its risk of
wildfire as high.
The department’s Emergency Planning Unit does not substantively
review each prisons’ site-specific emergency operations plans as required
by California regulations and departmental policy, and we found the
overall approval process to be flawed. Furthermore, the Emergency
Planning Unit does not ensure prisons submit site-specific supplements
or review them for adequacy. Lastly, at least two prisons have not entered
into mutual aid agreements, and not all site-specific emergency plans
include key details of mutual aid agreements.
In summary, the OIG offered several recommendations to improve
the department’s emergency response process. We recommended the
department update its All Hazards Emergency Operations Plan and
require prisons to develop site-specific plans that include procedures
to evacuate prisons within 72 hours. The department should consider
realigning transportation hubs to enable a more timely response
to natural disasters and identify relocation sites if an evacuation is
necessary. The department should implement training to better respond
to emergency evacuations, ensure prisons have defensible space around
facilities, and ensure fire retardant is available at prisons that are at
high risk for wildfire. The department should standardize the risk
assessment methodologies with a standard practice to address site-
specific mitigation and evacuation strategies and ensure consistency
between prisons that are colocated. The emergency planning unit should
establish a formal process including prison site visits, for approving
prison emergency plans and ensuring risk assessments are accurate.
Finally, the department should formalize mutual aid agreements to
standardize the process and ensure mutual aid agreements are included
with emergency plans.
Audit of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Management of Temperature Conditions within
California’s Prisons
On September 11, 2025, the OIG issued an audit report of the
department’s management of temperature conditions within California’s
prisons. We focused on how departmental policies and procedures
ensure the health and safety of the incarcerated population during
extreme temperature conditions. We requested and reviewed documents
from three prisons we tested that substantiated the department’s actions
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
12 2025 Annual Report
in managing and maintaining temperatures in prisons. We interviewed
key personnel, conducted on-site observations, reviewed selected
documentation, and tested key controls relevant to the audit objectives.
Our results found that the temperature in prison housing units
frequently fell outside acceptable temperature ranges, and staff’s failure
to consistently complete heat logs hindered our ability to effectively
analyze the full extent of these temperature variations. Specifically, we
found prison housing units regularly reached temperatures outside of
the department’s design guidelines for prison housing units, which
is between 68 and 89 degrees Fahrenheit. Custody staff also did not
consistently maintain heat logs as required by ongoing Coleman v.
Newsom litigation. Custody staff are required to record temperatures
within prison housing units from May to October each year. Because
custody staff in the three prisons we reviewed did not consistently
maintain heat logs, it is likely the department had more days that
were out of compliance than what it reported to our auditors. The
department is considering solutions for tracking temperatures in prison
housing units and is beginning a pilot project at select prisons to record
temperatures with wireless devices.
We also found that budget challenges and inconsistent completion of
preventive maintenance inhibits the department’s ability to maintain
outdated heating and cooling equipment. For example, at California
State Prison, Corcoran, preventive maintenance was only completed
on 81 percent of prison buildings from July 2023 through October 2024.
Budget constraints posed a significant challenge, which hindered plant
operations staff from purchasing replacement parts. When staff could
purchase replacement parts, the replacement parts sometimes did not
arrive for weeks or even months. However, the department has taken
steps to request additional fiscal resources to replace any equipment that
is well past its useful life and identify alternative options for heating and
cooling prison buildings.
Lastly, we found that the department does not protect a significant
number of incarcerated people from the heat or cold. Until this audit,
the department’s efforts were directed to members of the incarcerated
population who are vulnerable to heat due to the medications they
take.2 However, we found a significant number of incarcerated people
who are also vulnerable to extreme temperatures due to age or other
chronic conditions would also benefit from additional protections.
The department does not have sufficient measures in place to protect
vulnerable incarcerated people from cold weather conditions. For
example, it does not always offer clothing options such as thicker coats.
The OIG put forth a number of recommendations pertaining to
temperature management control within its prisons. We recommended
the department establish consistent guidelines to monitor and track
temperatures in living areas and for staff to record temperature readings
2. On March 17, 2025, the department updated its heat plan by expanding its protections to
the entire incarcerated population in advance of our audit report.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 13
at consistent locations in prison housing units. We also recommended
the department consider recording temperature readings in cells to
determine whether the temperature differs from other locations in a
housing unit. The department should ensure that all staff are aware of
the process used to record temperatures in heat logs and establish a
quality-control process. In addition, the department should prioritize
replacing heating and cooling equipment that has outlived its useful life
and ensure preventive maintenance is completed per manufacturers’
guidelines. The department should establish statewide policies and
procedures for plant operations staff to effectively track and complete
preventive maintenance on heating and cooling equipment to maximize
the useful life of these systems. Finally, we recommended the department
consider expanding its heat plan for all incarcerated people due to
an aging vulnerable population, and it should consider providing
incarcerated people with an option for a thicker jacket to protect them
from cold weather.
Special Review: The California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation’s Response to Incarcerated-Person-on-
Incarcerated-Person Allegations Under the Prison Rape
Elimination Act
On August 21, 2025, we issued a special review of the department’s
response to 74 alleged violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act
(PREA) that were reviewed by prison Institutional PREA Review
Committees (review committee) from March 1, 2024, through
August 31, 2024.
To combat rape in prisons nationwide, Congress enacted PREA in 2003,
creating a zero-tolerance standard for rape in federal, state, and local
correctional facilities. Sexual misconduct can include different forms
of abuse that are specifically defined by law and departmental policy.
Nonconsensual sexual acts are generally defined as unwilling or forced
sexual contact or penetration such as rape. Abusive sexual contact is
generally defined as unwanted touching directly or through the clothing
of the genitalia or other intimate parts of a person in a sexual manner.
Of the 74 incidents we reviewed, investigators substantiated seven PREA
allegations, which means they determined the allegations likely occurred
based on a preponderance of evidence. Investigators determined there
was insufficient evidence to support most PREA allegations made,
finding 65 allegations to be unsubstantiated, and two allegations to
be unfounded.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
14 2025 Annual Report
Figure 2. PREA Allegation Reporting Times Post Incident
35
1
Allegation Type
30
Harassment
Abusive Sexual Contact
13
25
Nonconsensual Sexual Acts
13
PREA 20
Allegations
(N = 74)
15
19
10
16
5 1
8
1
2
0
Within After 72 Hours, Within Within After
72 Hours but Within 1–2 Years 2–3 Years 3 Years
(n = 32) One Year (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 8)
(n = 30)
Source: The OIG’s analysis of PREA allegations made against incarcerated people reviewed by
the PREA Review Committee from March 1, 2024, through August 31, 2024.
We found that prison staff did not always perform required procedures
when notified of a PREA allegation. The department developed
procedures for staff and custody supervisors to follow upon receipt of
PREA allegations to preserve and gather physical evidence, provide a
timeline of events, provide medical and mental health evaluations to
affected incarcerated people, and offer a victim support person and
advocate, among other purposes. We found documentation showing
that staff had taken steps to request that a PREA victim not shower,
use the restroom, consume liquids, or remove clothing without
custody supervision to preserve potential evidence for forensic medical
examinations in only 21 percent of incidents alleging nonconsensual sex
acts that had been reported within 72 hours. Custody staff also did not
secure crime scenes in 42 percent of applicable allegations that had been
reported within 72 hours. When a PREA incident required the victim to
undergo a forensic medical examination, staff failed to do so 21 percent
of the time, and when staff were required to consult a specialized nurse
to determine whether a forensic examination was needed, they failed to
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 15
do so 50 percent of the time. Victims are also entitled to a support person
or advocate to support them through the PREA process, but custody
staff only offered a support person or advocate in 58 percent of the
investigations we reviewed.
We also found that almost all PREA allegations we reviewed were
inadequate for one or more reasons. Specifically, we found that 67 of
the 74 PREA investigations we reviewed had one or more deficiencies,
including investigators’ failure to conduct interviews or to conduct
adequate interviews; investigators’ failure to secure, collect, or consider
evidence; and investigators’ poorly written investigative reports.
Investigators also did not video or audio record any interviews in
70 percent of PREA investigations we reviewed. If PREA investigators
recorded interviews, custody supervisors and managers could better
assess the quality of PREA investigations by identifying and addressing
clear deficiencies in the investigators’ conclusions or reporting. Lastly,
investigators did not always collect and secure potential physical or
documentary evidence to support the investigation.
Finally, we found the prisons’ Institutional PREA Review Committees
did not provide proper oversight to ensure that applicable laws,
regulations, and policies were followed when they reviewed PREA
allegations. PREA review committees are responsible for thoroughly
reviewing allegations to ensure staff followed federal and state laws, as
well as departmental policy and guidelines when responding to PREA
allegations. In nearly all the PREA allegations we analyzed, review
committees did not provide proper oversight to determine whether
investigators used standard investigative techniques to gather evidence
and corroborate allegations. We also found no evidence that review
committees meaningfully discussed the investigations they reviewed.
Lastly, review committees did not review several PREA incidents within
the time frame required by departmental policy.
In summary, the OIG provided the department with recommendations
to improve the PREA review process. Specifically, we recommended
the department require all PREA allegation interviews to be audio or
video recorded. The department should also ensure all investigators who
conduct PREA investigations receive specialized PREA-investigator
training. Hiring authorities should require corrective action if staff
fail to comply with law or departmental policy for PREA allegations,
implement monitoring processes to ensure staff follow departmental
policy and procedures, and apply standard investigative techniques with
complete and accurate reports. Finally, the department should identify
and document areas for corrective action when PREA review committee
members do not fulfill their responsibility under departmental policy.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
16 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 17
Other OIG Operational Units:
Status Updates
Complaint Intake
The OIG maintains a statewide complaint intake process that provides a
point of contact regarding allegations of improper activity that take place
within the department. Our Intake Processing Unit (Intake) receives
complaints from incarcerated people, supervised people,3 their families,
departmental employees, advocacy groups, and other complainants.
Complaints are submitted via letter, toll-free phone call, State-issued
tablet, or our website. We strive to screen all complaints within one
business day of receipt to identify potential safety concerns, serious
medical or mental health concerns, or reports of sexual abuse.
In 2025, we received 7,860 complaints, a 19 percent increase from 2024.
A complaint may contain one or more claims submitted for our review.
From the 7,860 complaints we received, we processed 13,367 claims (see
Figure 3, below), which was an average of 1,114 monthly claims. This is a
28 percent increase from the 10,428 claims we processed in 2024.
Figure 3. Total Number of Complaints and Claims the OIG Received in
2024 and 2025
16,000
14,000
12,000 13,367
10,000
10,428
8,000
7,860
6,000
6,591
4,000
2,000
0
2024 2025
Complaints Claims
Source: The Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System.
3. Supervised person is a term the department uses to refer to individuals who have been
paroled from the State’s prison system but remain under the supervision of the department.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
18 2025 Annual Report
Of the 7,860 complaints we received in 2025, 58 percent were received
via our OIG hotline and voicemail line (via phone and tablet); 26 percent
were received by mail; and 15 percent were received through email,
our website, and in person. Our office’s hotline received an average of
382 complaints monthly in 2025, for a total of 4,580 complaints (see
Figure 4, below).
Figure 4. Complaints Received by the OIG Hotline in 2025
500
N = 4,580 497
450
400
420 413
399 401 393
350
362 355 351
340 340
300
309
250
200
150
100
50
0
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Source: The Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System.
Approximately 78 percent of complaints we received in 2025 were
submitted by incarcerated people or supervised people, and 22 percent
were submitted by others, such as private citizens, departmental
employees, and advocacy groups. The most common types of claims we
received in 2025 pertained to prison conditions, policies, or operations;
allegations of staff misconduct; the grievance and appeals process; and
the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). Complaints frequently included
multiple claims of improper activity occurring within the department.
On the next page, Figure 5 shows the distribution of claim categories
we received.
To document our case activity, our Intake staff create a unique
identification number for each complaint we receive. In 2025, we
reviewed and closed 7,617 of the 7,860 complaints received, a completion
rate of 97 percent. Some incarcerated people submitted numerous
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 19
Figure 5. Number of Allegations the OIG Received in 2025 by Category
CDCR Conditions, Policies, or Operations 3,959
Staff Misconduct 3,935
Appeals/Grievance Process 1,307
Prison Rape Elimination Act 1,264
N = 13,367
Medical, Dental, or Mental Health Care 1,026
Safety Concerns 955
Miscellaneous 472
No OIG Jurisdiction 449*
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
*Subsequent to publication of the 2025 Annual Report, an error was identified in Figure 5 above. On April 7, 2026, the
category for “No OIG Jurisdiction” was revised from 499 to 449 due to a typographical error. The correct amounts are now
reflected herein.
Source: The Office of the Inspector General Tracking and Reporting System.
complaints with duplicative claims, which our Intake staff had
previously reviewed and closed. In 2025, we completed our review of
1,553 duplicative complaints received from 48 complainants. In 2026,
our staff will continue working to resolve the remaining 243 complaints
(3 percent) pending from 2025.
In response to these complaints, our staff often conducted inquiries by
accessing information from various departmental databases, reviewing
the department’s policies and procedures, and requesting relevant
documentation from the department. However, many complaints lacked
the details needed to clearly identify and properly research the claims.
After our review or inquiry into such complaints, we usually advised
complainants about how they could address their concerns with the
department or recommended that they provide us with more information.
Typically, the OIG provides a written response to complainants outlining
this information or technical assistance to resolve the complaint issue.
OIG Intake staff prepare impact case blocks throughout the year, which
are published on a regular basis. Case blocks highlight select complaints
that our Intake staff received; these complaints may have resulted in a
positive change or impact or identified an area of concern. The initial
work Intake staff undertake can lead to the OIG requesting the Office
of Internal Affairs to open an investigation into an allegation of staff
misconduct or result in the OIG’s Staff Misconduct Monitoring Unit
monitoring a routine review or investigation.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
20 2025 Annual Report
In one example, the OIG received a complaint from an anonymous
complainant who alleged an incarcerated person had been selling
contraband, such as drugs and mobile phones, which were being received
via unmanned aerial vehicles (drones). The complainant alleged the
incarcerated person kept the contraband in his cell. Furthermore, the
incarcerated person allegedly maintained a social media account. After
reviewing records, we did not identify any records that indicated the
department was aware of the contraband or the incarcerated person’s
social media account. We immediately notified the warden of the safety
concern, and as a result, the investigative services unit conducted a
cell search.
The investigative services unit
discovered a mobile phone and
charger, SIM cards, and mobile
payment information. The
incarcerated person received a rules
violation report and was found guilty.
Pictured here is a photograph of the
mobile phone and charger found in
the cell. In 2025, our office published
57 Intake impact case blocks; they can
be viewed on our website at Photo 1. Mobile phone and charger found in
cell (photographed by departmental staff on
www.oig.ca.gov/ publications/.
June 23, 2025).
Prison Rape Elimination Act
In accordance with federal Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA)
standards, the OIG forwards allegations of sexual abuse or sexual
harassment, commonly referred to as PREA allegations, to the hiring
authority and to the PREA compliance manager. Allegations may be
received from incarcerated people, supervised people, family members,
and other third parties.
Following a notification, the department typically reviews the allegations
and interviews the involved parties. The expectation is that the
department will evaluate the information and initiate an investigation
if necessary. If alleged victims are dissatisfied with how the PREA
investigation was handled, they can file a complaint with our office after
they have exhausted all administrative remedies.
In 2025, the OIG received 1,264 complaints designated as involving a
PREA allegation. The OIG sent 674 PREA notifications alleging sexual
abuse or sexual harassment to the appropriate parties for processing.
When multiple PREA allegations were received within a short period
of time, they were sent as a single notification. In addition, some
complaints did not meet PREA reporting criteria. Those complaints
included allegations that did not involve an incarcerated person under
departmental custody, a dispute of how an investigation was handled, or
a disagreement with the results of a completed investigation.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 21
Incarcerated-Person Advisory Council Meetings
As part of our complaint intake duties, we actively work to gain
knowledge of local and department-wide issues by participating in
periodic meetings with incarcerated-person advisory councils (IPACs)
at prisons throughout the State. We have also begun to meet with
California Correctional Peace Officer Association (CCPOA) and
California Correctional Supervisors Organization (CCSO) representatives
to understand issues and concerns raised by staff within their prisons.
During 2025, the OIG’s Intake staff met with IPAC representatives at
25 prisons to educate them about the OIG’s mission as well as to solicit
input. Although most council representatives were aware of our office,
we learned that representatives lacked an understanding of our functions
and how our staff elevate and notify the department of concerns brought
to our attention. Accordingly, during all our meetings, OIG staff
provided an overview of the OIG, addressed confidentiality concerns, and
explained how to contact this office. Council representatives discussed
concerns and issues they felt were not being adequately addressed at
the institutional level and shared some positive feedback. Our staff
provided information about how we may be able to assist them with
specific issues.
We also met with CCPOA and CCSO representatives at 11 prisons to
provide information about the OIG and our oversight of the department.
Most representatives appreciated that we met with them to understand
staff’s concerns at the prisons. We informed representatives that meeting
with the OIG is voluntary. Of the representatives we met with, most
emphasized staff safety and changes to the restricted housing unit
process as their most pressing concerns. We informed the representatives
that the OIG is available as a resource for departmental staff when they
have concerns or witness potential misconduct.
In 2025, we published two semiannual reports that summarized our
meetings with IPACs. In the first report, published in February 2025, we
discussed meetings we attended from July 2024 through December 2024,
and in the second report, published in September 2025, we discussed
meetings we attended from January 2025 through June 2025. You can find
these reports, along with all prior and future reports, at
www.oig.ca.gov/publications/.
Disapproved Publications
Beginning on January 1, 2025, Penal Code section 6130 requires the OIG
to publish the department’s Centralized List of Disapproved Publications
on the OIG’s website. The list, which the department updates monthly,
is also available on the department’s website. The existing law grants
incarcerated people the right to purchase, receive, and read publications
(e.g., newspapers, periodicals, and books), subject to restrictions
reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. The department’s
disapproved publications list includes publications that the department
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
22 2025 Annual Report
has prohibited because the publication violates departmental regulations.
Penal Code section 6130 permits the OIG to review publications on the
list to determine whether we concur with the department’s determination
that the publication is in violation of departmental regulations.
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3134.1 outlines the
process for placing a publication on CDCR’s Centralized List of
Disapproved Publications. In summary, if a publication violates policy
but is not already on the Centralized List of Disapproved Publications,
the prison may temporarily disapprove it, notify both the incarcerated
person and the publisher, and refer the matter to the Division of Adult
Institutions (DAI). DAI then decides whether the disapproval becomes
permanent within 30 calendar days of receiving the prison’s notification
for temporary disapproval. Publications cannot be disapproved solely
for containing advertisements unless the advertisement or content
violates specific regulations. DAI also determines whether a requested
publication should be added to the Centralized List of Disapproved
Publications. If a publication is already on the Centralized List of
Disapproved Publications, it will not be delivered, and the incarcerated
person will be notified.
In 2025, the OIG received 10 disapproved publication complaints in
which a complainant disagreed with the department that the publication
should be disallowed. We completed our analysis for each of the
complaints, and for seven of those complaints, we were able to complete
our analysis with the information provided by the complainant. We
determined that the department made the correct decision to disallow
all seven of these publications based on departmental regulations. For
the remaining three complaints, we reached out to the department for
additional information to support its determination to disallow the
publications. Upon review of the information the department provided
the OIG, we agreed with the department’s decision to prohibit the three
publications based on departmental regulations.
In one example, an incarcerated person alleged that he was wrongfully
denied printed material related to a role-playing book. The OIG
contacted DAI and requested the supporting documentation used
to disallow the publication. The department provided supporting
documentation that showed the publication promoted hostile
behavior, violence, escape planning, or gang-like organization, which
are all activities that fall under safety and security violations under
departmental regulations. Based on the documentation the department
provided to support disallowing the publication, we agreed with the
department’s decision.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 23
Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
In addition to receiving complaints as described in the preceding
sections, our statutory authority directs us to receive and review
complaints of whistleblower retaliation that departmental employees levy
against members of departmental management. The OIG analyzes each
complaint to determine whether it presents the legally required elements
of a claim of whistleblower retaliation—that the complainant reported
improper governmental activity or refused to obey an illegal order
(blew the whistle)—and that the complainant was thereafter subjected
to an adverse employment action due to having blown the whistle. If
the complaint meets this initial legal threshold, our staff investigate
the allegations to determine whether whistleblower retaliation
occurred. If the OIG determines that the department’s management
subjected a departmental employee to unlawful retaliation, our office
reports its findings to the department along with a recommendation
for appropriate action. Due to public misperception regarding what
constitutes whistleblower retaliation, few complaints present the
legally required elements to state an actionable claim of whistleblower
retaliation. To counteract this misunderstanding, we engage with
complainants to educate them regarding the elements of a whistleblower
retaliation claim, invite complainants to supplement their complaints
with any necessary information, and correspond with complainants to
clarify any questions we have regarding the information they submitted.
In 2025, the OIG received 47 retaliation complaints. We completed
analyses of 32 complaints and determined that none stated the legally
required elements of a whistleblower retaliation claim. We also
completed an analysis of a complaint pending from 2024, which did not
state the legally required elements of a whistleblower retaliation claim.
We are still in the process of either reviewing the materials or awaiting
the conclusion of Office of Internal Affairs investigations relating to
15 complaints we received in 2025.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
24 2025 Annual Report
Institutional Executive Review
Committee Monitoring
As part of the OIG’s monitoring of use-of-force incidents, we attend the
department’s Institutional Executive Review Committee (IERC) meetings.
The IERC reviews all reported use-of-force incidents and serves as the
final level of institutional review. The IERC is chaired by the warden
or the warden’s designee and includes associate wardens, captains,
in-service training specialists, and health care professionals. Each
incident is prepared for the IERC’s review by a use-of-force coordinator
who compiles incident reports, supporting documentation, and available
video footage.4 The IERC evaluates the force used—including chemical
agents, expandable batons, physical strength and holds, and whether
less-lethal or lethal weapons were used—with particular emphasis on
necessity, proportionality, and the adequacy of documentation. During
the IERC’s final review, the warden determines whether the use of force
complied with departmental policy, procedures, and training. If the IERC
determines that the force was not in compliance, the warden may order
corrective action or additional training. In cases involving more serious
potential violations, the chairperson may refer the matter to the Office of
Internal Affairs for investigation.
The department conducts IERC meetings on a weekly basis at each
prison. In previous years, OIG staff attended multiple IERC meetings
at each prison every month. However, due to recent changes to the staff
misconduct grievance process, most incidents involving allegations of
excessive or unnecessary force are currently being referred directly for
investigation without an initial review by prisons’ IERCs. As a result, we
have reduced our monitoring of IERC meetings and shifted our resources
to review an increased number of investigations the department has
conducted into allegations of excessive and unnecessary force, as these
investigations are now the primary manner in which the department
reviews these use-of-force incidents. We began this transition in January
2025 and issued our first set of quarterly case summaries assessing the
quality of these investigations in July 2025. In 2026, we will produce a
standalone annual report summarizing our observations of additional
use-of-force investigations we assessed during the 2025 calendar year.
In 2025, the OIG monitored IERC meetings at each prison on a
quarterly basis, and on a bimonthly basis at the six prisons subject to the
Armstrong v. Newsom5 class action litigation involving incarcerated people
with disabilities. These prisons are Richard J. Donovan Correctional
Facility; California State Prison, Los Angeles County; California State
Prison, Corcoran; Kern Valley State Prison; Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility and State Prison; and California Institution for Women.
4. As of September 2025, the following prisons did not have audio-video surveillance system
capabilities: CIM, CMC, CRC, CTF, and PBSP. As of September 2025, the following prisons
did not have body-worn camera capabilities: ASP, CAL, CEN, CHCF, CIM, CMF, CMC,
CRC, CTF, FSP, HDSP, ISP, NKSP, PBSP, PVSP, SCC, SOL, SQRC, VSP, and WSP.
5. 484 F. Supp. 3d 808 (N.D. Cal. 2020)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 25
Our monitoring evaluates departmental performance across three phases
of each use-of-force incident: actions taken prior to the incident, the
use of force itself, and post-incident response and documentation. This
comprehensive approach allows the OIG to identify deficiencies at each
stage as well as to assess the department’s effectiveness in recognizing
and addressing those deficiencies.
The OIG found that in 2025, the department performed adequately
during IERC meetings. We did note that on three occasions, the IERC
delayed holding the meeting beyond the 30 days required by policy.
However, our overall impressions were that IERC members were
prepared and made appropriate findings and recommendations.
In 2025, the department retained an expert consultant to review the
department’s policies and practices concerning staff uses of force.
The consultant will make recommendations on possible reforms and
improvements to use-of-force policies and practices, including the
incidents reviewed by the IERC. The OIG will continue to monitor
the department’s ongoing efforts to evaluate whether and under
what circumstances the IERC, or some other entity, could conduct
comprehensive and unbiased reviews of cases involving the use of force.
As the department changes its processes for reviewing uses of force,
the OIG must also examine its own monitoring processes. Accordingly,
if the department implements additional changes to its processes for
reviewing uses of force in the future, we intend to adapt our monitoring
in a manner that provides the most efficient and valuable oversight of
these processes.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
26 2025 Annual Report
New Teams Established in 2025
Force Investigation Review Team
In 2025, the OIG established a Force Investigation Review Team (FIRT).
This statewide team consists of deputy inspectors general (inspectors)
who asynchronously review closed use-of-force investigation cases. The
inspectors review selected cases after the department’s Office of Internal
Affairs has investigated use-of-force staff misconduct allegations; a
warden has made findings on the allegations in the investigation; and the
department has closed the case. In reviewing investigations, inspectors
evaluate Office of Internal Affairs’ investigative reports as well as any
exhibits the investigator attaches to the report, including video- and
audio-recorded evidence. The inspector directly reviews all source
evidence—not only the summary of the evidence in the investigative
report—which includes the review of body-worn camera video footage,
interview recordings, and written reports from departmental employees
involved in the incident. Inspectors review the materials to assess
the thoroughness and the timeliness of investigations conducted.
Inspectors also review the findings made by wardens on these cases to
determine whether each warden had sufficient evidence from the Office
of Internal Affairs to make findings on the allegations. Inspectors also
assess wardens’ timeliness in reviewing investigations. In 2025, the
OIG published quarterly summaries on its website of the 57 total closed
investigations FIRT inspectors reviewed that year.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 27
Sexual Misconduct Monitoring and
Investigations Team
In 2025, the California Legislature amended California Penal Code 6133
to provide both monitoring and investigative authority regarding
cases with allegations that departmental employees committed sexual
misconduct involving incarcerated people. In response, the OIG created
a Sexual Misconduct Monitoring and Investigations Team (SMMIT).
This attorney team is different from other teams within the OIG in
that, not only does it monitor departmental investigations concerning
alleged staff misconduct, but it also is responsible for investigating cases
involving allegations that departmental employees committed sexual
misconduct. Pursuant to Penal Code section 6133, subdivision (a)(7)(A),
the OIG may conduct a full investigation into a complaint that involves
sexual misconduct that the department declines to investigate. Further,
if the OIG determines the department is conducting an inadequate
investigation, such as failing to interview complainants or witnesses
or failing to gather relevant evidence, the OIG may supplement an
ongoing investigation. The OIG may conduct either full investigations
or supplemental investigations after we conclude that the department’s
investigation is inadequate. The OIG began to hire attorneys for this
team in mid-2025. The team set up its processes; finalized a desk manual
and an investigations handbook; and trained attorneys on monitoring
and conducting investigations. In September 2025, SMMIT attorneys
began to monitor departmental sexual misconduct investigations.
As of the date of this annual report’s publication, the OIG expects to
continue to hire additional attorneys for this team. We will also continue
to monitor departmental sexual misconduct investigations and, when
authorized, conduct investigations. SMMIT expects to publish its first
annual report in 2027.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
28 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 29
Recommendations Made to
the Department
In 2025, the OIG published 28 formal reports, some of which
contained recommendations. These recommendations promote greater
transparency, process improvements, increased accountability, and
higher adherence to policies and constitutional standards. Details
concerning the vast number of recommendations made to the
department are available on our dashboards, which can be accessed
on our website.
Clicking on the image below will take the reader to the interactive
recommendations dashboard. Choose from among several filter options
to select a specific group of recommendations; these filter options
include publication date range, publication year, associated entity,
service (i.e., audit, authorized/special review, discipline monitoring, staff
complaint monitoring, and use-of-force monitoring), general topic, report
title, report number, recommendation number, and implementation
status. Also available is a separate dashboard that lists medical
inspection report recommendations we have made to both California
Correctional Health Care Services and the department. It can be found
by selecting Medical Recommendations from the recommendations
drop-down menu on the left side of the dashboard.
Exhibit 1. The Office of the Inspector General’s Dashboard of Recommendations
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
30 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 31
Appendix: Publications Released
in 2025
Annual and Semiannual Reports
• Intake Processing Unit: Semiannual Report, July–December 2024
(February 25, 2025)
• 2024 Annual Report: A Summary of Publications (March 3, 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
(March 4, 2025)
• The Office of the Inspector General’s Monitoring in 2024 of the
Staff Misconduct Complaint Investigations and the Employee
Disciplinary Process of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation: 2024 Annual Report (March 10, 2025)
• Monitoring Internal Investigations and the Employee Disciplinary
Process of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation: Semiannual Report, July–December 2024
(March 26, 2025)
• The Office of the Inspector General’s Monitoring in 2024 of the Local
Inquiry Process of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
2024 Annual Report (May 6, 2025)
• Intake Processing Unit: Semiannual Report, January–June 2025
(September 8, 2025)
• Monitoring Internal Investigations, Staff Misconduct Complaint
Investigations, and the Employee Disciplinary Process of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation:
Semiannual Report, January–June 2025 (December 3, 2025)
Medical Inspection Reports: Cycle 7 Results
• Salinas Valley State Prison (February 6, 2025)
• California Correctional Institution (February 10, 2025)
• Avenal State Prison (February 13, 2025)
• Central California Women’s Facility (April 7, 2025)
• Kern Valley State Prison (May 12, 2025)
• Correctional Training Facility (May 14, 2025)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
32 2025 Annual Report
• Centinela State Prison (May 16, 2025)
• Folsom State Prison (May 21, 2025)
• California Institution for Women (June 3, 2025)
• High Desert State Prison (June 24, 2025)
• California Men’s Colony Prison (July 9, 2025)
• Pelican Bay State Prison (July 15, 2025)
• Calipatria State Prison (September 2, 2025)
• Pleasant Valley State Prison (September 4, 2025)
• California State Prison, Sacramento (September 30, 2025)
• Mule Creek State Prison (October 2, 2025)
• Sierra Conservation Center (December 8, 2025)
Audit Reports and Special Reviews
• Audit of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Natural Disaster Emergency Preparedness and
Mitigation Efforts, Audit Report № 24-01 (Report and Fact Sheet)
(May 1, 2025)
• Special Review of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Response to Incarcerated-Person-on-Person
Allegations Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Report and
Fact Sheet) (August 21, 2025)
• Audit of the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Management of Temperature Conditions Within
California’s Prisons, Audit Report № 24-02 (Report and Fact Sheet)
(September 11, 2025)
Field Team Case Blocks
Centralized Screening Monitoring Team
• November 2024 Case Blocks (January 6, 2025)
• December 2024 Case Blocks (February 11, 2025)
• January 2025 Case Blocks (March 20, 2025)
• February 2025 Case Blocks (April 16, 2025)
• April 2025 Case Blocks (June 5, 2025)
• May 2025 Case Blocks (June 30, 2025)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025 Annual Report 33
• June 2025 Case Blocks (August 22, 2025)
• July 2025 Case Blocks (September 24, 2025)
• August 2025 Case Blocks (September 29, 2025)
• September 2025 Case Blocks (October 29, 2025)
• October 2025 Case Blocks (December 11, 2025)
• November 2025 Case Blocks (December 31, 2025)
Force Investigation Review Team
• January–June 2025 Case Summaries (July 31, 2025)
• July–September 2025 Case Summaries (November 14, 2025)
Intake Processing Unit
• November 2024 Impact Case Blocks (January 13, 2025)
• February 2025 Impact Case Blocks (March 28, 2025)
• March–May 2025 Quarterly Impact Case Blocks (July 8, 2025)
• June–August 2025 Quarterly Impact Case Blocks
(October 13, 2025)
Local Inquiry Team
• October 2024 Case Blocks (January 6, 2025)
• November 2024 Case Blocks (January 6, 2025)
• December 2024 Case Blocks (January 6, 2025)
Staff Misconduct Monitoring Team
• April–June 2025 Routine Review Case Blocks (October 31, 2025)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
34 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2025
Annual Report
A Summary of Publications
OFFICE of the INSPECTOR GENERAL
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy Inspector General
STATE of CALIFORNIA
March 2026
OIG