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 2025 of the
California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Centralized Screening Process
2025 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 916-288-4212.
Connect with us on social media
March 10, 2026
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 2025. 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.
Effective January 1, 2025, the department implemented emergency regulations changing
its employee discipline and grievance review processes, including its options for screening
complaints submitted by the incarcerated population. Under the new regulations, the
Centralized Screening Team is required to route each allegation within a complaint in one of
five ways:
1. Claims challenging departmental policy shall be referred to the Office of
Grievances for a policy review;
2. Claims requesting a reasonable accommodation shall be referred to the Office
of Grievances for a reasonable accommodation review;
3. Allegations of staff misconduct which include complex issues requiring
specialized investigation skills or resources shall be referred for an
investigation;
4. Allegations of staff misconduct which do not include complex issues requiring
specialized investigative skills or resources shall be referred to the Office of
Grievances for a routine review; or
5. Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) above, claims related to health
care services or staff, excluding allegations of staff misconduct referred for
investigation, shall be referred to the Division of Health Care Services.
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 10, 2026
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
Page 2
From January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the OIG reviewed 15,998 of the 215,322
complaints screened by the department. The purpose of the OIG’s review was 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: adequate, improvement needed, or inadequate. Of
the 15,998 screening decisions reviewed by the OIG, we determined 13,323 contained only
routine allegations, and 2,675 contained allegations of staff misconduct. Of the complaints
with allegations of staff misconduct, the Centralized Screening Team made adequate
screening decisions in 1,872 complaints, or 70 percent. The OIG rated the Centralized
Screening Team as improvement needed in 172 complaints or 6.5 percent, and inadequate in
631 complaints, or 23.5 percent.
If you have any questions on this report, please contact our office at 916-288-4212.
Respectfully submitted,
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | iii
Contents
Illustrations iv
Introduction 1
The OIG’s Monitoring of the Department’s Centralized
Screening Team 3
The Centralized Screening Team Made Correct Initial
Routing Decisions in 70 Percent of Grievances We
Reviewed Containing Allegations of Staff Misconduct 5
The Centralized Screening Team Corrected 84 Percent of the
Screening Decisions the OIG Disputed as Incorrectly Routed
or Unaddressed 7
Agreements 8
Disagreements 10
While Monitoring Individual Screening Decisions, the
OIG Identified and Raised Several Concerns With the
Centralized Screening Team’s Processes 13
The Centralized Screening Team Does Not Always
Update Amended Screening Decisions Within Its Primary
Recordkeeping System, Which Leads to Inconsistent Screening
Records in Different Departmental Databases 13
When Prison Staff Do Not Sufficiently Document Verbal
Complaints and Complaints From Third Parties, and Do Not
Respond to the Centralized Screening Team’s Requests for
More Information, Some Allegations of Staff Misconduct
Go Unaddressed 16
The Quick Reference Guide the Department Implemented
to Aid Analysts With Their Screening Decisions Has Injected
Subjectivity and Inconsistency in the Centralized Screening
Team’s Decisions for Certain Allegation Types 19
The OIG’s Recommendations to the Department
Regarding Its Centralized Screening Team 23
The Department’s Response to Our Report 25
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
iv | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
Illustrations
Figures
1. The OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team
Ratings Criteria 3
2. Excerpts Showing the Difference Between the
Documentation in the Strategic Offender Management
System and the Allegation of Staff Misconduct Tracking
System Work Queue for the Same Grievance Record 15
Tables
1. The OIG’s Ratings of the Centralized Screening Team’s
Screening Decisions 6
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 1
‘
Introduction
Allegations of staff misconduct originate from written or verbal
complaints against any employee of the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (the department) that allege any violation
of a law, regulation, departmental policy, or an ethical or professional
standard. Any incarcerated person, supervised person, employee, or
third-party individual or group can submit a complaint to the department
alleging staff misconduct.
The Centralized Screening Team is responsible for screening all
grievances, reasonable accommodation requests, and allegations of
misconduct, and then routing the claims. The department maintains
an allegation decision index that lists the most serious allegations of
staff misconduct. The Centralized Screening Team uses the allegation
decision index to determine whether to route a complaint or individual
allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
Effective January 1, 2025, the department implemented emergency
regulations changing its employee discipline and grievance review
processes, including its options for screening complaints submitted by
the incarcerated population. Under the new regulations, the Centralized
Screening Team is required to route each allegation within a complaint
in one of five ways:
1. Claims challenging departmental policy shall be referred to
the Office of Grievances for a policy review;
2. Claims requesting a reasonable accommodation shall
be referred to the Office of Grievances for a reasonable
accommodation review;
3. Allegations of staff misconduct which include complex
issues requiring specialized investigation skills or resources
shall be referred for an investigation;
4. Allegations of staff misconduct which do not include
complex issues requiring specialized investigative skills or
resources shall be referred to the Office of Grievances for a
routine review; or
5. Notwithstanding subsections (1) through (4) above, claims
related to health care services or staff, excluding allegations
of staff misconduct referred for investigation, shall be
referred to the Division of Health Care Services.
Grievances that fall under the first, second, and fifth sets of criteria are
routed to the prison, parole region, or health care services. Grievances
that fall under the third set of criteria encompass allegations more
serious in nature listed on the allegation decision index, which are
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
2 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
routed to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for
a full investigation. Grievances that fall under the fourth set of criteria
encompass less serious allegations of staff misconduct that are not listed
on the allegation decision index and are assigned to a supervisor at the
prison or parole region for a “routine review.”1
This report summarizes our monitoring of the department’s Centralized
Screening Team’s screening decisions from January 1, 2025, through
December 31, 2025. 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.
1. Routine review refers to the process used by the department to respond to allegations of
staff misconduct that are not referred for an investigation. This process replaced the local
inquiry conducted by a locally designated investigator.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 3
The OIG’s Monitoring of the
Department’s Centralized
Screening Team
The OIG monitored the department’s Centralized Screening Team’s
screening decisions by randomly selecting complaints and reviewing
and researching records, documents, and departmental databases. We
analyzed each screening decision based on the department’s own criteria
and assessed how the Centralized Screening Team processed each
allegation within a complaint. If we found discrepancies in the screening
process or disagreed with the screening decision, we elevated our
concerns to the department. We also monitored Centralized Screening
Team staff members while they conducted clarification interviews with
incarcerated people to obtain information necessary to appropriately
screen their allegations. The OIG assessed the performance of
departmental staff and assigned an overall rating of adequate,
improvement needed, or inadequate to each grievance we reviewed that
alleged staff misconduct. Figure 1 below shows the criteria used to
determine each rating.
Figure 1. The OIG’s Centralized Screening Monitoring Team Ratings Criteria
The Centralized Screening Team identified and appropriately
Adequate
referred all allegations within the grievance.
The Centralized Screening Team identified and appropriately
referred all allegations of staff misconduct but failed to identify
additional routine allegations within the same grievance, resulting
Improvement in an incomplete screening, or the Office of Appeals ordered a
Needed new grievance be opened to address a prior grievance in which
the Centralized Screening Team failed to screen an allegation
of staff misconduct correctly, resulting in a significant delay in
investigation or supervisory review.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify one or more
allegations of staff misconduct within the grievance, failed to
refer an identified allegation of staff misconduct in accordance
Inadequate with departmental policies, failed to conduct a necessary
clarification interview regarding a vague allegation of staff
misconduct, or failed to identify an imminent risk within the
grievance and make the required notifications.
Source: The Office of the Inspector General.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
4 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
In an effort to review a greater number of complaints submitted to
the department, and to focus our oversight on grievances that contain
allegations of staff misconduct, effective July 1, 2025, we modified
our review process. In previous reporting periods, we assessed every
grievance we reviewed, including grievances that did not contain
allegations of staff misconduct, and assigned a rating assessing the
department’s review of each grievance. Because the true risk in the
grievance screening process is that the department will misclassify staff
misconduct allegations as not constituting staff misconduct, we decided
to focus our monitoring on the department’s routing of complaints that
we believe contain allegations of staff misconduct. Accordingly, moving
forward, when we review grievances that do not include an allegation of
staff misconduct, we do not assign a rating to the department’s review
of that grievance. However, when we determine that a grievance does
contain an allegation of staff misconduct, regardless of whether the
department made the same determination, we rate the department’s
performance. We retroactively applied this filtering system to the
complaints we monitored from January 1, 2025, through June 30, 2025, to
ensure consistency and uniformity across the reporting period.
We use our assessment methodology, which is based on
performance-related criteria, to determine ratings for each grievance
we review. For complaints that include allegations of staff misconduct,
we use an assessment tool consisting of a series of assessment questions
to determine whether the Centralized Screening Team appropriately
screened and referred allegations of employee misconduct and other
related complaints.
We also produced and published to our website a select number of
case blocks every month summarizing our assessment of significant
grievances we reviewed. The case blocks include a summary of the
complaint, the department’s screening decision, and the OIG’s
assessment of the screening decision.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 5
The Centralized Screening Team
Made Correct Initial Routing Decisions
in 70 Percent of Grievances We
Reviewed Containing Allegations of
Staff Misconduct
From January 1, 2025, through December 31, 2025, the department
reported2 it received 215,322 complaints and completed screening
210,4353 complaints from incarcerated people, supervised people,
and third-party individuals or entities. The department reported it
made 257,9944 screening decisions in 2025 and routed those decisions
as follows:
• 222,006 screening decisions were routed and returned to the
prison, parole region, or health care services as routine issues.
• 11,704 screening decisions were routed to a prison, parole
region, or health care services for a routine review by an
assigned supervisor.
• 23,187 screening decisions were routed to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation.
• 1,037 screening decisions were routed to the Office of
Internal Affairs.5
As shown in Table 1 on the next page, the OIG reviewed and monitored
15,998 of 257,994 screening decisions the Centralized Screening Team
made (6 percent) to determine whether the Centralized Screening
Team routed allegations of staff misconduct to the appropriate entity
within the department. Of the 15,998 screening decisions the OIG
monitored, we determined 13,323 contained only routine allegations,
and 2,675 contained allegations of staff misconduct. Of the complaints
containing allegations of staff misconduct:
2. We received the data from the department on January 9, 2026.
3. This number includes complaints completed in 2025, some of which were received
before January 1, 2025. Additionally, many complaints received in the last days of 2025 were
not completed until 2026.
4. The department reported that one source document may contain multiple complaints.
5. The Centralized Screening Team rerouted 1,037 complaints back to the hiring authority,
which the hiring authority then referred to the Office of Internal Affairs because those
complaints did not involve an incarcerated or supervised person, and the Centralized
Screening Team only processes allegations of staff misconduct toward an incarcerated or
supervised person. 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 or supervised person, 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
6 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
• The Centralized Screening Team made adequate screening
decisions in 1,872 complaints, or 70 percent.
• We rated the Centralized Screening Team’s screening decision as
improvement needed in 172 complaints, or 6.5 percent.
• The Centralized Screening Team made inadequate screening
decisions in 631 complaints, or 23.5 percent.
Table 1. The OIG’s Ratings of the Centralized Screening Team’s
Screening Decisions
Number of
Rating Percentage
Grievances
Adequate 1,872 70
Improvement Needed 172 6.5
Inadequate 631 23.5
Staff Misconduct Grievances 2,675 100
Nonrated Routine Grievances 13,323 N/A
Total Grievances Reviewed 15,998 N/A
Source: Analysis prepared by staff of the Office of the Inspector General.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 7
The Centralized Screening Team Corrected
84 Percent of the Screening Decisions the OIG
Disputed as Incorrectly Routed or Unaddressed
When the OIG reviews a grievance that contains an allegation of staff
misconduct and disagrees with the Centralized Screening Team’s
screening decision, OIG staff contact the Centralized Screening Team
with an explanation of our disagreement and a recommendation to
amend its screening decision to align with departmental policy or
conduct a clarification interview. Typically, our disagreement stems
from identifying allegations of staff misconduct that the Centralized
Screening Team either did not address at all or did not refer to the
appropriate entity within the department. In instances where we
discover a number of deficiencies in one complaint, we make a more
general request that the Centralized Screening Team conduct a complete
rereview of the complaint and ensure all elements are addressed and
routed appropriately. However, we also screen grievances to ensure the
Centralized Screening Team identifies and addresses any serious risks6
presented within the complaint and makes required notifications to
ensure the risk is addressed expeditiously. If the Centralized Screening
Team agrees with the OIG’s recommendations, we complete our
assessment. If the Centralized Screening Team disagrees with the OIG’s
dispute, we ask the Centralized Screening Team to provide further
explanation or information, which we then take into consideration. If we
still disagree, we elevate our dispute to the Centralized Screening Team’s
management for further consideration. If the OIG and the Centralized
Screening Team cannot come to an agreement, we each process the
complaint as we see fit.
Of the 2,675 complaints containing allegations of staff misconduct the
OIG monitored, we disputed 613 screening decisions, or 23 percent. Of
those 613 decisions, the Centralized Screening Team agreed with us and
conducted a clarification interview, amended its decision, or both in
517 instances, or 84 percent. The Centralized Screening Team disagreed
with our recommendations in 96 decisions we elevated. In five of the
96 disagreements,7 the Centralized Screening Team failed to respond to
the OIG at all. In two of the 96 disagreements, the Centralized Screening
Team agreed with us but did not correct its incorrect decision because by
the time it processed our dispute, a letter based on the incorrect decision
had already been sent to an incarcerated person. The department told
us it would be inappropriate to open a new log number to address the
complaint correctly because the incarcerated person might submit an
6. Examples of a serious risk the department is expected to identify include, but are not
limited to, statements of feeling suicidal or homicidal, specific safety concerns with another
person, release date discrepancies within 90 days of an incarcerated person’s earliest
possible release date, and an incarcerated person’s possession of a weapon.
7. The OIG counted these as the Centralized Screening Team disagreeing with us because
it ultimately disagreed with correcting the agreed-upon deficiency.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
8 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
appeal. Below are examples of screening decisions we disputed and the
Centralized Screening Team’s responses to those disputed decisions:
Agreements
• An incarcerated person alleged, in part, an officer made
“inappropriate advances” and “passes” at the incarcerated person.
When the incarcerated person rejected the officer’s advances,
the officer allegedly became upset and issued him a rules
violation report. The incarcerated person alleged the officer made
recordings of him for personal use on a mobile phone.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegations
against the officer at all, interpreting the complaint as the
incarcerated person being dissatisfied with a prior response
without filing an appeal, and rejected the complaint. After
the OIG disputed the screening decision, the Centralized
Screening Team conducted a clarification interview, wherein
the incarcerated person alleged the officer asked whether the
incarcerated person liked men and stated, if so, they “could
do stuff” another time. The incarcerated person also alleged
the officer recorded the incarcerated person using a mobile
phone as the incarcerated person begged for help. After the
clarification interview, the Centralized Screening Team referred
the allegations against the officer to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation into allegations of
staff sexual misconduct, endangering the safety of an incarcerated
person, and overfamiliar behavior.
• An officer allegedly told two Hispanic incarcerated people to “do
their business on Blacks but get down when told, so [the officers]
could shoot the Blacks,” and to “get down” if an incident occurred
because the tower officers “shoot real good, and we prefer to
shoot the Blacks.”
The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegations to
the prison for a routine review even though the allegation
decision index requires referral of allegations of creating a
motive or opportunity for one incarcerated person to harm
another, endangering incarcerated people by violating policies
and training, and racial discrimination to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit. After the OIG disputed
the screening decision, the Centralized Screening Team
appropriately referred the allegation of endangering the safety of
incarcerated people to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation
Investigation Unit.
• A staff member allegedly told an incarcerated person, “We should
go find some shade and make out.” The incarcerated person
alleged this statement made him uncomfortable.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 9
The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation to the
prison for a routine review. The OIG disputed the screening
decision and recommended a referral to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit due to the allegation of
staff sexual misconduct, the complexity of the case, and extensive
documentation already completed by staff at the institutional
level. The Centralized Screening Team agreed, citing a third
instance involving the same staff member, and referred the staff
sexual misconduct allegation to the Office of Internal Affairs’
Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation.
• In another case, staff allegedly imposed a forfeiture of credits on
an incarcerated person based on an overdue rules violation report
and disciplinary hearing, thereby causing an improper extension
of the incarcerated person’s release date. The department initially
issued the incarcerated person a rules violation report for
threatening to strangle an officer. To impose a credit forfeiture
under departmental regulations, the department was required to
conduct the disciplinary hearing within 30 days of June 17, 2024,
the date the district attorney’s office informed the department it
would not file charges against the incarcerated person as a result
of the incident. The department did not conduct the hearing
within the 30-day timeline. On March 11, 2025, 267 days after
the department received notification from the district attorney’s
office and just 15 days before the incarcerated person’s release
date, prison staff applied a forfeiture of credits to the incarcerated
person’s release date based on the pending rules violation
report, pushing the incarcerated person’s release back 150 days.
The incarcerated person filed a complaint on March 18, 2025,
regarding the extension of her release date based on the
almost-one-year-old rules violation report.
The Centralized Screening Team reviewed the incarcerated
person’s grievance regarding this issue and routed the complaint
as a routine policy claim. Prison staff rejected the rules violation
report allegation as anticipatory because the rules violation report
had not been adjudicated. However, the Centralized Screening
Team failed to consider whether the rules violation report not
being adjudicated was pertinent to the incarcerated person’s
complaint regarding the imposition of forfeiture of credits that
delayed her release from prison. The Centralized Screening Team
failed to identify an imminent release date violation and failed
to consider that the prison did not conduct the rules violation
report hearing within 30 days of receiving notice from the district
attorney’s office. The OIG disputed the Centralized Screening
Team’s decision and explained the department had failed to
conduct the rules violation report hearing within 30 days of
receiving notice from the district attorney’s office and did not
serve the incarcerated person a notice of release date change until
March 12, 2025. The Centralized Screening Team corrected its
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
10 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
decision and referred the allegation for a routine review of staff
misconduct not on the allegation decision index. As a result of
the OIG’s involvement in disputing the inappropriate screening
decision and separately contacting prison officials, prison staff
conducted the incarcerated person’s disciplinary hearing for
the rules violation report on May 7, 2025, 324 days after the
notification from the district attorney’s office and 44 days after
the incarcerated person’s scheduled release date. The incarcerated
person was released on May 13, 2025, 50 days beyond her original
release date.
Disagreements
• A supervising cook allegedly retaliated against an incarcerated
person by issuing him a rules violation report after the
incarcerated person submitted a staff misconduct complaint
against the supervising cook.
The Centralized Screening Team routed the allegation back to
the prison as a routine policy claim even though the allegation
decision index requires referral of allegations of retaliation for
reporting staff misconduct and for using the grievance process
to the Office of Internal Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit.
After the OIG disputed the screening decision, the Centralized
Screening Team disagreed with our recommendation and claimed
the supervising cook would not have known that the incarcerated
person submitted a staff misconduct complaint against him and
that the rules violation report was not retaliatory because it was
submitted within regulatory time frames. The OIG disagreed with
the decision because the issuance of a rules violation report could
be filed within the allowable time frame and be retaliatory, as
alleged by the incarcerated person.
• A registered nurse allegedly sexually assaulted a paraplegic
incarcerated person by digitally penetrating him during a
diaper change.
The Centralized Screening Team failed to identify the allegation
that a registered nurse digitally penetrated another incarcerated
person as staff misconduct. After the OIG disputed the screening
decision, the Centralized Screening Team disagreed with our
recommendation and claimed that the incarcerated person
who is paraplegic and has no feeling below the waist, explained
he did not feel the finger penetrate him and had based his
allegation of sexual assault on pressure he felt in his abdomen.
After elevating our disagreement a second time, the Centralized
Screening Team’s management rejected our recommendation
again, and upheld the original determination that no staff
misconduct occurred without providing any further explanation
of its position.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 11
• An officer allegedly referred to an incarcerated person as “the
Black guy,” rather than by his name or bunk number.
The Centralized Screening Team routed the allegation to the
prison as a routine policy claim rather than as a routine allegation
of staff misconduct for unprofessionalism. Following the OIG’s
elevation, the Centralized Screening Team agreed to refer the
allegation against the officer for a routine review the same day.
However, the Centralized Screening Team failed to process the
agreed-upon change, and prison staff sent the incarcerated person
a decision letter based on the incorrect screening decision. The
OIG followed up with the Centralized Screening Team about
its failure to make the agreed-upon changes multiple times. The
Centralized Screening Team eventually reported to us it could
no longer correct its original decision—which it had agreed
was incorrect—because it had already sent a decision letter to
the incarcerated person. When the OIG questioned why the
Centralized Screening Team would not open a new grievance
log record to correct the mistake as usual, it reported opening a
new record “was not appropriate.” Centralized Screening Team
staff stated, “We can open a new log number for a missed claim
but not to elevate an existing claim,” because the incarcerated
person might file an appeal. However, the Centralized Screening
Team’s own inaction is what led to the letter being sent before the
correction could be made.
• An officer allegedly conducted an unclothed body search of
an incarcerated person in the middle of the dayroom, without
affording him any measure of privacy.
The Centralized Screening Team routed the unclothed body
search allegation back to the prison as a routine policy claim
despite departmental policy requiring unclothed body searches
be conducted “in an area that allows the [incarcerated person] to
preserve some measure of dignity and self-respect.” Following the
OIG’s dispute, the Centralized Screening Team agreed to refer the
allegation to the prison as staff misconduct not on the allegation
decision index, citing policy that, “whenever possible, unclothed
body inspections of incarcerated persons shall be conducted
outside the view of others.” However, the Centralized Screening
Team failed to process the amended screening decision, and when
the OIG followed up, the Centralized Screening Team indicated
its decision would stand. When the OIG questioned which
decision would stand—the initial routine policy claim or the
amended routine allegation of staff misconduct—the Centralized
Screening Team failed to respond at all. Ultimately, despite
acknowledging the alleged conduct violated policy and rose to
the level of staff misconduct, the Centralized Screening Team
processed the allegation as a routine policy claim.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
12 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
(This page left blank for reproduction purposes.)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 13
While Monitoring Individual Screening
Decisions, the OIG Identified and
Raised Several Concerns With
the Centralized Screening
Team’s Processes
Although we perform our monitoring of the Centralized Screening
Team’s performance by reviewing individual grievance screening
decisions, our contemporaneous monitoring model provides a holistic
view of the overall process. With this ability to view the process from
start to finish, we are able to differentiate between isolated incidents and
trends that expose a flaw in the process. During the 2025 calendar year,
we identified and brought three process concerns to the department’s
attention along with recommendations for improving those processes.
The Centralized Screening Team Does Not
Always Update Amended Screening Decisions
Within Its Primary Recordkeeping System, Which
Leads to Inconsistent Screening Records in
Different Departmental Databases
In September 2025, the OIG noticed a change in the Centralized
Screening Team’s process following screening decisions we disputed,
wherein the Centralized Screening Team agreed with the dispute and
agreed to amend its original decision. Specifically, the Centralized
Screening Team began updating its decisions in its Strategic Offender
Management System database but not in its Allegation of Staff
Misconduct Tracking System Work Queue database, the latter being the
Centralized Screening Team’s primary data entry system. Of the OIG’s
178 disputes of screening decisions between September 1, 2025, and
December 31, 2025, 20 (or 10.5 percent) resulted in inconsistent screening
records. For example:
• Staff allegedly delayed delivering court documents to an
incarcerated person for three months and opened the legal mail
envelope outside of his presence.
The Centralized Screening Team routed the mail allegations back
to the prison as a routine policy claim rather than as an allegation
of staff misconduct for violating legal mail policy and interfering
with the incarcerated person’s access to the courts. Following
the OIG’s dispute, the Centralized Screening Team referred the
allegation to the prison as a routine allegation of staff misconduct.
However, the Centralized Screening Team only updated its
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
14 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
screening decision in the Strategic Offender Management System
and did not update its decision in its primary screening database,
the Allegation of Staff Misconduct Tracking System Work Queue.
As of the date of this publication, the Centralized Screening
Team still has not updated its decision in the Allegation of Staff
Misconduct Tracking System Work Queue, which inaccurately
reflects that it referred the allegation as a routine policy claim.
Figure 2 on the next page highlights excerpts of the final
documentation in the Strategic Offender Management System
versus the Allegation of Staff Misconduct Tracking System Work
Queue for the same grievance record pertaining to an allegation
that staff opened an incarcerated person’s legal mail outside
his presence, which the department regularly refers as staff
misconduct not on the allegation decision index.
The OIG expressed concerns with the department documenting
conflicting decisions for the same complaint across its databases—
intentionally refusing to correct an incorrect decision in its primary
screening database—and we noted the complications this would cause
when the department compiles end-of-the-year data depending on which
database is used. Departmental officials responded that the process
change occurred because of a system upgrade on August 31, 2025, and
they knew it caused discrepancies between the two databases.
The OIG recommends the department accurately update all screening
decisions and document corrections consistently across its databases.
If the Centralized Screening Team changes a screening decision, the
change should be correctly captured in each location where the decision
is reflected.
The OIG also recommends the Centralized Screening Team correct
all screening decisions it agrees are incorrect even if the department
already issued a decision letter. A decision letter based on an incorrect
screening decision, and therefore an incorrect review of the allegations,
is not an appropriate reason to ignore the need to correct the Centralized
Screening Team’s original error.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 15
1/23/26, 9:44F AigMure 2. Excerpts Showing the Difference BetweeVnie wth WeQ DFoormc 3u03m76e17n3t -a Ctlaioimn [0 0in1] Mtahile Strategic Offender
ManagVeiewm WeQn Ftor mS 3y0s37t6e17m3 - Calnaimd [ 0t0h1]e M aAilllegation of Staff Misconduct Tracking System Work Queue for the Same LC
Grievance Record
Menu Change Log Services for Object Exit
Current Decision Documented In Work Queue
Header Claims (1) Interviews (0) Status
Item St. SOMS Claim Detail Incident D Dsc.Inmate Dsc.Staff StaffM… DtStfMscn Misconduct Determination Group
1 1Mail 09/07/2025 No
Claim:[001] Mail
Claim Actions (0)
Claim Detail: Mail Incident Details
Incident Date unknown:
Date Discovered by Inmate:*09/07/2025
Claim Summary: Claimant states that they are not getting their mail on time. - routine Date Discovered by Staff:
no staff misconduct
Staff Misc Later Discovered:
Date Misc Later Discovered:
Extended Time:0 days
Group:Offender Services Determined Staff Misconduct:No
Category:Mail Potential Noncompliance w/ARP/CRP:
SubCategory:Legal Mail
Decision Index Category:
Decision Index SubCat.:(n/a)
Program Area:*DAI
Location:*CCI - California Correctional Inst
Facility:CCI - California Correctional Inst
Current Decision Documented in SOMS
Housing Area:(n/a)
Action Date: 09/16/2025 Action Time: 11:54:20
Action Type: Grievance Screenin
Action by Staff Name:
Screened For-------------------------------------�
RA Conflict: No
Rejection: No Reason:
Redirect: No Reason: 1/1
Reassigned: No
No Jurisdiction: No Reason:
Pending Legal Matter: No Reason:
Identified as Staff Misconduct: Yes
OOG Analysis Comments
Claimant states that they are not getting their mail on time. - routine w/ ASM
Source: The Office of Internal Affairs database.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
16 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
When Prison Staff Do Not Sufficiently Document
Verbal Complaints and Complaints From Third
Parties, and Do Not Respond to the Centralized
Screening Team’s Requests for More Information,
Some Allegations of Staff Misconduct
Go Unaddressed
When an incarcerated person makes a verbal complaint or the
department receives a verbal or written complaint from a third
party, hiring authorities are required to document the complaint in
the department’s Allegation of Staff Misconduct Tracking System
Work Queue database so the complaint can be reviewed by the
Centralized Screening Team. The department refers to this type of
complaint as a “direct entry.” Direct entries include a brief synopsis
of the allegation along with any attached source documents that
include details about the allegation. Source documents can vary from
staff-authored memorandums addressing alleged staff misconduct, a
videotaped interview summary following a use-of-force incident, and
correspondence from citizens or the incarcerated population.
Upon receipt of a direct entry, the Centralized Screening Team reviews
the source documents and any notes entered by prison staff to determine
whether the complaint contains an allegation of staff misconduct. If the
Centralized Screening Team identifies an allegation of staff misconduct
in the complaint, it either refers the complaint to the Office of Internal
Affairs’ Allegation Investigation Unit for an investigation or returns it to
the prison as a routine allegation of staff misconduct. If the Centralized
Screening Team determines the allegation does not contain an allegation
of staff misconduct, it routes the complaint back to the prison to be
handled as a routine matter.
In some instances, a complaint might not contain sufficient information
or detail to allow the Centralized Screening Team to make an informed
screening decision. Should the Centralized Screening Team determine a
complaint does not contain sufficient information to render a screening
decision, departmental policy requires the Centralized Screening Team
return the complaint to the prison and request more information. If a
complaint is returned by the Centralized Screening Team, the hiring
authority’s designee is responsible for monitoring the work queue for any
entries that were marked as “returned to the institution.” Within three
business days of the direct entry being returned from the Centralized
Screening Team, prison staff are required to address the entry and update
or add additional source documentation needed for the Centralized
Screening Team to render a screening decision.
During the course of our monitoring, we found that the Centralized
Screening Team is not required to follow up with the prison when prison
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 17
staff do not provide additional information and documentation within
three days. This has been an infrequent but recurring issue since the
inception of the OIG’s monitoring of the Centralized Screening Team.
However, we asked more questions about the process after discovering
seven such cases during one two-month period in which prison staff
either failed to add any additional information regarding the complaint
or failed to respond at all. This inaction by prison staff, combined with
the lack of a requirement for additional follow-up by the Centralized
Screening Team, has resulted in incomplete decisions and, at times, no
decision at all. Of the seven cases mentioned above, in two instances the
Centralized Screening Team returned the cases back to the prison and
requested additional information. Because prison staff failed to provide
the requested information, the Centralized Screening Team never made a
screening decision regarding the allegation.
In one case, prison staff created a direct entry that did not include a
summary of the allegation or a source document for review. Instead,
the entry only noted, “Allegation of Staff Misconduct.” The Centralized
Screening Team returned the entry to the prison and requested source
documentation or additional information to render a screening decision.
Subsequently, prison staff failed to upload any documentation and
provided no additional details regarding the direct entry. Because of the
prison’s lack of compliance with policy and the lack of a requirement
that the Centralized Screening Team follow up when it does not receive
a response, a decision was not rendered by the Centralized Screening
Team for the case, which created an opportunity for an allegation of staff
misconduct to remain unaddressed.
Similarly, in a second case, prison staff created a direct entry that noted
an incarcerated person made an allegation of unreasonable force but did
not provide any specific information about the unreasonable force. The
Centralized Screening Team sent the complaint back to the prison and
requested more information regarding the specific allegation that was
initially reported to staff that led to the direct entry. Prison staff failed
to respond to the Centralized Screening Team’s request and provided
no further information regarding the unreasonable force allegation. The
Centralized Screening Team did not render a decision for the case, and
the case was not referred as an allegation of staff misconduct despite the
incarcerated person’s allegation of unreasonable force.
The department’s policy that requires the Centralized Screening
Team to request additional information when a complaint does not
contain sufficient information to render a decision, and the subsequent
requirement that prison staff respond within three days serve an
important purpose in the complaint screening process. However, the
department currently lacks a mechanism to ensure prison staff respond
to all the Centralized Screening Team’s requests for clarifying and
additional information, causing the department to lose track of some
complaints. If a claim regarding staff misconduct is already vague in
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
18 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
nature and the request for additional information is unfulfilled, serious
staff misconduct can potentially be left unreported, uninvestigated, and
ultimately, unaddressed.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 19
The Quick Reference Guide the Department
Implemented to Aid Analysts With Their
Screening Decisions Has Injected Subjectivity and
Inconsistency in the Centralized Screening Team’s
Decisions for Certain Allegation Types
Centralized Screening Team management created resources to aid staff
in deciding how to process a complaint. In the past, the department
provided a Centralized Screening Team “Handbook” to members of
the Centralized Screening Team regarding roles and responsibilities
and other topics. On January 1, 2025, the department implemented the
Quick Reference Guide for the Centralized Screening Team to use in its
decision-making process.
The Quick Reference Guide defines staff misconduct as behavior that
results in a violation of law, regulation, policy, or procedure, or actions
contrary to an ethical or professional standard. It defines behavior as
the way in which one acts or conducts oneself, especially toward others.
The guide also provides questions to consider when determining how a
complaint should be processed:
• Does the complaint contain specific information regarding an
overt action by staff?
• Is the incarcerated person’s complaint a disagreement
with policy?
• Is the incarcerated person’s complaint based solely on conjecture
or their feelings?
The document is a good resource for determining whether allegations
qualify as staff misconduct. However, prior to implementation, we
pointed out a few areas of concern related to the guide, which the
department did not address prior to implementation. Specifically, we
had concerns about downplaying the clarification interview process,
the vague and subjective nature of considering “buzz words,” and the
arbitrary determination that after 90 days, staff would not generally
engage in retaliation. Since the implementation of the Quick Reference
Guide, the department has responded to our concerns telling us that it
was not its intent to downplay the clarification interview process, and
that staff should consult with their supervisors and management if there
is any doubt about whether a clarification interview is appropriate.
However, we believe the Quick Reference Guide, as currently worded,
gives rise to inconsistent and sometimes erroneous decisions, as
discussed below.
Departmental regulations direct the Centralized Screening Team to
conduct a clarification interview if needed to make a screening decision.
The clarification interview is an important component of the screening
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
20 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
process that allows the screener to gather specific details to ensure
the correct routing decision is made. However, the Quick Reference
Guide makes little reference to the clarification interview process and
notes staff misconduct is “not likely” if the claim “lacks specific details
regarding alleged misconduct to understand the nature of the complaint.”
The only reference to the clarification interview process in the guide is in
the last sentence, which reads in part that “when in doubt,” staff should
“consult with a manager and/or schedule a clarification interview.” In
the OIG’s opinion, the guide implies that a clarification interview is
unnecessary when, in the opinion of the analyst, an incarcerated person
makes an allegation that lacks sufficient details.
The Quick Reference Guide also indicates staff misconduct is unlikely
if the claim alleges retaliation “after a long separation of time between
events (generally more than 90 days).” This assumption fails to consider
that staff members may not become aware of the complaint filed by
the incarcerated person for a long period of time. Incarcerated people
often delay in filing grievances, and the employee disciplinary process
often takes several months to complete. The department has fixed an
unnecessary 90-day limit and has directed its Centralized Screening
Team that actions beyond that time frame are “not likely” to constitute
retaliatory staff misconduct.
Lastly, the guide includes the following directions about “buzz words”:
It is not sufficient for a claimant to use buzz words
(“discrimination,” “retaliation,” etc.) without any
specificity (adequate detail) that enable screening
staff to support the connection between the behavior
and the alleged staff misconduct. Read the claim
without the “buzz” words and see if the contents
would support the allegation.
Aside from “discrimination” and “retaliation,” the department does
not identify other words it considers as buzz words. In the past, the
department also referred to “harassment” as a buzz word. However, in
response to an OIG inquiry, the Centralized Screening Team indicated
it does not maintain an exclusive list of terms it considers buzz words.
The Quick Reference Guide indicates an incarcerated person’s use
of a buzz word in an allegation may not be sufficient to support staff
misconduct unless there is “adequate detail” to support the alleged
behavior. Although it is reasonable to expect details to support an
allegation of staff misconduct, the guide does not provide any example of
what is or is not an adequate level of detail. Without specific guidance,
the Centralized Screening Team member is given broad, subjective
discretion when determining whether the supporting information
is sufficient to qualify as an allegation of staff misconduct. The OIG
disputed multiple decisions in which we found the incarcerated person
provided adequate details to support allegations of discrimination
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 21
or retaliation, but the Centralized Screening Team responded with
the following:
As of January 1, 2025, CST has been utilizing the
Staff Misconduct Quick Reference Guide to screen
grievances with more consistency and accuracy.
Based on review of this grievance, the CST screener
removed the buzz words of discrimination to
determine that this is a routine issue.
The three examples below illustrate how the Quick Reference Guide’s
instruction regarding buzz words has resulted in the Centralized
Screening Team rejecting allegations that we believe contained sufficient
factual support to warrant investigation.
• An incarcerated person alleged an officer allowed incarcerated
people of a specific race to receive haircuts while discriminating
against other incarcerated people of a different race by not
allowing them to receive haircuts. The incarcerated person
further alleged the officer’s racial bias caused racial tension in the
building. The Centralized Screening Team referred the allegation
to the prison as a routine policy claim. Following the OIG’s
dispute and recommendation to conduct a clarification interview,
the Centralized Screening Team cited the Quick Reference Guide
and the screener’s removal of the buzz word “discrimination,”
which resulted in its classification of the allegation as a routine
policy claim and declined to conduct a clarification interview.
• An incarcerated person alleged officers discriminated against him
by failing to provide him with clean laundry because he is Black,
while they only provide clean laundry to Hispanic incarcerated
people. The Centralized Screening Team inappropriately
summarized the claim, only indicating the incarcerated person
did not receive clean towels. Following the OIG’s dispute about
the allegation of discrimination and recommending a clarification
interview, the Centralized Screening Team upheld its decision
based on the Quick Reference Guide, and the screener removing
the buzz word “discrimination.” However, the grievance read:
Only Hispanics get new towels also, or new laundry…
We also need more clean clothes for everyone, not
just Mexicans. Also, the title 15 and [department
operations manual] states you have to speak a
language that common to everyone. We are being
disrespected in Spanish all the time, us Blacks by
C/Os. We request they only speak English so we can
stop getting disrespected please. It’s too much.
• Even with the removal of the buzz word, the incarcerated
person described, with specificity, how officers treated one race
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
22 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
differently than another. However, the Centralized Screening
Team did not consider the example to be “adequate detail”
warranting staff misconduct or a clarification interview.
• On July 26, 2025, an officer allegedly retaliated against an
incarcerated person for previously filing complaints against the
officer by setting the incarcerated person’s hot meal tray aside to
get cold. The Centralized Screening Team referred the claim to
the prison as an allegation of routine staff misconduct. Following
the OIG’s dispute, the Centralized Screening Team upheld its
decision based on the Quick Reference Guide, explaining the
incarcerated person did not provide context on how the officer’s
alleged actions were retaliatory and that the allegation was based
on a buzz word. Again, applying the same logic, the OIG read the
incarcerated person’s complaint as:
C/O [last name redacted] then refused to bring my
medical diet. Instead under camera C/O [last name
redacted] informed me I do not get s**t. C/O [last
name redacted] refused to feed me out of retaliation
… C/O [last name redacted] purposeful with a
malice intent allowed my diet food to sit on a locker
and get cold for over 10–15 min … C/O [last name
redacted] is doing this because I have filed numerous
grievances against C/O [last name redacted].
Despite the removal of the buzz word, the information provided
by the incarcerated person not only explained the officer’s
alleged actions, but also provided the basis for the alleged
actions. However, the Centralized Screening Team claimed
the example did not contain “adequate detail,” or warrant a
clarification interview to gather more information about the
officer’s retaliatory actions.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 23
The OIG’s Recommendations to the
Department Regarding Its Centralized
Screening Team
• The OIG recommends that the department ensure when the
Centralized Screening Team agrees with a dispute—by the OIG
or another stakeholder—it takes the appropriate steps to correct
the screening decision if the incarcerated person has not already
filed an appeal and regardless of whether the department already
issued a decision letter based on the incorrect screening decision.
If an appeal exists, the department should ensure the appeal is
processed in accordance with the correct screening decision.
• The OIG recommends that the department end its process of
inconsistent recordkeeping across departmental databases. If
the Centralized Screening Team amends a screening decision,
it should ensure the change is accurately documented in each
location where the decision is recorded.
• The OIG recommends that the department issue clear directives
and expectations for staff who submit verbal allegations of
staff misconduct, monitor and enforce the three-day response
requirement when the Centralized Screening Team requests
additional information from prison staff, and develop a process
requiring the Centralized Screening Team to follow up on
requests returned to the prison to ensure it renders a decision for
every allegation of staff misconduct.
• The OIG recommends that the department improve the
Centralized Screening Team’s Quick Reference Guide by:
○ Introducing and better emphasizing the regulatory
requirement for a clarification interview before detailing
scenarios in which the department considers staff
misconduct to be “not likely” (e.g., when allegations lack
specific details);
○ Removing the implication that retaliation is unlikely to
occur more than 90 days after an incident or including
a reference that retaliation should be considered on a
case-by-case basis and may occur a long time after an
event due to the length of time it may take to interview the
subject of an investigation or complete the investigation
into a prior allegation of staff misconduct against the staff
member; and
○ Developing a more thorough and complete list of
applicable buzz words to ensure consistency in the
screening process. Because the Quick Reference
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
24 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
Guide only provides examples of two buzz words
(i.e., discrimination and retaliation), it is unclear how the
Centralized Screening Team or any other stakeholder
could reasonably determine which words a screener should
ignore when screening the complaint.
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report | 25
The Department’s Response to Our Report
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
26 | Monitoring the Centralized Screening Process, 2025 Annual Report
The Department’s Response to Our Report (continued)
Office of the Inspector General, State of California
Return to Contents
The Office of the Inspector General’s
Monitoring in 2025 of the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s
Centralized Screening Process
OFFICE of the
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Amarik K. Singh
Inspector General
Shaun Spillane
Chief Deputy Inspector General
STATE of CALIFORNIA
March 2026
OIG