OIG
Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility
O I G
FFICE OF THE NSPECTOR ENERAL
S W I G
TEVE HITE, NSPECTOR ENERAL
A
UDIT OF THE
L C C
EO HESNEY OMMUNITY
C F
ORRECTIONAL ACILITY
L
IVE
O
AK,
C
ALIFORNIA
S H
USAN ICKEY,
F D
ACILITY IRECTOR
O 2001
CTOBER
S C G D G
TATE OF ALIFORNIA RAY AVIS, OVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
STEVE WHITE, INSPECTOR GENERAL
AUDIT OF THE
LEO CHESNEY COMMUNITY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
LIVE OAK, CALIFORNIA
SUSAN HICKEY, FACILITY DIRECTOR
REPORT
OCTOBER 2001
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 1
C
ONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................
3
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................
4
BACKGROUND.................................................................................
5
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY.................................. 6
NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS..............................................
6
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................. 8
FINDING 1 ............................................................................................. 8
FINDING 2 ............................................................................................. 9
FINDING 3 ............................................................................................. 11
FINDING 4 ............................................................................................. 12
FINDING 5 ............................................................................................. 13
FINDING 6 ............................................................................................. 14
FINDING 7 ............................................................................................. 15
FINDING 8 ............................................................................................. 16
FINDING 9 ............................................................................................. 17
FINDING 10 ........................................................................................... 17
FINDING 11 ........................................................................................... 18
FINDING 12 ........................................................................................... 19
FINDING 13 ........................................................................................... 20
FINDING 14 ........................................................................................... 21
FINDING 15 ........................................................................................... 22
FINDING 16 ........................................................................................... 23
FINDING 17 ........................................................................................... 24
FINDING 18 ........................................................................................... 25
VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS
RESPONSE OF THE CALIFORNIA ATTACHMENT A
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTACHMENT B
INSPECTOR GENERAL
RESPONSE OF CORNELL CORRECTIONS ATTACHMENT C
COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTACHMENT D
INSPECTOR GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the results of an audit conducted by the Office of the Inspector General
of the Leo Chesney Center Community Correctional Facility. The audit was performed
under the Inspector General’s oversight responsibilities delineated in California Penal Code
Section 6126. Conducted from April through May 2001, the audit focused on institutional
processes relating to personnel, training, communications, investigations, security, inmate
programming, and financial matters.
The Leo Chesney Center is operated by Cornell Corrections of California, Inc., a private
corporation, through a contract with the California Department of Corrections. The facility
is located in Live Oak, California and houses approximately 195 female inmates, the only
female inmate population in the community correctional facility program. Facility Director
Susan Hickey is required to manage Leo Chesney Center’s administrative and correctional
staff in accordance with the provisions of the contract between Cornell Corrections and the
California Department of Corrections, Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, and
the California Department of Corrections Operations Manual.
Except as noted in the findings and recommendations section of this report, the facility is in
compliance with its regulatory requirements. The Office of the Inspector General noted that
the institution has had relatively few incidents, disciplinary actions, or inmate appeals. The
center is well maintained, clean, and orderly. The inmate yard and outside visiting area have
well-manicured lawns with flower gardens. Staff interviewed commented favorably about
the working environment. Similarly, the majority of the staff responding to an anonymous
Office of the Inspector General questionnaire rated Facility Director Susan Hickey an
effective leader. Moreover, the center staff and inmates are actively involved in community
affairs and, through their voluntary efforts, have made positive contributions that have been
well received by the citizens of the local community.
During its review, the Office of the Inspector General discovered various policy and
operational issues requiring immediate attention by the institution, Cornell Corrections, and
the California Department of Corrections. Among the most important issues are the
following:
• The Leo Chesney Center lacks formal policies and procedures for investigating
allegations of inmate and staff misconduct;
• The Department of Corrections Office of Investigative Services has not
responded adequately to allegations of sexual misconduct between Leo Chesney
Center staff and inmates;
• The Leo Chesney Center has used inmate welfare funds to subsidize its budget
and to purchase items that are not allowable;
• The California Department of Corrections has not prescribed clear guidelines
governing the use of revenues generated from inmate telephone calls. At the Leo
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 3
Chesney Center, such revenues are used to repair and improve the center’s
facilities;
• Although an overwhelming portion of its inmates are incarcerated for drug-
related offenses, the Leo Chesney Center does not have a mandatory substance
abuse program;
• The Leo Chesney Center should improve its process for handling inmate appeals,
incident reports, and inmate rules violation reports;
• Cornell Corrections should strengthen its accounting and administrative controls
over the inmate trust accounting process and the inmate welfare fund; and
• Cornell Corrections is not forwarding unclaimed trust funds to the California
Department of Corrections.
Throughout the review process, the audit team received excellent cooperation and assistance
from Director Hickey and the staff at the Leo Chesney Center.
INTRODUCTION
The Office of the Inspector General conducted the audit of the Leo Chesney Center pursuant
to its authority under California Penal Code Section 6126. Part (a) of that code section gives
the Inspector General responsibility for reviewing departmental policy and procedures for
conducting audits of investigative practices and other audits, as well as conducting
investigations of the California Department of Corrections, the Department of Youth
Authority, the Board of Prison Terms, the Youthful Offender Parole Board, the Board of
Corrections, the Narcotic Addict Evaluation Authority, the Prison Industry Authority, and
the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency, as requested by either the Secretary of the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency or a member of the Legislature pursuant to the approval of
the Inspector General. The Inspector General may, under policies developed by the
Inspector General, initiate an investigation or an audit on his own accord.
Furthermore, Section 6126 (c) states:
The Inspector General shall, during the course of an investigatory audit, identify areas of
full and partial compliance, or noncompliance, with departmental investigatory policies and
procedures, specify deficiencies in the completion and documentation of investigatory
processes, and recommend corrective actions, including, but not limited to, additional
training with respect to investigative policies, additional policies, or changes in policy, as
well as any other findings or recommendations that the Inspector General deems
appropriate.
An audit performed in accordance with the sections referenced above includes, but is not
limited to, issues relating to personnel, training, communication, investigations, security,
inmate programming, and financial matters.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 4
The Leo Chesney Center was selected for audit by the Office of the Inspector General in
accordance with its oversight responsibility for boards and departments within the Youth
and Adult Correctional Agency, including the California Department of Corrections.
BACKGROUND
California Penal Code Sections 2910 and 6250, enacted in 1965, authorized the California
Department of Corrections to establish, operate, and contract for “community correctional
centers” for the housing, supervision, and counseling of inmates. According to the
Department of Corrections, contract beds were found to be an acceptable alternative to
prison beds, and housing lower security inmates nearing completion of prison terms in
community-based contract beds was determined to be more appropriate than housing them
in prison.
Sixteen community correctional facilities presently exist statewide. Seven are public
facilities operated by cities and counties and nine are private facilities operated by private
entities. Community correctional facilities are operated under fee-for-service contracts with
the California Department of Corrections and the Department of Corrections does not own
the facilities. Until recently, the Parole and Community Services Division was responsible
for contract management. This responsibility has recently shifted to the Institutions Division,
with the Department of Corrections Community Correctional Facilities Administration now
responsible for contractual and operational oversight of state-contracted community
correctional facilities. Appended to contracts between the Department of Corrections and
private community correctional facilities is a California Department of Corrections
Statement of Work for Private Community Correctional Facilities, which provides specific
guidelines and state requirements for operating private community correctional facilities
under Department of Corrections contracts.
The Leo Chesney Center is one of nine privately operated community correctional facilities.
It was constructed in the late 1980s and received its first inmates in May 1989. The center is
a 195-bed minimum-security facility with a capacity of 200 beds. The facility is operated by
Cornell Corrections, a publicly held company, and represents the only facility for female
inmates in the California Department of Corrections community correctional facility
program. The Leo Chesney Center is located adjacent to the Sutter Buttes mountain range
in the community of Live Oak, California, approximately 50 miles north of Sacramento.
The facility consists of seven buildings, including two housing units, and is operated by a
full-time staff of 45 employees. The facility provides a variety of the custody and inmate
programs needed to ease the transition of inmates back to free society. The average inmate
stay at the facility is six months. Before placement in the facility, inmates must be
sanctioned by the California Department of Corrections to be free of violent crimes and
behavior, medical and dental problems, and mental disorders.
In November 2000, California voters approved Proposition 36, the “Substance Abuse and
Crime Prevention Act of 2000,” a measure that makes significant changes to the state’s
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 5
criminal justice and drug treatment systems. The proposition changes state law to require
that certain adult offenders who use or possess illegal drugs receive drug treatment and
supervision in the community rather than prison terms. The effect of the proposition on the
operation of the community correctional facilities is still unclear, but potential effects should
be considered when the recommendations in this report are reviewed.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
The objective of the audit was to evaluate the facility’s performance in:
1. Planning, organizing, directing, and coordinating all correctional, business management,
educational, and related programs within the Leo Chesney Center; and
2. Formulating and executing a progressive program for the care, treatment, training,
discipline, custody, and employment of inmates.
In order to accomplish these objectives, the audit team performed various procedures in the
general areas of communications, facility safety and security, inmate programming,
personnel, training, financial management, external relationships, and environmental
responsibility. Those procedures included:
1. Conducting interviews with the facility director, administrative staff, custody and non-
custody employees, local citizens, inmates, and parolees;
2. Distributing survey questionnaires to Leo Chesney Center employees requesting
comments regarding the facility management’s effectiveness;
3. Touring the facilities and observing their operations; and
4. Gathering, reviewing, and analyzing pertinent documents related to key systems,
functions, and processes to substantiate the observations made through on-site visits and
interviews.
Fieldwork was performed at the Leo Chesney Center between April 3, 2001 and May 24,
2001.
NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The Office of the Inspector General found that the institution has had relatively few
incidents, disciplinary actions, or inmate appeals, although this report suggests
recommendations for improvement in these areas. Staff members interviewed commented
favorably about the work environment. Similarly, the majority of the staff responding to an
anonymous Office of the Inspector General questionnaire rated Facility Director Susan
Hickey an effective leader. The Office of the Inspector General found the center’s facilities
to be well maintained, clean, and orderly. The inmate yard and outside visiting area have
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 6
well-manicured lawns with flower gardens, and the administration building and inmate
housing area is clean and well organized.
One of the more notable factors observed by the Office of the Inspector General during
fieldwork was the significant positive impact the Leo Chesney Center has on the local
community of Live Oak, California. For example, staff members volunteer on area
committees, hold public office, and sponsor a holiday celebration complete with toys for
hundreds of local children. With an average of 400 volunteer hours each month, staff and
inmates make a significant and visible impact on the surrounding communities of Live Oak
and Yuba City, California. Moreover, Leo Chesney inmates have contributed to the local
community by:
• Making community event signage
• Building bookcases and lockers for area schools
• Maintaining Live Oak parks, a senior citizens housing complex, and a little league field
• Hosting and catering the annual senior citizens’ appreciation luncheon
• Building city park tables and benches
• Filling sandbags for city flood control
• Speaking to schools and community groups
The following editorial in the December 15, 2000, Gridley Herald, a local newspaper,
summarizes public sentiment:
Our congratulations to Leo Chesney Center for their receiving the “Best of the Best”
Community Relations Award. We here in Live Oak have noted how well the center has
served us in so many ways. If it were not for the work crews from the center, can you
imagine how our parks and streets would look? City public work crews do a lot to keep
things going but the additional help is needed. The center has done a great job of providing
sign boards to advertise many of the events in the city. Our heart-felt thanks to the center.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 7
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING 1
The Office of the Inspector General found that allegations of misconduct by staff and
inmates at the Leo Chesney Center are not adequately investigated.
The Department of Corrections has instructed the staff of the Leo Chesney Center to
investigate all allegations of inmate and staff misconduct at the facility except for allegations
of over-familiarity involving sexual misconduct, which are to be referred to the Office of
Investigative Services.
The Office of the Inspector General found, however, that the center has no formal policies or
procedures to guide the handling of situations requiring investigation or the process of
conducting an investigation. Moreover, the Office of Investigative Services has failed to
adequately respond to allegations referred to that office of sexual misconduct between center
staff and inmates.
The Leo Chesney Center has not adequately investigated possible misconduct by inmates.
The absence of a formal process governing the investigation process increases the likelihood
that allegations of misconduct may not be properly addressed. In a recent example, center
staff discovered that an inmate with a gate pass who was authorized to work outside the
institution had received money orders on at least two occasions from a male member of the
community. The discovery raised speculation on the part of the security staff that the inmate
was engaging in sex for hire. In response, the center revoked the inmate’s gate pass and
performed a urinalysis exam. Following an inquiry by the Office of the Inspector General,
the center sent a letter to the community member requesting information about the reason
the money had been sent. The facility also sent a second letter returning the money order to
the owner and advising him (incorrectly) that the inmate was not authorized to receive
money. The Leo Chesney Center has no documentation that further action has been taken in
the matter. At a minimum the center should have determined whether there has been a
pattern of community members sending money orders to inmates for no apparent reason and
taken appropriate action to investigate the cause.
The Office of Investigative Services has failed to investigate possible sexual misconduct.
The failure of the Office of Investigative Services to adequately respond to allegations of
sexual misconduct is also significant. In a recent, particularly egregious case, the Office of
Investigative Services declined to investigate numerous allegations of sexual misconduct
between center staff and inmates. When the allegations came to light, the Leo Chesney
Center conducted a preliminary inquiry by interviewing ten of the inmates at the facility. As
a result of the inquiry, the Leo Chesney Center facility director referred the case to the
California Department of Corrections. A detailed four-page memorandum, dated February
20, 2001, described widespread rumors among staff and inmates that an inmate at the center
had engaged in oral sex in the shower area with a male correctional officer; that the inmate
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 8
had performed a strip tease in front of the officer; and that a female correctional officer
commonly woke an inmate late at night and escorted her into adjacent rooms. The
memorandum concluded with the following statement:
It is obvious there was some kind of inappropriate behavior going on between staff and
inmates…. It appears there is an effort on behalf of the inmates identified by Inmate [name
withheld] to control what others are saying concerning Inmate [name withheld] and Officer
[name withheld] This leads me to believe there might be some substance to the allegations
and certain inmates are trying to prevent staff from finding the truth…. I believe it is in the
best interest of all concerned that this matter be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs for
further investigation because of the sexual nature of the allegation.
Despite the fact that the allegations involved sexual misconduct on the part of staff members
and no investigation had been conducted, the Office of Investigative Services did not
investigate the charges. On March 22, 2001, the Office of Investigative Services special
agent-in-charge responded to the facility director’s memorandum as follows:
The California Department of Corrections, Office of Investigative Services (OIS) has
received the information and documentation relative to the allegations that Cornell
Correctional employee, [name withheld], was involved in sexual misconduct with Inmate
[name withheld], at Leo Chesney Community Correctional Facility (LCCCF).
Based on OIS review, the investigation by LCCWF [sic] appears to be complete and
thorough. Several inmates were interviewed. {Name withheld] denied any sexual activity
occurred, and there are no direct witnesses that offer evidence to the contrary.
We have determined that no further investigation is warranted and our office will retain the
information on file. [Emphasis added]
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
develop formal policies and procedures for investigating allegations of inmate
or employee misconduct not of a sexual nature. The procedures should set
investigation parameters and guidelines and establish timeframes for
completion.
The Office of the Inspector General also recommends that the Department of
Corrections Office of Investigative Services conduct a thorough investigation of
the allegations described above involving possible sexual misconduct between
Leo Chesney Center staff and inmates.
FINDING 2
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center used monies
from the inmate welfare fund to subsidize its budget and to purchase unallowable
items.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 9
The Department of Corrections lacks comprehensive written guidelines defining allowable
expenditures from the inmate welfare fund. The Financial Management Handbook for
Private Community Correctional Facilities and the California Department of Corrections
Operations Manual, however, prohibit certain types of inmate welfare fund expenditures.
For example, California Department of Corrections Operations Manual, Section 23010.6.2
specifically prohibits the use of inmate welfare funds for the purchase of nonfiction, text, or
reference books. In addition, the Financial Management Handbook for Private Community
Correctional Facilities, Section IV.H, prohibits inmate welfare fund expenditures for items
already funded in the community correctional facility contract with the Department of
Corrections, including items covered in operating costs.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center used the inmate
welfare fund to purchase items not allowed under these provisions. In a sample of 72
auditor-selected inmate welfare fund expenditures at the Leo Cheney Center, the Office of
the Inspector General found 16 of the expenditures not allowable. Among the expenditures
not allowed were the following:
• $3,524 to purchase textbooks on Microsoft Office software.
• Household items, including can openers, hairdryers, curling irons, and ironing boards.
• Personal care products such as soap, toothpaste, shampoo, and hair conditioner
purchased as prizes for inmates.
Cornell Corrections receives a monthly amount to cover operating costs as part of the per-
diem reimbursement under its contract. Household and personal supply items are already
funded in the contract as operating costs. While expenditures for the personal care items
listed above are not specifically prohibited, other personal supplies such as toothbrushes,
hair creams, and oils, and other such items are described as operating costs in Section IV.C.8
of the Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities.
Charging the inmate welfare fund for operating costs already covered in the per-diem
reimbursement allows Cornell Corrections to subsidize its budget and increase its profits at
the expense of the inmate welfare fund.
In addition to the 16 transactions referenced above, the Office of the Inspector General
found another five transactions in which the inmate welfare fund was charged for
questionable costs. Cornell Corrections used inmate welfare fund monies to pay
approximately $600 a month toward the center’s monthly charges for computer telephone
lines and computer services. Although Cornell Corrections provided the Office of the
Inspector General with vendor invoices to support the charges, the company was unable to
explain how it had arrived at $600 as the appropriate amount to be paid from the inmate
welfare fund.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the expenditures described above were made
with the concurrence of the California Department of Corrections. Under an unwritten
policy, Cornell Corrections is required to secure approval for expenditures over $500 from
the Department of Corrections Community Correctional Facilities Administration. For
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 10
expenditures below $500, Cornell Corrections obtains approval from the Department of
Corrections facility lieutenant assigned to the Leo Chesney Center.
Asked about 17 questioned expenditures from the inmate welfare fund, the staff at the
Community Correctional Facilities Administration referred the matter to the Leo Chesney
Center facility captain, who in turn referred the question to the facility lieutenant assigned to
the center. The facility lieutenant, who had approved 16 of the 17 transactions because they
were under $500, said she was uncertain about what constitutes allowable expenditures from
the inmate welfare fund.
In addition, the Office of the Inspector General noted that the Community Correctional
Facilities Administration approved the $3,524 textbook purchase listed above, but directed
the center to use the inmate telephone revenue fund for the purchase. Instead, the center used
the inmate welfare fund, even though California Department of Corrections Operations
Manual, Section 23010.6.2 specifically prohibits the use of the inmate welfare fund for such
purchases.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California
Department of Corrections revise the Financial Management Handbook for
Private Community Correctional Facilities to provide clear guidelines defining
allowable expenditures from the inmate welfare fund. The guidelines should be
consistent with existing statutory requirements.
FINDING 3
The Leo Chesney Center is using revenues generated from inmate telephone calls to
make capital improvements.
The California Department of Corrections has not prescribed clear guidelines governing how
revenues generated from inmate telephone calls are to be used or to whom the balances
belong. Under a contract with a private telecommunications company that provides inmate
telephone services to the center, the telephone revenues are paid to the Leo Chesney Center
in the form of commissions amounting to approximately $54,000 a year. The commissions
represent a percentage of the gross revenue for calls made using the inmate telephone
system.
Neither the Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional
Facilities nor the California Department of Corrections Statement of Work for Private
Community Correctional Facilities provides criteria specifying the types of expenditures
allowed from inmate telephone revenues. Nor does either document specify who has the
legal right to the revenues if the Department of Corrections terminates the contract with
Cornell. The Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional
Facilities provides only that the funds may be used for one-time costs and to pay for
budgeted inmate welfare fund positions if adequate funding is otherwise not available.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 11
In the absence of guidelines specifying how the telephone commission revenues may be
spent, the Leo Chesney Center, with the approval of the Department of Corrections, has
been using revenues generated from inmate telephone calls to make repairs and capital
improvements. Examples include the following:
• Repair of the armory roof ($2,340)
• Construction of a fence between the control and education buildings ($2,074)
• Purchase of a dishwashing machine for the culinary operation ($3,922)
• Purchase of three air doors for the culinary operation ($2,291)
• Installation of eight quartz lights in the vehicle sallyport ($1,975)
Without guidelines it is not possible to judge the appropriateness of these expenditures, but
as the telephone revenues are generated at considerable expense to the inmates and their
families, it would be reasonable to expect some or all of the revenues to be used to enhance
programs or services to the inmates. Instead, the revenues have been used to offset costs
incurred during the ordinary course of business.
In response to a request from the Community Correctional Facilities Administration, the
Department of Corrections Legal Affairs Division issued an analysis on March 2, 2001 of
the use and disposition of inmate telephone commission revenues. The analysis covered only
five of the 16 community correctional facilities, however, and did not include the Leo
Chesney Center, even though the center has been operational since 1989.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections clearly define the ownership and use of telephone commission revenues
in contracts with community correctional facility operators, in the California
Department of Corrections Statement of Work for Private Community Correctional
Facilities, and in the Financial Management Handbook for Private Community
Correctional Facilities. At a minimum the documents should address the following
issues:
• The ownership of the revenues, including whether the funds revert to the California
Department of Corrections or the state general fund or remain with the community
correctional facility operator upon termination of the contract;
• Whether the funds can be used for the operating expenses of community correctional
facilities; and
• What expenditures are allowable from inmate telephone revenues.
FINDING 4
The Office of the Inspector General found that despite the overwhelming percentage of
inmates incarcerated for drug-related offenses at the Leo Chesney Center, the
institution does not have a mandatory substance abuse program.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 12
In interviews with the Office of the Inspector General, members of the Leo Chesney Center
staff reported that approximately 90 percent of the inmates at the center are incarcerated for
drug-related offenses. A survey of inmates at the facility taken by the Leo Chesney Center
classification coordinator revealed that about 40 percent of the inmates are also repeat
offenders. Yet, the center does not have a mandatory substance abuse program.
The Leo Chesney Center does offer voluntary programs, including Alcoholics Anonymous,
Narcotics Anonymous, and a voluntary pre-release program that incorporates elements of a
substance abuse program, but participation in the programs is limited because inmates are
not paid for participating and most would rather be engaged in paid work.
California Penal Code Section 6250.5 allows the California Department of Corrections to
contract for the establishment and operation of community correctional facilities that offer
programs for the treatment of addiction to alcohol or controlled substances. The programs
include post-incarceration counseling and emphasize rehabilitation with the purpose of
increasing the likelihood of successful parole and helping parolees reintegrate into society.
The effect of Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse Crime and Prevention Act of 2000, on
community correctional facilities has not been determined.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California Department of
Corrections consider implementing a mandatory substance abuse program at the
Leo Chesney Center giving consideration to the implications of Proposition 36. The
program should emphasize the treatment of alcohol and controlled substance
addiction to help inmates reintegrate into society.
FINDING 5
The Office of the Inspector General found that a California Department of Corrections
staff member assigned to the Leo Chesney Center has a practice of cashing inmate
trust account checks and release checks for inmates paroling from the institution.
The Office of the Inspector General found that a California Department of Corrections staff
member has been cashing inmate trust account and release checks at a local bank for inmates
paroling from the Leo Chesney Center. The auditors noted that the staff member had signed
a log to receive an inmate’s trust account check, and upon further inquiry, found that she had
asked for the inmate’s trust account funds to be released to her so that she could cash a trust
account check. The staff member told the Office of the Inspector General that she had
agreed to cash the check for the inmate because the inmate was paroling to the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. She said she sometimes cashes inmate trust account and release
money checks at the local bank when inmates are paroling and need cash for transportation
or other needs.
Another California Department of Corrections employee at the Leo Chesney Center told the
Office of the Inspector General that the practice of staff members cashing inmates’ release
money is universal within the California Department of Corrections because inmates need
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 13
cash for transportation and because bringing an inmate to a bank to cash a check poses a
security risk.
Allowing Department of Corrections employees to cash inmate trust fund and release checks
is not explicitly prohibited by state law or regulation. A memorandum issued by the
California Department of Corrections Office of Financial Management in February 2001
defined the procedures for requesting and processing release fund checks, but did not
address cashing checks for inmates in need of cash upon release. The practice is
inappropriate, however, and, in appearance, and perhaps in fact, constitutes undue
familiarity between staff and inmates. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section
3399 provides in part that “Employees shall not directly or indirectly trade, barter, lend or
otherwise engage in any personal transactions with any inmate.” It also creates an
opportunity for embezzlement or exploitation by correctional employees.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California Department of
Corrections take the following steps to end the practice of department employees
cashing inmate trust fund and release checks:
• Issue a policy memorandum directing employees to stop cashing trust fund and
release checks for inmates.
• Explore other methods of addressing the need of paroling inmates for cash, such
as establishing a revolving fund or petty cash fund. Internal control procedures
should be designed for the custody and issuance of cash from the fund.
FINDING 6
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center does not have
an adequate system to ensure that inmate appeals are processed promptly and
properly.
California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3084, defines the requirements of the
inmate appeal process, and California Department of Corrections Operations Manual
Sections 54100.12 and 54100.9, respectively, describe the logging requirements and time
limits for processing inmate appeals. The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo
Chesney Center is not adequately meeting these requirements.
The Leo Chesney Center receives only a small number of inmate appeals — for the period
January 1, 1999 to March 31, 2001, only 220 inmate appeals were filed, an average of eight
a month — and the center does have a system for processing inmate appeals, but the process
contains a number of deficiencies. The system includes a designated inmate appeals
coordinator, with blank inmate appeal forms available at each of the two living units.
Inmates can submit a completed appeal to any staff person at the facility or place it in one of
the lock-boxes secured in the living units. The inmate appeals coordinator checks the lock-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 14
boxes daily and logs all completed appeals into an inmate appeals log. All formal-level
appeals are submitted to the California Department of Corrections Inmate Appeals Branch
for assignment of an appeal log tracking number. Once the appeal is assigned a tracking
number, it is returned to the facility for completion.
The Office of the Inspector General found the following weaknesses in the inmate appeals
process, however:
• The facility does not have procedures for documenting the appeals process;
• The facility has no system in place to monitor appeals to ensure that they are completed
in a timely manner; and
• The facility director has little involvement in the inmate appeals process even though her
staff is required to respond to the inmate appeals.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed a selected sample of 60 inmate appeal forms
and found the following:
• 18 (30 percent ) of the 60 inmate appeals reviewed contained no evidence of a response;
• 15 (50 percent) of the 31 formal level appeals were never processed because the facility
did not receive a log number from the California Department of Corrections Inmate
Appeals Branch;
• The inmate appeals coordinator failed to log five (8 percent) of the 60 appeals into the
monthly appeals log;
• The inmate appeals coordinator recorded inaccurate inmate appeal activity in the
monthly operational reports submitted to the California Department of Corrections. Of
the 15 monthly operational reports reviewed, nine (60 percent) contained inaccurate
information; and
• In five of the 60 appeals reviewed (8 percent), facility staff failed to record the date of
response to the appeal or the date the appeal was returned to the inmate.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections require the Leo Chesney Center to establish procedures for the inmate
appeals process to ensure the accuracy of the inmate appeals log and timely
processing of appeals.
FINDING 7
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections is not forwarding
unclaimed trust funds to the California Department of Corrections.
The Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities,
Section IV.F requires that inmate trust fund checks outstanding for more than seven months
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 15
be canceled and the funds posted back to the inmate’s trust account. The Office of the
Inspector General found, however, that Cornell Corrections has accumulated approximately
$8,000 in unclaimed checks dating back to 1991.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections institute procedures to ensure that community correctional facility
operators credit each inmate’s trust account for the amount of any unclaimed
checks at the end of each quarter. Also at the end of each quarter, community
correctional facilities should send to the Department of Corrections a check for all
unclaimed trust funds held for more than seven months and a list of inmates whose
accounts have been credited.
FINDING 8
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections does not prepare
annual budgets for inmate welfare fund operations and does not prepare and submit
quarterly inmate welfare fund financial statements in a timely manner to the Leo
Chesney Center or the Department of Corrections Community Correctional Facility
Administration.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center is not meeting
requirements for preparing and submitting inmate welfare fund budgets and quarterly
statements. The Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional
Facilities, Section IV.H, requires community correctional facility operators to prepare and
submit quarterly inmate welfare fund statements in accordance with Department of
Corrections Operations Manual Section 23010.8. Section 23010.8 also requires that the
quarterly financial statements be posted in the inmate canteen and law library. The
Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities requires,
in addition, that community correctional facility operators prepare and submit an annual
budget for inmate welfare fund operations.
The failure to produce timely inmate welfare fund financial statements and the absence of
budgetary controls makes it difficult for the center staff to manage daily facility operations.
Similarly, the contracting agency needs timely budgetary and financial information to
effectively manage the contract. The absence of timely financial statements also can
obscure irregularities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections take steps to ensure that community correctional facility operators
prepare and submit quarterly financial statements and annual budgets for inmate
welfare fund operations in a timely manner.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 16
The financial statements should be sent to both the California Department of Corrections
and the community correctional facility and should be posted in the inmate canteen and
law library.
FINDING 9
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections has not properly
managed the lease payments for the Leo Chesney Center.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections has failed to account for
annual adjustments to lease payments provided for under the Leo Chesney Center lease
agreement. Cornell Corrections leases the property on which the Leo Chesney Center
operates from a private third party and submits the facility’s lease costs invoice to the
Department of Corrections on the monthly participant day usage invoice. The lease
agreement for the center provides for an annual adjustment to the lease payments on April 1
of each year based on the consumer price index. For the periods of April 1, 1999 through
April 1, 2001, the lessor failed to make the adjustments, and Cornell Corrections did not
address the issue of underpayment with the private third-party lessor. The lessor has recently
realized that the adjustments have not been made and is pursuing collection of the lease
adjustment amounts. The uncollected lease payments are estimated to total approximately
$60,000. Cornell Corrections may seek reimbursement from the California Department of
Corrections for the additional lease payments amounts owed to the third-party lessor.
The Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities,
Section IV.C.6, provides that the California Department of Corrections will reimburse
contractors for the actual cost of leasing, but the reimbursement of the facility lease cost
cannot exceed the amount negotiated in the contract.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections direct Cornell Corrections to calculate the amount of the potential
liability for the uncollected lease payments and determine whether these amounts
are within the reimbursement contract amount.
The department should review all future scheduled lease adjustments to ensure that lease
payments are accurately reported in the monthly invoices submitted to the department
for reimbursement.
FINDING 10
The Office of the Inspector General found that staff duties for the management of
inmate trust accounts at the Leo Chesney Center are not properly segregated.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center has failed to
segregate the duties of the staff members who handle inmate trust accounts, inviting errors
and irregularities. Two Leo Chesney Center administrative assistants have access to all input
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 17
screens of the inmate management computer system. This arrangement allows both
assistants to enter new inmates into the system, create an inmate trust account, input an
inmate’s work time, credit an inmate’s trust account, and debit a trust account for the
purchase of merchandise or when the inmate is paroled. One administrative assistant also
prepares the bank deposit for the inmate trust funds account and reconciles the inmate
account system to the disbursement register. There is no reconciliation between the cash
receipt log listing the checks received to the bank deposit receipts and there is no
supervisory review or approval of the disbursement register reconciliation.
The Financial Management Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities,
Section III.C requires the implementation of adequate internal control procedures. Effective
internal controls are designed to minimize the opportunity for an individual to perpetrate and
conceal an error or irregularity. Segregating staff duties ensures that the assets of the
institution are protected and also protects staff from accusations of wrongdoing.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
administration reevaluate the inmate management system access assigned to its
administrative assistants.
System access should be limited to screens necessary to complete assigned duties.
Reconciliation and supervisory review procedures should be established to eliminate
internal control weaknesses.
FINDING 11
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center does not
process incident reports properly.
The Department of Corrections requires institutions to document reportable incidents on a
CDC form 837, record the incident in an official log, fax the incident report to Department
of Corrections headquarters within 24 hours, and mail the report in a more complete form
later. Types of incidents requiring an incident report range from facility power outages to
yard melees.
California Department of Corrections Operations Manual Section 51030.5.2 requires
facilities to establish and maintain an official log of all reportable incidents, including the
incident number, date, time, inmate name and number, type of incident, date faxed to the
California Department of Corrections, date of district attorney referral, and date closed. The
Leo Chesney Community Correctional Center Operations Manual, Section XI, Section
C.2.f, also requires all incident packages to be faxed to Department of Corrections
Community Correctional Facilities Administration headquarters within 24 hours.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Leo Chesney Center is not following
these procedures. Although the Leo Chesney Center has an exceptionally low number of
incidents for any correctional institution, with only six recorded during the period January
2000 through March 2001, only one of the six was processed properly.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 18
Of the six incident reports reviewed the Office of the Inspector General noted that:
• Two were not logged into the incident log; and
• Three were not reported to the California Department of Corrections in a timely manner.
It is not possible to determine whether the two reports that were not logged into the
incident logbook were properly reported to the Department of Corrections.
While it should be noted that none of the six incidents reported at the center during the
review period involved the use of force and two were merely for power outages, the
Department of Corrections cannot respond appropriately to incidents unless it is notified
properly. Likewise, unless incidents are properly entered into the logbook, neither the
institution nor the Community Correctional Facilities Administration can monitor whether
the incidents are properly reported.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center log
all incidents in the incident log book and ensure that they are reported to the
California Department of Corrections Community Correctional Facilities
Administration headquarters in a timely manner.
FINDING 12
The Office of the Inspector General found inaccuracies in the Leo Chesney Center’s
inmate disciplinary reports.
The Office of the Inspector General found that reports of inmate disciplinary actions at the
Leo Chesney Center were inaccurate and that the center is reporting inaccurate information
to the California Department of Corrections.
The Department of Corrections provides a graduated system of inmate discipline designed to
be administered commensurate with the seriousness of an offense. This process is described
in detail in Sections 52080.1 through 52080.35 of the California Department of Corrections
Department Operations Manual. As part of this system, a CDC form 115, rules violation
report, is to be completed for inmate violations of law or approved procedure.
At the Leo Chesney Center, the facility disciplinary officer maintains a log of all
disciplinary actions. The information from the log is reported to the California Department
of Corrections each month in an operations report. For the period January 2000 through
March 2001, the Leo Chesney Center processed 108 disciplinary actions.
A review by the Office of the Inspector General of 15 monthly operation reports revealed
that six (40 %) contained inaccurate disciplinary action information. The reports also
understated the number of CDC form 115s. The inaccurate reporting prevents the
Department of Corrections from being adequately informed of disciplinary activity at the
facility.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 19
In addition, the Office of the Inspector General staff noted that the facility director is not
actively involved in the inmate disciplinary process and does not receive status reports on
inmate disciplinary activity.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
disciplinary officer ensure that all disciplinary actions are properly recorded in the
incident log. The facility director should request periodic status reports on inmate
disciplinary activity so that she can be fully informed about inmate disciplinary
activity.
FINDING 13
The Office of the Inspector General found that a significant number of staff
performance appraisals and probationary reports for employees at the Leo Chesney
Center are overdue.
Cornell Corrections policy requires staff performance appraisals to be completed annually.
Probation reports are required for new employees after six months of employment. The
reports are usually completed each May.
The Office of the Inspector General found that Cornell Corrections employees at the Leo
Chesney Center do not receive annual performance evaluations or new employee probation
reports by required due dates. The review revealed that performance reports for six of 16
Cornell employees (37 percent) were at least ten weeks overdue.
Evaluating and providing timely feedback to employees on job performance is an essential
part of effective management. Employees informed of positive and negative elements in
their job performance can continue to develop strengths while working to correct
deficiencies. The process helps develop productive employees whose efforts help
accomplish the organization mission and goals. Employee performance appraisals
documenting consistently unsatisfactory performance also can provide justification for
corrective action, adverse action, or dismissal.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
director take the following actions to ensure the timely evaluation of employee
performance:
• Notify all staff members of the importance of performance appraisals and
probation reports to the mission of the Leo Chesney Center;
• Instruct the personnel officer to log all delinquent appraisals and reports. The
log should be submitted to the facility director each month and made a topic of
management meeting discussions; and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 20
• Hold supervisors accountable for completing timely performance appraisals
and probationary reports.
FINDING 14
The Office of the Inspector General found that some Leo Chesney Center employees
have not attended mandatory training classes or met the minimum hours of annual
training and that the facility training files contain errors and lack adequate
documentation.
Training requirements for Leo Chesney Center employees and California Department of
Corrections employees are specified in the California Department of Corrections
Operations Manual, the California Department of Corrections Statement of Work for
Private Community Correctional Facilities, and the Cornell Corrections training program
for the Leo Chesney Center. The California Department of Corrections Statement of Work
for Private Community Correctional Facilities requires all community correctional facility
employees to complete 32 hours of California Department of Corrections entry-level
orientation and training courses within the first year of employment. The Cornell
Corrections training program for the Leo Chesney Center requires first-year Cornell
Corrections employees at the center to undergo 120 hours of training and all others to
undergo 40 hours of training annually. The California Department of Corrections
Operations Manual, Section 3210.13, similarly, requires all Department of Corrections
employees to receive 40 hours of training each year. Under California Department of
Corrections Operations Manual Section 32010.14 and the Cornell Corrections training
program for the Leo Chesney Center, sexual harassment training must be provided during
employee orientation.
From a review of the training records for 17 Cornell Corrections employees and four
Department of Corrections employees at the Leo Chesney Center, the Office of the Inspector
General found that the training requirements are not being met. The review revealed that
several employees have not attended mandatory training classes and have failed to complete
the minimum hours of annual training. For example:
• Three of nine first-year Cornell Corrections employees did not complete the required
120 hours of training;
• Eleven of the 17 Cornell Corrections employees did not complete the required 32-hour
Department of Corrections entry-level orientation and training courses within the first
year of employment;
• Ten of the 17 Cornell Corrections employees did not attend sexual harassment training;
• Two of the 17 Cornell Corrections employees did not attend emergency
operations/procedures training;
• Two of the 17 Cornell Corrections employees did not receive the required 40 hours of
annual training; and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 21
• Three of the four Department of Corrections employees did not complete the 40 hours of
required annual training.
In addition, the Office of the Inspector General found that the individual training records of
Leo Chesney Center employees were deficient. Specifically:
• Documentation of the training hours completed for various types of training was
inconsistent;
• Some files did not contain certificates of completion to verify that training courses were
attended;
• In some files, courses and hours were erroneously entered twice; and
• In the training records of two employees, totals of the training hours completed did not
begin on the anniversary date, skewing the number of training hours for the year.
The Leo Chesney Center director and the facility training manager told the Office of the
Inspector General they were not aware of the requirement that the Leo Chesney Center non-
custody staff attend the 32-hour Department of Corrections entry-level orientation.
Employee training is essential to ensure staff awareness of the safety and security practices
necessary to operate the institution. Training also ensures that the staff is aware of employee
and inmate rights, thereby reducing the risk of potential lawsuits.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Department of
Corrections and Cornell Corrections ensure that employees at the Leo Chesney
Center adhere to the required training hours and attend the mandatory training
courses. In addition, the Department of Corrections and Cornell Corrections
should take the steps necessary to ensure that the employee training records are
complete and accurate.
FINDING 15
The Office of the Inspector General found that the invoice form used by the California
Department of Corrections for community correctional facility reimbursement is
outdated and that the department has not provided guidance to the facilities on
claiming payment for beds when they exceed the monthly maximum reimbursement
amount.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the “monthly participant day usage invoice”
used by the California Department of Corrections for monthly community correctional
facility reimbursement is obsolete. The invoice calculates a monthly maximum
reimbursement amount using the annual contract reimbursement amount divided by twelve
months. The facility can be reimbursed for beds filled in excess of the maximum monthly
reimbursement amount as long as the total annual contract amount is not exceeded.
Unwritten policy at the California Department of Corrections calls for a supplemental
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 22
invoice to be prepared and submitted for the excess beds, but the monthly participant day
usage invoice does not provide those instructions. The invoice also contains a line item for
“free beds,” even though, according to the Department of Corrections, the line item is no
longer relevant to the invoice and should be deleted.
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed invoices prepared by Cornell Corrections for
the Leo Chesney Center for the period July 1999 through April 2001and found that during
one month the center filled more beds than the monthly maximum reimbursement amount
and that the excess beds were incorrectly included on the invoice for reimbursement. To
include the extra beds for reimbursement, Cornell Corrections did not follow the instructions
on the form, but because the center did not exceed the annual contract amount, the
irregularities in the completed invoice did not result in an unallowable payment to Cornell.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the Financial Management Handbook for
Private Community Correctional Facilities does not provide guidance to facilities on the
procedures for claiming payment for beds when the monthly maximum reimbursement
amount is exceeded. The use of obsolete invoices and the absence of written guidelines for
completing the invoices can result in erroneous reporting by the facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the California Department of
Corrections revise the monthly participant usage invoice and the related
instructions in the Financial Management Handbook for Private Community
Correctional Facilities to ensure accurate reporting by facilities.
FINDING 16
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates assigned to the administrative
unit of the Leo Chesney Center have access to performance information pertaining to
other inmates, even though that access is specifically prohibited by state regulations.
California Code of Regulations Title 15 Section 3045(b) provides that inmate work
supervisors’ time logs (CDC 1697 forms), which record inmates’ work, training time, and
absences and are used for resolving inmate complaints and appeals pertaining to work
credits, are to be retained at a secure location designated by the facility for 12 months from
the date of completion. Under California Code of Regulations, Title 15, Section 3045(c),
inmates are not allowed access to the forms.
The Office of the Inspector General found, however, that members of the inmate clerical
staff at the Leo Chesney Center file the CDC 1697 forms.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
change its procedures to retain CDC 1697 forms in a locked compartment, to
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 23
prohibit inmate access to CDC 1697 forms, and to provide for the forms to be filed
by the facility staff.
FINDING 17
The Office of the Inspector General found that inmates assigned to the adult basic
education program do not receive the required number of education hours.
Academic programs provided by the California Department of Corrections are intended to
meet the needs and interests of the inmate population and to provide inmates with the
educational skills necessary to function better in the facility and upon return to society.
Department policy requires that inmates achieving below a sixth-grade proficiency level be
assigned to adult basic education programs.
Section III. E .6 of the California Department of Corrections Statement of Work for Private
Community Correctional Facilities requires that adult basic education classes be scheduled
for a minimum of six hours a day. Instead, the Leo Chesney Center schedules adult basic
education classes for only four hours a day so as to allow students to attend school for a half
day and to work for an additional four hours. The Department of Corrections Program and
Fiscal Audits Branch audit report dated January 1999 also noted this practice.
The Leo Chesney Center administrative staff is presently negotiating with the California
Department of Corrections to amend the contract to change the six-hour adult basic
education requirement to four hours. The facility director cites the following reasons in
support of the request:
• A four-hour class allows the students, most of whom are indigent, to work half time and
earn a modest income;
• The Leo Chesney Center currently runs two adult basic education programs with twelve
students in the morning and twelve in the afternoon. According to the Leo Chesney
staff, expanding the class to six hours would allow only one class session and the class
size would increase to 24. A class of 24 would greatly reduce the instructor’s ability to
give attention to each student.
• The attention span of the student is exhausted after four hours.
The reduced class time, however, may not provide the students with enough hours of
education to attain a sixth-grade level of proficiency.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that Department of Corrections
require the Leo Chesney Center to adhere to its contract requirement of offering a
minimum of six hours a day of adult basic education unless or until the contract is
modified by the department.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 24
FINDING 18
The Office of the Inspector General found that floor tiles in the kitchen are cracked,
creating a safety hazard.
The Office of the Inspector General found that the kitchen floor in the Leo Chesney Center
dining hall has a large crack where sections of tile are missing. This condition was reported
by the Sutter County Environmental Health Department during a recent inspection. The
maintenance department at the Leo Chesney Center made repairs to the floor following the
inspection, but the floor is now beyond repair and poses a significant safety hazard to the
culinary staff. The Leo Chesney Center has requested funding to pay for the new floor and
has received bids from area contractors.
California Department of Corrections Operations Manual, Section 31020.1, requires the
Department of Corrections to strive to provide a healthy environment and safe working
conditions for employees, inmates, and visitors.
RECOMMENDATION
The Office of the Inspector General recommends that the Leo Chesney Center
replace the kitchen floor in the dining hall.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 25
ATTACHMENT A
VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS
RESPONSE OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 26
ATTACHMENT B
COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
ON THE RESPONSE OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
FINDING 1.
The Office of the Inspector General disagrees with the statement that lack of written
procedures has not prevented the facility from adequately investigating allegations. During
the course of the audit, the Office of the Inspector General repeatedly requested
documentation on what action has been taken relative to this case. Neither the facility
director nor the Department of Corrections’ facility captain could provide documentation to
support the action that purportedly had been taken. The Office of Investigative Services did
not investigate the case despite the fact that the facility director expressed serious concerns
about inappropriate sexual behavior between staff and inmates. The Office of the Inspector
General could find no evidence to support the assertion that the Office of Investigative
Services analyzed the facts of the case to determine whether an investigation was warranted.
FINDING 2
The fact that the purchases made were for the benefit of the inmate population, does not
make these allowable inmate welfare fund expenditures. The expenditures are already
funded in the community correctional facility contract. The Financial Management
Handbook for Private Community Correctional Facilities, Section IV.H states that inmate
welfare fund expenditures may not include items already funded in the community
correctional facility contract.
FINDING 3
The community correctional facilities have been in existence for over ten years. The fact
that the California Department of Corrections is still seeking legal clarification on basic
questions of what constitutes proper use of inmate telephone revenues at community
correctional facilities further signifies the need for clear policy guidelines and direction.
FINDING 4
The Office of the Inspector General finding states that there is a need for a mandatory
substance abuse program. The programs alluded in the department’s response are voluntary
programs.
FINDING 5
From a control standpoint, the decision to allow the California Department of Corrections
staff to cash release checks for paroling inmates poses a high risk of possible misconduct. If
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 27
there is a necessity for paroling inmates to have cash, the Office of the Inspector General
recommends that a revolving fund or petty cash fund be set up to fulfill this purpose.
FINDING 17
The six-hour-a-day adult basic education requirement is a specific requirement of the
California Department of Corrections Statement of Work for Private Community
Correctional Facilities. If the six-hour-day education requirement is not an expectation of
the Department of Corrections, the Office of the Inspector General recommends that the
contract be modified, as stated in the audit report.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 28
ATTACHMENT C
VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS
RESPONSE OF CORNELL CORRECTIONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 29
ATTACHMENT D
COMMENTS OF THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
ON THE RESPONSE OF CORNELL CORRECTIONS
FINDING 13
The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the performance and probationary reports due
in the year 2000 and found a significant number overdue. In its response, Cornell
Corrections said that no 2001 performance and probationary reports are presently overdue.
It should be noted that the Office of the Inspector General considered probationary reports
overdue if they were not completed within one month of the completion of an employee’s
six-month probationary period.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GRAY DAVIS, GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CONFIDENTIAL PAGE 30