Covid-19 Review Series Fact Sheet, Part 1&2

Roy W. Wesley OFFICE of the Inspector General OIG INSPECTOR GENERAL Bryan B. Beyer Chief Deputy Inspector General Fact Sheet Independent November 10, 2020 Prison Oversight The COVID-19 Review Series: A Special Three-Part Review Prepared by the Of f ice of the Inspector General at the Request of the California State Assembly I n April 2020, the Speaker of the California State Assembly requested the Time Line of the Number of Confirmed COVID-19 Cases Among Departmental Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) to assess the policies, guidance, Staff and the Incarcerated Population and directives the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 161,060,0000 (the department) had implemented since February 1, 2020, in response to the 141,040,0000 Number of Positive Cases 12,1020,0000 novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Specifically, the Speaker requested 101,000,0000 Incarcerated Persons we focus on three concerns: 1) the department’s screening process for all 8,08,00000 Staff individuals entering a prison or facility in which incarcerated persons are 6,06,00000 4,04,00000 housed or are present, 2) its distribution of personal protective equipment to 2,02,00000 departmental staff and incarcerated persons, and 3) how it treats incarcerated 00 1100 1155 2222 2299 55 1122 1199 2266 33 1100 1177 2244 3311 771144 2211 2288 55 1122 1199 2266 22 99 1166 2233 3300 persons who are suspected to have either contracted or been exposed to MMaarrcchh AApprrilil MMaayy 2020 JJuunnee JJuullyy AAuugguusstt COVID-19. This Fact Sheet presents highlights from the first two reports in Number of Positive Cases Inmate2s02N0umber of Positive Cases Staff this series, which we published in August and October, 2020. Source: Unaudited data from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s population and staff COVID-19 trackers. Part One Percentage of OIG Employees Screened Upon Prison Entry During Our Review Period Number of Times OIG Staff Entered Prisons Unscreened Inconsistent Screening Practices May (Total Visits in Parentheses) Have Increased the Risk of COVID-19 California State Prison, Corcoran (8 of 10 visits) Within California’s Prison System California State Prison, Los Angeles County (6 of 8 visits) Kern Valley State Prison (5 of 6 visits) Beginning in March 2020, the department took North Kern State Prison (5 of 6 visits) multiple steps to prevent staff and visitors from California State Prison, Sacramento (4 of 20 visits) introducing COVID-19 into its prisons: San Quentin State Prison (3 of 4 visits) 38 N = 212 174 OIG California Health Care Facility (2 of 10 visits) (18%) Staff Visits (82%) • March 11: The department suspended Folsom State Prison (2 of 9 visits) normal visitation California Men’s Colony (1 of 2 visits) • March 14: The department began verbal Deuel Vocational Institution (1 of 5 visits) screening of staff and visitors for signs Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (1 of 6 visits) and symptoms of COVID-19 Not Screened Screened • March 27: The department began temperature screening Source: The Office of the Inspector General’s analysis of an internal survey of our staff members’ prison visits between May 19, 2020, and June 26, 2020. Prison Staff Survey Responses Related to the COVID-19 Screening Process Notable Results N = 3,796 Respondents • Due to a lack of standardized guidance from the department, prisons used two different methods to screen staff and San Quentin State Prison 93.0% 7.0% visitors entering prisons: ○ Seven prisons screened staff and visitors in their vehicles; and California Health Care Facility 94.4% 5.6% ○ 27 prisons screened staff and visitors after they had parked their vehicles and walked to a screening area. California State Prison, Los Angeles County 95.7% 4.3% • Prison staff did not screen all staff and visitors for signs and symptoms of COVID-19: California Institution for Men 95.7% 4.3% ○ From May 19, 2020, through June 26, 2020, OIG staff were not screened in 38 of their 212 prison visits. Avenal State Prison 95.9% 4.1% ○ On average, 5 percent of the departmental staff we surveyed at seven prisons responded that they had not Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 97.8% 2.2% always been screened. • Our survey of departmental staff who were responsible California Institution for Women 98.3% 1.7% for screening staff and visitors revealed that screeners 0 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% reported using thermometers that were faulty or had malfunctioning batteries. Survey Since March 14, 2020, have you been screened for signs and Question symptoms of COVID-19 each time you entered the institution? Yes No • Screeners also received little to no training on COVID-19 screening protocols. Note: Survey data as of June 26, 2020. Source: The Office of the Inspector General’s analysis of its survey conducted with departmental staff at seven prisons. 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 255-1102 5 www.oig.ca.gov Roy W. Wesley OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Bryan B. Beyer Chief Deputy Inspector General Fact Sheet Independent November 10, 2020 Prison Oversight Part Two The Department Distributed and Mandated the Use of Personal Protective Equipment and Cloth Face Coverings; However, Its Lax Enforcement Led to Inadequate Adherence to Basic Safety Protocols Beginning in March 2020, the department issued a series of memorandums to its Face covering No face covering. Face covering in compliance, on table. covering nose and mouth. staff, several of which established the department’s expectations regarding personal protective equipment (PPE), cloth No face face coverings, and physical distancing: covering. • March 11: The department specified the use of PPE for incarcerated persons with signs and symptoms Face of COVID-19 covering under • April 16: The department directed chin. staff and incarcerated persons to wear face coverings and recommended practicing physical California State Prison, Los Angeles County. Staff sitting together at a table, not physical distancing distancing or properly wearing face coverings, with the exception of one staff member. (Photo taken by OIG staff on June 3, 2020, at the prison in Lancaster, California.) • May 11: The department issued physical distancing directives for incarcerated persons • June 11: The department relaxed its • July 1: The department issued a face covering requirement for staff • May 22: The department’s memorandum stating it expected memorandum expanded • June 24: The department relaxed supervisors and managers to follow requirements for face coverings its face covering requirement for progressive discipline when staff did not and physical distancing incarcerated persons comply with its face covering mandate Summary of Documentation Provided by Five Sampled Prisons of Disciplinary Actions Taken by Supervisors and Managers for Staff Members Failing to Comply with Face Covering or Physical Distancing Requirements California Comment from a Staff Member California California California State Prison, San Quentin at California State Prison, Institution Institution Health Care Los Angeles State Los Angeles County Prisons for Men for Women Facility County Prison in Response to the OIG Survey “ Total Number of Employees 1,736 1,192 3,933 1,588 1,933 Number of Prior to July 1 memorandum 0 9 2 1 1 “The majority of custody Discipline staff refused to wear PPE and Actions After July 1 memorandum 0 7 7 2 0 when this was reported to Taken Total 0 16 9 3 1 supervisors, their repeated Type of Verbal Counseling 0 0 7 0 0 response was that the Discipline mandates were unenforceable Taken Written Counseling 0 16 1 1 1 because these were adults.”” Letter of Instruction 0 0 1 1 0 Referrals for Investigation or Punitive Action 0 0 0 0 0 Source: OIG survey of all staff at seven prisons. Punitive Action 0 0 0 1 0 Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation documentation of prisons’ progressive discipline actions provided to the Office of the Inspector General. Notable Results • The department was mostly able to procure 31 percent reported they had observed staff or with face covering or physical distancing and maintain supplies of PPE for staff. incarcerated persons failing to properly wear requirements. face coverings. • The department distributed more than • Hiring authorities statewide requested 752,000 cloth face coverings to staff and • Of the staff who responded to our survey, formal investigations or punitive actions incarcerated persons. 38 percent stated they had observed staff or for misconduct related to face covering or incarcerated persons not complying with physical distancing requirements for only • OIG staff observed departmental staff failing physical distancing requirements. seven staff members. to comply with the department’s face covering directives at 23 of the 34 prisons we visited. • A sample of five prisons that employ a total • In June, despite experiencing an increase of 10,382 staff showed that prison supervisors in cases of COVID-19, the department sent • We surveyed all staff at seven prisons. Of the and managers had taken just 29 disciplinary two memorandums relaxing face covering staff who responded to our survey, actions in seven months for noncompliance requirements for staff and incarcerated persons. 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 255-1102 5 www.oig.ca.gov