Special Review: The Department Violated Its Regulations by Redirecting Backlogged Allegations of Staff Misconduct to Be Processed as Routine Grievances

Amarik K. Singh OFFICE of the Inspector General OIG Neil Robertson INSPECTOR GENERAL Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent Prison Oversight JANUARY 29, 2024 № SR-23-01 The Department Violated Its Regulations by Redirecting Backlogged Allegations of Staff Misconduct to Be Processed as Routine Grievances The Office of the Inspector General (the OIG) control measures that were put in place to prevent provides contemporaneous oversight of the California prison authorities from making potentially biased Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (the decisions when responding to allegations of department) process for reviewing and investigating staff misconduct. The redirection resulted in a incarcerated persons’ allegations of staff misconduct. wasteful duplication of efforts and misallocation of To summarize the results of our monitoring of this resources because departmental staff had already process, we issue annual reports that assess several determined that the grievances contained allegations different facets of the department’s overall statewide of misconduct and had referred the grievances staff misconduct process. We are issuing this special for allegation inquiries or investigations.2 The review to shed light on one particularly problematic department also allowed the statutes of limitations to decision the department made when determining how take disciplinary action to expire in many grievances, to address a backlog of complaints it amassed under and prison staff who reviewed the grievances did not its prior process for handling incarcerated persons’ always adequately address or investigate complaints allegations of staff misconduct. The decision violated that its Centralized Screening Team (screening both the department’s regulations and its policy for team) had already determined included allegations of screening and investigating grievances received from staff misconduct. incarcerated people who alleged staff misconduct. The Department’s Process for Investigating The department’s decision came to our attention Grievances Alleging Staff Misconduct during the course of our monitoring when we received a departmental memorandum outlining The department’s current process allows incarcerated a directive to convert backlogged grievances people to submit allegations of staff misconduct containing allegations of staff misconduct into by filing a grievance with their prison’s Office of “routine grievances” and redirect them for handling Grievances (grievance office). However, prior to by prison grievance offices. After receiving this 2020, staff at the prisons where the staff misconduct memorandum, we reviewed a backlog of allegations allegedly occurred investigated these grievances of staff misconduct the department received from themselves. After reviewing this process at Salinas February 24, 2022, through February 27, 2023, Valley State Prison, we found that investigations which the department closed pursuant to this of alleged staff misconduct at the prison were directive. From this backlog of 5951 cases, we inadequate and lacked independence.3 In response to performed detailed analyses of 22 grievances for our review, the department shifted the responsibility which the statutes of limitation had expired before of investigating allegations of staff misconduct to a the grievances were redirected and 71 grievances new and independent 47-member Allegation Inquiry that prison staff closed after the grievances were redirected. 2. Department regulations generally define an allegation inquiry Our review found that the department’s decision to as the process of gathering relevant facts and evidence concerning a claim that involves an allegation of staff misconduct to establish redirect these grievances to its prisons circumvented that staff misconduct may have occurred. 3. In January 2018, the secretary of the department and attorneys from the Prison Law Office requested that the OIG assess Salinas 1. Excluded from the 595 backlogged grievances were those Valley State Prison’s process of handling incarcerated persons’ alleging improper use of force, violations of the Prison Rape allegations of staff misconduct. Our summary of the results Elimination Act, allegations made by incarcerated people no longer of this review can be found on our website in the report titled in custody or under parole supervision, and outstanding AIMS Special Review of Salinas Valley State Prison’s Processing of Inmate cases whose status the department was still researching as of the Allegations of Staff Misconduct. date of this publication. Page 1 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 Management Section (AIMS). This new procedure incarcerated people to submit allegations of staff was subsequently codified in regulation and misconduct directly to AIMS. departmental policy. Consequently, in 2022, the department requested and In 2021, the OIG reviewed the department’s new received approximately $34 million to restructure process and found that it required prison staff to its staff misconduct allegation screening, referral, subjectively determine what allegations constituted investigative, and disciplinary process. The staff misconduct using an overly complex method. department then revised its regulations to require Furthermore, the department’s decision to allow the newly established screening team within the prison staff to retain the authority to decide whether Office of Internal Affairs to receive and screen all to route grievances to AIMS left the department’s grievances for allegations of staff misconduct. The inadequate and potentially biased staff misconduct new regulations require the screening team to return investigation process largely unchanged. To increase “routine issues,” defined as any complaint that is not independence and fairness, we recommended that identified as staff misconduct, to prisons for review and the department restructure its process to allow processing (see figure below). Figure. An Overview of the Department’s Staff Misconduct Investigation and Review Process Centralized Screening Team If NO, then CST returns complaint (CST) reviews complaint A prison receives to the prison for to determine whether it a complaint processing as a contains an allegation of routine complaint staff misconduct If YES, then CST assigns case using Allegation Decision Index (ADI) If staff misconduct on the If staff misconduct NOT ADI, CST refers complaint to on the ADI, CST returns the Office of Internal Affairs’ complaint to the prison Allegation Investigation Unit for an inquiry by a locally for an investigation designated investigator Source: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Page 2 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 In addition, regulations require the screening team had not been processed. To address the backlog, on to refer grievances alleging staff misconduct for July 26, 2023, the department issued a memorandum an allegation inquiry or investigation. Allegations redirecting the backlogged cases to prison grievance of staff misconduct that include complex issues offices for review and processing. Subsequently, requiring specialized investigative skills or resources the department closed 595 cases containing are referred to the Office of Internal Affairs’ allegations of staff misconduct, reclassified them as Allegation Investigation Unit (AIU), which replaced “routine grievances,” and redirected them to prison the deactivated AIMS in approximately March grievance offices to be opened as new grievances. 2023.4 Allegations of staff misconduct that do not The department redirected the first cases in August require specialized skills or resources are referred to 2023, and instructed grievance offices to elevate the prisons for an allegation inquiry conducted by locally grievances if their staff identified misconduct. designated investigators who receive training by the This redirection violates the department’s regulations Office of Internal Affairs to gather relevant facts requiring all allegations of staff misconduct from and evidence. Both AIU staff and locally designated incarcerated people to be referred for an allegation investigators are required to conduct thorough inquiry or investigation and have these reports investigations, complete necessary interviews, and reviewed by AIU managers. The department ensure that all relevant evidence is gathered and explicitly stated, “If an AIMS case was converted reviewed. The department’s current regulations to a routine claim pursuant to the Undersecretary’s also require AIU managers to review all allegation memo then it would be answered through the local inquiry and investigation reports for sufficiency, Office of Grievances without OIA [Office of Internal completeness, and bias. Affairs] review (meaning no AIMS or AIU review).” Routine grievances on the other hand are processed Consequently, the department’s action circumvented very differently because regulations do not require regulations and authorized prison staff who had them to be thoroughly investigated or reviewed by been found to conduct inadequate and potentially AIU managers. For example, grievance office staff, biased investigations to respond to allegations of staff who may not have been trained by the Office of misconduct without oversight. Internal Affairs to collect evidence and investigate The department’s decision to redirect complaints allegations of staff misconduct, are only required resulted in a wasteful duplication of efforts and to interview incarcerated people and witnesses if misallocation of resources because the screening they determine interviews would assist in resolving team had already determined that the grievances the claim. alleged staff misconduct that required at least an allegation inquiry. In some cases, inquiry work The Department Violated Its Regulations by had already been initiated. By deviating from its Redirecting Backlogged Allegations of Staff regulations, the department wasted resources Misconduct to Prisons for Processing and Review and reverted to handling these allegations of staff Beginning February 2022, the department began misconduct as it did in 2021, before it received developing a backlog of over 900 grievances that the approximately $34 million to restructure and improve screening team determined contained allegations of its process. staff misconduct. These grievances had been referred for allegation inquiries or investigations, but most The Department Allowed the Statutes of Limitations to Take Disciplinary Action to Expire in Many Grievances Before They Were Redirected 4. Allegations of staff misconduct that include complex issues requiring specialized investigative skills or resources to investigate State law generally requires the department to by the Allegation Investigation Unit include all allegations listed on the Allegation Decision Index contained in the department’s initiate discipline against peace officers within operation manual, Section 33070.9.7. Page 3 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 one year of discovery of the alleged misconduct The Department Did Not Adequately Address or and within three years of the alleged misconduct Investigate Allegations of Staff Misconduct That for all other staff. The department identified a Were Redirected as Routine Grievances one-year statute of limitations in each redirected We reviewed 71 grievances the department closed and grievance.5 Consequently, the failure to timely redirected as routine grievances to determine whether process the backlogged grievances resulted in the prison grievance offices adequately addressed them. statutes of limitations expiring in 127 cases before All grievances we reviewed contained at least one the department began redirecting the allegations of allegation of staff misconduct that included complex staff misconduct back to prisons for handling. The issues requiring specialized investigative skills department was precluded from initiating discipline or resources according to current departmental even if investigators uncovered sufficient evidence regulations and policies. Regulations require that all supporting the allegations of staff misconduct. allegations of staff misconduct containing complex We reviewed 22 of the 127 grievances that had issues be referred for investigation by the Office of expired statutes of limitations and found that Internal Affairs. Instead, 16 of the cases we reviewed they included allegations which, if substantiated, (23 percent) were processed by staff who were could have resulted in penalties ranging from a not identified as locally designated investigators letter of reprimand through dismissal. Eight of the and likely did not receive Office of Internal 22 grievances alleged misconduct such as fabricating Affairs’ training to conduct allegation inquiries or evidence and forging documents, which could have investigations of staff misconduct. resulted in dismissals.6 Twelve of the 22 allegations As shown in the table on the next page, the most could have resulted in suspensions or salary common staff misconduct allegations in the reductions, while two could have resulted in letters grievances we reviewed were categorized as “Other of reprimand. Misconduct” on the department’s Allegation Decision The department also redirected 129 grievances Index, a tool established in departmental policy to alleging staff misconduct with statutes of limitations identify complex issues. Included in that category that were set to expire within 60 days after they were is threatening incarcerated people, misconduct redirected. This is significant because departmental that results in significant injury or death of an policy states that investigations should generally incarcerated person, or actions that endanger others. be completed at least 60 days prior to the statute Allegations that staff lacked integrity or retaliated of limitations expiring to allow the department against incarcerated people were also common. sufficient time to initiate discipline if warranted. Grievance office staff did not address all allegations Therefore, it is unlikely that the department would of staff misconduct in at least three grievances we have had sufficient time to complete a thorough reviewed. For example, one incarcerated person investigation and initiate discipline in an additional alleged discrimination and harassment because a 129 cases if investigators substantiated the allegations correctional officer reportedly called him “Maxine of staff misconduct. Waters, [sic] grandson,” because he is African American. The incarcerated person perceived the moniker to be derogatory. Despite the allegations of harassment and discrimination, the grievance office did not address them in its decision. 5. For purposes of this report, we did not review the accuracy of the department’s determination. In another grievance, an incarcerated person alleged 6. California Code of Regulations, Title 15, section 3392.5 outlines the a correctional officer threatened him, stating that he department’s employee disciplinary matrix misconduct categories, and penalty ranges and levels. Page 4 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 interview the incarcerated people who made the Table. Total Number of Allegations Found on the Allegation Decision Index allegations or the staff who allegedly committed misconduct. Interviews are important because they Categories Total Allegations can provide additional information supporting or Other Misconduct 26 refuting the allegations of staff misconduct. Retaliation 25 In other allegations involving complex issues, we did Integrity 25 not find evidence in case records that grievance office staff reviewed relevant and available documentation Discrimination/Harassment 16 such as the form CDCR 7219 (Medical Report of Dishonesty 14 Injury or Unusual Occurrence), reports of the incident, and housing records. In some grievances we Code of Silence 4 reviewed, it did not appear that grievance office staff Use of Force 3 attempted to gather evidence at all. Finally, grievance Total 113 offices closed two grievances as duplicates even though they contained new allegations and a third Source: OIG analysis of the CDCR 602-1 grievance forms as a duplicate even though it was not duplicative of for 71 redirected cases we reviewed. Categories are not mutually exclusive as a single grievance may contain another grievance. multiple allegations, and each allegation may fall under more than one category. As previously mentioned, the screening team already determined that the redirected grievances alleged staff misconduct. However, we found would have his sergeant “place [him] in administrative that grievance offices determined only one of segregation, and beat the shit out of [him], and plant the 71 cases we reviewed contained allegations drugs on [him].” None of these allegations were necessitating elevation to the screening team and addressed in the grievance office’s decision. likely referral to AIU for investigation. In that case, the incarcerated person alleged that a correctional Finally, in another case, an incarcerated person officer threatened him and his cellmate with use alleged a sergeant retaliated against him for filing a of force and a retaliatory cell extraction. Grievance prior grievance by denying his packages and referring office staff interviewed the incarcerated person and to him in a derogatory manner. The incarcerated his cellmate and determined that staff misconduct person also asked about the department’s policy may have occurred. Interestingly, the incarcerated regarding packages. However, the grievance office person’s cellmate also filed a grievance concerning only responded with information on the quarterly the same incident, but different grievance office package policy and did not address the allegation staff concluded that there was no evidence of staff of retaliation. misconduct and denied the grievance. Given that the The unaddressed allegations in all the grievances screening team had already determined that these described above could have warranted discipline two redirected grievances alleged staff misconduct, it with penalties up to and including dismissal if is unreasonable that grievance office staff determined substantiated. By failing to address these allegations, that only one case warranted elevation to AIU the department violated its regulations that require a for investigation. response to each claim in a grievance. The department’s decision to reclassify allegations We also found that the actions taken by the grievance of staff misconduct as routine grievances likely offices were not reasonable and sufficient overall contributed to the inadequate grievance reviews that in 22 grievances we reviewed. In some cases, we found. Had these allegations been investigated documentation showed that prison staff did not by the Office of Internal Affairs or locally designated Page 5 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 investigators as current regulations and policy incarcerated person assaulted him. However, the require, the allegation inquiries and investigations grievance office rejected the grievance as untimely would likely have been more thorough and reviewed because it considered the grievance submitted on the by managers responsible for verifying the sufficiency date it was redirected on August 31, 2023, rather than of the investigations. At a minimum, instead of when it was originally submitted. reclassifying the allegations as routine and treating them as though they contained no allegations of staff The rejection stated: misconduct, the department should have assigned the backlogged grievances to locally designated You did not submit this claim within the investigators to complete allegation inquiries. By timeframe required by the California Code doing so, Office of Internal Affairs managers would of Regulations, title [sic] 15. The date you have been able to review the locally designated discovered the adverse policy, decision, investigators’ reports as required by current action, condition, or omission by the regulation and departmental policy. Department was 10/14/2022; yet the date you submitted this claim was 8/31/2023. You should have submitted your claim on The Department Did Not Timely Investigate the or by 12/13/2022 to meet the requirement Redirected Allegations of Staff Misconduct set forth in the regulations. In addition to failing to address all allegations of staff misconduct and conducting inadequate reviews, The grievance office’s reason for this rejection was in the department took an excessive amount of time to error as it was received by the screening team within respond to the redirected grievances. Regulations five days of the incident—well within the time frame generally require that staff complete their responses required by regulations. to grievances within 60 days. In the 71 cases we Regulations also authorize grievance offices to reject reviewed, the department took an average of 346 days grievances if they are unable to respond within from the date it first received the claim to close the 60 days. We found that one grievance office rejected grievances. The department’s total processing time in two redirected grievances on that basis. In both cases, the 71 case files we reviewed ranged between 214 to grievance office staff had already finished gathering 548 days, and it took the department more than a year facts, interviewing potential witnesses, and reviewing to close 28 of the 71 cases (39 percent). records. However, they only submitted their draft decisions for review approximately 24 hours before The Department Mishandled Some Redirected the 60-day deadline elapsed. Because the grievance Grievances by Improperly Rejecting or office submitted their draft decisions for review so Closing Them close to the deadline to respond, and because prison California regulations and departmental policy management did not expedite reviewing the draft generally require incarcerated people to file decisions, the grievances were not decided on the grievances alleging staff misconduct within 60 days merits of the claims. Instead, the department wasted of discovery. However, one grievance office rejected the time and effort it spent gathering evidence and a redirected grievance after staff improperly simply rejected the grievances because the responses determined an incarcerated person did not file were not timely completed. This is particularly it within 60 days as required by regulations. The concerning because in one of the cases, there were screening team first received the grievance on still over three months remaining in the one-year October 14, 2022, only five days after the date the statute of limitations for the department to initiate incarcerated person was allegedly subjected to discipline if sufficient evidence supported the retaliation by a correctional officer. The grievance incarcerated person’s allegation of staff misconduct. alleged the officer fabricated allegations that the Page 6 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JANUARY 29, 2024 Prison Oversight № SR-23-01 Some Redirected Allegations of Staff Misconduct grievance compared with what we reviewed in Were Investigated By Staff Ranked Lower Than the relevant confidential reports regarding the incident. Staff Alleged to Have Committed Misconduct Finally, we found that the sergeant did not address all allegations of staff misconduct, including acts Regulations require that locally designated involving dishonesty, retaliation, integrity, and investigators be ranked at least one classification other misconduct related to health and safety of the higher than the staff allegedly involved in the incarcerated person. Although these flaws are similar misconduct. However, regulations do not require to other inadequacies we discuss above, they are grievance office staff to be ranked higher than the particularly concerning in this context because lower- accused staff member because they are only supposed ranking staff may be hesitant to document evidence to review and process routine grievances that do that their superiors engaged in misconduct. not allege staff misconduct. Therefore, grievance offices were placed in the position of reviewing The findings from the grievances we sampled are allegations outside their usual responsibilities and concerning, and it is likely that similar issues are potentially reviewing allegations against staff with present in grievances we did not review. We strongly higher classifications. Both circumstances violate disagree with the department’s decision to reclassify departmental regulations. staff misconduct allegations and redirect them to prisons to process as routine grievances. The decision We found several instances of lower ranking staff not only violates regulations and departmental policy reviewing grievances alleging staff misconduct. In but also impairs the department’s ability to two grievances, a lieutenant was assigned to gather investigate and pursue disciplinary action on facts concerning allegations against an associate substantiated staff misconduct. Equally alarming is warden and a warden. In another case, a sergeant the department’s failure to acknowledge the damage reviewed an incarcerated person’s allegations this decision may have on incarcerated people of misconduct against several staff, including a affected by the misconduct and on the intended lieutenant. In the grievance, the incarcerated person transparency of the staff misconduct complaint alleged the lieutenant confronted and cursed at him process. Given the importance of thoroughly by “getting in [his] face & telling [him] to get the investigating allegations of staff misconduct which fuck out of his building.” After reviewing grievance include complex issues, we would have expected the log records, we did not find documentation that department to have addressed the backlog in a the sergeant interviewed the incarcerated person, manner that was both transparent and in compliance the lieutenant, or other staff. In fact, we noted with departmental regulations and policy. OIG inconsistencies in the reasoning the sergeant cited in his recommended decision to deny the Page 7 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JJAANNUUAARRYY 2299,, 22002244 Prison Oversight №№ SSRR--2233--0011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9967A58F-B745-44B4-BDD6-B2288CC026EC STATE OF CALIFORNIA — DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY P.O. Box 942883 Sacramento, CA 94283-0001 January 22, 2024 Ms. Amarik K. Singh Office of the Inspector General 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95827 Dear Ms. Singh: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation submits this letter in response to the Office of the Inspector General’s report titled: The Department Violated Its Regulations by Redirecting Backlogged Allegations of Staff Misconduct to Be Processed as Routine Grievances. Although significant improvements have been made, the Department acknowledges there is more work to be done regarding its staff misconduct process, which over the past several years has undergone monumental transformation. At several points, the Office of the Inspector General’s report appears to conflate aspects of the new staff misconduct process, the Allegation 1 Investigation Unit, and grievances routed through it with grievances previously handled by the now deactivated Allegation Inquiry Management Section, which is confusing and at points misleading. It is important to note that as the Department began a phased activation of its new process for investigating allegations of staff misconduct, it simultaneously began a phased deactivation of the now fully deactivated Allegation Inquiry Management Section. One component of the new staff misconduct process, which in January 2022, was among the first to activate, is the Centralized Screening Team. This was an important and critical activation for the Department, as the Centralized Screening Team serves as the initial independent reviewer of all source documents that may contain allegations of staff misconduct toward or involving an incarcerated or paroled person, ensuring consistency and standardization. At the outset, this new team screened and routed all grievances submitted by an incarcerated or paroled person that contained an allegation of staff misconduct either to the newly created Allegation Investigation Unit for investigation or to Allegation Inquiry Management Section for inquiry. The deciding factor in determining whether to route the grievance for investigation or inquiry was based on the institution at which the incarcerated person was housed, as specified in the regulations governing activation of the new process. The volume of grievances routed by the new Centralized Screening Team to the former Allegation Inquiry Management Section outpaced its staffing resources. As a result, the Department initially redirected internal resources to the Allegation Inquiry Management Section to address the accumulating backlog, but the backlog continued to grow. Ultimately, the Department undertook a review of the grievances within the backlog. The Department identified grievances the newly 2 activated Centralized Screening Team had incorrectly screened as including allegations of The OIG’s comments begin on page 10. Highlight for № 2 continued on next page. Page 8 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JJAANNUUAARRYY 2299,, 22002244 Prison Oversight №№ SSRR--2233--0011 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9967A58F-B745-44B4-BDD6-B2288CC026EC Amarik Singh, Office of the Inspector General Page 2 potential staff misconduct and assigned and routed to the Allegation Inquiry Management Section for inquiry rather than to local Office of Grievances for review and processing as routine grievances. As a result, the Department proactively initiated a process to ensure these incorrectly 2 screened grievances were reassigned to the correct area of responsibility, with knowledge that under the regulations, if facts were discovered suggesting staff misconduct occurred, the matter would be suspended and elevated to the Office of Internal Affairs. This reassignment complied 3 with regulations and was shared with the Office of the Inspector General in advance. Of note, the reassigned grievances amounted to less than one-third of one percent of all grievances reviewed 4 by the Department in calendar year 2023. The Department acknowledges and takes responsibility for the reassigned grievances which exceeded statute of limitations dates prior to reassignment. By August 2023, all allegations of staff misconduct previously routed to the Allegation Inquiry Management Section for inquiry were completed and closed and in November 2023, full implementation of the Department’s new staff misconduct process was achieved. The Department’s new, robust staff misconduct process includes safeguards, such as mandatory investigation completion deadlines and an enhanced supervisory monitoring processes to prevent this from occurring in the future. It is important to note that the now fully deactivated Allegation Inquiry Management Section completed fact gathering inquiries into allegations of staff misconduct made by incarcerated and paroled persons. If during the inquiry process, a reasonable belief was established that an allegation of staff misconduct may have been true, the inquiry was suspended and referred to the Hiring Authority, who either handled the matter locally or elevated it to the Office of Internal Affairs for a complete, thorough, and unbiased investigation. The Allegation Inquiry Management Section was never responsible to conduct formal investigations. The Department remains committed to being proactive and will continue to refine overall staff misconduct processes to improve accountability, efficiency, and transparency throughout. The Department is also committed to continuing to work with the Office of the Inspector General and other stakeholders to ensure open communication on these very important issues. Sincerely, JEFFREY MACOMBER Secretary Page 9 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JJAANNUUAARRYY 2299,, 22002244 Prison Oversight №№ SSRR--2233--0011 The Office of the Inspector General’s Comments on the Response From the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (the department) response to our report. The numbers below correspond with the numbers we have placed in the margin of the department’s response on pages 8 and 9. 1. On December 13, 2023, we provided the department with a draft of this seven-page report along with a list of the 71 staff misconduct allegations it converted into routine grievances that we sampled during our review. On January 3, 2024, the department identified one factual error on our part, which we corrected in the final draft before providing the department with the revised report on January 18, 2024. The department’s only other comments centered on our use of the terms “inquiry” and “investigation” and the difference between AIMS and AIU, which we also addressed in the revised draft we sent to the department for a second review. On pages one and two of our report, we clearly outline the evolution of the department’s staff misconduct investigation process beginning with the previous process that assigned local prisons the responsibility for investigating allegations of staff misconduct, to the interim Allegation Inquiry Management Section (AIMS) process, through the transition away from AIMS to the department’s current process. The department implemented its current regulatory process for processing allegations of staff misconduct from January 2022 through January 2023. Consequently, this current process had been fully implemented for approximately six months when the department reclassified its backlog of unaddressed grievances alleging misconduct and redirected them to prisons for processing. Despite having two opportunities over nearly six weeks to review the draft report and examine the sampled grievances, the department did not identify any factual inaccuracies or any specific statements in the final report that it believed to be misleading, until it issued this response vaguely characterizing the report as “confusing and at points misleading.” 2. Nothing in the July 26, 2023, memorandum indicates that the department made its decision to reclassify the 595 backlogged grievances because it had performed a review of those grievances and determined that they had been incorrectly screened or misclassified. The department did not mention that it had performed such a review during any of the conversations we have had with the department either prior to or following its issuance of the Page 10 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JJAANNUUAARRYY 2299,, 22002244 Prison Oversight №№ SSRR--2233--0011 memorandum. Nor did the department provide us with any records of having conducted such a review. The department has consistently explained this decision to our office as being necessary due to understaffing and a higher than anticipated workload. We also disagree with the department’s assertion that all 595 grievances it redirected to local prisons were properly categorized as routine grievances. During our review, we confirmed that each of the 71 grievances we sampled (nearly 12 percent of all the redirected grievances) contained allegations of staff misconduct that were properly classified as serious staff misconduct that must be referred to the Office of Internal Affairs under the applicable regulations. Although the department contends there were safeguards in place whereby local grievance offices would refer grievances back to the Office of Internal Affairs if they identified staff misconduct, only one of the 71 grievances we sampled was elevated to the Office of Internal Affairs after being redirected to the prisons for processing as a routine grievance. 3. Contrary to the department’s assertion, it did not inform us that it was “reassigning” all grievances assigned to AIMS alleging staff misconduct to the prisons for processing as routine grievances until two days after it issued the July 26, 2023, memorandum described in our report. In April and May 2023, the department informed us that it was overwhelmed with AIMS cases, and its staff were seeing twice as many grievances than they had originally projected. The department further stated it contemplated reviewing some of the AIMS cases to ensure they were processed correctly and alleged staff misconduct. We asked how many AIMS cases, but, despite our request, the department did not inform us of the number of cases in its AIMS backlog. Then, on July 26, 2023, the department issued its memorandum instructing its staff to close all the backlogged AIMS cases and to redirect the grievances to prison grievance offices for processing as routine grievances effective August 20, 2023. The OIG did not receive a copy of the memorandum until July 28, 2023, when a departmental employee provided it to an OIG staff member in the course of their regular monitoring activities. On August 1, 2023, we immediately requested additional information from the department regarding the implementation of the memorandum, including the list of the redirected cases and their new case numbers. On August 8, 2023, after receiving no response to our request, we elevated our request to the department’s Undersecretary of Administration. On August 18, 2023, Page 11 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Neil Robertson Chief Deputy Inspector General Independent JJAANNUUAARRYY 2299,, 22002244 Prison Oversight №№ SSRR--2233--0011 we again asked the department to provide us with the information we requested. Finally, on August 22, 2023, the OIG received some of the information requested indicating the department had hundreds of cases in the AIMS backlog. Although the department made the OIG generally aware of its problem, the department never notified the OIG of its intent to solve its problem by redirecting allegations of staff misconduct to prisons to process as routine grievances, contrary to its current regulations. The department also did not inform us of the magnitude of the AIMS backlog until after its order to redirect the grievances had gone into effect. Had we been informed of the extent of the backlog and the department’s plan to redirect these allegations of staff misconduct to prisons for review, we would have recommended the department resolve its AIMS backlog in a manner that was both transparent and in compliance with its current regulations and departmental policy. 4. The department’s attempt to downplay the impact of its decision by pointing out that it only affected a small percentage of grievances ignores the impact its decision had on the incarcerated people whose allegations of staff misconduct were not reviewed in compliance with the department’s current regulations. The purpose of this report was not to provide an assessment of the department’s overall process for reviewing allegations of staff misconduct that incarcerated people file; that is an assessment we provide in our annual staff misconduct monitoring reports. This report highlighted the department’s poor decision-making when determining how to address a backlog of grievances that the department believed it was not adequately staffed to handle. Rather than temporarily redirect resources or personnel to address the backlog, it chose to subject the grievances to a less robust review process than is required by regulation. We believe it is important to provide transparency to this decision and its impact, so the department can make a more appropriate decision when deciding how to address any future backlogs it may face. Page 12 of 12 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4233 5 www.oig.ca.gov