Seventh Report on the CDCRs Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General Seventh Report on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint March 2016 Office of the Inspector General Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General Shaun R. Spillane Public Information Officer March 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS .................................................................................... 1 In-Prison Target Population ......................................................................................... 1 Measure Progress—Ensure Program Accountability .................................................. 2 Deliver Programs ......................................................................................................... 3 In-Prison Program Placement—Reentry Hubs ............................................................ 4 In-Prison Program Placement—Develop Case Management Plan .............................. 5 In-Prison Programs—Miscellaneous Benchmarks ...................................................... 5 Community Programs for Parolees ............................................................................ 12 GANG MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................. 15 Security Threat Group—Current Status .................................................................... 15 Security Threat Group—Gang Management Program .............................................. 16 Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Inmates (Steps 1 through 4) ............ 19 Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Facilitators ...................................... 20 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN........................................................................... 22 Institution Housing Plans ........................................................................................... 22 Housing Plan—Miscellaneous Benchmarks .............................................................. 23 Housing Plan—Global Benchmarks .......................................................................... 26 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 27 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 29 Appendix A—Programming Plans ............................................................................ 30 Appendix B—Core COMPAS Assessments ............................................................. 68 Appendix C—Housing Plans ..................................................................................... 69 FOREWORD In July 2012, the Legislature tasked the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) with monitoring the adherence to The Future of California Corrections: A Blueprint to Save Billions of Dollars, End Federal Court Oversight, and Improve the Prison System (the Blueprint), issued by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR or the department) The department was recently tasked with updating its comprehensive plan for the state prison system, as much has changed since it issued the original Blueprint. On January 20, 2016, the department issued An Update to the Future of California Corrections. The department’s updated plan includes a summary of goals identified and progress made from the initial plan, along with its future vision in rehabilitative programming and safety and security. To monitor implementation of its initial Blueprint, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed legislation adding language to California Penal Code, Section 6126, mandating that the OIG periodically review delivery of the reforms identified in the Blueprint, including, but not limited to, the following specific goals and reforms described in the Blueprint: 1. The establishment of and adherence to the standardized staffing model at each institution; 2. The establishment of and adherence to the new inmate classification score system; 3. The implementation of and adherence to the comprehensive housing plan described in the Blueprint; 4. Whether the department has increased the percentage of inmates served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to the inmates’ release; and 5. The establishment of and adherence to the new prison gang management system, including changes to the department’s current policies for identifying prison-based gang members and associates and the use and conditions associated with the department’s security housing units. To assess and monitor the reforms published in the Blueprint, the OIG identified measurable benchmarks in the Blueprint, researched the various aspects of the benchmarks, collected and assessed documents and electronic databases, interviewed numerous staff from the CDCR and the Department of Finance (DOF), developed a monitoring tool, and compared the assessment results with goals identified in the Blueprint. The OIG also performed on-site reviews at each of the adult institutions that included the review and reconciliation of documents, interviews of staff, and observations. This report represents the results of the OIG’s seventh review of CDCR’s implementation of the original Blueprint issued in 2012. Many of the reforms contained in the initial Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint Office of the Inspector General State of California Blueprint had implementation dates into fiscal year 2015-16; however, the first two components—standardized staffing and the inmate classification score system—have already been completed. As for the third component, many of the housing plans have been, or are nearing completion. The two remaining components from the initial Blueprint that have yet to be accomplished are the rehabilitation goal and the gang step-down program. It should be noted that the Ashker v. Brown settlement agreement has impacted the gang step-down program. The new update to the Blueprint outlines numerous goals, including a modified target for rehabilitation, an information technology solution to track offender specific outcomes, and a system to deliver medical, mental health, and substance abuse treatment to Medi-Cal eligible offenders. The update identifies several pilot programs for inmate access to community college courses, in-prison sex offender treatment, drug and contraband interdiction, and parole violators. It also includes an expansion of the in-prison substance abuse treatment program, long-term offender program, alternative custody program, as well as community reentry programs and alternative community placements. This seventh report is based on information from December 1, 2015, through March 7, 2016. Subsequent reports will assess the remaining goals from the initial Blueprint and its progress in meeting future benchmarks and goals identified in the update to the Blueprint issued in January 2016. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint Foreword Office of the Inspector General State of California REHABILITATIVE PROGRAMS The department provides in-prison programming to adult offenders, including academic education, career technical education (formerly “vocational”), substance abuse treatment, cognitive behavioral treatment programs, transitional services, and employment programs. In the Blueprint, the department indicated its goal is to increase the percentage of inmates served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to the inmates’ release. The Blueprint does not identify a milestone for when the goal is to be met; however, CDCR identified June 30, 2015, as the projected completion date.1 The department also makes use of community programming to inmates released from prison. The department indicated its goal, as stated in the Blueprint, is to build program capacity by fiscal year 2013–14 to accommodate 70 percent of parolees who have a need for substance abuse treatment, employment services, or education within their first year of being released from prison. In-Prison Target Population The department uses concepts identified in the California Logic Model to determine its target population for rehabilitative programs. That model requires the calculation of an inmate’s risk to reoffend coupled with an assessment of the inmate’s criminogenic needs to determine whether the inmate is included in the target population. The department uses the results of the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) tool to identify an inmate’s risk to reoffend. The level of an inmate’s criminogenic need is assessed based on the results of the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) tool. If the CSRA results show a high or moderate risk to reoffend, and the results of COMPAS show a high or medium need in any of the criminogenic categories, the inmate becomes part of CDCR’s target population for rehabilitation.2,3 Data summarized in the following table indicates that as of January 31, 2016, 98 percent of the 124,497-inmate population had received a CSRA risk assessment, and 79 percent had received a COMPAS assessment. Of those inmates with a CSRA assessment, 60,329 (51 percent) had a high or moderate risk to reoffend. Of those, 55,320 inmates 1 CDCR’s revised Strategic Plan identified June 30, 2015, as the date to reach the 70 percent rehabilitation goal. 2 The criminogenic need categories can include any of the following: substance abuse, anger, employment problems (incorporated academic and career technical needs), criminal personality (formerly “criminal thinking”), and support from family of origin (formerly “family criminality”). 3 Being included in the target population does not necessarily trigger the placement of inmates into specific programs. The results of COMPAS assessments are used for placement into cognitive behavioral treatment and employment programs, but CDCR uses individual case factors for placement into other programs, such as the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) results for placement into academic programs. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 1 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California (44 percent) were identified as having a high or medium criminogenic need, thus representing the target population on that day. To reach its rehabilitative goal, the department would need to serve 38,724 out of 55,320 (70 percent) inmates in rehabilitative programs prior to the inmates’ release. Risk and Needs Assessment by Target Population4 Total inmate population 124,497 CDCR Data as of 1/31/16 Inmates with CSRA risk assessment 117,639 94% Percent in relation to inmate population Inmates with high/moderate CSRA score 60,329 51% Percent in relation to inmates with CSRA Inmates with core COMPAS assessment 97,887 79% Percent in relation to inmate population Total Target population (with at least one need) 55,320 44% Percent in relation to inmate population In-Prison Target Population (70% Goal) 38,724 31% Percent in relation to inmate population % of inmates who receive core COMPAS assessment who 57% Target population divided by COMPAS become target count Measure Progress—Ensure Program Accountability The department’s goal is to ensure that at least 70 percent of offenders identified as having moderate to high risk and needs receive evidence-based programming consistent with their criminogenic needs prior to release. While the department has made progress in implementing some measures to reach some benchmarks identified in the Blueprint, it was unable to attain its goal of reaching 70 percent of the target population by June 30, 2015. During fiscal year 2014–15, the department demonstrated a 56 percent rate of accomplishment (for all and some needs addressed). So far, during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2015-16, its current rate of accomplishment is 53 percent, slightly below its percentage from the past fiscal year. The tables on the following page identify inmates who were released during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2015–16, as well as the results for fiscal year 2014–15 and whether the inmates received evidence-based rehabilitative programming consistent with their criminogenic needs prior to release. The numbers in the category of “one need addressed” indicate that offenders had criminogenic needs in multiple categories and participated in a rehabilitative program that was consistent with at least one, but not all, identified needs. The department considers “all needs addressed” for inmates who have participated in rehabilitative services in each of their criminogenic needs. It should also be noted that whether the inmate attended only one day of class or completed the entire program, the department counts that attendance as participation. Additionally, the counting rule scores all programming towards addressing offender needs. The OIG has previously stated, and the department concedes, that this is a poor measurement standard. The department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) is currently working with the OIG to determine a more meaningful measure of participation, such as a reasonable program completion percentage or an average number 4 See Appendix B for a breakdown of the percentages of inmates with core COMPAS assessments. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 2 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California of days in a program, to count as successfully addressing an offender’s needs. The DRP has established a workgroup to analyze data and develop proposals for a possible counting rule change. Additionally, it is important to note that these figures only pertain to offenders who received a Core COMPAS assessment. Using department figures as of January 31, 2016, 79 percent of the eligible population had completed a Core COMPAS assessment.5 Percent of Offenders Assigned to a Rehabilitative Program Consistent with an Identified Need Released During Fiscal Year 2015–16 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. Totals Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent All Needs Addressed 1,265 24% 1,284 25% 2,549 53% One Need Addressed 1,405 27% 1,519 30% 2,924 No Needs Addressed 2,603 49% 2,259 45% 4,862 47% Total 5,273 100% 5,062 100% 10,335 100% Percent of Offenders Assigned to a Rehabilitative Program Consistent with an Identified Need Released During Fiscal Year 2014–15 1st Qtr. 2nd Qtr. 3rd Qtr. 4th Qtr. Totals Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent All Needs Addressed 1,328 24% 1,644 26% 2,074 27% 1,577 28% 6,623 56% One Need Addressed 1,491 26% 1,906 30% 2,410 31% 1,863 32% 7,670 No Needs Addressed 2,802 50% 2,722 44% 3,271 42% 2,309 40% 11,104 44% Total 5,621 100% 6,272 100% 7,755 100% 5,749 100% 25,397 100% Also, separate from the department’s goal of reaching 70 percent of the target population by June 30, 2015, the department analyzed its target population to determine if those inmates were assigned to a rehabilitative program, whether it was consistent with an assessed need or not. The department’s data shows steady improvement in this area, as the second quarter of fiscal year 2015–16, showed that approximately 73 percent of the target population attended a program. The department predominantly attributes this to offenders who may not have an assessed academic need, but who continued with their pursuit of higher education. Deliver Programs The department is working to increase the percentage of offenders served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to their release. The department implemented the Blueprint priority placement criteria that selects program placement based on an offender’s risk status. Offenders who do not meet the target criteria are lowest on the priority lists and may not be assigned to programming. Priority placement criteria are not exclusionary and allow lifers to be prioritized and participate in programming if they meet the criteria. As illustrated in the chart below, 62 percent 5 “Eligible population” refers to those offenders not excluded from receiving a COMPAS assessment, such as those designated enhanced outpatient program (EOP) level of care or higher, life-without-parole, life- term, condemned, and those housed in conservation camps, community correctional facilities, and out-of- state facilities. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 3 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California (34,056 inmates) of the department’s target population is within 48 months of release. The remaining target population, approximately 38 percent (20,866 inmates), are inmates with over 49 months left to serve who predominantly have not yet been assigned to a reentry hub, thus providing an obstacle in the department’s ability to reach its 70 percent goal. Target Population by Projected Release Date Projected Relea se Timeframe Inmates Percent 0 - 6 Months 9,074 16.4% 7-12 Months 6,890 12.5% 13-24 Months 8,959 16.2% 25-36 Months 5,369 9.7% 37-48 Months 3,764 6.8% 49-60 Months 2,784 5.0% 60-120 Months 7,836 14.2% Over 120 Months 10,246 18.5% Unusable Data Regarding Release Date 398 0.7% Total Target Population 55,320 100.0% Source: CDCR—Data as of January 31, 2016 In-Prison Program Placement—Reentry Hubs Reentry hubs are established to provide relevant rehabilitation services to inmates who are within 48 months of being released and who have demonstrated a willingness to take advantage of such services. The Blueprint identified 13 institutions to be designated as reentry hubs by providing education, employment, cognitive behavioral treatment, and substance abuse programs. However, the department’s implementation of certain programs at these reentry hubs was delayed, due in part to the contract protest process and no viable bids for some selected sites during the first bid release. Subsequent to the Blueprint, the department implemented reentry programming services at four in-state contract facilities6 as well as the leased California City Correctional Facility (CAC). In determining operational status for each of the 13 reentry hubs, along with CAC, the OIG determined that a course needed to have a corresponding instructor, an assigned classroom, and data showing monthly inmate attendance. Based on OIG fieldwork in December 2015 and January 2016, all course types are operational. See Appendix A for details statewide and by institution. 6 Central Valley Modified Community Correctional Facility (CVMCCF), Desert View Modified Community Correctional Facility (DVMCCF), Female Reentry Correctional Facility (FRCF), and Golden State Modified Community Correctional Facility (GSMCCF). Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 4 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California In-Prison Program Placement—Develop Case Management Plan According to the Blueprint, a component critical to successful implementation of the rehabilitation plan is an effective case management system. A case management plan (or behavior management plan) is an integral part of effective rehabilitation programming. Case management plans ensure that offenders are assigned to the appropriate programs based on their overall risk potential identified on their criminogenic needs assessments. Case management plans help staff determine the type, frequency, and timing of programming an inmate should receive to most effectively reduce the likelihood of his or her reoffending. This case plan should also transfer with the inmate upon release to parole or to county supervision; case plans assist with identifying the most effective follow-up programming based on programming received during incarceration, individual goals met, and other vital information collected during the course of incarceration. The department is currently managing cases by assessing inmates’ needs at reception centers and using an assignment process based on priority placements. The Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) scores and the inmates’ classification levels are used to make program placements through its standard classification process. Individual case factors are reviewed and assessed by a classification committee, which then determines program and housing placements. The department is currently working with a software developer to create a Rehabilitative Case Plan (ReCaP) and anticipates a few months for development. The project team will then begin testing and finalizing the software for deployment. The official project schedule is planned for release in March 2016, and the department is targeting its release for late-summer or early-fall 2016, depending on requirements and scope of the project. The vision is that upon entering prison, every eligible inmate will have a roadmap for successful rehabilitation for the period of his or her incarceration. In-Prison Programs—Miscellaneous Benchmarks The Blueprint identified miscellaneous benchmarks in its narrative and Appendix B (through fiscal year 2013–14). Thus, the OIG obtained rehabilitative programming figures for fiscal year 2015-16 from the department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) and Office of Correctional Education (OCE) to continue monitoring its benchmarks of measurable figures. The OIG performed fieldwork to determine the operational status of the various programs at each institution. In order to determine the operational status of programs, the OIG acquired the rehabilitation authorized position counts per institution from CDCR. The OIG discussed any discrepancies with the education managers at the institutions, reviewed monthly attendance reports, and conducted spot checks of classrooms. As noted previously, in order to be deemed fully operational, a course needed to have a corresponding instructor, an assigned classroom, and data showing monthly inmate attendance. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 5 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix A provides a detailed comparison of the rehabilitation programs provided at each institution, identifying the programs as planned for by the department and their operational status from visits occurring in December 2015 and January 2016. In addition to Appendix A, the following summary discusses the current status of various programs identified in the Blueprint and DRP’s fiscal year 2015–16 data. In short, the OIG’s fieldwork at all prisons found that 88 percent of the academic education programs are operational, 83 percent of the career technical education (CTE) programs are operational, and 99 percent of the substance abuse treatment slots, at reentry hubs, are filled. From the last OIG C-ROB report issued in September 2015, this represents a 1 percent decrease in academic education programs, a 7 percent increase in CTE programs, and an 11 percent increase in substance abuse treatment participation. Thus, the department has achieved an increase in operational courses and in overall participation in substance abuse. Academic Education: The department identified a total of 521 academic positions (general population, alternative programming, and voluntary education program) to become operational during fiscal year 2015–16. From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed 34 site visits to determine whether 521 academic positions, as provided by DRP, were fully operational, as shown in Appendix A. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the OIG found 461 of the 521 positions were fully operational, which represents an 88 percent rate of compliance. The primary reasons academic courses were not operational were due to teacher vacancies (long-term sick, workers’ compensation, retirement, recruitment, long-term disability, etc.), and some courses having no inmate enrollments (lack of eligible inmate-students for ABE and GED courses). This represents a one percent decrease from that identified in the last C-ROB report. Career Technical Education: The department identified a total of 283 CTE positions to become operational during fiscal year 2015–16. From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether 283 CTE positions were fully operational. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the OIG found 235 of the 283 positions were fully operational, which represents an 83 percent rate of compliance. The primary reason CTE courses were not operational were due to teacher vacancies similar to the academic vacancies listed above. This represents a 7 percent increase from that identified in the last C-ROB report. Substance Abuse Treatment: The Blueprint stated that the substance abuse treatment programs would be located at reentry hubs; however, the department has since added substance abuse programs as part of its Long Term Offender Program and single or multi-level programs at 11 non-reentry-hub institutions. To remain consistent with prior OIG reports, the summary provided below will include substance abuse treatment programs at only the reentry hubs and CAC, while the other substance abuse programs are discussed later in the Long Term Offender Model section. The DRP planned to provide 1,596 treatment slots for fiscal year 2015-16. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 6 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether 1,596 substance abuse treatment slots were fully operational. At the conclusion of the OIG’s fieldwork, 1,587 inmates occupied the 1,596 operational slots, which represent a 99 percent rate of compliance. This is an increase of 11 percent from the last C-ROB report. The 1,587 inmates participating in the substance abuse program are from each of the 13 reentry hubs and CAC. Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT), formerly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Blueprint identified these programs to begin implementation during fiscal year 2013–14, while the DRP continued these programs during fiscal year 2015-16. The programs include courses in criminal thinking, anger management, and family relationships. From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether CBT programs were implemented. The OIG found that 2,227 of the planned 2,364 slots were fully operational, which represents a 94 percent rate of compliance. This is an increase of 10 percent from the last report. Pre-Employment Transition (PET): The Blueprint identified that the pre-employment transitions program would be expanded to all reentry hubs. These services were to include job readiness skills prior to an inmate’s release, primarily during the last six months of incarceration. From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether transitions programs were implemented at the reentry hubs. The OIG found that 483 of the planned 675 slots were fully operational, which represents a 72 percent rate of compliance. This is an increase of 18 percent from the last report. The low rate of compliance is mainly due to 120 non-operational slots caused by pending contracts at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran (SATF) and Valley State Prison (VSP), as well as SATF’s conversion to a reentry facility. Additionally, the Blueprint stated the California Identification Card program (CAL-ID) would be implemented to assist eligible inmates in obtaining State-issued identification cards to satisfy federal requirements for employment documentation. In November 2013, the Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) entered into a contract with the California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), to process CAL-IDs for inmates who are being released from custody. The interagency agreement allowed up to 12,000 identification cards annually with a maximum of 1,000 cards per month. In September 2014, the Governor signed legislation expanding the CAL-ID program to mandate that all eligible inmates released from custody have valid identification cards. On July 1, 2015, the department entered into an interagency agreement with the DMV in order to comply with Penal Code Section 3007.05 and expand the CAL-ID program to all 35 CDCR institutions. The expansion interagency agreement allows the department to purchase over 20,000 identification cards annually with a maximum of 1,722 cards per month. The department purchases the identification cards at a reduced fee and senior Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 7 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California identification cards are provided at no cost. The cards are provided free of charge to all inmates regardless of age. According to the department, between July 1, 2015 and December 31, 2015, approximately 6,084 applications were sent to the DMV for processing. The DMV has approved approximately 5,105 applications and sent the identification cards to the institutions for issuance. The average eligibility rate is 84 percent. Designated Enhanced Programming Yards: On January 1, 2014, the department designated enhanced programming facilities (EPF) or yards to incentivize positive behavior at seven institutions. The majority of the EPFs have been in place for over two years. However, in 2014, the department designated a new level IV EPF at Calipatria State Prison (CAL) and in 2015, California City Correctional Facility (CAC) and Avenal State Prison (ASP) were designated as level II EPFs. The ten designated EPFs are located at the following institutions and security levels: • Avenal State Prison, level II, all facilities • Calipatria State Prison, level IV, facility A • California City Correctional Facility, level II, all facilities • California State Prison, Corcoran, level IV, facility B • California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility, level III, facility E • High Desert State Prison, level IV, facility C • Kern Valley State Prison, level IV, facility B • Pleasant Valley State Prison, level III, facility C • Salinas Valley State Prison, level IV, facility B • Valley State Prison, level II, all facilities From December 2015 through January 2016, the OIG performed site visits at the EPFs, interviewed CDCR management responsible for the designated EPFs, and sampled 115 offenders housed at two EPFs. It was encouraging that the majority of the institutions have reported positive changes as a result of the EPFs, including improved behavior, less violence, and fewer rules violation reports (RVRs). Most institutions report that the EPFs provide offenders with an incentive to improve their behavior and offer additional self- help groups and programming opportunities. However, several of the EPFs housing high security offenders have not had similar success. These institutions cited the existing culture of violence and “strong politics on the yard” as the main challenges to a successful EPF. According to institution management at EPFs, allowing participation of high security offenders (through “grandfathering” or new arrivals), regardless of their past behavior, has resulted in a portion of the population who continue to demonstrate negative behavior. In June 2014, the department implemented a process to address EPF “program failures” after placement Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 8 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California on an EPF, for those receiving an RVR that met exclusionary factors7, by scheduling and referring offenders for transfer at the next Unit Classification Committee (UCC). The OIG reviewed 50 level III inmates and 65 level IV inmates at two EPF facilities, and found two primary challenges. First, placement into the EPF program for new level IV arrivals is not based on behavior and willingness to meet programming expectations, but by necessity due to a lack of level IV bed space. Second, inmates who receive RVRs for exclusionary factors at the EPF are not being referred for transfer and removed from the EPF. As shown in the table below, the level IV EPF had 42 out of 65 inmates (65 percent) with no RVRs in the past 12 months. From the 23 inmates who did receive RVRs, 15 inmates (65 percent) were initially recommended for transfer to another non-EPF level IV facility and were new arrivals; while the remaining 8 inmates (35 percent) were existing EPF inmates. Due to a lack of level IV bed space, each of the 15 inmates was redirected by an “auditor action” to the EPF. For 12 of the 15 inmates (80 percent), each had received RVRs for exclusionary factors in the past 12 months—controlled substance and alcohol related behavior (6 inmates), security housing unit (SHU) term (5 inmates), and security threat group (STG) behavior (1 inmate). Due to the Ashker v. Brown settlement agreement, and subsequent to the OIG site visits, validated STG inmates who have been released from an Administrative SHU term in the last 12 months may now be housed at EPF facilities. The remaining three inmates had received RVRs for not adhering to behavioral expectations in order to remain on an EPF, such as refusing a cellmate. Additionally, only 1 of 6 inmates who received an RVR for an exclusionary factor (“program failures”) was recommended to transfer by the UCC to a non-EPF facility. Identifying Program Failure Outcomes at EPF Facilities UCC No Rules RVR met an RVR for not recommended to Violation exclusionary Transferred to an adhering to a transfer inmate to Report factor (while EPF without a behavioral RVR that met an a non-EPF (RVR) in housed at a non- UCC expectation at exclusionary facility due to an Housing Inmates past 12 EPF) within the recommendation EPF in past 12 factor at EPF in RVR exclusionary Level Reviewed* months past 12 months to an EPF months past 12 months factor III 50 34 0 0 9 7 1** IV 65 42 12 12 8 6 1 Total 115 76 12 12 17 13 1 * The OIG reviewed 50 of 692 inmates at one Level III EPF and 65 out of 867 inmates at one Level IV EPF. ** Review of UCC found 4 of the 7 inmates who received an RVR for an exclusionary factor were transferred to another building within the EPF facility. The level III EPF institution staff stated that ineligible offenders were moved to a designated building within the same facility either until they advance to a higher security level and eventually transfer to a non-EPF institution or, if their security level does not change, they will be considered for placement back on the EPF. As shown above, this 7 Through February 21, 2016, exclusionary factors for ineligible offenders include security housing unit (SHU) term within the past 12 months, rules violation report (RVR) for Security Threat Group (STG) related behavior within the past 12 months, and RVR for controlled substance and alcohol related behavior within the past 12 months. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 9 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California statement was supported as 4 of the 7 inmates with RVRs for an exclusionary factor were transferred to another building within the EPF facility; while only 1 of the 7 inmates was recommended for transfer to a non-EPF facility. Without adequate bed space, department staff is compelled to utilize level IV EPFs (5 out of 10 EPF institutions) for housing despite the requirement that EPFs only be used for offenders with a willingness to meet programming expectations. Since the intent of the EPFs is to incentivize and reinforce positive life choices, placing ineligible offenders or not transferring “program failures” defeats the purpose of the program. The department should examine this issue with input from the affected facilities and find solutions to the housing problem that will not adversely impact the success of the EPF program, especially in light of the recent decision to allow validated STG inmates to be housed there. Long-Term Offender Model: The Blueprint called for the development of a long-term offender reentry model to be piloted at three institutions projected to have a substantial population of long-term offenders. The Long-Term Offender Program (LTOP) is a voluntary program that provides evidenced-based treatment to offenders who are serving long-term sentences. The pilot program was designed based on the reentry program model. The department implemented substance abuse disorder treatment, criminal thinking, anger management, victim’s impact, and family relationships cognitive behavioral modalities. On February 11, 2014, the Office of Administrative Law authorized the LTOP, and it has been implemented at the California Men’s Colony (CMC), California State Prison, Solano (SOL), and the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF). From December 2015 through January 2016, OIG staff confirmed implementation of substance abuse treatment programs implemented at each of the three LTOP institutions, and at 11 non-reentry-hub institutions through single or multi-level modalities, e.g. outpatient, intensive outpatient, or modified therapeutic community treatment. During site visits, the OIG found 881 out of 1,068 inmates planned (82 percent) were participating. Also, the three LTOP institutions at CMC, SOL, and CCWF implemented cognitive behavioral treatment programs, serving 480 of the 480 offenders planned (100 percent), and pre-employment transitions (PET) programs, serving 48 of the 72 offenders planned (67 percent). The PET program faces some challenges. For example, when an offender drops from the 5-week course, another offender is not added until the next session begins, and program eligibility is dependent on offenders having received a parole grant. Recently the department submitted a budget proposal, included in the Governor’s Budget released in January 2016, to expand the LTOP to a Level III or IV institution to better serve the target population and to provide program opportunities for offenders who will become eligible for a parole suitability hearing under the Youth Offender and Elderly Offender criteria. The department is in the process of identifying an institution that would be a viable option for the LTOP expansion. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 10 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Additionally, the Offender Mentor Certification Program (OMCP) continues to provide an opportunity for long-term inmates to complete a certification program in alcohol and other drug counseling. Inmates are recruited from various institutions and transferred for training at one of three sites: the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF), Valley State Prison (VSP), or California State Prison, Solano (SOL). Once the candidates pass the written California Association for Alcohol/Drug Educators (CAADE) examination, the inmate-mentors are transferred back to their original institutions and are paid to obtain their 4,000 hours of work experience by co-facilitating substance abuse treatment. The department also submitted a budget proposal, included in the Governor’s Budget released in January 2016, to expand the OMCP from three to four sessions per year. Each session would continue to have up to 36 candidates per training session with an opportunity for up to 144 candidates annually. Sex Offender Treatment: The Blueprint called for the development of services for sex offenders and the piloting of the model at one institution in fiscal year 2013–14. The treatment program will place a heavy emphasis on skill-building activities to assist with cognitive behavioral treatment and social, emotional, and coping skills development. There were 80 slots planned for participants, and the program length was to be 18 months. The department selected the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility as the location for the sex offender treatment pilot and began the bid process in September 2013. However, the department did not receive any bids for the contract. The department began working on an interagency agreement with the Department of State Hospitals for the delivery of the program. In June 2014, the Department of State Hospitals discontinued those discussions. The department then began working toward establishing its own in-prison sex offender treatment program. The department received permission to establish and fill five new positions: one supervising psychiatric social worker and four clinical social workers. The department also entered into an agreement with the University of Cincinnati Corrections Institute to provide training and coaching in the utilization of its Cognitive Behavioral Treatment for Sexual Offenders curriculum. The department’s Cognitive Behavioral Interventions for Sex Offenders (CBI-SO) pilot program is intended to serve offenders who are required to register pursuant to Penal Code Section 290, are within 13 months of their scheduled release date, and will be mandated to participate in the community-based treatment programs upon release. The Office of Administrative Law approved the Instructional Memorandum and the department is currently working to move participants into the program. The CBI-SO pilot program will be initiated at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and will include a maximum of 80 offenders. The program will be delivered up to three hours per day, five days per week, and the average duration of the program will be eight months. The program components include group treatment and individual treatment sessions. The program will be in effect for a 24-month period and the department will conduct an ongoing evaluation to determine the effectiveness of the CBI-SO pilot program. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 11 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Gang Prevention: The department’s step-down program (SDP) provides inmates placed in the SHU due to STG validation or documented STG behaviors, a program that includes increased incentives for positive behavior, including discontinuing participation in STG activities, with the ultimate goal of release from the SHU. The SDP has been implemented at each SHU institution: California Correctional Institution (CCI), California State Prison, Sacramento (SAC), California State Prison, Corcoran (COR), and Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP). The department reports that the SDP is currently not being implemented in female institutions because no female STG members or affiliates are in the SHU based on an STG validation. The program components include pro-social videos, voluntary education program, self-journaling workbooks, interactive journaling workbooks, “thinking for change,” and conflict resolution. The journaling workbooks cover violence prevention, criminal lifestyle, rational thinking, living with others, substance abuse, and social values. Community Programs for Parolees Similar to the in-prison rehabilitation program goals, the department’s goal as stated in the Blueprint is to build program capacity to accommodate 70 percent of parolees who have a need for substance abuse treatment, employment services, or education within their first year of being released from prison. CDCR identified June 30, 2015, as its projected completion date.8 The most recent Blueprint report in September 2015 identified that this goal was achieved, as the department identified that 72 percent of parolees participated in a program that addressed at least one, but not all, of the possible categories. According to the department, the community and reentry programs expanded pre-employment services to parolees via the increase in day reporting centers (DRCs) across the State, thereby increasing employment and job development services. There are currently 23 DRCs and community-based coalitions operating statewide. Along with day reporting centers, the department has also increased the number of computer literacy learning centers from 21 in 2012 to 25 centers currently, helping to improve literacy skills and focusing on training skills, life skills, and employment competencies. The department explained that its decrease in annual capacity for post-release substance abuse treatment was due to a decline in the number of Board of Parole Hearings referrals to the community portion of the in-custody drug treatment program. Additionally, the department is in the process of developing a tracking mechanism to identify the percentages of first-year parolees who have participated in community-based programming based on their assessed needs. In the interim, the department provided data identifying the number of parolees released in the past year, who during December 2015, were in the target population and participated in a rehabilitative program consistent with 8 CDCR’s revised Strategic Plan identifies June 30, 2015, as the date to reach the 70 percent rehabilitation goal for parolees. The Strategic Plan further defines the target population as “70 percent of parolees identified with moderate-to-high risks [CSRA] and needs [COMPAS] will participate during their first year on parole in appropriate and effective community programming to meet their criminogenic needs.” Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 12 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California their employment, education, or substance abuse needs. This data can be used to track the department’s progress in continuing to meet its goal as stated in the Blueprint. The table below represents data provided by CDCR to show how the department identified its target parolee population. Total Number of Offenders Paroled or Discharged with a High/Moderate CSRA Score during December 2015 Parolees—Type of Criminogenic Risk and Need Offenders Released Parolees released with a moderate-to-high CSRA Score 1,294 And Parolees released with a moderate-to-high CSRA Score and a 928 Re-entry COMPAS And Parolees released with moderate-to-high CSRA Score and at 839 least 1 medium-to-high COMPAS Re-entry Need Similar to how it calculates its target population for inmates, the department uses the results of parolees who have shown a moderate-to-high risk to reoffend (1,294) according to the California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA), and at least one medium-to-high need, as identified by the Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) Reentry assessment tool. In the table above, there were 89 parolees (928 minus 839) who did not have at least one medium-to-high COMPAS reentry need. Thus, the target population for parolees during December 2015 was 839. The table on the next page provided by CDCR identifies parolees who were released in the past year, and whether they participated in a rehabilitative program consistent with their employment, education, or substance abuse needs. The department calculated that 74 percent of parolees had participated in programs that addressed at least one, but not all, of the categories, above its goal of accommodating 70 percent of parolees. Additionally, the department indicates that 81 percent of parolees participated in a rehabilitative program, which may not have been for an assessed need. However, as stated earlier regarding in-prison programs, whether the inmate attended only one day of a session or completed an entire program, the department counts that attendance as participation. The department does not currently have a tracking mechanism in place to determine the type or number of sessions in which a parolee has participated. Additionally, the counting rule scores all programming towards addressing offender needs. The OIG again recommends that the department determine a more meaningful measure of participation, such as a reasonable program completion percentage or an average number of days in a program, to count as successfully addressing a parolee’s needs. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 13 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Percent of Parolees Receiving Services Consistent with Their Needs during December 2015 Parolees with a Risk and Parolees with a Need who Individual Need Total Number of Need who Participated in Did Not Participate in (Inmates may be in Offenders By Need * Programming Consistent Programming Consistent multiple categories) with Their Needs with Their Needs Employment Need 543 318 225 Education Need 447 283 164 Substance Abuse Need 532 396 136 All Other Needs 839 107 732 Total Percentage of Offenders with at Least One Need who Participated in at 74%** Least One Program Consistent with their Risk and Need Total Percentage of Offenders with a Risk and Need who Participated in a 81%** Program * The data provided by CDCR includes offenders with multiple needs. ** Parole data identified 617 offenders with at least one need addressed out of 839 offenders (74%) in the target population; and 679 offenders participated in a rehabilitative program out of 839 offenders (81%) in the target population. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 14 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California GANG MANAGEMENT The Blueprint identified several measures recommended as a result of a 2007 study performed by the California State University, Sacramento entitled Security Threat Group Identification and Management. The Blueprint stated the department could now begin a careful implementation of the recommendations, including offering graduated housing, a step-down program for inmates, support and education for disengaging from gangs, a weighted point system for gang validation, specific use of segregated housing, and social value programs in preparation for the inmates’ return to the community. Security Threat Group—Current Status On January 26, 2016, the U.S. District Court granted final approval of the settlement agreement for Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., Northern District of California, Case No. 4:09-cv-05796-CW (Ashker v. Brown). The agreement involves changes to policies and practices for placing, housing, managing, and retaining inmates who have been validated as prison gang members and associates, along with conditions in each of its four security housing unit (SHU) institutions. Some of the key changes include revising its gang management and SHU policies and practices to include: • An inmate who has committed a SHU-eligible rule violation with a security threat group (STG) nexus within the last 24 months (previously 48 months) shall be placed into the Step Down Program (SDP) based on the date of the most recent STG-related rule violation. If an inmate has not been found guilty of a SHU-eligible rule violation with an STG nexus in the last 24 months, the inmate shall be released from the SHU to an appropriate general population (GP) institution consistent with his case factors. The table on the next page shows the time frames of documented STG behavior that CDCR’s Departmental Review Board (DRB) considers when determining the appropriate SDP placement. Also, step 5 is eliminated; inmates assigned to step 5 in general population housing will remain in GP and will no longer be considered participants in the SDP. • The creation of a Restricted Custody General Population (RCGP) pilot program. The RCGP will consist of a high security general population level IV 180-design facility. Inmates refusing to complete the SDP components, or those who meet the eligibility for RCGP placement will be transferred to an RCGP facility. The RCGP housing beds became available at Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) in January 2016. • Any inmate housed in a SHU program for ten or more continuous years who has committed a SHU-eligible offense with a link to an STG within the preceding 24 months, will be transferred to the RCGP for completion of Step Down Program requirements, rather than remain in a SHU. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 15 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Step Down Program Comparison Summary Settlement Agreement Effective October 18, 2012 Effective August 30, 2015 Occurrence of Occurrence of Documented STG Documented STG Behavior Prior to the Behavior Prior to the DRB Hearing (SDP) Placement DRB Hearing (SDP) Placement 1 to 12 months Step 1 Within last 6 months Step 1 13 to 24 months Step 2 7 to 12 months Step 2 25 to 36 months Step 3 13 to 18 months Step 3 37 to 48 months Step 4 19 to 24 months Step 4 Step 5 49 months and beyond Step 5 Eliminated. (General Population) • Inmates housed for more than five continuous years at the PBSP SHU are to be transferred to another SHU facility. Inmates requiring SHU placement beyond this time frame will be transferred to another SHU facility, or to a 180-design facility at PBSP. The policy allows for the return of an inmate who was previously housed in the PBSP SHU for five continuous years if approved by the DRB and five years have passed since the inmate’s transfer from the PBSP SHU. • The CDCR shall review the cases of all validated inmates currently in the SHU within 12 months of October 14, 2015, the court’s preliminary approval of this agreement. This includes inmates who had an indeterminate SHU term assessed under prior regulations, who are currently assigned to steps one through four, or who were assigned to step 5, but were retained in a SHU.9 Security Threat Group—Gang Management Program To combat gangs, the department has historically identified gangs with the greatest propensity for violence and has separated the offenders from the general inmate population by placement into a SHU.10 The department’s past policy for identifying prison-based gang members and associates and isolating them from the general population has been replaced with a model that identifies and manages STGs utilizing a 9 The department uses indeterminate SHU terms for non-STG disciplinary matters. The Ashker v. Brown settlement agreement does not change this practice. 10 Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Section 3341.5(c), provides for “…an inmate whose conduct endangers the safety of others or the security of the institution…” to be housed in a security housing unit (SHU). Inmates may be placed in a SHU for either a determinate or an indeterminate term. Inmates sentenced to determinate terms in SHUs are those who have been found guilty through a formal disciplinary process of having committed one or more specified serious offenses ranging from murder to threatening institution security. Title 15, California Code of Regulations, Section 3341.5(c)(2)(A)(2), in contrast, specifies an indeterminate SHU term for validated prison gang members and associates, who are deemed “a severe threat to the safety of others or the security of the institution.” Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 16 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California behavior-based SDP for validated affiliates.11,12 This policy allows gang affiliates an opportunity to transition from a restricted program back to the general population by demonstrating a willingness and commitment to discontinue gang activity during their incarceration. The policy addresses validated affiliates with indeterminate SHU terms. It does not address inmates with determinate SHU terms (inmates in SHUs for non-gang-related behavior). The department conducts case-by-case reviews for currently validated affiliates housed in SHUs. As part of the review, the DRB determines an inmate’s appropriate placement or retention within the SHU, placement within the SDP, or release to a general population facility. The department also conducts case-by-case reviews of validated inmates housed within administrative segregation units (ASU) who are endorsed for transfer to SHU facilities. The department noted the case-by-case reviews were to be provided to all existing validated STG members and associates. These reviews provide an opportunity for potential release to general population or further retention in the SHU within one of the four programming steps of the SDP. The table below summarizes the outcomes of the case-by-case reviews since the initial STG pilot began in October 2012. The SHU population at the four male institutions has decreased from 3,843 inmates, as of October 18, 2012 (start of its SDP pilot program) to 2,152 inmates, as of January 31, 2016. Of note, 77 percent of inmates who received a case-by-case review were recommended for release from SHU to general population housing due to a lack of a recent SHU-eligible rule violation with an STG nexus.13 The department is to complete its remaining case reviews for 691 validated inmates currently housed in SHU by October 14, 2016. Summary of Case-by-Case Reviews by DRB and ICC October 2012 through January 31, 2016 Number of Inmates Outcome (unless noted) Case-by-Case Reviews conducted* 2,493 Released to General Population (GP) 1,921 Percentage released to GP 77 percent Placed in Step-Down Program (SDP) 325 Remaining Case-by-Case Reviews for SHU Inmates** 691 Source: CDCR—Data as of January 31, 2016, unless noted. * Includes reviews conducted by the DRB and Institution Classification Committee (ICC) for inmates housed in either SHU or ASU. ** As of March 7, 2016, there are 691 SHU inmates are pending a Case-by-Case Review. 11 The term “security threat group” has generally replaced the term “prison gang,” “disruptive group,” or “street gang” within CDCR. 12 Affiliates are individual offenders (inmates), identified as “members,” “associates,” or “monitored,” who are connected or interact with a certified security threat group. 13 Prior to the Ashker settlement, no documented STG behavior was to have occurred within the past four years prior to the case-by-case review before recommending release to general population; since the Ashker settlement, the time period was reduced to the past two years. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 17 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California As shown in the table below, as of December 8, 2015, the DRB reviewed a total of 1,291 cases at the four SHU institutions. Of the 1,291 cases reviewed, the department approved 1,013 inmates (78 percent) for release to general population (and/or step 5) and placed 265 inmates (22 percent) in step 1, 2, 3, or 4. The remaining 13 inmates were released to a transitional housing unit or general population setting as part of the debriefing process or were not placed in the SDP due to a disciplinary issue. This was an increase of 62 cases since the last OIG report issued in September 2015. Summary of Outcomes from Case-by-Case Reviews DRB-SHU ICC-ASU Outcome Hearing Hearing (Inmates) (Inmates) SDP-Step 1 73 48 SDP-Step 2 84 3 SDP-Step 3 57 4 SDP-Step 4 51 1 Released to GP (and/or Step 5) 1,013 158 Debriefed–Released to Transitional 11 N/A Housing Unit or General Population Retained in ASU (Safety, Debriefing N/A 34 or Disciplinary Not Placed in a Step 2 0 (Disciplinary/Other) Totals 1,291 248 Source: CDCR—Data as of December 8, 2015 The department has been conducting institution case-by-case reviews for inmates validated prior to March 1, 2013, who are retained in the ASU until bed space is available in the SHU. These inmates are housed in ASU at various institutions throughout the State and typically have their case-by-case reviews conducted once they arrive in the SHU. As shown in the right-hand column on the table above, documents from the department through December 8, 2015, display that the Institution Classification Committee (ICC) reviewed a total of 248 cases; this figure remained constant since the last OIG report issued in September 2015. As of March 7, 2016, the department identified 132 inmates housed in ASU that are to receive case-by-case reviews over the next few months. Additionally, in September 2015, the department began its implementation of Ashker v. Brown. As shown in the table on the next page, the department has completed 954 case- by-case reviews for SHU inmates through February 23, 2016. This figure includes case reviews conducted by ICC (918) and those conducted by the DRB (36). Out of the 918 reviews conducted by ICC, 146 inmates (16 percent) were referred for further review by Departmental Review Board, involving special circumstances or unique case factors. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 18 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Summary of Outcomes from Case-by-Case Reviews (Post Ashker v. Brown Settlement Agreement) DRB-SHU ICC-SHU Outcome Hearing Hearing (Inmates) (Inmates) SDP–Steps 1, 2, and 3 0 0 SDP–Step 4 0 4 Place in GP 18 732 Place in SNY 0 1 Place in RCGP 11 0 Placed in ASU 1 12 Retain in Admin. SHU, pending parole 5 0 Place in Determinate SHU Disciplinary 0 8 Debriefing–Released to Transitional 1 15 Housing Unit or General Population Referred to DRB N/A 146 Totals 36 918 Source: CDCR—Data as of February 23, 2016 Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Inmates (Steps 1 through 4) The OIG’s recent monitoring of the department’s gang management policy described below was prior to the court granting final approval on January 26, 2016, and occurred while the department was implementing changes based on Ashker v. Brown. The gang management policy requires that offenders in steps 1 through 4 participate in programming or journaling before progressing to the next step. Inmates placed in steps 1 and 2 are to have program assessments initiated, such as the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE) and Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) assessments. Inmates placed in step 3 can participate in self-directed journals intended to develop a system of values and strategies leading to responsible thinking and behavior. Step 4 inmates may have programming that includes education, violence prevention programs, and gang diversion programs. Previously, if an inmate refuses to participate in the journaling or programming, the inmate was to return to a previous step or regress further; however, due to Ashker v. Brown, the inmate will now be transferred to an RCGP facility. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 19 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California The OIG’s fieldwork conducted in December 2015 through January 2016, reviewed the current status of 79 inmates14 who were assigned to the SDP (steps 1 through 4) for at least 12 months to identify the result of the ICC review.15 Due to Ashker v. Brown, most of the inmates reviewed underwent a recent special STG case-by-case review conducted by an ICC. ICC reviewed all case factors for consideration of releasing inmates from SHU to placement in GP housing, or RCGP under a modified SDP, to include possible retention in a SHU. As shown below, the OIG found that 61 of the 79 inmates (77 percent) were released to GP, 11 inmates (14 percent) transitioned to the next step, 5 inmates (6 percent) were retained in their current step, and 2 inmates (3 percent) were removed from the SDP who were undergoing the debriefing process. The OIG found that the majority of inmates who were not released to GP had not yet received an ICC review (or were no longer in the SDP) since Ashker v. Brown. Status of Inmates Initially Placed in Steps 1 through 4 of the Step-Down Program RELEASE TO Primarily due GP to Ashker 61 Inmates Settlement (77%) Agreement. TRANSITION TOTAL 11 Inmates FILES (14%) REVIEWED 79 RETAIN 5 Inmates (6%) REMOVE 2 Inmates (3%) Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Facilitators The department’s SDP provides inmates with increased incentives to promote positive behavior and discontinue participation in STG activities, with the ultimate goal of release from the SHU. As a result of Ashker v. Brown, a substantial decrease of SDP inmates has occurred, and those who remain in the SDP have been mostly unwilling to participate in programming. The latter group refuses to program since inmates without a SHU-eligible 14 Based on the review of department data, as of November 1, 2015, the OIG identified 79 SDP inmates assigned to steps 1 through 4 who had undergone an ICC review. 15 As part of its gang management policy, the department conducts ICC program reviews to monitor the progress and behavior of inmates within the SDP. Each step, prior to Ashker v. Brown, was designed to be completed in 12 months but may have been accelerated at the 180-day review. Since Ashker v. Brown, the ICC found most inmates eligible for referral and placement in less restrictive housing on a GP facility. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 20 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California rule violation in the past 24 months, were to be released from SHU to GP, regardless of whether they program or not. The SDP facilitators16 strongly believe the various programming components, especially the cognitive behavioral course in a group setting, should be mandatory for SDP inmates prior to their release to a GP setting. The facilitators noted the course improves social skills and provides an opportunity for inmates to socialize with other racial and ethnic groups. The OIG staff attended an SDP training session at California State Prison, Corcoran titled “Changing lives through literature-Unlocking Power” (UP), also known as the ‘SHU book club.’ There were four SDP inmates participating in the program. The OIG learned that the other three SHU institutions are attempting to start similar programs. It was observed that SDP inmates were engaged not only as a book discussion group, but were provided learning opportunities to change criminogenic thinking and build self- awareness. The OIG will continue to monitor and report on the revised SDP and consult with the department in these areas with a shared interest in achieving the goals set out in the Blueprint and Ashker v. Brown settlement agreement. 16 As of January 2016, the department has eight SDP facilitators at the four SHU institutions. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 21 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN The department updated its comprehensive housing plan and incorporated the components identified in the Blueprint. Those components include changes to the inmate classification score system, creating anticipated changes in housing and population density levels, construction, renovations, conversions, activations, closures, and changes to contract beds and the fire camp population. The results of the comprehensive housing plan are summarized in Appendix B of the department’s Blueprint at the institution level. Institution Housing Plans The institution housing plans identify design and staff capacity as well as the custody level and program assignment for each housing unit at each institution. Since neither the housing plans nor the narrative identifies an implementation date, for the purposes of review the OIG assumed that the institution housing plans became effective when the Blueprint was approved, which was when the 2012–13 Budget Act was signed. The Blueprint does not provide the detail regarding the housing plans prior to the Blueprint changes. Therefore, the OIG does not have a starting point for the level of detail the new housing plans provide. This is critical because although the OIG is attempting to monitor monthly activation and deactivation plans, some of the plans the OIG has reviewed call for an activation of a housing unit to the custody level and program assignment consistent with what is already in the housing plan in the Blueprint. Because of a lack of “before-Blueprint” data, the OIG relied primarily on the institutions’ shift count reports and departmental population data to determine whether housing units were being used in accordance with the Blueprint housing plans. The OIG did not attempt to reconcile the housing plans to the program assignment level but rather to the custody levels. The OIG obtained “positive shift count” reports at each institution.17 Although those reports do not identify custody level and program assignment, they do provide inmate population counts for each housing unit. The OIG was then able to determine whether inmates are being housed at each housing unit within a level reasonably consistent with the level identified in the housing plan. The OIG found that the inmate housing is consistent with the housing plan in most instances. In fact, of the 934 housing units identified in the Blueprint, the OIG found 891 housing units (95 percent) to be operational as of February 29, 2016. 17 Positive shift count reports are reports generated at each prison at standard intervals throughout each day and accessible via the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS). The reports contain data of the number of inmate counts in each housing unit within each facility or major yard and at each prison. The reports also identify the number of inmates either off grounds or at special areas of the prison, such as being out to court, out to a medical appointment, at education, or in the administration building. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 22 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California The OIG used population data to compare the institutions’ current population by security level to the security level capacities identified in the Blueprint housing plans. The data also contained detailed information regarding program types. This approach provided validation that the housing of inmates is consistent with the Blueprint’s housing plans as it relates to inmate population levels by both housing levels and program types. The results of the OIG’s fieldwork review as of February 29, 2016, are displayed in Appendix B of this report as a statewide summary of the housing capacities identified in the Blueprint for each institution and a statewide summary for the housing units. Housing Plan—Miscellaneous Benchmarks There were several specific components identified in the Blueprint related to the comprehensive housing plan. The following table shows those components and includes their status resulting from the OIG’s review. Comprehensive Housing Plan—Completion Status Blueprint Recommendation/Prison Completion Date/Current Status Conversion of Valley State Prison for Women January 2013 - the conversion was completed and the name changed (VSPW) to a male facility by the summer of 2013. to Valley State Prison (VSP). Conversion of the former Folsom Transitional January 2013 - the conversion was completed for activation of Treatment Facility into dorms used for housing Folsom Women's Facility (FWF). female inmates (to be named Folsom Women's Facility). Planned closure of the California Rehabilitation In January 2016, the department issued An Update to the Future of Center (CRC). The plan identified its closure to California Corrections,and submitted it as part of the 2016-17 be completed by June 2016. Governor's Budget. The report noted that the state cannot eliminate its use of contract or leased beds or close the California Rehabilitation Center and maintain compliance with the court- ordered population cap. Also, the Budget includes a one-time augmentation of $6 million to address critical repairs and deferred maintenance projects to continue its use. A decline in inmates eligible for the department's This benchmark was changed with legislative support. The fire camp population. The projected inmate department has been funded to restore its previous level of fire population decline was from 4,480 inmates camps and associated inmates. The FY 2013/14 Budget Act restored (6/27/12) to 2,500 inmates (6/27/13). No schedule its funding to the original level, which eliminated the need to close of fire camp closures was identified. fire camps and reduce its inmate population. There were 3,542 inmates housed in fire camps as of February 29, 2016. New Construction: Two specific construction projects were underway at the department when the Blueprint was released: the California Health Care Facility (CHCF) in Stockton was to be activated by summer 2013, and an annex to the CHCF was being constructed. The annex will be built over the former DeWitt Nelson Youth Correctional Facility (DeWitt) and was planned to be completed by June 2014. The OIG’s review found each of these construction projects were completed on schedule: August 2013 for CHCF and March 2014 for the CHCF annex. The first inmate was received at the CHCF annex on April 1, 2014. As of February 24, 2016, CHCF had 2,192 out of its 2,951 design capacity (74 percent of design capacity). Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 23 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Health Care Facility Improvement Program (HCFIP): The Blueprint noted the health care facility improvement program was to perform facility assessments and provide upgrades in existing prisons to ensure adequate clinical and support service spaces were available to meet the treatment needs of inmate-patients. These improvements were planned to address the facility needs of outpatient medical care throughout the entire adult prison system. The HCFIP planned to first target the intermediate care prisons where inmates require more intensive medical care rather than general outpatient medical care. Improvements were to focus on addressing infection control issues, such as hand-washing facilities and the separation of clean and soiled supplies. They were also to provide the physical separation necessary to provide inmate-patient privacy with nursing and physician staff, as mandated by the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Also, the Statewide Medication Distribution Project is part of the HCFIP and is to remedy deficiencies in medication distribution at State prison facilities. Based on the assessments, the department determined that HCFIP projects were needed at 31 institutions, excluding California Health Care Facility, San Quentin State Prison, and California Rehabilitation Center. Each of the specific HCFIP projects has been established by the State Public Works Board and is in varying stages of design, with the estimated construction completion dates to occur in late-2016 and 2017. As noted by the department in its recent update to the Blueprint, 23 prisons are in construction, 3 are in the bidding phase, and 5 are in the design phase. Infill Construction: The Blueprint identified some infill construction projects due to a higher need for level II housing. The projects identified include the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex and the construction of three new facilities to house approximately 800 inmates, each to be built at existing facilities. The status of the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex is discussed above. The following provides the status of the three other infill projects. Senate Bill 1022 (Chapter 42, Statutes of 2012) authorized the design and construction of three level II facilities adjacent to one or more of the following seven facilities: California Institution for Men; California Medical Facility; California State Prison, Sacramento; California State Prison, Solano; Folsom State Prison; Mule Creek State Prison; and the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The Public Works Board took action on September 11, 2012, to authorize the 800-bed infill projects, with two slated to be built at Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) for 1,600 beds, and one at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (RJD) for 800 beds. However, in December 2012, the Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) regarding the proposed projects included proposals for evaluations at all seven institutions. Scoping hearings took place in January 2013, and formal written comments were due in early February 2013. The department submitted the EIR document for public comment, and that process was completed. A Notice of Determination was filed with the State Clearinghouse in November 2013 identifying the department’s intention to construct two projects at MCSP and one at RJD. The design build contract for MCSP was executed in March 2014, and the contract for RJD was executed in April Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 24 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2014. The department’s activation schedule for MCSP shows that 1,320 Level II Sensitive Needs Yard (SNY) and 264 Level II Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) beds will be available for inmates who began transferring in February 2016. Construction activities have commenced at RJD, and inmate occupancy is anticipated for August 2016. Contract Capacity: The Blueprint articulates the department’s plan to eliminate out-of-State contracted inmate beds by June 30, 2016. The plan is also to reestablish up to 1,225 additional community correctional facility (CCF) beds once the out-of-State inmates return. The Blueprint projected an out-of-State inmate population drop from 9,588 inmates on June 27, 2012, to 4,596 inmates by December 27, 2013. Population reports show this benchmark was not met, as over 8,800 inmates were housed outside California during this benchmark date. In the recent update to the Blueprint, the department planned to reduce the out-of-State inmate population to 4,900 inmates by the end of fiscal year 2015-16. As of February 29, 2016, the department is on-track with this reduction as 5,049 inmates are housed out-of-State in Arizona and Mississippi. In September 2013, the passage of Senate Bill 105 authorized the department to increase its level of contracted beds both in and out-of-State. The bill provides an immediate measure to avoid early release of inmates and allow the State to comply with the three-judge court order. The bill authorized the activation of California City Correctional Facility (CAC), a private prison located in Kern County. CAC is the first leased facility to be operated by the department. The facility is to house 2,400 level II general population inmates in celled housing. Inmates began transferring to CAC on December 16, 2013, and as of February 24, 2016, a total of 1,854 inmates were housed there, which is a decrease of 373 from the last OIG report, published in September 2015. According to the department, this decrease at CAC can be attributed, in part, to Proposition 47, which allows inmates to petition the court for resentencing of certain drug possession felonies to misdemeanors. CAC has recently been averaging paroling of approximately 50 inmates per month. CAC also receives its new level II inmates primarily from out-of-State, thus along with the CCFs, it is dependent on those inmates returning to California to backfill its population. Housing inmates in public modified community correctional facilities (MCCFs) within California, as shown in the table on the next page, is to assist with the reduction of in-State prison overcrowding. In December 2013, the department requested activation of 578 and 640 contracted beds with the Cities of Delano and Shafter, respectively. In March 2014, the department activated the Taft facility with plans for up to 600 inmates. The department also activated and increased capacity at other private MCCFs, including Central Valley, Desert View, and Golden State. As of January 31, 2016, the department had a total of 3,487 inmates housed in its public and private MCCFs. This was a total decrease of 121 inmates from the OIG’s last report, issued in September 2015, when 3,608 inmates were housed in MCCFs. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 25 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Modified Community Correctional Facilities—Bed Space18 MCCF Type Bed Capacity Population as of 1/31/16 Delano Public 578 473 Shafter Public 640 602 Taft Public 600 530 Central Valley Private 700 625 Desert View Private 700 619 Golden State Private 700 638 Totals 3,918 3,487 * Source: CDCR—Office of Research population data as of January 31, 2016. Population Density Levels: Appendix F of the Blueprint identified some projections regarding male inmate population density levels. Other than the projections themselves, there are no goals or benchmarks to monitor. Based on inmate population as of January 31, 2016, the table below compares the actual density (overcrowding) rates to the goals for six security level bed types. Each of the rates fall within the established goal, with the exception of level IV beds, which significantly exceed the goal at a 177 percent overcrowding rate exceeding the Blueprint goal of 150 percent. Notably, the department’s reduction of its inmate population in level II beds has decreased with the activation of CAC and use of public and private MCCFs, and infill projects at MCSP and RJD will continue to assist in reducing the overcrowding rate. Actual Density (Overcrowding) Rates in Comparison to Blueprint Design Beds Actual Actual Blueprint Population Overcrowding Population Overcrowding Blueprint Design as of Rate as of as of Rate as of Overcrowding Bed Type Beds 8/31/15 8/31/15 1/31/16 1/31/16 Goal Level I Dorm 8,283 5,015 61% 3,475 42% 150% Level II Dorm & Cell 22,908 38,280 167% 30,466 133% 150% Level III Cell 16,584 18,652 112% 22,311 135% 150% Level IV Cell 13,124 22,790 174% 23,172 177% 150% Admin. Segregation Unit 5,601 3,592 64% 2,654 47% 125% Security Housing Unit 2,934 2,918 99% 2,152 73% 120% * Source: CDCR—Office of Research population data as of August 31, 2015, and January 31, 2016, respectively. Housing Plan—Global Benchmarks The Blueprint noted the department was under federal court order to reduce overall prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent of design-bed capacity. As of February 29, 2016, department figures show an in-State prison population of 112,814 housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions with a design bed capacity of 83,49919, which amounts to 135.1 percent of design bed capacity. This figure is below the 137.5 percent court-ordered reduction required by February 28, 2016. 18 The figures for the MCCFs do not include the other in-state contract beds, which include the Female Community Reentry Facility (260-bed facility), Female Rehabilitative Community Correctional Center (75-bed facility), and Community Prisoner Mother Program (24-bed facility). 19 The design bed capacity of 83,499 is inclusive of 792 beds from its activation of Mule Creek State Prison, level II facility, which began transferring inmates into MCSP the week of February 22, 2016. The parties in the three-judge court are in the court-ordered meet-and-confer process on how much additional capacity should be counted. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 26 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California CONCLUSION The department has met its Blueprint goals in establishing a system of standardized staffing and modifying its inmate classification score system to shift over 17,000 inmates to lower security levels who now have more rehabilitation programming opportunities. The department is also adhering to the comprehensive housing plan and construction goals set in the Blueprint, though the OIG will continue to monitor a few large-scale construction projects remaining to be completed. Recently, the department met its benchmark to reduce prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent by February 28, 2016. The department has been addressing its in-State prison overcrowding with the activation of California City Correctional Facility and increased capacity at public and private modified community correctional facilities as well as additional Level II housing at Mule Creek State Prison and upcoming activation at Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The department has shown progress in meeting some of its rehabilitative benchmarks and implementing changes as a result of the Ashker settlement agreement for its modified security threat group step-down program policy. Although the department implemented all rehabilitation programs at its reentry hubs, its continuing challenge remains increasing the percentage of inmates served in rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of its target population and establishing a meaningful measurement standard. The department was unable to meet this goal as 56 percent were served by June 30, 2015. During the first two quarters of fiscal year 2015-16, inmates served have decreased slightly to 53 percent. This figure represents the department’s target population that is having at least one identified need (or all its rehabilitative needs) met. The department’s Division of Rehabilitative Programs (DRP) is currently working with the OIG to determine a more meaningful measure of participation, such as a reasonable program completion percentage or an average number of days in a program, to count as successfully addressing an offender’s needs. The DRP has established a workgroup to analyze data and develop proposals for a possible counting rule change. It should be noted that the DRP has had some recent retention challenges with losses in its senior leadership, including the director and two deputy directors. The director position has not been filled, but an interim director is currently in place. The OIG found that 88 percent of the academic education programs are operational, which represents a 1 percent decrease from the last report. The OIG found that 83 percent of the career technical education programs are operational, which represents a 7 percent increase from the last report. The primary reason academic and CTE courses were not operational are due to teacher vacancies (long-term sick, workers’ compensation, retirement, recruitment, long-term disability, etc.). The OIG also found that 99 percent of the substance abuse treatment slots at its reentry hubs are filled, which represents an 11 percent increase from the last report. A comparable increase was found in the cognitive behavioral treatment slots, which increased by 10 percent to 94 percent compliance from the last report. The department has added substance abuse programs as part of its Long Term Offender Program (LTOP) at 11 non-reentry-hub institutions and cognitive behavioral treatment and pre-employment transitions programs at its 3 LTOP Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 27 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California institutions. While full utilization is not yet at 100 percent, capacity in all areas continues to grow. Also, regarding enhanced programming facilities (EPFs), the OIG found that placement into an EPF program is not consistently behavior based, especially for new arrivals at level IV facilities, due to a lack of bed space and program failures not being referred for transfer and removed from the EPF. Many inmates do not meet the criteria for EPF placement, but without adequate bed space, department staff is compelled to utilize EPFs for temporary housing despite the requirement that EPFs only be used for inmates with a willingness to meet programming expectations. Since the intent of the EPFs is to incentivize and reinforce positive life choices, allowing other non-eligible inmates defeats the purpose of the program. Also, continuing to allow program failures to remain on the EPF after committing rules violations will jeopardize the sustainability of EPFs, especially with the recent change due to Ashker v. Brown, which no longer excludes inmates who served administrative SHU terms from EPFs. The department has pledged to examine this issue with input from the affected facilities and find solutions to the housing problem that will not adversely impact the success of the EPF program. The department has conducted 2,493 case-by-case reviews since its gang management pilot began in October 2012. The department has significantly increased its case-by-case reviews by 1,016 since Ashker v. Brown, as the department had completed 1,477 reviews (through August 21, 2015) in the OIG’s prior report. This increase was primarily due to special STG case-by-case reviews conducted by ICC’s chaired by a Warden. Of note, 77 percent of inmates reviewed were recommended for release from SHU to general population housing due to a lack of a recent SHU-eligible rule violation with an STG nexus. The department is planning to complete all remaining case-by-case reviews for 691 validated inmates housed in SHU by October 14, 2016. The OIG will continue to consult with the department in these areas with a shared interest in achieving the goals set out in the Blueprint and Ashker v. Brown settlement agreement and provide a more detailed report on step-down programming in our next report. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 28 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDICES Appendix A — Programming Plans Appendix B — Core COMPAS Assessments Appendix C — Housing Plan & Housing Units Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 29 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix A—Programming Plans The following pages display the information the OIG summarized after assessing whether the department has implemented the rehabilitation programs scheduled to be underway in fiscal year 2015–16 as identified by the department. The OIG performed the fieldwork to assess the operational status of each program at each institution. The information displayed in the following page identifies the statewide operational status of the rehabilitation programs in summary format for each type of program. An individual page for each prison is provided after the summary page. The first columns identify the numbers in terms of teacher positions and the numbers in terms of student- inmates as they were identified by the department. As described earlier, the numbers were allowed to be changed as long as they met the total departmental numbers. The next set of columns displays the results of the OIG fieldwork identifying the number of programs that were actually fully operational when the fieldwork was performed. The last set of columns identifies the differences between the number of courses that were supposed to be operational (and related available inmates served) and the number of courses that the OIG actually found to be operational during the site visits. The fieldwork performed in this review was conducted from December 2015 through January 2016. Therefore, the numbers may have changed since the time of the report. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 30 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTALS - REHABILITATION PROGRAMS Actuals CDCR Figures Differences December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Academic Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Differences Differences General Population 304 16,394 275 14,291 -29 -2,103 Alternative Programming 13 648 10 432 -3 -216 Voluntary Educ. Program 204 24,360 176 20,006 -28 -4,354 TOTALS 521 41,402 461 34,729 -60 -6,673 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Differences Differences Auto Mechanics 18 486 16 405 -2 -81 Auto Repair 15 405 14 378 -1 -27 Building Maintenance 25 675 22 540 -3 -135 Carpentry 16 432 14 378 -2 -54 Computer Literacy 35 1,876 31 1,660 -4 -216 Cosmetology 3 81 3 81 0 0 Electrical Works 19 513 16 431 -3 -82 Electronics 33 891 28 729 -5 -162 HVAC 13 351 11 297 -2 -54 Landscaping 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 4 108 1 27 -3 -81 Masonry 15 405 14 378 -1 -27 Office Services and Related 41 1,107 37 1,053 -4 -54 Technology (OSRT) Painting 3 81 2 54 -1 -27 Plumbing 10 270 7 189 -3 -81 Roofing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 1 27 1 27 0 0 Small Engine Repair 9 243 6 162 -3 -81 Welding 21 567 11 297 -10 -270 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 283 8,572 235 7,113 -48 -1,459 Annual Student Student Actual Student Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Students in Capacity Programs (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Differences Differences Substance Abuse 1,596 3,072 1,587 3,056 -9 -16 Substance Abuse-Stand 1,068 2,136 881 1,762 -187 -374 Alone (Non-Reentry) Cognitive-Behavioral 2,364 7,728 2,227 7,402 -137 -326 TOTALS 5,028 12,936 4,695 12,220 -333 -716 Inmates Annual Program Served Served Employment Programs Slots Annual Served (Actual) (Projected) Differences Differences Transitions Program 675 5,940 483 4,167 -192 -1,773 TOTALS 675 5,940 483 4,167 -192 -1,773 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 31 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS AVENAL STATE PRISON (ASP) ASP is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures Differences December 2015 - January 2016 FY 15-16 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 18 972 16 864 -2 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 840 6 720 0 -120 TOTALS 24 1812 22 1584 -2 -228 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Building Maintenance 2 54 2 54 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 2 108 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 HVAC 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 3 81 2 54 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 17 513 12 378 -5 -135 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 132 264 -60 -120 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 190 633 -98 -327 TOTALS 480 1343.904 322 897 -158 -447 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 59 540 -1 0 TOTALS 60 540 59 540 -1 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 32 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA CITY CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CAC) CAC was activated as a Standard Program Site in December 2013. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures Differences December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 2 108 2 108 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 360 5 600 0 240 TOTALS 7 468 7 708 0 240 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 OSRT 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 81 2 81 0 0 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 60 120 60 120 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 36 120 0 0 -36 -120 TOTALS 96 240 60 120 -36 -120 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 15 135 15 135 0 0 TOTALS 15 135 15 135 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 33 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON (CAL) CAL is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 648 9 594 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 5 600 -2 -240 TOTALS 17 1488 14 1194 -3 -294 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 1 54 -1 -54 Electrical Works 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 1 54 1 54 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8 270 7 243 -1 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 48 96 48 96 0 0 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 34 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION (CCI) CCI was designated as a Standard Program Site on 12/4/12 although it was originally designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area (programs have been minimally updated since the change in designation): CDCR Figures Differences Actuals December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 526 9 464 -1 -62 Voluntary Educ. Program 9 1080 8 960 -1 -120 TOTALS 19 1606 17 1424 -2 -182 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 2 54 2 54 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 2 54 2 54 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 11 297 10 270 -1 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 120 240 120 240 0 0 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 35 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY (CHCF) CHCF is designated as a Standard Program Site. It was recently activated in July 2013. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Actuals Differences December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 3 162 4 108 1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 360 1 120 -4 -240 TOTALS 8 522 5 228 -3 -294 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 1 54 1 -54 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 108 1 54 1 -54 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 36 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR MEN (CIM) CIM is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Differences Actuals December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 15 702 12 648 -3 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 720 5 600 -1 -120 TOTALS 21 1422 17 1248 -4 -174 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 2 54 0 0 Carpentry 2 54 2 54 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electrical Works 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 1 27 1 27 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 14 405 11 324 -3 -81 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 326 652 134 268 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 959 0 -1 TOTALS 480 1344 614 1611 134 267 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 53 477 -7 -63 TOTALS 60 540 53 477 -7 -63 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 37 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN (CIW) CIW is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Differences Actuals December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 7 378 4 216 -3 -162 Voluntary Educ. Program 3 360 3 360 0 0 TOTALS 10 738 7 576 -3 -162 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 OSRT 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 162 5 162 0 0 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 96 192 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 120 384 120 399 0 15 TOTALS 216 576 216 591 0 15 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 60 540 0 0 TOTALS 60 540 60 540 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 38 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY (CMF) CMF is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Actuals Differences FY 14-15 December 2014 - (Actuals - Final) January 2015 Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 3 162 3 162 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 7 642 7 642 0 0 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 1 27 1 27 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 54 2 54 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 39 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA MEN'S COLONY (CMC) CMC is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Actuals Differences December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 12 702 13 602 1 -100 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 10 1200 10 120 0 -1080 TOTALS 22 1902 23 722 1 -1180 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 2 108 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 12 378 10 324 -2 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 72 144 98 196 26 52 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 252 839 108 359 TOTALS 216 624 350 1035 134 411 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 40 360 30 333 -10 -27 TOTALS 40 360 30 333 -10 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 40 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA REHABILITATION CENTER (CRC) CRC was designated as a Standard Program Site on 9/20/13 although it was originally designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 486 11 594 1 108 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 4 480 -1 -120 TOTALS 15 1086 15 1074 0 -12 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 9 270 7 216 -2 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 120 240 120 240 0 0 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 41 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, CORCORAN (COR) COR is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 540 8 432 -2 -108 Alternative Programming 3 162 3 162 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 18 1302 16 1194 -2 -108 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 1 27 1 27 Machine Shop 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 162 5 135 -1 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 96 192 84 168 -12 -24 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 42 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, LOS ANGELES COUNTY (LAC) LAC was designated as a Re-Entry Hub on 12/4/12 although it was originally designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area (programs have been minimally updated since the change in designation): Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 7 378 5 270 -2 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 12 978 10 870 -2 -108 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Painting 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 7 216 7 216 0 0 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 72 144 28 56 -44 -88 Substance Abuse-Stand 48 96 48 96 0 0 Alone Cognitive-Behavioral 120 384 106 339 -14 -45 TOTALS 240 624 182 491 -58 -133 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 29 261 -31 -279 TOTALS 60 540 29 261 -31 -279 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 43 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SACRAMENTO (SAC) SAC is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 6 324 5 270 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 6 720 1 120 TOTALS 11 924 11 990 0 66 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electrical Works 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 4 135 4 135 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 44 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SAN QUENTIN (SQ) SQ is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 6 324 6 324 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 5 480 -2 -360 TOTALS 13 1164 11 804 -2 -360 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 162 4 135 -1 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 45 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SOLANO (SOL) SOL was designated as a Standard Program Site on 12/4/12 although it was originally designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area (programs have been minimally updated since the change in designation): Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 13 608 12 498 -1 -110 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 18 1208 17 1098 -1 -110 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8 243 7 216 -1 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 46 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY (SATF) SATF is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 18 972 17 918 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 11 1320 11 1320 0 0 TOTALS 29 2292 28 2238 -1 -54 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 2 108 0 0 Electrical Works 2 54 2 54 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Painting 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 17 513 17 513 0 0 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 144 288 150 300 6 12 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 207 689 -81 -271 TOTALS 432 1248 357 989 -75 -259 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 TOTALS 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 47 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIPATRIA STATE PRISON (CAL) CAL is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 648 9 594 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 5 600 -2 -240 TOTALS 17 1488 14 1194 -3 -294 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 1 54 -1 -54 Electrical Works 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 1 54 1 54 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8 270 7 243 -1 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 48 96 48 96 0 0 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 48 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CENTINELA STATE PRISON (CEN) CEN is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 11 594 12 648 1 54 Voluntary Educ. Program 8 960 6 720 -2 -240 TOTALS 19 1554 18 1368 -1 -186 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 0 0 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electrical Works 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 0 0 -27 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 3 81 2 54 -1 -27 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Roofing 1 27 1 27 0 0 TOTALS 11 297 8 162 -3 -135 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 96 192 46 92 -50 -100 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 49 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CENTRAL CALIFORNIA WOMEN'S FACILITY (CCWF) CCWF is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 9 486 7 378 -2 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 4 494 -1 -106 TOTALS 14 1086 11 872 -3 -214 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 0 0 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 10 297 9 243 -1 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 109 218 13 26 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 216 719 72 239 TOTALS 240 672 325 937 85 265 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 30 270 30 270 0 0 TOTALS 30 270 30 270 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 50 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CHUCKAWALLA VALLEY STATE PRISION (CVSP) CVSP is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 540 11 540 1 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 3 480 -1 0 TOTALS 14 1020 14 1020 0 0 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Painting 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 14 405 11 324 -3 -81 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 87 174 -9 -18 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 123 409 -21 -71 TOTALS 240 672 210 583 -30 -89 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 30 270 30 270 0 0 TOTALS 30 270 30 270 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 51 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY (CTF) CTF is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Actuals Differences December 2015 - FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 22 1188 20 1052 -2 -136 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 1200 4 412 -3 -788 TOTALS 29 2388 24 1464 -5 -924 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 2 108 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 2 54 2 54 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 16 486 14 432 -2 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 120 240 98 196 -22 -44 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 111 370 -33 -110 TOTALS 264 720 209 566 -55 -154 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 50 450 41 369 -9 -81 TOTALS 50 450 41 369 -9 -81 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 52 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS DEUEL VOCATIONAL INSTITUTION (DVI) DVI is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 1 54 1 46 0 -8 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 3 360 -2 -240 TOTALS 6 654 4 406 -2 -248 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 0 0 -1 -54 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 1 54 1 54 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 4 135 4 135 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 53 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS FOLSOM STATE PRISON (FSP) FSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 8 450 9 450 1 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 840 6 600 0 -240 TOTALS 14 1290 15 1050 1 -240 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Landscaping 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 2 54 0 0 -2 -54 TOTALS 12 351 9 270 -3 -81 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 12 24 0 0 -12 -24 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 54 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS FOLSOM WOMEN'S FACILITY (FWF) FWF is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 1 50 1 50 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 1 120 1 120 0 0 TOTALS 2 170 2 170 0 0 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 40 1 40 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 40 1 40 0 0 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 48 96 45 92 -3 -4 Cognitive-Behavioral 72 240 41 136 -31 -104 TOTALS 120 336 86 228 -34 -108 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 30 270 24 216 -6 -54 TOTALS 30 270 24 216 -6 -54 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 55 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS HIGH DESERT STATE PRISON (HDSP) HDSP was designated as a Re-Entry Hub on 9/20/13 although it was originally designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 5 270 5 378 0 108 Alternative Programming 3 108 2 0 -1 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 12 858 10 738 -2 -120 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 4 216 3 162 -1 -54 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 270 5 216 -1 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) ) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 46 92 -50 -100 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 144 480 0 0 TOTALS 240 672 46 92 -50 -100 Inmates Annual Employment Program Annual Served Served Differences Differences Programs Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 27 243 -33 -297 TOTALS 60 540 27 243 -33 -297 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 56 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS IRONWOOD STATE PRISON (ISP) ISP was designated as a Re-Entry Hub on 12/4/12 although it was originally designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area (programs have been minimally updated since the Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 12 648 12 648 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 9 1080 8 960 -1 -120 TOTALS 21 1728 20 1608 -1 -120 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 108 2 108 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 2 54 2 54 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 2 54 2 54 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 15 459 12 378 -3 -81 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 96 192 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 141 470 -3 -10 TOTALS 240 672 237 662 -3 -10 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 57 513 -3 -27 TOTALS 60 540 57 513 -3 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 57 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON (KVSP) KVSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 13 702 11 555 -2 -147 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 7 840 0 0 TOTALS 20 1542 18 1395 -2 -147 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8 216 6 162 -2 -54 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 58 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS MULE CREEK STATE PRISON (MCSP) MCSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 8 432 8 432 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 4 480 -1 -120 TOTALS 13 1032 12 912 -1 -120 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 4 108 3 81 -1 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 59 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS NORTH KERN STATE PRISON (NKSP) NKSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 2 108 1 54 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 6 588 4 414 -2 -174 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 26 0 -1 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 54 2 53 0 -1 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 60 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS PELICAN BAY STATE PRISON (PBSP) PBSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative Programming 5 270 4 216 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 4 720 -1 120 TOTALS 10 870 8 936 -2 66 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 81 2 81 0 0 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 61 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON (PVSP) PVSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 12 648 11 594 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 17 1248 16 1194 -1 -54 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 9 243 7 189 -2 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 144 288 144 288 0 0 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 62 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY (RJD) RJD is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 6 324 4 216 -2 -108 Alternative Programming 2 108 1 54 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 380 0 -100 TOTALS 12 912 9 650 -3 -262 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 1 54 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 1 27 1 27 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 189 4 135 -2 -54 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 96 192 49 98 -47 -94 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 63 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON (SVSP) SVSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 10 540 7 270 -3 -270 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 14 1020 10 630 -4 -390 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 0 0 -1 -54 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 4 135 0 0 -4 -135 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 64 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS SIERRA CONSERVATION CENTER (SCC) SCC is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 8 396 6 268 -2 -128 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 4 480 -1 -120 TOTALS 13 996 10 748 -3 -248 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 0 0 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 8 216 8 189 0 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse-Stand 120 240 102 204 -18 -36 Alone Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 65 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS VALLEY STATE PRISON (VSP) VSP is designated as a Re-Entry Hub. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education, Career Technical Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, Cognitive-Behavioral Programs (including criminal thinking, anger management, and family programming), Employment Training, and a cognitive behavioral based program for life-term inmates. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: Actuals CDCR Figures December 2015 - Differences FY 15-16 January 2016 (Actuals - Final) Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 8 432 6 324 -2 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 8 960 8 960 0 0 TOTALS 16 1392 14 1284 -2 -108 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 54 2 54 1 0 Cosmetology 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 12 351 12 324 0 -27 Annual Student Student Actual Contract Treatment Student Capacity Capacity Students in Differences Differences Programs Capacity (/Program) (Annual) Program (Projected) Substance Abuse 216 432 216 432 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 960 0 0 TOTALS 504 1392 504 1392 0 0 Inmates Annual Program Annual Employment Programs Served Served Differences Differences Slots Served (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 60 540 28 0 -32 -540 TOTALS 60 540 28 0 -32 -540 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 66 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A — PROGRAMMING PLANS WASCO STATE PRISON (WSP) WSP is designated as a Standard Program Site. Programs at this institution are to include Academic Education and Career Technical Education. The tables below illustrate the planned and actual staffing and student capacities by program area: CDCR Figures Actuals Differences FY 14-15 December 2014 - (Actuals - Final) January 2015 Actual Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Academic Education Student Differences Differences Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity General Population 1 54 0 0 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 5 534 4 480 -1 -54 Actual Career Technical Proposed Budgeted Actual Staff Student Differences Differences Education Staff Capacity (Programs) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 67 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix B—Core COMPAS Assessments The following displays the department’s status in completing core COMPAS assessments for each inmate to assess his or her rehabilitative needs. The data is as of January 31, 2016. Inmates with Inmates Percent with Inmate Core Without Core Institution Population COMPAS COMPAS COMPAS Avenal State Prison 3,320 3,231 89 97.3% California City Correctional Facility 1,843 1,842 1 99.9% California Correctional Center 3,941 3,782 159 96.0% California Correctional Institution 3,590 3,415 175 95.1% California Health Care Facility 2,190 1,194 996 54.5% California Institution for Men 3,580 3,261 319 91.1% California Institution for Women 1,918 1,764 154 92.0% California Medical Facility 2,538 1,941 597 76.5% California Men's Colony 4,083 3,255 828 79.7% California Rehabilitation Center 2,923 2,913 10 99.7% California State Prison, Los Angeles County 3,584 2,696 888 75.2% California State Prison, Corcoran 4,157 3,263 894 78.5% California State Prison, Sacramento 2,294 1,487 807 64.8% California State Prison, San Quentin 3,845 1,850 1,995 48.1% California State Prison, Solano 3,860 3,021 839 78.3% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran 5,401 4,469 932 82.7% Calipatria State Prison 3,845 3,168 677 82.4% Centinela State Prison 3,388 2,823 565 83.3% Central California Women's Facility 2,773 1,848 925 66.6% Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2,359 2,225 134 94.3% Correctional Training Facility 5,098 4,300 798 84.3% Deuel Vocational Institution 2,732 1,802 930 66.0% Folsom State Prison 2,372 1,964 408 82.8% Folsom Women's Facility 501 501 0 100.0% High Desert State Prison 3,564 3,392 172 95.2% Ironwood State Prison 3,493 2,936 557 84.1% Kern Valley State Prison 3,954 3,250 704 82.2% Mule Creek State Prison 2,823 1,570 1,253 55.6% North Kern State Prison 4,258 2,243 2,015 52.7% Out of State Correctional Facilities-Various 5,141 4,038 1,103 78.5% Pelican Bay State Prison 2,290 1,698 592 74.1% Pleasant Valley State Prison 3,146 2,874 272 91.4% Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 3,236 2,210 1,026 68.3% Salinas Valley State Prison 3,692 2,378 1,314 64.4% Sierra Conservation Center 4,414 3,927 487 89.0% Valley State Prison 3,400 2,870 530 84.4% Wasco State Prison 4,951 2,486 2,465 50.2% TOTALS 124,497 97,887 26,610 78.6% * Miscellanous pertains to special non-state prison housing such as community correctional facilities or special housing programs. * Miscellanous-Special Housing / Non-State Prisons 4,970 Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 68 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix C—Housing Plans The following pages display the information the OIG summarized after reviewing data and documents to assess whether the department is housing inmates consistent with the housing plans identified in the Blueprint. The first page of Appendix C displays data in summary format by institution totals and then unit total for each institution. The OIG compared the individual Blueprint housing plans for each institution at the unit level against institution count reports from CDCR’s weekly population report as of February 29, 2016. These reports allowed a snapshot view of the inmate population for each housing unit in operation. The summary pages compare the design capacity against the actual inmate population. Several institutions had vacant housing units at the time of the review due to maintenance or conversion. The department plans to have inmates housed in some of those units once maintenance and conversion are completed. In summary, the OIG’s assessment found that the actual housing of inmates is substantially consistent with the housing plans identified in the Blueprint. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 69 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix C—Housing Plans HOUSING PLAN - STATEWIDE SUMMARY OVERCROWDING RATE * TOTAL INMATE ON REVIEW DATE * STAFFED COUNTS (BASED ON DESIGN INSTITUTION * DESIGN CAPACITY CAPACITY (February 29, 2016) CAPACITY) Avenal State Prison 2,920 4,727 3,292 113% California Correctional Center 3,883 4,872 3,891 100% California Correctional Institution 2,783 4,414 3,421 123% California Health Care Facility 2,951 2,951 2,198 74% California Institution for Men 2,976 4,728 3,501 118% California Institution for Women 1,398 2,042 1,827 131% California Medical Facility 2,361 2,756 2,533 107% California Men's Colony 3,838 4,668 4,065 106% California Rehabilitation Center 2,491 3,487 2,991 120% California State Prison, Corcoran 3,116 4,445 4,131 133% California State Prison, Los Angeles County 2,300 3,600 3,520 153% California State Prison, Sacramento 1,828 2,312 2,313 127% California State Prison, San Quentin 3,082 3,956 3,854 125% California State Prison, Solano 2,610 3,890 3,844 147% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 3,424 5,449 5,285 154% Calipatria State Prison 2,308 3,883 3,775 164% Centinela State Prison 2,308 3,433 3,544 154% Central California Women's Facility 2,004 3,513 2,829 141% Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 1,738 2,641 2,409 139% Correctional Training Facility 3,312 5,231 5,029 152% Deuel Vocational Institution 1,681 2,580 2,359 140% Folsom State Prison 2,066 2,895 2,428 118% Folsom Women's Facility 403 483 500 124% High Desert State Prison 2,324 3,461 3,623 156% Ironwood State Prison 2,200 3,200 3,377 154% Kern Valley State Prison 2,448 3,910 3,927 160% Mule Creek State Prison 2,492 3,599 2,818 113% North Kern State Prison 2,694 4,529 4,132 153% Pelican Bay State Prison 2,380 3,048 2,266 95% Pleasant Valley State Prison 2,308 3,533 3,160 137% Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility 2,200 3,305 3,163 144% Salinas Valley State Prison 2,452 3,657 3,642 149% Sierra Conservation Center 3,936 4,774 4,337 110% Valley State Prison 1,980 3,346 3,356 169% Wasco State Prison 2,984 4,997 5,016 168% GRAND TOTAL 88,179 128,315 116,356 132% * Design and staffed capacity totals and institution counts per institution were obtained from CDCR's Weekly Report of Population as of February 29, 2016. Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 70 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California Appendix C—Housing Plans HOUSING UNITS - STATEWIDE SUMMARY Housing Units In Use Reviewed by Housing Unit OIG Percent Of Count Per Housing Units - (February 29, Housing Units INSTITUTION INSTITUTION Blueprint VACANT 2016) In Use Avenal State Prison ASP 25 0 25 100% California Correctional Center CCC 31 1 30 97% California Correctional Institution CCI 37 5 32 87% California Health Care Facility CHCF 29 2 27 93% California Institution for Men CIM 30 3 28 93% California Institution for Women CIW 21 2 15 71% California Medical Facility CMF 41 1 40 98% California Men's Colony CMC 19 0 18 95% California Rehabilitation Center CRC 51 8 44 86% California State Prison, Corcoran COR 41 0 37 90% California State Prison, Los Angeles County LAC 23 1 22 96% California State Prison, Sacramento SAC 27 0 27 100% California State Prison, San Quentin SQ 29 2 27 93% California State Prison, Solano SOL 24 0 24 100% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility SATF 31 0 31 100% Calipatria State Prison CAL 24 0 24 100% Centinela State Prison CEN 24 0 24 100% Central California Women's Facility CCWF 20 0 18 90% Chuckawalla Valley State Prison CVSP 15 0 15 100% Correctional Training Facility CTF 23 1 24 104% Deuel Vocational Institution DVI 17 1 13 77% Folsom State Prison FSP 21 0 21 100% Folsom Women's Facility FWF 2 0 2 100% High Desert State Prison HDSP 29 1 28 97% Ironwood State Prison ISP 22 0 22 100% Kern Valley State Prison KVSP 36 1 35 97% Mule Creek State Prison MCSP 19 -3 22 116% North Kern State Prison NKSP 26 1 25 96% Pelican Bay State Prison PBSP 42 5 37 88% Pleasant Valley State Prison PVSP 24 1 23 96% Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility RJD 24 0 24 100% Salinas Valley State Prison SVSP 31 0 31 100% Sierra Conservation Center SCC 31 -1 32 103% Valley State Prison VSP 16 0 16 100% Wasco State Prison WSP 29 1 28 97% GRAND TOTAL 934 33 891 95% Seventh Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 71 of 71 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2016 Blueprint Monitoring Report OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA March 2016