OIG
Sixth Report on CDCRs Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint
Robert A. Barton
Office of the Inspector General
Inspector General
Sixth Report on the California
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation’s Progress
Implementing its
Future of California Corrections
Blueprint
September 2015
Office of the Inspector General
Sixth 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
September 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD ....................................................................................................................... i
GANG MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................... 1
Security Threat Group—Current Status ...................................................................... 1
Security Threat Group—Pilot Program Completed .................................................... 3
Security Threat Group—Gang Management Program ................................................ 3
Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Inmates (Steps 1 through 4) .............. 6
Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Facilitators ........................................ 7
INMATE CLASSIFICATION SCORE SYSTEM ............................................................. 9
Modification of the Inmate Classification Score System ............................................ 9
ICSS—Miscellaneous Data Benchmarks .................................................................. 10
COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN........................................................................... 13
Institution Housing Plans ........................................................................................... 13
Housing Plan—Miscellaneous Benchmarks .............................................................. 14
Housing Plan—Global Benchmarks .......................................................................... 18
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 19
APPENDICES .................................................................................................................. 20
FOREWORD
In July 2012, the oversight role of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was
expanded when the Legislature tasked the OIG with monitoring the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s 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).
To monitor implementation of the 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:
• 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;
• The establishment of and adherence to the standardized staffing model at each
institution;
• The establishment of and adherence to the new inmate classification score system;
• 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; and
• The implementation of and adherence to the comprehensive housing plan
described in the Blueprint.
This report represents the results of the OIG’s sixth review of CDCR’s implementation of
the Blueprint. This Blueprint report is the OIG’s first report without the assessment of
rehabilitative efforts, as the review of rehabilitative goals was merged into the California
Rehabilitation Oversight Board’s (C-ROB) September 15, 2015 Annual Report, which
also tasks the OIG with conducting fieldwork in assessing rehabilitative efforts. As shown
in the C-ROB report, the department made progress in implementing some measures to
reach some benchmarks identified in the Blueprint, but it was unable to attain its goal of
placing at least 70 percent of its in-prison target population in program consistent with
their academic and rehabilitative needs by June 30, 2015. The department demonstrated a
56 percent rate of accomplishment during fiscal year 2014–15, which represents an 11
percent increase from fiscal year 2013–14. The department met its goal to accommodate
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint i
Office of the Inspector General State of California
70 percent of parolees in a rehabilitative program consistent with their employment,
education, or substance abuse needs. The department calculated that 72 percent of parolees
participated in programs that addressed at least one need during their first year of release.
It is important to note that some of the reforms contained in the Blueprint have already
been completed while other implementation goals target future dates. For instance, the
standardized staffing goal has already been completed and will no longer be monitored or
reported on, unless significant changes are made in the future or if requested by the
legislature.
This sixth report is based on information from May 18, 2015, through September 2, 2015,
and subsequent reports will assess progress meeting future benchmarks and goals of the
Blueprint.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint ii
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. Since the
Blueprint was launched in April 2012, prior to the department establishing its pilot
program for gang management, it did not include any target dates or specific benchmarks
to be achieved.
Security Threat Group—Current Status
On August 31, 2015, the department entered into a settlement agreement for
Todd Ashker, et al., v. Governor of the State of California, et al., Settlement Agreement,
C 09-05796 CW (Ashker v. Governor). 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. The table below shows the time frames of documented STG behavior
that the Department’s Review Board (DRB) considers when determining the
appropriate SDP placement. The occurrence of a rule violation for placement within
the SDP now encompasses a shorter 6-month period. Also, step 5 is eliminated, which
previously required inactive monitoring of inmates.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 1 of 22
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
(SDP) Placement (SDP) Placement
Behavior Prior to the Behavior Prior to the
DRB Hearing DRB Hearing
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)
• 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 department is
planning to have approximately 100 RCGP housing beds available at Pelican Bay
State Prison (PBSP) in October 2015.
• 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.
• 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 the court’s preliminary approval of this agreement. This includes
inmates who had an indeterminate SHU term assessed under prior regulations, who
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 2 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
are currently assigned to steps one through four, or who were assigned to step five,
but were retained in a SHU.1
Security Threat Group—Pilot Program Completed
The department implemented a 24-month STG pilot program, from October 18, 2012
through October 17, 2014. On September 5, 2014, the department submitted its final
rulemaking package for approval by the Office of Administrative Law, which determines
whether regulations will be made permanent. On October 17, 2014, the Office of
Administrative Law approved and adopted the new STG policy to Title 15, California
Code of Regulations. The OIG’s recent monitoring of the department’s gang management
policy described below was completed prior to the Ashker v. Governor settlement
agreement previously discussed.
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 SHUs.2 The department’s policy for identifying
prison-based gang members and associates and isolating them from the general
population has been replaced with a model that identifies, targets, and manages STGs,
and utilizes a behavior-based SDP for validated affiliates.3,4 This policy allows gang
affiliates an opportunity to work their way 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).
1 The department uses indeterminate SHU terms for non-STG disciplinary matters. The Ashker v. Governor
settlement does not change this practice.
2 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.”
3 The term “security threat group” has generally replaced the term “prison gang,” “disruptive group,” or
“street gang” within CDCR.
4 Affiliates are individual offenders (inmates), identified as “members,” “associates,” or “monitored,” who
are connected or interact with a certified security threat group.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 3 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
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 (step 5 of the SDP). 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 (step 5) or further
retention in the SHU within one of the four programming steps of the SDP. The
department intends to continue this process until all inmates validated prior to March 1,
2013, have received an individual case review. The department data shows that as of
August 19, 2015, a total of 1,407 inmates are pending a case-by-case review, consisting
of 1,246 inmates housed within a SHU facility5 and 161 inmates housed in ASU.
One of the key components is that validated STG associates will no longer be
automatically placed into the SHU (or an SDP) based solely upon their validation as an
STG associate. In addition to formal validation, an associate must also demonstrate STG
disciplinary behavior as part of, or subsequent to, the initial validation in order to be
considered for placement in the SHU or the SDP. If documented STG behavior occurred
within the past four years and the DRB determines it is credible, the DRB will then select
the appropriate step for placement consideration. However, if no documented STG
behavior was found to have occurred within the past four years, an inmate will be
released to general population (step 5), typically to a level IV institution for a period of
one year. The step 5 inmate is identified as being on inactive monitored status and would
be eligible for transfer to an institution consistent with his placement score after 12
months of STG discipline-free behavior.6
As shown in the table on the following page, as of August 21, 2015, the DRB reviewed a
total of 1,229 cases at the four SHU institutions. This was an increase of 407 cases since
the last OIG report issued in March 2015. Of the 1,229 cases reviewed, the department
approved 951 inmates (77 percent) for release to general population (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.
Additionally, 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 the ASU at various institutions
5 Some inmates may be located in a Psychiatric Services Unit (PSU), which is a secured housing unit for
inmates at the Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) level of care.
6 Subsequent to the Ashker v. Governor settlement, this step will no longer exist.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 4 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
throughout the State and will have their case-by-case reviews conducted once they arrive
in the SHU. As shown in the right-hand column on the table below, documents from the
department display that through August 21, 2015, the Institution Classification
Committee (ICC) reviewed a total of 248 cases. Of the 248 cases reviewed, the
department approved 158 inmates (64 percent) for release to general population and
placed 56 inmates (23 percent) in step 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the SDP. The remaining 34 inmates
were retained in the ASU due to safety concerns, debriefing, or disciplinary reasons. The
total number of ICC case reviews increased by only two cases since the last OIG report.
The department conducted a total of 1,477 case-by-case reviews, an increase of 407 as
identified in the OIG’s prior report, since its gang management pilot began in October
2012. This represents 51 percent of its current STG population who were validated prior
to March 1, 2013.
Summary of Outcomes from Case-by-Case Reviews
SHU-DRB Hearing ASU-ICC Hearing
Outcome
Number of Inmates Number of Inmates
SDP–Step 1 73 48
SDP–Step 2 84 3
SDP–Step 3 57 4
SDP–Step 4 51 1
Released to GP–Step 5 951 158
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 1,229 248
Source: CDCR—Data as of August 21, 2015
The OIG estimates that at its current rate, the department will take 22 months to complete
all 1,407 (49 percent) of its remaining case-by-case reviews. However, based on the
Ashker v. Governor settlement agreement, all remaining case-by-case reviews for
validated inmates housed in SHU are to be completed within the next 12 months.
The department’s Special Project Team (SPT), during the past few years, was tasked with
developing the new STG management policy, implementing a 24-month pilot program,
creating new procedures and regulations, providing staff training, addressing legal and
legislative issues, and conducting active and inactive reviews.7 Each of these items
7 With the adoption of STG regulations into law, the previous six-year inactive review language was
officially removed from regulations. However, the department is continuing to provide the six-year inactive
review process, in conjunction with the ongoing case-by-case review process, to those inmates assigned a
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 5 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
impacted the DRB’s ability to accelerate its case-by-case reviews. Two additional
wardens were trained to expand the inactive or case-by-case review process.
Security Threat Group—Status Report of SDP Inmates
(Steps 1 through 4)
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. If an inmate
refuses to participate in the journaling or programming, the inmate will return to a
previous step or regress further.
The OIG’s fieldwork conducted through June 30, 2015, reviewed the current status of 74
inmates who were assigned to the SDP (steps 1 through 4) for at least 12 months to
identify the result of the ICC review.8,9 As summarized on the next page, the OIG found
that 41 of the 74 inmates (55 percent) successfully progressed to the next step, 31 inmates
(42 percent) were retained in their current steps, and 2 inmates (3 percent) regressed to a
prior step.
The percentage of inmates who progressed (55 percent) based on active participation in
the SDP increased by 7 percent since the last OIG report. The percentage of inmates
retained in their current step increased by 1 percent, while the inmates who regressed
decreased by 8 percent from the last OIG report. As shown in the diagram on the next
page, the OIG found that 14 of the 33 inmates (42 percent) from the retain and regress
categories refused to participate in the SDP. For the inmates who were unable to
progress, it was primarily due to “refusing to participate,” please see discussion below for
further discussion of inmate refusals.
six-year inactive review date. Thus, inmates currently housed in the SHU due to validation as an STG-I
(term used to identify and prioritize the level of threat the group presents) affiliate prior to March 1, 2013,
will be retained pending appearance before the DRB.
8 Based on the review of department data, as of May 1, 2015, the OIG identified 74 SDP inmates assigned
to steps 1 through 4 who had undergone an ICC review.
9 As part of its gang management policy, the department conducts institutional classification committee
(ICC) program reviews to monitor the progress and behavior of inmates within the SDP. Each step is
designed to be completed in 12 months but may be accelerated at the 180-day review. The ICC typically
discusses an inmate’s retention in its current step, regression to beginning of the current step, regression to
a prior step, or reduction in privilege levels.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 6 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Status of Inmates Placed in Steps 1 through 4 of the Step-Down Program (SDP)
PROGRESS
41 Inmates
(55%)
TOTAL
RETAIN
FILES
31 Inmates
REVIEWED
(42%)
74
REFUSE
14 Inmates
(42%)
REGRESS
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. The program components include voluntary education program, pro-social
videos, self-journaling workbooks, interactive journaling workbooks, Thinking for a
Change, and conflict resolution. The journaling workbooks cover areas like violence
prevention, criminal lifestyle, rational thinking, living with others, substance abuse, and
social values. The OIG interviewed an SDP facilitator at each SHU institution to
ascertain their role in facilitating the journaling workbooks and group activities.10
The SDP facilitators’ roles are varied and generally include interviewing new SDP
arrivals, discussing orientation and expectations of the SDP, providing inmates with a
notice of expectations and required journals, conducting group therapy sessions,
reviewing caseload management (i.e. inmate safety concerns, review completed journals,
etc.), completing SDP progress notes, and answering questions regarding the program.
The facilitator’s caseload varies from 24 to 142 inmates, depending on the number of
facilitators and SDP inmates at each SHU institution. Some SDP facilitators commented
that the Thinking for a Change curriculum was structured toward inmates with minimal
education and/or social skills, thus making it difficult for some inmates wanting to invest
in the program. For example, a step 3 inmate is required to learn basic social skills, such
10 As of September 2015, the department has a total of nine SDP facilitators at the four SHU institutions.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 7 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
as “how to ask a question,” and some inmates refuse to participate at that level. The SDP
facilitators stated that if an inmate has a learning barrier, which is identified with a low
TABE reading score (0.0 to 3.9), self-help coordinators are available to assist inmates in
completing the program materials. Inmates will not be retained in a step or penalized due
to comprehension issues.
The OIG found that since May 2015 many inmates refused to participate in the SDP in
anticipation of plaintiff the Ashker v. Governor settlement. Although the department
entered into a settlement agreement on August 31, 2015, many inmates continue to refuse
to participate with the belief that they will not be held accountable by the department for
not participating. Department figures show a 40 percent (124 out of 307 inmates) refusal
rate of SDP inmates in steps 1 through 4, primarily consisting of 85 inmates in steps 3
and 4 at the California Correctional Institution.
Number of Inmates Refusing to Participate in the SDP
Steps 1 through 4 Step 5
Total
Institution
% of Inmates Number
Participants Refusals Participants Refusals
Refusing
California Correctional
4 85 96% 20 0 109
Institution
California State Prison,
71 3 4% 81 0 155
Corcoran
California State Prison,
17 2 11% 5 0 24
Sacramento
Pelican Bay State
91 34 27% 17 0 142
Prison
Totals 183 124 40% 123 0 430
Source: CDCR—Data as of September 17, 2015
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.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 8 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
INMATE CLASSIFICATION SCORE
SYSTEM
The department uses an inmate classification score system (ICSS) to ensure its inmates
are properly housed and supervised. After review of the inmate classification score
system, an expert panel concluded in 2011 that the point thresholds used by CDCR to
assign housing could be changed without increasing the risk of serious misconduct.11 As
a result, the Blueprint stated the department would adjust the point thresholds and file
emergency regulations to adopt the recommendations set forth in the ICSS study with the
Office of Administrative Law by June 2012.
Modification of the Inmate Classification Score System
According to the department, the ICSS is one of the primary factors used to determine the
most appropriate housing and supervision for each inmate. The department’s goal is to
modify the ICSS by changing the point thresholds between the four levels used for
housing purposes. The department anticipates the changes affecting male inmates will
bring about better access to rehabilitative programs and avoid unnecessary
over-classification, thereby increasing success upon release.12 The department also
anticipates reduced costs, because higher levels of housing correspond to higher costs.
The department’s emergency regulations to implement the expert panel’s
recommendations became effective July 1, 2012. As stated in the Blueprint, the
department expected that the new regulations would be fully implemented by 2015, and
over 9,500 male inmates will be moved from level IV to level III and over 7,000 from
level III to level II. Based on a review of ICSS score range change data from July 1, 2012
through August 31, 2015, the department’s projection of movement has surpassed its
overall target of 16,500. The data shows the ICSS score range changes currently affect
17,577 inmates (i.e. an inmate’s placement score indicates a lower security housing level
than prior to the ICSS score range change).
11 CDCR commissioned researchers from the University of California system to evaluate the department’s
ICSS and, in collaboration with key CDCR staff, completed a statistical analysis of the classification
process. The report was issued in December 2011.
12 Female offenders are generally housed together without regard to security level because their propensity
for violence is much lower than that of male offenders.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 9 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Selected Inmates with Classification Reviews from
July 1, 2012 through August 31, 2015
Placement Score Range Inmate Count
28-35 (level II—formerly level III) 11,612
52-59 (level III—formerly level IV) 5,965
Total 17,577
The institutions and their housing facilities have four designated security levels, level I
for minimum-security inmates through level IV for maximum-security inmates. The
following table displays the changes to the inmate classification score system, which
increased the maximum point threshold for levels II and III, and the minimum point
threshold for level IV. An inmate’s classification score (placement score) determines
which level the inmate will be housed in, unless other overriding case factors exist.
ICSS Changes
Pre-July 1, 2012 Post-July 1, 2012
Security Level Final Classification Score Final Classification Score
I 0-18 0-18
II 19-27 19-35
III 28-51 36-59
IV 52+ 60+
ICSS—Miscellaneous Data Benchmarks
Neither CDCR nor the OIG has a method (other than a manual assessment) to efficiently
identify the number of inmates who moved from one security level to another solely
because of the change in classification score thresholds. This is because an inmate’s
placement score can change for a variety of reasons other than ICSS changes. There are
also administrative determinants, such as camp, medical, mental health program, and
time to serve, which can override scores and show, for example, an inmate with a level II
security score being housed in a level I facility due to a “camp override.” Therefore, it is
difficult to determine whether inmates are moving from one security level to another
solely because of the ICSS threshold changes.
The OIG reviewed a statewide sample of inmates affected by the score range change. The
OIG randomly selected 320 inmates who had final placement scores in the 28–35 range
or the 52–59 range, because those ranges are the ones most affected by the threshold
changes in security levels. The OIG focused on whether inmates were in housing units
that matched their placement score. If not, the OIG considered whether the inmate was
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 10 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
awaiting an endorsement or transfer, or if the inmate’s placement score had increased. As
shown on the next page, the review found that 301 of the 320 inmates were housed in
traditional housing (security levels I to IV). The other 19 inmates were housed in units
without security level designations, such as an administrative segregation unit, secure
housing unit, or a correctional treatment center. Of those 301 inmates in traditional
housing, 227 inmates13 (75 percent) were housed in a security level consistent with their
placement score, 70 inmates (23 percent) were waiting to be endorsed to a lower security
level, and 4 inmates (1 percent) were waiting to be transferred to a lower security housing
level.
Housing Impact Based on ICSS Score Changes
Inmates awaiting
endorsement to
lower security
level
Inmates in Housing level
70
traditional consistent with
(23%)
housing placement score
(levels I-IV) 227
301 (75%)
Inmates awaiting
transfer to lower
security level
4
(1%)
Note: Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.
The percentage of inmates housed in a security level consistent with their placement
score was 75 percent, which is a 4 percent increase from the OIG’s last report. During
this reporting period, inmates awaiting a classification service representative (CSR)
endorsement decreased by 2 percent to 23 percent, and inmates awaiting transfer
decreased by 3 percent, to only 1 percent. Although this figure is based on only 301
inmates, it is indicative of the department’s effort to reduce costs by moving inmates
from higher housing levels to lower housing levels consistent with their placement score.
When an inmate’s placement score changes after a classification review and causes a
change in security level designation, it does not mean the inmate is immediately moved
to a housing unit or institution consistent with the inmate’s placement score. A CSR must
endorse the inmate to be moved to a different institution or facility. This endorsement is
only approval to move an inmate, and movement cannot occur if bed space at the
13 This figure includes 23 inmates who had an administrative determinant (camp, medical, time to serve,
etc.) identified by the Classification Staff Representative (CSR) that acted as an “override” to the housing
level based on their placement score.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 11 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
appropriate facility is unavailable. However, if an inmate is not moved after a certain
amount of time, the endorsement expires after four months and requires reauthorization.14
The table below provides a snapshot of inmates housed in levels consistent with their
placement score. Inmates can be housed in levels that are not consistent with their
placement scores for a variety of reasons, including bed availability, as previously
described. Monthly counts from February through August 2015 show that 99 percent of
inmates with placement scores in the level II range were housed at a level consistent with
their score (1 percent were housed in a level III setting). This represents a 2 percent
increase from the last report. The vast majority of inmates were housed in levels
consistent with their score. Since the last report, the percentage of inmates housed in level
III increased by 5 percent, and the percentage of inmates housed in level IV had no
change. As stated previously, the placement score is one of many factors determining the
security level in which inmates are housed.
Inmates Housed at a Level Consistent With Their Placement Score
6th OIG Report
Actual 5th OIG Report
February 2015— Change From
Housing September 2014—
August 2015 Last Report
Level January 2015 Data
Data
II 97% 99% 2%
III 88% 93% 5%
IV 96% 96% 0%
14 The endorsements by the CSR have expiration dates because the information becomes outdated. For
example, an inmate can be endorsed to be transferred to another prison after an evaluation of enemy
concerns at the prospective prison. If four months elapse before the transfer, the endorsement needs to be
reauthorized because another inmate with an enemy concern may have arrived at that prospective prison.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 12 of 22
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 primarily summarized in Appendix B of the 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 information regarding the housing plans prior to the
Blueprint. Therefore, the OIG does not have a starting point from which to monitor
progress. This is critical because although the OIG is attempting to monitor monthly
activation and deactivation plans, the plans may call for the activation of a housing unit to
the custody level and program assignment consistent with what is provided in the
Blueprint’s housing plan.
Because of the lack of pre-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.15 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 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
15 Positive shift count reports are 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.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 13 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
instances. In fact, of the 934 housing units identified in the Blueprint, the OIG found 923
housing units (99 percent) to be operational as of June 30, 2015.16
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 June 30, 2015, are displayed in Appendix
A 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 some of those components and
their status during the OIG’s review.
Comprehensive Housing Plan—Completion Status
Blueprint Recommendation Completion Date/Current Status
Planned closure of the California As of June 26, 2015, the Governor approved Section 3313
Rehabilitation Center (CRC) to be to the Welfare and Institutions Code, which tasks the
completed by June 2016. Department of Finance and CDCR to release a report
providing an updated comprehensive plan for the State
prison system, including a permanent solution to CRC’s
decaying infrastructure. The report is to be submitted with
the Governor's fiscal year 2016-17 Budget to the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations, the Assembly Committee on
Budget, the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the
Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, and the
Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
A decline in eligible inmates for This benchmark was changed with legislative support. The
the department's fire camp department has been funded to restore its previous level of
population. The projected fire camps and associated inmates. The fiscal year 2013-14
population decline was from Budget Act restored its funding to the original level, which
4,480 inmates (6/27/12) to 2,500 eliminated the need to close fire camps and reduce the
inmates (6/27/13). No schedule of inmate population. There were 3,785 inmates housed in fire
fire camp closures was identified. camps as of August 31, 2015.
16 The 934 housing units identified in the Blueprint include 29 housing units of the California Health Care
Facility, which includes 5 units occupied by inmates in the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex that became
operational in April 2014.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 14 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
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 August 31, 2015, CHCF had 2,043
inmates out of its 2,951 design capacity (69 percent of design capacity); these figures are
inclusive of DeWitt’s annex.
Health Care Facility Improvement Program: The Blueprint noted the health care facility
improvement program (HCFIP) 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. 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 2016 and 2017. Also, in August 2014, the Statewide
Medication Distribution Project received approval to commence construction from the
State Fire Marshal (SFM) and the Department of Finance (DOF); pre-construction
procurement activities have begun. According to the department, prior to February 2015,
construction commencement had been approved by the SFM and DOF at 11 locations.
Between February and August 2015, construction commencement has been approved by
the SFM and DOF for an additional 11 sites: California Correctional Institution,
California Men’s Colony, California State Prison, Corcoran, Central California Women’s
Facility, Correctional Training Facility, Deuel Vocational Institution, North Kern State
Prison, Salinas Valley State Prison, Sierra Conservation Center, Substance Abuse
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 15 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Treatment Facility, and Wasco State Prison. The 9 remaining sites are progressing in the
design process.
According to the department, onsite construction by the Inmate Ward Labor program is
commencing at the California Medical Facility (CMF) in September 2015. The general
contractor component of the CMF project, which controls the construction completion
date, has been delayed due to a need to re-bid the project. The construction contract
should be executed no later than October 2015.
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
2014. According to the department, construction activities have commenced at both
locations, and inmate occupancy for both projects is anticipated for early 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
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 16 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
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 as of December 27, 2013. As of August 31, 2015, there are 6,744 inmates
housed outside of California.
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 August 31, 2015, a total of 2,227 inmates were housed
there, which is an increase of 203 from the last OIG report, published in March 2015.
Housing inmates in public Modified Community Correctional Facilities (MCCFs) within
California, as shown in the table below, 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 August 31, 2015, the department had a total of
3,608 inmates housed in its public and private MCCFs. This was a total decrease of 71
inmates from the OIG’s last report, issued in March 2015, when 3,679 inmates were
housed in MCCFs.
Modified Community Correctional Facilities—Bed Space17
Bed Population
MCCF Type
Capacity as of 8/31/15
Delano Public 578 548
Shafter Public 640 593
Taft Public 600 585
Central Valley Private 700 560
Desert View Private 700 658
Golden State Private 700 664
Totals 3,918 3,608
Population Density Levels: Appendix F of the Blueprint identified some projections
regarding male inmate population density levels. Other than the projections themselves,
17
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).
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 17 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
there are no goals or benchmarks to monitor. The table on the next page compares the
actual density (overcrowding) rates to the goals for six security level bed types, as of
August 31, 2015. Most of the rates fall within the established goal, with the largest
exception being the level II beds, which exceeds the goal by 47 percent. This supports the
department’s need to increase the number of level II beds as planned in the infill
construction projects at MCSP and RJD. Also, the activation of CAC has assisted the
department in lowering its overcrowding rate of level II inmates. The data also indicates
that the amount of level IV beds exceeds the established goal by 24 percent. As stated
previously in the ICSS section of this report, the department expected that by 2015 over
9,500 male inmates would have moved from level IV to level III, but only 5,965 inmates
had a level III placement score.
Actual Density Rates in Comparison to Blueprint Design Beds
Actual Blueprint
Blueprint Design Population as Overcrowding Overcrowding
Bed Type Beds of 9/9/15 Rate Rate Goal
Level I Dorm 8,283 5,887 71% 150%
Level II Dorm & Cell 22,908 41,071 179% 150%
Level III Cell 16,584 19,503 118% 150%
Level IV Cell 13,124 23,113 176% 150%
Administrative Segregation Unit 5,601 3,903 70% 125%
Security Housing Unit 2,934 2,936 100% 120%
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 by June 2013.
Subsequently, the department was granted extensions. The only remaining benchmark is
to achieve 137.5 percent of design capacity by February 28, 2016.
The OIG reviewed the department’s monthly population report as of August 31, 2015,
approximately six months prior to its final remaining benchmark. The department had an
in-state prison population of 111,454 housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions with a
design bed capacity of 82,707, which amounts to 134.8 percent of design bed capacity.
This figure is below the 137.5 percent court-ordered reduction required by February 28,
2016. Future OIG reports will continue reporting the department’s population density.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 18 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
CONCLUSION
There are two major shifts in this report. This is the first report that has not included a
rehabilitation component, as that information was reported in the Annual California
Rehabilitation Oversight Board published on September 15, 2015. The second major shift
is in Security Housing Unit (SHU) policy. On August 31, 2015, the department entered
into a settlement agreement regarding Ashker v. Governor, modifying the policies and
practices involving inmates validated as prison gang members and associates, along with
conditions in each of its four SHU institutions. The department is currently evaluating the
new Step Down Program and its various components, including the new Restricted
Custody General Population pilot program.
In 2012, the department’s Special Project Team (SPT) was tasked with developing the
new STG management policy, implementing the initial 24-month pilot program, creating
new procedures and regulations, providing staff training, addressing legal and legislative
issues, and conducting active/inactive reviews (six-year inactive reviews). As of
September 2015, the SPT will now be involved in implementation of modifying policies
and practices based on the Ashker v. Governor settlement agreement. This agreement,
also planned to be implemented over a 24-month pilot period, places an emphasis on
completing all remaining case reviews for all SHU inmates on a definitive timeline—
within 12 months of the court’s preliminary approval of the settlement agreement—by
August 31, 2016. These reviews are to be conducted by Institution Classification
Committees, and inmates who have served the longest SHU terms will be prioritized. The
OIG will continue to monitor and report on the revised SDP.
The department is adhering to the comprehensive housing plan and construction goals
identified in the Blueprint. The OIG will continue to monitor a few large-scale
construction projects remaining. As of August 2015, the department has met the
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 the
California City Correctional Facility and increased capacity at public and private
Modified Community Correctional Facilities, as well as ongoing in-fill projects. Overall,
the change in ICSS has shifted the population in a downward trend, but not exactly as
predicted. Approximately 6,000 inmates have moved from level IV to level III, which is
3,500 fewer than predicted. However, the number of inmates being released from SHU
facilities has impacted the number of level IV inmates. Additionally, over 11,500 inmates
have moved from level III to level II, which is 4,500 higher than predicted and is driving
the need for level II beds. Still, all of those inmates who have been lowered theoretically
represent less expensive housing costs and inmates who now have more rehabilitation
programming opportunities. In addition, the vast majority of inmates were housed in
levels consistent with their score.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 19 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDICES
Appendix A—Housing Plans
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 20 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX A—HOUSING PLANS
HOUSING PLAN - STATEWIDE SUMMARY
TOTAL INMATE
COUNTS OVERCROWDING RATE
REVIEWED ON REVIEW DATE
* STAFFED BY OIG (BASED ON DESIGN
INSTITUTION * DESIGN CAPACITY CAPACITY (JUNE 30, 2015) CAPACITY)
Avenal State Prison 2,920 4,702 2,710 93%
California Correctional Center 3,883 4,872 4,080 105%
California Correctional Institution 2,783 4,414 3,973 143%
California Health Care Facility 2,951 2,951 1,984 67%
California Institution for Men 2,976 4,728 3,875 130%
California Institution for Women 1,398 2,042 1,844 132%
California Medical Facility 2,361 2,756 2,267 96%
California Men's Colony 3,838 4,668 3,794 99%
California Rehabilitation Center 2,491 3,487 2,411 97%
California State Prison, Corcoran 3,116 4,445 4,412 142%
California State Prison, Los Angeles County 2,300 3,600 3,491 152%
California State Prison, Sacramento 1,828 2,312 2,304 126%
California State Prison, San Quentin 3,082 4,006 3,706 120%
California State Prison, Solano 2,610 3,890 3,866 148%
California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 3,424 5,474 5,568 163%
Calipatria State Prison 2,308 3,883 3,766 163%
Centinela State Prison 2,308 3,433 3,479 151%
Central California Women's Facility 2,004 3,515 3,079 154%
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 1,738 2,641 2,270 131%
Correctional Training Facility 3,312 5,231 5,133 155%
Deuel Vocational Institution 1,681 2,586 2,124 126%
Folsom State Prison 2,066 2,895 2,382 115%
Folsom Women's Facility 403 483 466 116%
High Desert State Prison 2,324 3,461 3,314 143%
Ironwood State Prison 2,200 3,175 3,421 156%
Kern Valley State Prison 2,448 3,910 3,631 148%
Mule Creek State Prison 1,700 2,807 2,937 173%
North Kern State Prison 2,694 4,529 4,387 163%
Pelican Bay State Prison 2,380 3,032 2,739 115%
Pleasant Valley State Prison 2,308 3,533 2,246 97%
Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility 2,200 3,305 3,142 143%
Salinas Valley State Prison 2,452 3,657 3,680 150%
Sierra Conservation Center 3,736 4,784 4,333 116%
Valley State Prison 1,980 3,390 3,378 171%
Wasco State Prison 2,984 4,997 4,923 165%
GRAND TOTAL 87,187 127,594 115,115 132%
* Design and staffed capacity totals per institution were obtained from CDCR's Weekly Report of Population as of June 30, 2015.
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 21 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX A—HOUSING PLANS
HOUSING UNITS - STATEWIDE SUMMARY
Housing Units
In Use
Housing Unit Reviewed by Percent Of
Count Per Housing Units - OIG Housing
INSTITUTION INSTITUTION Blueprint VACANT (June 30, 2015) Units In Use
Avenal State Prison ASP 25 0 25 100%
California Correctional Center CCC 31 0 31 100%
California Correctional Institution CCI 37 1 36 97%
California Health Care Facility CHCF 29 0 29 100%
California Institution for Men CIM 30 2 28 93%
California Institution for Women CIW 21 0 21 100%
California Medical Facility CMF 41 0 41 100%
California Men's Colony CMC 19 1 18 95%
California Rehabilitation Center CRC 51 6 45 88%
California State Prison, Corcoran COR 41 0 41 100%
California State Prison, Los Angeles County LAC 23 0 23 100%
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 20 100%
Chuckawalla Valley State Prison CVSP 15 0 15 100%
Correctional Training Facility CTF 23 -1 24 104%
Deuel Vocational Institution DVI 17 0 17 100%
Folsom State Prison FSP 21 0 21 100%
Folsom Women's Facility FWF 2 0 2 100%
High Desert State Prison HDSP 29 0 29 100%
Ironwood State Prison ISP 22 0 22 100%
Kern Valley State Prison KVSP 36 0 36 100%
Mule Creek State Prison MCSP 19 0 19 100%
North Kern State Prison NKSP 26 0 26 100%
Pelican Bay State Prison PBSP 42 0 42 100%
Pleasant Valley State Prison PVSP 24 0 24 100%
Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility RJD 24 0 24 100%
Salinas Valley State Prison SVSP 31 0 31 100%
Sierra Conservation Center SCC 31 0 31 100%
Valley State Prison VSP 16 0 16 100%
Wasco State Prison WSP 29 0 29 100%
GRAND TOTAL 934 11 923 99%
Sixth Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 22 of 22
Office of the Inspector General State of California
2015 Blueprint
Monitoring Report
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Robert A. Barton
INSPECTOR GENERAL
Roy W. Wesley
CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
September 2015