Special Review – The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response to Incarcerated-Person-on-Incarcerated-Person Allegations Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act Fact Sheet

Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Summary Fact Sheet Independent August 21, 2025 Prison Oversight Special Review of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response to Incarcerated-Person-on-Incarcerated-Person Allegations Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act In this review, we assessed the Department of Corrections policy. Nonconsensual sexual acts are generally defined as and Rehabilitation’s (the department) responses to 74 alleged unwilling or forced sexual contact or penetration, such as violations of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) rape. Abusive sexual contact is generally defined as unwanted that were reviewed by prison Institutional PREA Review touching directly or through the clothing of the genitalia or Committees (review committee) from March 1, 2024, other intimate parts of a person in a sexual manner. Finally, through August 31, 2024. While violations of PREA may sexual harassment is generally defined as unwelcome conduct be alleged against prison employees, this review assessed that does not involve physical contact, such as unwanted only the department’s response to allegations made against sexual advances. Collectively, we refer to any claims of sexual incarcerated people in State prisons. misconduct as PREA allegations in our report. Background Of the 74 incidents we reviewed, investigators substantiated seven PREA allegations, meaning they determined the To combat rape in prisons nationwide, Congress enacted the allegations likely occurred based on a preponderance of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) in 2003. This historic evidence. However, investigators overwhelmingly determined legislation established a “zero tolerance” standard for rape there was insufficient evidence to support the majority in federal, state, and local correctional facilities. Subsequent of PREA allegations made, finding 65 allegations to be PREA standards required the department to have written unsubstantiated, and two allegations to be unfounded. policies mandating zero tolerance toward all forms of sexual abuse and harassment, outlining its approach to preventing, The figure below provides the reporting times after alleged detecting, and responding to such conduct. PREA incidents in the 74 cases we reviewed. In general, it is more difficult for the department to thoroughly Sexual misconduct can include different forms of abuse which are specifically defined by law and departmental PREA Allegation Reporting Times After Incidents 35 1 Allegation Type 30 Harassment Abusive Sexual Contact 13 25 Nonconsensual Sexual Acts 13 PREA 20 Allegations (N = 74) 15 19 10 16 5 1 8 1 2 0 Within After 72 Hours Within Within After 72 Hours but Within 1–2 Years 2–3 Years 3 Years (n = 32) One Year (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 8) (n = 30) Source: The OIG’s analysis of PREA allegations made against incarcerated people reviewed by the PREA Review Committee from March 1, 2024, through August 31, 2024. Page 1 of 4 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Summary Fact Sheet Independent August 21, 2025 Prison Oversight investigate and reach supportable determinations on allegations were reported weeks, months, or years after the PREA allegations made more than 72 hours after the incident, investigators did not consult with a specialized incident reportedly occurred. nurse. However, the responsibility of making those determinations rests with trained medical professionals Prison Staff Did Not Always Perform Required under departmental policy. Procedures When Notified of PREA Allegations Furthermore, custody staff offered a victim support person We found that prison staff generally recognized and or advocate in only 43 of the 74 PREA incidents (58 percent) responded when an incarcerated person or third party we reviewed. In three cases, investigators did not offer reported PREA allegations. However, in two of the alleged victims the services of a support person or advocate 74 incidents we reviewed, the alleged victims stated until after they were interviewed, even though one of the they had previously reported their PREA allegations to purposes of a victim support person and advocate is to departmental mental health or medical staff. Prison staff assist and support victims during the interview process. also incorrectly classified PREA allegations, to a less severe allegation type, in two cases we reviewed. Almost All Investigations of PREA Allegations We Reviewed Were Inadequate for One or More Reasons The department created procedures for staff and custody supervisors to follow upon receipt of PREA allegations to, Overall, we found one or more deficiencies in 67 of the among other things, preserve and gather physical evidence, 74 PREA investigations (91 percent) we reviewed including provide a timeline of events, provide medical and mental investigators failing to conduct interviews or conducting health evaluations (including forensic examinations) to the inadequate interviews; investigators failing to secure, affected incarcerated people, and offer a victim support collect, or consider evidence; and investigators submitting person and advocate. poorly written investigation reports. We also found eight PREA investigations were not conducted by an investigator In the cases we reviewed, we found documentation that specifically trained to conduct PREA investigations, as staff had taken steps to request that a PREA victim not required by law and departmental policy. shower, use the restroom, consume liquids, or remove clothing without custody supervision to preserve potential We found investigators did not always conduct timely evidence for forensic medical examinations to preserve interviews, or in some cases, did not conduct interviews at physical evidence in only 21 percent (four of 19) of incidents all. In three incidents we reviewed, investigators assigned alleging nonconsensual sex acts that were reported within to conduct investigations at the prisons where the incidents 72 hours. We also found that custody supervisors did not allegedly occurred did not interview the alleged victims. always document taking any measures to secure crime In addition, investigators did not interview the PREA scenes in 42 percent (eight of 19) of nonconsensual sex suspects in 12 of the 74 incidents (16 percent) we reviewed. act allegations we reviewed that were reported less than In 26 cases (35 percent), investigators made no attempt 72 hours after the incident. to identify witnesses and, therefore did not interview Depending on the type of PREA allegation, and the time anyone who may have been able to corroborate or refute frame when reported, departmental policy required staff to the PREA allegations. By not interviewing the alleged either transport suspects and willing victims for forensic victims, those accused of violating PREA, or potential medical examinations or consult with a specialized nurse witnesses, investigators may not have received all relevant to determine if an examination was warranted. We found facts and detailed information necessary to support that staff generally complied with policy but failed to do their determinations. so in 19 percent (six of 32) of incidents alleged to have Investigators also conducted untimely interviews in at occurred less than 72 hours before they were reported. Staff least seven incidents (9 percent) we reviewed. In one case also failed to consult with a specialized nurse in 50 percent we reviewed, the investigator did not interview the alleged (21 of 42) of abusive sexual contact and nonconsensual victim until 17 days after being notified of the allegation, sex act allegations reported more than 72 hours after the took as long as 30 days to interview identified witnesses, incident allegedly occurred. and took 54 days to interview a registered nurse for case Investigators often made the decision not to contact information. Investigators in six other incidents we a specialized nurse based on the amount of time that reviewed delayed interviewing alleged victims and suspects had passed between the alleged incident and the date between six and 41 days. the PREA allegation was reported. For example, when Page 2 of 4 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Summary Fact Sheet Independent August 21, 2025 Prison Oversight In addition, investigators did not either video or audio examinations. Another investigator concluded an allegation record any interviews in 70 percent (52 of 74) of the was unfounded without reviewing the forensic examination PREA investigations we reviewed. Investigators video results. In all five cases, the alleged victims reported the recorded one or more interviews in only nine cases, and PREA violations either on the same day or within a day of audio recorded interviews in 17 cases. We believe the the alleged misconduct. department would benefit from recording all interviews, including those with victims, suspects and witnesses based Furthermore, some investigation reports we reviewed on some notable discrepancies we share in our report. lacked documentation of basic facts or contained errors and We were also concerned about an investigator’s conduct inconsistencies. For example, in one case, an investigator during one video recorded interview we reviewed. Many of reported he canvassed the facility where the PREA incident the statements made during the interview demonstrated allegedly occurred but was unable to find witnesses with a lack of consideration and respect toward the alleged information relevant to the investigation. However, the PREA victim and escalated, rather than deescalated, the investigator did not describe how he canvassed the facility already tense interview. At times, the investigator was also or document the incarcerated people or staff he spoke unnecessarily argumentative toward the alleged victim. with. In addition, the investigation report contained errors and inconsistencies in the alleged victim’s and suspect’s If they are available and are reviewed, recorded interviews housing history. enable departmental management and review committees to better assess the quality of PREA investigations by The Prisons’ Institutional PREA Review Committees identifying and addressing clear deficiencies in either the Did Not Provide Proper Oversight to Ensure investigators’ conclusions or reporting. That Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policy Were Followed Investigators Did Not Always Collect and Secure Potential Physical or Documentary Evidence PREA review committees are responsible for thoroughly reviewing allegations to ensure staff followed federal and We found that in several incidents we reviewed, state laws, as well as departmental policy and guidelines investigators determined PREA allegations to be when responding to PREA allegations. In nearly all unsubstantiated without collecting or reviewing available incidents we analyzed, review committees did not provide evidence. Of the 19 nonconsensual sex act allegations proper oversight to determine if investigators used that victims reported less than 72 hours after occurrence, standard investigative techniques to gather evidence and investigators determined most to be unsubstantiated. corroborate allegations. In many cases, review committees However, we found no evidence that anyone secured crime failed to identify significant shortcomings that should scenes in eight of the incidents, six of which investigators have required investigators to complete additional specifically determined to be unsubstantiated without work, or to receive training on conducting thorough and attempting to collect evidence from the scenes. adequate investigations. Even when evidence was collected, investigators did not In the cases we reviewed, we also found no evidence always consider it before reaching their conclusions. that review committees meaningfully discussed the For example, investigators closed five nonconsensual act investigations they reviewed. Lastly, review committees investigations before the results of the alleged victim’s did not review several PREA incidents within the time and suspect’s forensic medical examinations were even frame required by departmental policy. In one case, a available. One investigator closed a case the same day review committee finalized their incident review before the the incident was reported, before the alleged victim PREA investigation had been completed. and suspect were even transported to forensic medical Page 3 of 4 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov Amarik K. Singh OIG OFFICE of the Inspector General INSPECTOR GENERAL Shaun Spillane Chief Deputy Inspector General Summary Fact Sheet Independent August 21, 2025 Prison Oversight Recommendations 1. The department should require all PREA allegation 4. The department should implement monitoring interviews to be audio or video recorded. processes to ensure: a. The department should require a manager, a. All staff follow departmental policy and or other designated staff to confirm training procedures when receiving and on a sample basis that information responding to PREA allegations. from recorded PREA interviews are b. Staff who conduct PREA investigations accurately and thoroughly documented in properly apply the standard investigative investigators’ reports. techniques included in the departmental 2. The department should ensure all investigators specialized PREA training program conducting PREA investigations receive for investigators. specialized PREA investigator training as required c. Investigation reports are complete and by law and departmental policy. accurate according to case documentation. a. The department should consider requiring d. PREA review committees fulfill all their that all Investigative Services Unit responsibilities under departmental policy. investigator staff receive specialized PREA training. 5. The department should identify and document areas for corrective action when PREA review 3. Prison wardens or delegates should require committee members do not fulfill all their corrective action if staff fail to comply with law or responsibilities under departmental policy. departmental policy when receiving, responding to, or investigating PREA allegations. Page 4 of 4 10111 Old Placerville Road, Suite 110, Sacramento, California 95827 5 Telephone: (916) 288-4212 5 www.oig.ca.gov