Third Report on CDCRs Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint

Robert A. Barton Office of the Inspector General Inspector General Third Report on the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint March 2014 Office of the Inspector General Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing its Future of California Corrections Blueprint Robert A. Barton Inspector General Roy W. Wesley Chief Deputy Inspector General James C. Spurling Chief Counsel Shaun R. Spillane Public Information Officer March 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS REHABILITATIVE PRGRAMS .................................................................................... 1 In-Prison Target Population ................................................................................................ 1 In-Prison Rehabilitation Goal – Current Status ................................................................... 2 In-Prison Program Placement – Case Management and Reentry Hubs ............................... 4 In-Prison Programs – Miscellaneous Benchmarks .............................................................. 5 Community Rehabilitative Programs .................................................................................. 9 STANDARDIZED STAFFING ..................................................................................... 11 Standardized Staffing – Background ................................................................................. 11 Goals and Benchmarks ...................................................................................................... 11 Review of Staffing Patterns and Payroll............................................................................. 12 INMATE CLASSIFICATION SCORE SYSTEM ...................................................... 14 Modification of the Inmate Classification Score System ..................................................... 14 ICSS – Miscellaneous Data Benchmarks........................................................................... 15 GANG MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 18 Security Threat Group – Pilot Program Status .................................................................. 18 Security Threat Group – Gang Management Program ...................................................... 18 Security Threat Group – Signature Requirement Discontinued ......................................... 23 Security Threat Group – Regression of Inmates ................................................................ 23 Gang Management Program – Miscellaneous Benchmarks ............................................... 25 COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN ....................................................................... 26 Institution Housing Plans ................................................................................................... 26 Housing Plan – Miscellaneous Benchmarks ....................................................................... 27 Housing Plan – Global Benchmarks .................................................................................. 30 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 31 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 33 Appendix A – Programming Plans ................................................................................ 34 Appendix B – Core COMPAS Assessments ................................................................. 72 Appendix C – Standardized Staffing............................................................................. 73 Appendix D – Housing Plans ......................................................................................... 75 FOREWORD In July 2012, the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) oversight role was expanded when the Legislature tasked the OIG with monitoring the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (CDCR or department) 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 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 their 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. 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 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 34 adult institutions1 that included the review and reconciliation of documents, interviews of staff, and observations. One major obstacle that the OIG encountered during the review is that the published version of the Blueprint was not final. As stated in the Blueprint, the staffing standards at some of the prisons had yet to be assessed, so conceptual staffing standards were published. The department considers Standardized Staffing Version 5 (SSV5) to be the 1 The OIG’s on-site reviews did not include California City Correctional Center (CAC), which was activated on December 16, 2013. CAC was not included in the Blueprint; however, the department plans to hire additional academic teacher and career technical education positions at CAC during fiscal year 2013–14. Thus, the OIG will conduct an on-site review and monitoring of CAC for its next report. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint Foreword Office of the Inspector General State of California final version. That version was not published, but its updated information was provided to the OIG for assessment. According to CDCR management, the department was authorized to amend the detail of the staffing numbers after completing an overall assessment, but could not exceed the total departmental staffing numbers identified in the published version of the Blueprint, as those are the staffing numbers that were ultimately approved by the Legislature during the budget process. This report represents the results of the OIG’s third review of CDCR’s implementation of the Blueprint. It is important to note that many of the reforms contained in the Blueprint have implementation dates well into 2015 (and beyond); therefore, some of the contents of this third report are preliminary. In summary, the department has demonstrated progress in implementing its Blueprint goals in most categories the OIG reviewed. Specifically:  Various rehabilitation measures have been established or are in development;  The department has established and is adhering to the standardized staffing model at each institution.  The department has established and is adhering to the new inmate classification score system.  The department has established the new prison gang management system and is undergoing a 24-month pilot program to implement and assess the new procedures.  The department has implemented and is adhering to the comprehensive housing plan described in the Blueprint. However the department is not close to providing rehabilitative services to 70 percent of the target population, nor do they have a defensible standard for what constitutes successfully meeting the rehabilitative need of an inmate. This report is based on information between December 16, 2013 through March 4, 2014, and subsequent reports will assess progress meeting future benchmarks and goals of the Blueprint. Third 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 (CTE) (formerly vocational), substance abuse treatment, cognitive-based behavioral 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 their release. The Blueprint does not identify a milestone for when the goal is to be met; however, CDCR identifies June 30, 2015, as the projected completion date.2 The department also avails 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 the inmate’s risk to re-offend 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 the inmate’s risk to re-offend. 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 re-offend and the results of COMPAS show a high or medium need in any of the criminogenic categories,3 the inmate becomes part of CDCR’s target population for rehabilitation.4 Data summarized in the following table indicates that of the 132,977 inmate population, 97 percent had received a CSRA risk assessment and 54 percent had received a COMPAS assessment. Of those inmates with a CSRA assessment, 70,550 (54 percent) 2 CDCR’s revised Strategic Plan (draft) identifies June 30, 2015, as the date to reach the 70 percent rehabilitation goal. 3 The criminogenic need categories can include any of the following: substance abuse, anger, employment problems (incorporated academic and vocational needs), criminal personality (formerly criminal thinking), and support from family of origin (formerly family criminality). 4 Being included in the target population does not necessarily trigger the placement of inmates into specific programs. The results of COMPAS 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. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 1 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California had a high or moderate risk to re-offend. Of those, 53,943 inmates (41 percent) were identified as having a high or medium criminogenic need, thus representing the target population on that day. Risk and Needs Assessment by Target Population Total Inmate Population 132,977 Data as of 1/7/14 Inmates with CSRA Risk Assessment 129,500 97% Percent in relation to inmate population Inmates with High/Moderate CSRA Score 70,550 54% Percent in relation to inmates with CSRA Inmates with Core COMPAS Assessment 72,467 54% Percent in relation to inmate population Target Population 53,943 41% Percent in relation to inmate population In-Prison Rehabilitation Goal – Current Status While the department has made strides in implementing some measures to reach some benchmarks identified in the Blueprint, the department is far from attaining its goal of reaching 70 percent of the target population. As seen on the next page, the department has demonstrated only a 35 percent rate of accomplishment (for all and some needs met) during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013–14. That represents a 7 percent decrease from the 42 percent rate identified in the OIG’s last report. The following tables identify inmates who were released during fiscal year 2012–13 and the two most recent quarters and whether their rehabilitation needs were met while in custody.5 The numbers in the category of “some needs met” indicate that offenders had criminogenic needs in multiple categories and participated in rehabilitative services that addressed at least one, but not all, of the categories. The department considers “all needs met” for inmates who have participated in rehabilitative services in each of their criminogenic needs. It should also be noted that whether the inmate attended one day of class or completed the entire program, the department counts that attendance as participation. The OIG recommend 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 “participation.” Percent of Rehabilitative Needs Met for Offenders Released During Fiscal Year 2012-13 1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr Totals Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent All Needs Met 654 14% 619 14% 525 13% 518 13% 2,316 13% Some Needs Met 1,360 29% 1,284 29% 1,207 30% 1,104 27% 4,955 29% No Needs Met 2,659 57% 2,487 57% 2,280 57% 2,472 60% 9,898 58% Total 4,673 100% 4,390 100% 4,012 100% 4,094 100% 17,169 100% 5 The data was provided by CDCR. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 2 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Percent of RehabilitaPteivrec eNnete odfs RMeeht afobril Oitaffteivndee Nrse Reedlse aMseedt Dfourr iOngf fFeinrsdte Trws oR Qeuleaartseersd oDf uFrisincagl FYierasrt 2T0w13o- 1Q4uarters of Fiscal Year 2013-14 1st Qtr 2nd1 Qstt rQtr Total2snd Qtr Totals Count Percent CoCunotuntPercPeentrcenCtounCt ouPnetrcenPtercent Count Percent All Needs Met 789 16% 351 9% 1,140 13% All Needs Met 789 16% 351 9% 1,140 13% Some Needs Met 1,225 26% 703 18% 1,928 22% Some Needs Met 1,225 26% 703 18% 1,928 22% No Needs Met 2,775 58% 2,793 73% 5,568 65% No Needs Met 2,775 58% 2,793 73% 5,568 65% Total 4,789 100% 3,847 100% 8,636 100% Total 4,789 100% 3,847 100% 8,636 100% Inmates with criminogenic needs who had their needs completely met remained at 13 percent between fiscal year 2012–13 through the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013– 14. However, there was a decrease of 7 percent in the “some needs met” category from 29 percent in fiscal year 2012–13 to 22 percent in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013–14. Compared to the last report, there was an overall decrease of inmates who had some or all of their criminogenic needs addressed from 42 percent in fiscal year 2012–13 to only 35 percent during the first two quarters of fiscal year 2013–14. Although the Blueprint does not set forth a date for achieving the 70 percent rehabilitation goal, the department’s draft strategic plan identifies June 30, 2015, as the goal completion date. At the current rate of only 35 percent, it does not appear the department is on track to achieve its goal. It is even more unlikely that the goal will be attained if the measurement of participation becomes more stringent as we recommend than its current measurement, by which one day counts as “participation.” Additionally, the Blueprint calls for an increase in academic and CTE instructors over a two-year period to increase the number of program slots available for inmates. While the academic education and CTE programs are available at the adult institutions statewide, the other programs are primarily available at 13 institutions designated as reentry hubs, geared toward inmates within 48 months of their release. As illustrated in the chart below, 67 percent of the department’s target population is within 48 months of release, and require more immediate rehabilitative efforts based on the projected release dates. Target Population by Projected Release Date Projected Release Timeframe Inmates Percent 0 - 6 Months 9,964 18.5% 7-12 Months 7,364 13.7% 13-24 Months 9,779 18.1% 25-36 Months 5,492 10.2% 37-48 Months 3,521 6.5% 49-60 Months 2,594 4.8% 60-120 Months 6,964 12.9% Over 120 Months 7,539 14.0% Unusable Data Regarding Release Date 726 1.3% Total Target Population 53,943 100.0% Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 3 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California In-Prison Program Placement – Case Management and Reentry Hubs According to the Blueprint, a component critical to successful implementation of the rehabilitation plan is an effective case management system. The goal of the new automated case management system is to help place the inmate in the appropriate program at the appropriate time. According to the department, a COMPAS Case Plan Pilot Program (CPPP) was implemented to evaluate the automated case plan management system that commenced at the Central California Women’s Facility (CCWF) on July 2, 2012. The 24-month program monitored each participant for a period of 18-months. The participants were inmates identified for placement consistent with their criminogenic needs. Initially, the department targeted 250 inmates for participation. However, inmate participation in the pilot program declined after the conversion of neighboring Valley State Prison for Women to a male facility. At that point, inmates at CCWF were presented with transfer opportunities to the California Institution for Women (CIW), which were unavailable before the conversion. Transfers decreased pilot program participation to only 61 of the initial 250 participants. As of December 1, 2013, 14 of the 61 inmates paroled, thus 47 participants remained at CCWF. The control group initially had 192 inmates; however, 81 inmates did not have a COMPAS core assessment to identify the inmates’ criminogenic needs. Of the remaining 111 inmates, 43 paroled from the control group, thus 68 participants remained at CIW as of December 1, 2013. The department completed an evaluation of the COMPAS CPPP for each participant approximately 18 months after the program commenced. The department found that using the CPPP at CCWF only provided a 2 percent increase in assigning inmates into rehabilitative programs over the control group at CIW. Also, it was noted the CPPP has limitations since it is dependent on using the COMPAS assessment, and would be ineffective if the department changed its automated needs assessment tool. Department staff uses the Strategic Offender Management System (SOMS) along with an integrated offender management system and electronic records management system when reviewing inmate records. SOMS has a case management tool that the department is looking into as an alternative to the CPPP. Another component not specifically categorized in the Blueprint that directly impacts appropriate inmate program placement is expanded use of the COMPAS assessment tool. While COMPAS helps identify the target population, it does not currently determine the placement of inmates into most programs.6 The department showed progress in this area from the last report, as it increased the number of current male inmates from 45 to 54 percent who had received a core COMPAS assessment to determine their criminogenic 6 While COMPAS is currently used for placement into substance abuse treatment programs, it is not a main consideration for other programs. Also, results of COMPAS assessments are broad and do not specifically identify a particular course needed. For example, the result can identify a high need for a career technical education course, but does not identify the specific course. The inmate, in conjunction with the correctional counselor, must request a course of interest and then go through the placement process for enrollment. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 4 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California needs. As cited in the OIG’s last report, an increase was anticipated, since the department had emergency regulations approved by the Office of Administrative Law in February 2013. The regulations initiated an automated needs assessment tool (currently COMPAS) to be administered to all inmates during the reception center process, as this was previously voluntary. The regulations require the tool to be administered to inmates during their initial or annual review process if it had not been previously administered. Appendix B provides a breakdown on the percentages of inmates with core COMPAS assessments identified at each institution. One other component of program placement is the establishment of reentry hubs, which were 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 behavior, and substance abuse programs. However, the department later changed the designation of three reentry hubs to standard sites (California Correctional Institution, California State Prison, Solano, and California Rehabilitation Center) and three standard sites to reentry hubs (Ironwood State Prison, California State Prison, Los Angeles County, and High Desert State Prison). So while the location of reentry hubs has now been established, cognitive behavior (criminal thinking, anger management, and family relationships) and transitions program (job readiness) training were delayed from fiscal year 2012–13 until fiscal year 2013–14. The department reported that four of the 13 reentry hubs became operational in September 2013 at the following institutions: California Institution for Women, California Men’s Colony, Central California Women’s Facility, and Ironwood State Prison. In-Prison Programs – Miscellaneous Benchmarks The Blueprint identified miscellaneous benchmarks in its narrative and Appendix B. The OIG has attempted to monitor the status of the benchmarks wherever there were 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 final rehabilitation authorized position counts and the detail of the authorized positions per institution from CDCR. The OIG then reviewed payroll reports of rehabilitation employees, reconciled the budgeted positions and discussed any discrepancies with the education managers at the institutions, reviewed monthly attendance reports, and conducted spot checks of classrooms. In order to be deemed fully operational, a course needed to have a corresponding instructor, an assigned classroom, and data showing monthly inmate attendance. Appendix A provides a detailed comparison of the rehabilitation programs provided at each institution, identifying the programs as planned for both in the initial Blueprint and final Blueprint (SSV5), and their current operational status. In addition to Appendix A, the following summary discusses miscellaneous programs identified in the Blueprint and Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 5 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California describes their current status. In short, the OIG’s fieldwork7 at all prisons found that 90 percent of the academic education programs are operational, 82 percent of the career technical education programs are operational, and 68 percent of the substance abuse treatment slots are filled. This represents a 3 percent decrease in academic education programs, a 1 percent decrease in career technical education programs, and a 12 percent decrease in substance abuse treatment participation from that identified for fiscal year 2012–13 in the last report. The department reports that the drop in substance abuse treatment participation is attributed to the ramping down of existing contracts in preparation of the September 2013 reentry hub activations.8 Academic Education: The Blueprint identified an additional 151 academic teachers to be added over a two-year period to the department’s staffing of 418 positions, for a total of 569 positions. Of the 151 new positions, 70 were scheduled to become operational in fiscal year 2013–14. However, in the final version (SSV5), that number was reduced by eleven positions to establish a substitute teacher pool. In July 2013, the department temporarily held 35 of the 70 positions as unallocated due to several changes in the inmate population. According to the Office of Correctional Education, the statewide population projections shown in the Blueprint did not account for restrictions to implementing education programming, such as physical space available at each institution for classrooms. Also, the department noted that changes to the inmate classification score system and inmate transfers to out-of-state facilities impacted the allocation of education positions at specific institutions. Thus, the department plans to hold these positions in abeyance until rehabilitation space is available at the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex and infill construction is completed at Mule Creek State Prison and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility. From December 2013 through January 2014, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether 529 academic positions were fully operational, as shown in Appendix A. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the OIG found 477 of the 529 positions were fully operational, which represents a 90 percent rate of compliance. This represents a 3 percent decrease from that identified in the OIG’s last report. The 529 academic positions are inclusive of six academic positions planned to be activated at the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex (DNCA) as an adult facility of the California Health Care Facility (CHCF). Construction of the DeWitt Annex was included in the Blueprint. It is anticipated to be fully operational by June 2014. Additionally, the department is planning for three additional academic teacher positions at California City 7 For purposes of determining whether rehabilitation programs were operational, the fieldwork was performed throughout December 2013 and January 2014. Therefore, the statistics do not account for programs that became operational after the site visits took place at the individual prisons. 8 California Correctional Institution, California Rehabilitation Center, and California State Prison, Solano were originally designated as reentry hubs and were later designated as a standard program site. California State Prison, Los Angeles County, High Desert State Prison, and Ironwood State Prison were designated as standard program sites and were later designated as reentry hubs, thereby increasing the substance abuse slots planned for fiscal year 2013-14. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 6 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Correctional Facility (CAC), which began receiving inmates on December 16, 2013. The OIG’s next report will include a status of the new positions at DNCA and CAC. Career Technical Education: The Blueprint identified an additional 98 CTE instructors to be added over a two-year period to the department’s staffing of 182 positions, for a total of 280 positions. Of the 98 positions, 56 were scheduled to become operational in fiscal year 2013–14. Similar to Academic Education above, the department has temporarily held 21 of the 56 CTE positions as unallocated since the Blueprint did not account for certain restrictions implementing CTE, such as shop space and storage. From December 2013 through January 2014, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether 260 CTE positions were fully operational. The 260 CTE positions are inclusive of one CTE position planned to be activated at DNCA by June 2014. At the conclusion of the fieldwork, the OIG found 213 of the 260 positions were fully operational, which represents an 82 percent rate of compliance with the Blueprint. This represents a 1 percent decrease from that identified in the OIG’s last report. Additionally, the department is planning for two additional CTE positions at CAC. The next report will include a status of the new positions at DNCA and CAC. Substance Abuse Treatment: The Blueprint stated that the substance abuse treatment programs would be located at reentry hubs but it did not provide new substance abuse treatment information in its narrative. In Appendix B, the Blueprint identified 1,720 slots for fiscal year 2013–14. The department plans on expanding its substance abuse treatment slots by an additional 182 for a planned capacity of 1,902 slots for fiscal year 2013–14. From December 2013 through January 2014, OIG staff reviewed the institutions’ documents and performed site visits to determine whether 1,902 substance abuse treatment slots were fully operational. At the conclusion of the OIG’s fieldwork, 1,300 inmates occupied the 1,902 operational slots, which represent a 68 percent rate of compliance. This represents a 12 percent decrease from that identified in the last report. The 1,300 inmates participating in the substance abuse program are from nine of the 13 reentry hubs. Also, the department continued its substance abuse treatment programs at its former reentry hubs at California Correctional Institution and California Rehabilitation Center through fiscal year 2013–14. The department reports that as of January 2014, the department had 1,300 (95 percent) of 1,374 slots occupied based on its authorized contract capacity. Due to a lack of any viable contract bids for instruction, there were no substance abuse programs operating at Folsom Women’s Facility (FWF) and California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC), which accounted for 240 (13 percent) of the 1,902 slots. Also, seven other reentry hub programs were delayed due to protests by potential contractors. As of January 24, 2014, the department reports that seven reentry hub contracts were resolved in CDCR’s favor, and are currently pending approval with the Department of General Services. Additionally, the reentry hub program at LAC is currently out to bid for potential contractors. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 7 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Cognitive Behavioral Treatment (CBT), formerly Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: The Blueprint identified these programs to be implemented during fiscal year 2013–14. The department reports that CBT programs became operational in September 2013 at four of the 13 reentry hub institutions. Others are in the contracting phase and anticipated to become operational in March 2014. The programs include courses in “Criminal Thinking,” “Anger Management,” and “Family Relationships.” From December 2013 through January 2014, OIG staff found CBT programs operational only at California Men’s Colony and Ironwood State Prison. Pre-Employment Transition: The Blueprint identified the transitional programs and the California Identification Card program (CAL-ID) to be implemented during fiscal year 2012–13. In September 2013 (fiscal year 2013-14), the department implemented transitional programs (teaching job readiness skills) at Central California Women’s Facility, Folsom Women’s Facility, and Valley State Prison. The department anticipates that three institutions will begin the transitional program in March 2014, and an additional seven institutions will begin in April 2014. The department indicated it reached an agreement in November 2013 with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) on the CAL-ID program. The agreement is to process up to 1,000 identification cards statewide per month. As of January 30, 2014, the department reported 1,165 applications were submitted to DMV and 986 were determined eligible by DMV. The CAL-ID program is operational at 12 of the 13 reentry hub institutions, and it is expected to commence at High Desert State Prison in March 2014. Designated Enhanced Programming Yards: On January 1, 2014, the department designated seven enhanced programming yards to offer additional programming opportunities. Inmates, based on their behavior, will have opportunities for program enhancements that will be primarily volunteer-based and include self-help options. These options may include, in part, additional inmate leisure time activity groups (ILTAGs), access to college degree programs, and increased canteen privileges. The designated enhanced programming yards are located at the following institutions:  California State Prison, Corcoran  High Desert State Prison  Kern Valley State Prison  Pleasant Valley State Prison  Salinas Valley State Prison  California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility  Valley State Prison Long-Term Offender Model: The Blueprint identified the development of a reentry model designed for long-term offenders to be piloted during fiscal year 2013–14 at four institutions. 9 In January 2014, the department submitted a Long-Term Offender Pilot 9 A planned fourth location will no longer be piloted, as the department is instead developing a state- operated parole transitional housing model, which will provide community-based programming opportunities specifically designed for former life-term inmates as well as provide temporary housing. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 8 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Program instructional memorandum to the Office of Administrative Law. The department anticipates the pilot will be implemented at three institutions by March 2014 at California State Prison, Solano, California Men’s Colony, and Central California Women’s Facility. This voluntary program will provide CBT programming for offenders who have had a COMPAS assessment with moderate to high criminogenic needs. Sex Offender Treatment: The Blueprint identified the development of services for sex offenders and piloting of the model at one institution during fiscal year 2013–14. While this program is in the development phase, an invitation for bid was released September 5, 2013; however, the department received no bids for this program. The program has been designated to be implemented at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility. The department is currently in discussion with the Department of State Hospitals regarding a possible interagency agreement to provide services for this program. Gang Prevention: The Blueprint mentioned that the gang prevention program contains a programming component. The programs consist of self-directed journaling, facilitated journaling, a voluntary education program model, and an alternative programming model. The self-directed journaling takes place in steps 1 through 4 of the step-down program (SDP). The department reports it has provided program orientation to every SDP participant. Also, as of February 4, 2014, the department has begun group facilitation of small group journaling for SDP participants. The gang management section of this report contains more information about the programming. Community Rehabilitative Programs Similar to the in-prison rehabilitation program goals, the department’s 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. The Blueprint identified capacity benchmarks by type that the department intended to meet in order to accommodate the parolee needs. The following table identifies the number of slots identified for each program type as identified in the Blueprint and the number of slots available as reported by the department. Many of the programs available offer multiple types of services at a single site. Community Programs for Parolees Available During Fiscal Year 2013–14 Blueprint FY 2013/14 Program Types Slots Capacity Program Types Education Programs 6,219 6,987 Education Programs Employment Programs 5,915 6,050 Employment/Education Programs Substance Abuse Treatment 5,172 7,548 Substance Abuse Program Beds 3,624 Substance Abuse Education Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 9 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California The capacity numbers identified in the previous chart include 21 statewide sites in a new model designed as a “one-stop shop” providing substance abuse treatment, employment, and education programs. The department is continuing to develop or enhance other programs, including the substance abuse treatment programs, to address the needs of the higher-risk parolee population. While it is too early to determine how successful the programs will be in relation to rehabilitation and recidivism, 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 has provided data identifying the number of parolees released during the first and second quarter of fiscal year 2013–14 who were in the target population and participated in a rehabilitative program consistent with their employment or substance abuse treatment needs. The following tables on the next page represent a snapshot of that data. Percent of Parolees Receiving Services Consistent with Their Needs – During First Two Quarters of Fiscal Year 2013–14 1st Qtr FY Programming No Programming 2013/14 Consistent with Needs Consistent with Needs Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Target Population 1,626 Parolees-Employment Need 1,172 72% 212 18% 960 82% Parolees-Substance Abuse Treatment Need 756 46% 129 17% 627 83% 2nd Qtr FY Programming No Programming 2013/14 Consistent with Needs Consistent with Needs Count Percent Count Percent Count Percent Target Population 2,305 Parolees-Employment Need 1,581 69% 220 14% 1361 86% Parolees-Substance Abuse Treatment Need 1,238 54% 474 38% 764 62% As explained previously, the target population above represents parolees with a moderate or high risk to reoffend who were assessed to have a medium to high need for a rehabilitative service. However, the data does not encompass all parolees in the target population because not all have received an assessment to determine their rehabilitative needs. The Blueprint goal for community programming is to have the capacity available for parolees to participate, so that will be the OIG’s focus in future reviews. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 10 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California STANDARDIZED STAFFING The department developed a standardized staffing component for its adult institutions, and in the Blueprint it identified the planned staffing patterns for each site. To address issues of population growth and overcrowding, a standardized budget methodology primarily for custody-type services had been established to provide ratio-driven staffing adjustments as the inmate population fluctuated. When the Blueprint was approved and incorporated in the 2012–13 Budget Act, the new staffing model was approved, replacing the old model. Also, legislation was passed in 2012 mandating the Department of Finance assess and report on the fiscal benchmarks of the Blueprint, and codified that requirement in Penal Code Section 5032. Therefore, the OIG did not assess that aspect of the Blueprint. Standardized Staffing – Background The new standardized staffing model identified in the Blueprint includes a baseline level of staffing for most institution functions. While the non-custody staffing components for each prison as identified in the Blueprint are not expected to fluctuate with inmate population changes, the custody staffing levels may change. The previous staffing model required budget and staffing augmentations biannually in conjunction with the spring and fall population adjustments, triggering numerous activations and deactivations in housing units throughout the State every year. As stated in the Blueprint, the new custody staffing model allows for the safe operation of housing units with an inmate population between 100 percent and 160 percent of the unit’s design level. It is expected, therefore, that the inmate population fluctuations will require fewer budget and staffing adjustments than the old model required. Goals and Benchmarks When the Blueprint was published, not all the staffing numbers were final. As stated in the Blueprint, the staffing standards at some of the prisons had yet to be assessed, so conceptual staffing standards were published. Additionally, the department was authorized an additional 333 positions above the Blueprint Appendix B levels due to a change in the calculation of relief coverage.10 The department considers SSV5 to be the final version. That version was not published but was provided to the OIG for assessment. The staffing components and levels for each institution are identified in Appendix B of the Blueprint. While the standardized staffing summaries in Appendix B of the Blueprint identify CDCR’s staffing levels to be attained by July 2013, based on internal memoranda and fiscal goals, it appears that the standardized staffing levels were implemented in early fiscal year 2012–13. Nevertheless, the OIG performed the review based on the July 2013 benchmarks since that was the OIG’s point of reference. 10 The 333 positions are as reported by the Department of Finance. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 11 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Review of Staffing Patterns and Payroll In order for the major reforms laid out in the Blueprint to be met, it is critical that the standardized staffing levels be implemented, specifically in accordance with the staffing plan as it relates to housing and security levels. If staffed appropriately, it is assumed the inmates can be housed as planned and gain access to the rehabilitative services as planned in a safe and secure manner. For each prison the OIG performed fieldwork to assess whether the custody staffing patterns matched the budgeted levels of staffing. For two major yards or facilities within each prison, the OIG reviewed the actual staff sign-in/out sheets11 to compare with the standardized staffing reports12 and determine whether the prisons were consistently staffing the units in accordance with their budgeted levels. The results of the fieldwork indicated a high level of adherence to the standardized staffing plan. For each of the 66 facilities that were reviewed, the daily staffing patterns matched the standardized staffing reports, representing a 100 percent adherence rate. As part of its review, the OIG did not test California Health Care Facility, since the staffing activation and staffing model were unavailable for review from the department prior to the fieldwork. Although the staffing plan was done outside the scope of standardized staffing, the OIG plans to obtain and review that institution’s staffing during the next Blueprint report. In addition to reviewing the detail of custody positions, the OIG looked at the detail of rehabilitative positions. Again, this is critical since it directly impacts the ability to carry out the major rehabilitative reforms laid out in the Blueprint. A minimal requirement to be deemed fully operational is that the instructors are employed. The OIG used payroll reports to make that determination. As reported earlier, 477 (90 percent) of the budgeted 529 academic instructors were employed throughout the prisons, representing an increase from 455 identified in the last report. Also, 213 (82 percent) of the budgeted 260 CTE instructors were employed throughout the prisons, representing an increase from 185 identified in the last report. Filling these vacancies is a positive achievement, and the department reports it is working diligently to fill 100 percent. Although the Blueprint provides specific classification detail for custody positions and program detail for rehabilitation positions, it identifies other positions in summary format. Therefore, the OIG reviewed budget and payroll reports in summary fashion to assess the department’s status in terms of overall positions. 11 The sign-in/out sheets are daily reports that are used at the prisons to track employee time. The reports contain pre-printed information, including the position description, shift, and name of the scheduled employee. These reports were acquired at each institution. 12 The standardized staffing reports are detailed reports of each prison’s major facilities, and the information supports the summaries in the Blueprint. They also tie to the post assignment schedules that identify authorized position detail. The reports were obtained from CDCR. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 12 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Blueprint Goals and Current Status13 Status / Goal Position Count Blueprint—July 2011 43,356.1 Blueprint—July 2013 40,617.3 Payroll—Feb 2014 35,450.0 Amount Under Goal 5,167.3 As the table above shows, the department complied with its budgeted staffing levels at the institutions by July 2013. By February 2014, the payroll data showed 35,450 total employees for the comparable functions that were identified in the Blueprint at the adult institutions (excluding medical services employees). In addition to filled positions, the OIG reviewed budgeted positions. When the Blueprint was approved it contained inmate projections from Spring of 2012, which predicted a fire camp average daily population (ADP) of 2,500 inmates as of July 1, 2013. The Governor’s Budget included standardized staffing adjustments for fiscal year 2013-14 that reduced custody staffing by 140 positions pursuant to the projected decline. According to the department, based on results of the revised inmate classification score system (ICSS) and increased felony admissions from the Spring 2012 projections, they project a fire camp ADP of 3,700 inmates for fiscal year 2013–14 and ongoing. Since the fire camp capacity was expanded, a standardized staffing adjustment of 140 positions14 allows the department to retain the custody staffing previously scheduled to be reduced in fiscal year 2013-14 to keep all 39 male fire camps activated. Additionally, the SSV5 contains 252 fewer budgeted positions at the institutions than authorized. The reason for the difference between the number of budgeted positions and the number of authorized positions is that the department receives unallocated positions to provide relief coverage. However, those positions are not allocated to the institutions until they are activated, so the institutions’ total displayed is less than that authorized. For the purposes of its review, the OIG compared the payroll information against the SSV5 numbers because it incorporated the detailed changes per prison. Appendix C contains a statewide summary of the department’s status in attaining the standardized level of staffing identified in the Blueprint. 13 The payroll data is as of February 6, 2014, and was obtained from CDCR. The data represents staffing at institutions only. The July 2013 Blueprint goals are as they were reported by the Department of Finance. 14 The 140 custody positions were split between California Correctional Center and Sierra Conservation Center. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 13 of 78 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 panel15 concluded in 2011 that the point thresholds used by CDCR to assign housing could be changed without increasing the risk of serious misconduct. 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 the primary objective factor 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, avoid unnecessary over-classification, and thereby increase success upon release.16 It also anticipates reduced costs since the higher level of housing corresponds with higher costs to house inmates. The department’s emergency regulations to implement the expert panel’s recommendations became effective July 1, 2012. As stated in the Blueprint, the department expects that by 2015 the new regulations will be fully implemented, and over 9,500 male inmates will have moved from level IV to level III, and over 7,000 male inmates will have moved from level III to level II. Based on a recent snapshot of data as of February 1, 2014, it appears the projection of movement is substantiated. The data show the ICSS score range changes currently affect over 17,000 inmates, with the most impact on inmates moving from level III to level II. This does not necessarily mean that those inmates moved to a lower security level, but only that barring overriding factors, their placement score now indicates a lower security housing level than before. Placement Score Range Inmate Count 28 - 35 (Formerly Level III - Now Level II) 11,261 52 - 59 (Formerly Level IV - Now Level III) 5,891 Total 17,152 15 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 current classification process. The report was issued in December 2011. 16 Female offenders are generally housed together without regard to level (level I to IV) because their propensity for violence is much lower than that of male offenders. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 14 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California The institutions and their housing facilities have four designated security levels, level I through level IV, with level I for minimum security inmates and 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. Inmate Classification Score System 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 close custody, mandatory minimums, medical status, and mental health status, which can override scores and show an inmate with, for example, a level III security score being housed in a different level. Therefore, it is difficult to determine whether inmates are moving from one security level to another solely because of the ICSS score threshold changes. To determine if the department is making progress toward its expectation of 16,500 inmates moving to lower security levels by 2015, the OIG reviewed a statewide sample of inmates affected by the score range change. The OIG selected 10 inmates at each male prison who had final placement scores in the 28–35 range or the 52–59 range (those ranges are the ones most affected by the threshold changes in security levels). The OIG made comparisons with the two most recent classification score sheets to determine if an inmate’s security level decreased and if it was due to the ICSS score changes. Since an inmate’s classification is typically updated annually, nearly all inmates the OIG reviewed had been reviewed by the department under the new ICSS system that became effective July 1, 2012. The review is a snapshot of the impact the ICSS score change can have because the sample size used is not statistically representative of the entire inmate population. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 15 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Security Level Impact Based on ICSS Score Changes As shown above, the OIG’s fieldwork found that of the 320 sampling of inmates whose files were reviewed, 47 inmates (15 percent) had their security level decrease from the previous classification review. Of those 47 inmates who had their security level decrease, the OIG was able to confirm that 45 inmates (96 percent) had their security level decrease solely because of the change in the ICSS score ranges. That group of 45 inmates represents 14 percent of the entire sample reviewed (320). This was a decrease from the last report in which 59 percent of the sample had a decrease in security level. However, the last report included a high percentage of inmates who only had one annual review under the new ICSS score changes. Housing Impact Based on ICSS Score Changes Additionally, the OIG’s fieldwork focused on whether inmates were in housing units that matched their placement score. If not, the OIG considered whether the inmate was awaiting an endorsement or transfer, or if the inmate’s placement score increased. As shown above, the review found that 270 of the 320 inmates the OIG reviewed were housed in traditional housing (security levels I to IV). The other 50 inmates were housed in units not designated a security level, such as an administrative segregation unit, a reception center, or a correctional treatment center. Of those 270 inmates in traditional housing, 186 inmates (69 percent) were housed in a security level consistent with their placement score, 34 inmates (13 percent) were waiting to be endorsed to a lower security level, and 25 inmates (9 percent) were waiting to be transferred to a lower security Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 16 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California housing level. The remaining 25 inmates (9 percent) had a score that increased due to unfavorable behavior, such as attempted battery on an inmate or possession of drugs. The percentage of inmates housed in a security level consistent with their placement score and endorsed to a lower level decreased by 2 percent, from 80 percent to 78 percent since our last report. Also, the percentage of inmates awaiting a classification staff representative (CSR) endorsement improved by 6 percent, from 19 to 13 percent. Thus, to be able to house and endorse 78 percent of inmates consistently with their placement score in this targeted group most susceptible to movement (scores in the 28-35 or the 52- 59 range) is promising. Although this figure is based on a sample size of 270 inmates, it’s indicative of the department’s effort to reduce costs by moving inmates from higher level housing to lower level housing that is consistent with their placement score. To emphasize this, simply because an inmate’s placement score changes after a classification review and causes the change in security level designation, it does not mean that the inmate is immediately moved to a housing unit or institution consistent with the inmate’s placement score. A classification staff representative (CSR) can endorse the inmate to be moved to a different institution or facility; however, that is basically the “bus ticket” to be moved. If a bus is not available, the inmate is not moved. Bed space at the appropriate facility must also be available for the movement to occur. If an inmate is not moved after a certain amount of time, the endorsement expires and requires CSR reauthorization.17 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 for January 2014 shows that 98 percent of inmates with placement scores in the level II range were housed at a level consistent with their score (2 percent were housed in a level III setting). This is an increase of 28 percent in comparison of June 2013, from the OIG’s most recent report, in which only 70 percent of level II inmates were housed at a level consistent with their score. The percentage of inmates housed in levels III and IV that were consistent with their score also increased. As stated previously, the placement score is one of many factors that determine what security level the inmates are housed in. Inmates Housed at a Level Consistent With Their Placement Score Actual Housing 2nd OIG Report 3rd OIG Report Level June 2013 Data January 2014 Data Change II 70% 98% 28% III 84% 89% 5% IV 93% 96% 3% 17 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. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 17 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California GANG MANAGEMENT The Blueprint identified several measures recommended as a result of 2007 study entitled “Security Threat Group Identification and Management” performed by the California State University, Sacramento. 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 inmate’s return to the community. Since the Blueprint was launched prior to the department establishing its pilot program for gang management, it did not include any target dates or certain benchmarks to be achieved. However, the OIG continues to monitor the department’s progress of its pilot program and key areas included in its plan. Security Threat Group – Pilot Program Status Since the OIG’s last report, as part of its 24-month pilot program, entitled “Security Threat Group Identification, Prevention, and Management Instructional Memorandum” (STG Plan), the department began Phase III of its pilot on January 21, 2014. The STG Plan initially began on October 18, 2012. The department issued a memorandum on January 7, 2014, which provides guidance on implementing components of Phase III, and clarification and revisions to the STG Plan, based upon practical application and feedback from impacted stakeholders. Also, the department published a notice of change to its regulations on January 31, 2014, to incorporate provisions of its STG Plan. Subsequently, the chairpersons of both the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety convened a second joint public hearing on February 11, 2014, on issues relating to segregated housing policies in California’s prisons. Currently, a written public comment period, which closes on April 3, 2014, will allow for any further changes or modifications to be incorporated by the department as part of its final rulemaking package to be submitted for approval by the Office of Administrative Law. 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 security housing units.18 The department’s policy for 18 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 15, 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. CCR, Title 15, 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.” Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 18 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California identifying prison-based gang members and associates and isolating them from the general population is to be replaced with a new model that identifies, targets, and manages security threat groups (STGs)19 and utilizes a behavior-based step-down program (SDP) for validated affiliates.20 The STG Plan 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. This new 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). In October 2012, the department issued an instructional memorandum for the implementation of the STG Plan, defining staff responsibilities and establishing a comprehensive process for the prevention, identification, and management of security threat groups and individual affiliates within CDCR. The department identified several revisions in the new STG Plan, including the following key areas:  Prevention – Incorporation of an STG prevention program for offenders during the intake process and an orientation process for validated affiliates classified to participate in the SDP;  Step-down program – Implementation of an incremental four-year STG step-down program, replacing the six-year inactive review process for validated affiliates. The SDP is to provide graduated housing, enhanced programs, and interpersonal interactions, and include privilege and personal property enhancements for participating STG affiliates;  STG Disciplinary Matrix – A new behavior-based system that includes an STG behavior-based disciplinary matrix to provide for additional procedural due process safeguards and a system of individual accountability for validated affiliates; and,  Validation – Evaluation of offenders for validation using a weighted point system, requiring three independent source items (totaling at least 10 points) and a direct link (of at least one source item), where required. The department initiated Phase I of the STG Plan by conducting case-by-case reviews for currently validated affiliates housed in SHU facilities.21 As part of the review, the 19 The term “Security Threat Group” will generally replace the terms “prison gang,” “disruptive group,” or “street gang” within CDCR. 20 Affiliates are individual offenders (inmates) identified as “members,” “associates,” or “monitored,” who are connected or interact with a certified security threat group. 21 As of February 24, 2014, the department operated five security housing units with a population of 2,281 validated prison gang members and associates. These units are located at the California Correctional Institution; California Institution for Women; California State Prison, Corcoran; California State Prison, Sacramento; and Pelican Bay State Prison. The total statewide population of validated affiliates is 2,832, including those housed in administrative segregation units, California out-of-state correctional facilities, condemned housing units, general population units, and reception centers. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 19 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Departmental Review Board (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). Additionally, the department initiated institution 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 four programming steps of the SDP (steps 1 through 4). The department intends to continue this process until all inmates validated prior to March 1, 2013, have received a case-by-case review. The table below identifies the validated affiliate inmate populations at each institution within CDCR. Validated Affiliate Inmate Populations Total STG Prison STG Members STG Associates Inmates California Correctional Institution 28 450 478 California Institution for Women 0 3 3 California State Prison, Corcoran 78 433 511 California State Prison, Sacramento 22 63 85 Pelican Bay State Prison 351 853 1,204 Others (Statewide) in Administrative, Segregation Units (ASU), California Out- of-state Correctional Facilities (COCF), 93 458 551 Condemned Housing, General Population (GP), and Reception Centers (RC). Statewide Totals 572 2,260 2,832 Source: CDCR - Data as of 2/24/14 One of the key components to the new STG Plan is that validated STG associates will no longer be automatically placed into SHU (or a SDP) based solely upon their validation as an STG associate. The STG Plan incorporates a requirement that in addition to formal validation, an associate must also demonstrate STG disciplinary behavior22 as part of their initial validation (or subsequent to their initial validation), to be considered for placement in SHU or the SDP. If documented STG behavior occurred within the past 4 years, and is determined credible by the DRB, the board will then determine the appropriate step for placement consideration based on when the behavior occurred. However, if no documented STG behavior was found to have occurred within the past 4 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 22 The department initiated phase III of the STG Plan on January 21, 2014. Phase III incorporated its “STG Disciplinary Matrix for STG Related Behavior or Activity”. The Disciplinary Matrix includes STG behaviors or activities (with a nexus between the behavior and identified STG) separated into Administrative Rule Violations and Serious Rule Violations. The matrix is to be used as a tool to assist department staff in identifying STG related behavior and determining the seriousness of the behavior. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 20 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Monitored” status and would be eligible for transfer to an alternate institution consistent with their placement score after 12 months of STG disciplinary free behavior.23 The table below shows the time-frames of documented STG behavior that the DRB considers when determining the appropriate SDP placement. Occurrence of Documented STG Step Down Program (SDP) Behavior Prior to the DRB Hearing Placement 1 to 12 months Step 1 13 to 24 months Step 2 25 to 36 months Step 3 37 to 48 months Step 4 Step 5 49 months and beyond (General Population) As shown in the table below, documents from the department display that through March 4, 2014, the DRB had reviewed a total of 453 cases at the five SHU facilities. Of the 453 cases reviewed, the department approved 303 inmates (67 percent) for release to general population (Step 5) and placed 144 inmates (32 percent) in step 1, 2, 3, or 4 of the SDP. The remaining 6 inmates were released to a transitional housing unit or general population setting as part of the debriefing process. SHU-Summary of Outcomes from Case-by-Case Reviews Outcome of DRB Hearing Number of Inmates SDP – Step 1 40 SDP – Step 2 49 SDP – Step 3 29 SDP – Step 4 26 Release to GP - Step 5 303 Debriefed - Release to THU/GP 6 Totals 453 Source: CDCR – Data as of March 4, 2014 The department has also conducted institution case-by-case reviews for currently validated affiliates housed in non-SHU facilities. These inmates are primarily housed in ASU at various institutions throughout the state. The reviews are conducted by the institution classification committee (ICC). As shown in the table below, documents from 23 Inactive Monitored inmates will be allowed to remain in general population, unless the inmate demonstrates additional STG related behavior (shown in the STG Disciplinary Matrix). If the inmate is issued a Rules Violation Report (RVR) and found guilty of one Serious Rules Violation Report with an STG nexus or two Administrative Rules Violation reports with a STG nexus within a 12-month timeframe, the Affiliate will be processed for placement into the SDP. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 21 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California the department display that through March 4, 2014, the ICC had reviewed a total of 238 cases at various non-SHU facilities. Of the 238 cases reviewed, the department approved 150 inmates (63 percent) for release to general population and placed 54 inmates (23 percent) in steps 1, 2, or 3 (no inmates have been placed in step 4) of the SDP. The remaining inmates were retained in ASU due to safety concerns, debriefing, or disciplinary reasons. ASU-Summary of Outcomes from Case-by-Case Reviews Outcome of ICC Hearing Number of Inmates SDP – Step 1 47 SDP – Step 2 3 SDP – Step 3 4 SDP – Step 4 0 Release to GP 150 Retain in ASU (Safety, Debriefing or Disciplinary) 34 Totals 238 Source: CDCR – Data as of March 4, 2014 The DRB and ICC hearings resulted in the release of 459 of the 691 inmates (66 percent) into a general population setting (DRB-step 5 or ICC-release to GP) commensurate with their individual case factors. Of the 459 inmates placed in the step-down program (SDP), 303 inmates (66 percent) were placed in step 5 of the SDP, which corresponds with the placement into a level IV general population setting to serve a year of observation. If the inmate refrains from STG activity for that year, the inmate’s case factors would be reviewed and the inmate would have the opportunity to return to a general population setting commensurate with their individual case factors. The remaining 150 inmates (33 percent) who received ICC hearings were to be released directly into a general population setting without having to serve a year of observation. The remaining 6 inmates were released to a transitional housing unit or general population setting as part of the debriefing process. As of March 4, 2014, approximately 17 months since the pilot began; the department has conducted 691 case-by-case reviews, which represents 25 percent of its STG population (2,735 inmates). This represents an increase of 163 case-by-case reviews identified in our prior report. We estimate the department will complete 952 case-by-case reviews (35 percent) of its current STG inmate population by the conclusion of the pilot program. This is a decrease of seven percent from our last report, which estimated the department would complete 1,241 case-by-case reviews (42 percent)24. At its current rate, we estimate that the department may require up to 4 years completing case-by-case reviews 24 The estimate from OIG’s previous report was based on an estimate of 1,241 case-by-case reviews from an STG population of 2,956 inmates. This report estimates 952 case-by-case reviews from an STG population of 2,735 inmates, which according to the department is the number of inmates currently in CDCR custody who were validated prior to March 1, 2013. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 22 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California on all validated inmates. Although the pilot STG Plan does not identify any benchmarks regarding the number or percentage of case-by-case reviews the department needs to complete during its 24-month pilot program, the department intends to continue this process until all inmates validated prior to March 1, 2013, have received a case-by-case review. We will continue to monitor and report on the case-by-case reviews completed. Security Threat Group – Signature Requirement Discontinued The STG Plan required an offender to sign a personal contract to acknowledge the program expectations and consequences for failing to participate. The department reinforced this requirement for inmates placed in steps 2, 3, and 4 of the SDP in its implementation of Phase II of the pilot program commencing on March 1, 2013. It requires them to sign a contract, and continual failure to do so will eventually cause inmates to regress to step 1. In its last report, the OIG identified that 28 of the 73 inmates’ C-files25 (38 percent) the OIG reviewed in the SDP did not contain a signed contract. The OIG also found that 10 of 11 inmates (91 percent) placed in step 2, 3, or 4 of the SDP were unwilling to sign the contract or refused to participate in the programming aspects (self-directed journals). In those cases, the inmate regressed to step 1, and will not earn credit toward completion of the 12 months required in step 1 (before proceeding to step 2). The OIG’s fieldwork for this report revealed similar concerns, as 35 of 44 inmates (80 percent) placed in step 2, 3, or 4 of the SDP did not sign a contract. However, the department discontinued its signature requirement for an inmate’s participation in the SDP, effective January 21, 2014, the commencement date for implementation of Phase III of the pilot program. Instead, inmates will be issued a Step Down Program Notice of Expectations, which outlines the goals, expectations for successful completion, and potential consequences for failure to fully participate. Security Threat Group – Regression of Inmates The STG Plan requires an offender to participate in inmate programming or journaling before progressing to the next step. As part of the pilot, inmates placed in Steps 1 and 2 were to have program assessments initiated, such as TABE (Test of Adult Basic Education) testing and COMPAS assessments. Inmates placed in Step 3 can participate in self-directed journals that are 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 inmate programming or journaling, the inmate will regress, as with the previous signature requirement shown above. 25 The central file (C-file) is considered the master file maintained by the department for each inmate. The file contains various types of documents, including confidential information, casework, program information, historical information, criminal reports, evaluations, and correspondence. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 23 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California The OIG’s fieldwork reviewed whether 150 inmates26 assigned to the SDP based on their DRB or ICC case-by-case review were continuing with their assigned step, progressed to the next step, or regressed. As shown below, of the 150 sample inmates we reviewed, 98 SDP inmates had an initial or 180-day ICC review27 subsequent to their case-by-case review and therefore their progress or lack of progress could be assessed. Although each of the 98 inmates had not been in their assigned step for 12 months prior to the ICC’s review, the committee reported whether the inmate was participating in the SDP. The OIG found that 69 of the 98 inmates (70 percent) had “no change” in their SDP status (continuing to program at their current step down level), 7 inmates successfully progressed to the next step, and 22 inmates regressed to a lower step. Of the 22 inmates who regressed, OIG found that 17 (77 percent) had regressed based on their refusal to participate in inmate programming or journaling. The remaining 5 inmates regressed for STG related behavior or refusal to sign their step down contract, as mentioned above, the department has recently changed this signature requirement. The 17 inmates who refused to participate in programming were originally placed in steps 2 (eight inmates), 3 (six inmates), and 4 (three inmates) but after committee review all 17 inmates regressed to step 1 based on their refusal to participate in programming. If an inmate regresses to step 1, he or she will not earn credit towards completion of the 12 months required in step 1 (before proceeding to step 2). To earn credits, the inmate must notify the correctional counselor or case manager of renewed intention to participate in the SDP. Status of Inmates Placed in the Step-Down Program (SDP) 26 The department reported that 386 inmates, as of October 29, 2013, were placed in the step down program (SDP) in steps 1 through 5 based on their case-by-case review. These reviews were performed by the departmental review board (DRB) or an institution classification committee (ICC). Thus, we selected a sample of 150 inmates to review from the 386 SDP inmates. 27 As part of the STG Plan, the department conducts institutional classification committee (ICC) program reviews to monitor the progress and behavior of inmates within the Step-Down Program (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 current step, regression to beginning of the current step, regression to a prior step, and/or reduction in privilege levels. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 24 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Gang Management Program – Miscellaneous Benchmarks As illustrated in the following security housing unit table below, the current design capacity for SHU beds increased to 2,994 with the Blueprint plan. Prior to the Blueprint, the department projected a higher increased need for SHU facilities, but now projects an overall reduction of SHU beds after completion of the regulations and the case factor reviews scheduled for completion by October 2014. Future reports will track the actual SHU bed populations. Security Housing Unit – Population Data28 28 The design capacity before the Blueprint was from a CDCR population report with data as of April 25, 2012. The design and staffed capacities in the Blueprint are from Appendix B of the Blueprint. The inmate population is from a CDCR data download as of February 1, 2014. The inmate population from CIW is as of February 10, 2014, and was obtained from CDCR management since CIW uses some SHU beds for administrative segregation unit housing rather than for SHU housing. Therefore, the population report overstated the SHU beds at CIW. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 25 of 78 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, and closures, and changes to contract beds and 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 identify 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 to the level of detail that 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. For example, a July 17, 2013, memorandum called for Facility A at Pleasant Valley State Prison (PVSP) to be converted from a level IV sensitive needs yard to a level III sensitive needs yard. The Blueprint housing plan already identified Facility A at PVSP as a level III sensitive needs yard. 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 are 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.29 Although those reports do not identify custody level and program assignment, they do provide inmate population counts for each housing unit. The OIG were then able to determine whether inmates are being housed at each housing unit within a level reasonably consistent with 29 “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. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 26 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California 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 930 housing units identified in the Blueprint, the OIG found 893 housing units (96 percent) to be operational.30 There was one institution (California Rehabilitation Center) where a few of the housing units have remained closed at least temporarily since the initial report. Since that initial report, the OIG found other institutions had closed some of their housing units at least temporarily. The OIG used a download of electronic population data to compare the current population by security level at each institution with 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 housing plans identified in the Blueprint as the plan relates to the inmate population levels by both housing levels and program types. The results of the OIG’s fieldwork review during December 2013 and January 2014 are displayed in Appendix D 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 that were 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 (VSPW) to a male facility by the summer of 2013. the name changed to Valley State Prison (VSP). Conversion of the former Folsom Transitional January 2013 - the conversion was completed for Treatment Facility into dorms used for housing activation of Folsom Women's Facility (FWF). female inmates (to be named Folsom Women’s Facility). Planned closure of the California Rehabilitation Senate Bill 105 passed in September 2013 Center (CRC). The plan identified its closure to be suspended the requirement to close CRC pending completed by June 2016. a review that determines if it can be closed. This project will continue to be monitored. A decline in inmates eligible for the department's fire This benchmark was changed with legislative camp population. The projected inmate population support. The department has been funded to decline was from 4,480 inmates (6/27/12) to 2,500 restore its previous level of fire camps and inmates (6/27/13). No schedule of fire camp closures associated inmates. The FY 2013/14 Budget Act was identified. restored its funding to the original level, which eliminated the need to close fire camps and reduce its inmate population. 30 The 930 housing units identified in the Blueprint include the 24 housing units of the California Health Care Facility, which had 21 of its 24 units occupied as of January 22, 2014. The OIG did not include the housing units shown in the Blueprint planned for the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 27 of 78 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 and is planned to be completed by June 2014. The OIG’s review found the construction of the CHCF was completed on schedule in August 2013. However, in early-February, the court-appointed medical receiver ordered admissions to be stopped at CHCF. According to the department, this decision did not impact the ongoing construction at the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex, which is on schedule to be completed in spring 2014 with the activation immediately following. 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 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 mid to late 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 department has selected two separate design-build entities to design and construct the projects for MCSP and RJD. The department is currently in the process of executing both contracts. Construction is to begin in spring 2014, and construction completion is estimated for March 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 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 28 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California reports show this benchmark was not met, as over 8,800 inmates were housed out of state during this benchmark date. Recently, the passage of Senate Bill 105 in September 2013 authorized the department to increase its level of contracted beds both in state 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 26, 2014, a total of 837 inmates were housed there. Also, in December 2013, the department requested activation of 640 and 578 contracted beds with the City of Shafter and City of Delano, respectively. Inmates will be housed in the public Modified Community Correctional Facilities (MCCFs) located in these cities to assist with the reduction of in-state prison overcrowding. The department also activated and increased capacity at other private MCCF housing, including Central Valley, Desert View, and Golden State. As of February 26, 2014, the department had 2,054 inmates housed in its private MCCF’s and 843 inmates in its public MCCF’s. This was an increase of 3,105 inmates located at in-state contract beds from the last report. 31 Additionally, the department activated the Taft MCCF on March 3, 2014, with plans to populate up to its capacity of 512 inmates. 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 1, 2014, the table below compares the actual density (overcrowding) rates in comparison to the goals for six security level bed types. Most of the rates fall within the established goal with the exception of the level II beds, which significantly exceed the goal by 40 percent. This supports the department’s need to increase the number of level II beds planned at the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex and infill construction at MCSP and RJD. Also, the recent activation of CAC is to house 2,400 level II inmates once it is fully activated, and will assist the department in lowering its overcrowding rate. 31 CDCR population reports for in-state contract beds identified 683 inmates as of September 18, 2013; while population reports showed in-state contract beds with 3,788 inmates as of February 26, 2014, an increase of 3,105 inmates. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 29 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California Actual Density (Overcrowding) Rates in Comparison To Blueprint Design Beds Actual Blueprint Blueprint Population as Overcrowding Overcrowding Bed Type Design Beds of 1/7/14 Rate Rate Goal Level I Dorm 8,283 8,176 99% 150% Level II Dorm & Cell 22,908 42,665 186% 150% Level III Cell 16,584 19,075 115% 150% Level IV Cell 13,124 20,123 153% 150% Administrative Segregation Unit 5,601 6,408 114% 125% Security Housing Unit 2,934 3,804 130% 120% Housing Plan – Global Benchmarks The Blueprint noted the department was under federal court order to reduce prison overcrowding to 137.5 percent of overall design-bed capacity by June 2013. Subsequently, the department was granted an extension to April 18, 2014, to reach that goal. After appeals of the order by the department, the three-judge court granted a two-year extension to February 28, 2016. The order requires the department to reduce its prison population in three stages, or “benchmarks,” as follows: 1) 143 percent of design capacity by June 30, 2014; 2) 141.5 percent of design capacity by February 28, 2015; and 3) 137.5 percent of design capacity by February 28, 2016. The court also is to appoint a Compliance Officer, who will have authority to order the release of the number of inmates required to meet the above benchmarks, if any are not met. Future OIG reports will indicate whether the department has met these new goals. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 30 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California CONCLUSION This report again indicates that the Department is challenged in achieving their rehabilitation goals. In addition, it appears that there was a percentage of STG inmates regressing once they are placed within the step down program, and the pace of reviews has decreased. While 17 percent of inmates refusing to participate in programming may be an expected rate of regression, this may deserve future analysis. At its current pace, the department will take an additional 3 to 4 years after its pilot ends in October 2014 before all of the STG population is reviewed. On a positive note, the department continues to meet the goals set in standardized staffing, and the application of the new inmate classification score system, which presumably will continue to translate into cost savings for the state. Finally, the department is meeting the construction goals set in the blueprint. However, with population not decreasing as much as originally expected and the Federal Court now granting a reprieve, the department has contracted with Community Correctional Facilities within the state for additional bed space and is not decreasing the out of state inmate population as originally planned. These contracts will presumably offset savings gained elsewhere.  The major goal of increasing the percentage of inmates served in in-prison rehabilitative programs to 70 percent of the department’s target population prior to their release still has yet to be met. The Blueprint identified no benchmark, but the department’s internal goal to achieve that mark is June 2015. Currently the department reports that only 35 percent of its target population is having either all its rehabilitative needs met or some of its rehabilitative needs met. However the OIG has expressed concern that even that statistic is in question since the standard for successfully meeting a rehabilitative need is the presence of an inmate in one program for one day. This standard ultimately may make the statistics meaningless even if achieved with 100 percent of the target population. In terms of program slots, the OIG found that 90 percent of the academic education programs are operational which represents a 3 percent decrease from the last report. The OIG found that 82 percent of the career technical education programs are operational, which represents a 1 percent decrease from the last report. The OIG also found that 68 percent of the substance abuse treatment slots are filled which represents a 12 percent decrease from the last report. These figures take into account that the department is holding 35 academic teachers and 21 career technical education teachers in abeyance until rehabilitation space is available at the DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex and the infill construction projects are completed. Also, it is only fair to report that the department has been negatively impacted by changes, delays, and protests in its establishment of reentry hubs. The Blueprint identified 13 designated institutions as reentry hubs but three institutions have since been removed and replaced by three other institutions. Also, cognitive- behavior (criminal thinking, anger management, and family relationships) and transitions program (job readiness) training at reentry hubs planned for fiscal year 2012-13 has been delayed until fiscal year 2013-14. Legal protests by potential Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 31 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California contractors in the bidding and award process have delayed the full delivery of substance abuse programs at seven reentry hubs. Currently, only four of the 13 reentry hubs are fully operational. Additionally, even though this report shows a minor percentage decrease in programming, overall since the Blueprint began, the number of overall program opportunities and participation is rising.  The department has established and is adhering to the standardized staffing model at each institution. The staffing model appears to have been implemented in accordance with the Blueprint levels.  The department has established and is adhering to the new inmate classification score system. The emergency regulations were approved in a timely manner, which changed the inmate classification scoring threshold for male inmates. The changes appear to have been implemented in accordance with the Blueprint goals, and to be trending toward overall reduction in higher-level inmate placements.  The department established the new prison gang management system in October 2012 and is undergoing a 24-month pilot to implement and assess the new procedures. Thus far, 691 inmates have been assessed and 459 inmates (66 percent) were released from a SHU setting (or potentially avoided entering a SHU from administrative segregation) into a general population setting as a result of the case-by-case reviews. This is an encouraging statistic to eventually move SHU inmates to a general population setting. However, in the past five months, the department is on pace to complete 7 percent fewer (42 percent to 35 percent) reviews since the OIG’s last report. Although there were no benchmarks identified in the Blueprint or STG Case Plan to complete a specific number or percentage of case-by-case reviews, a more rapid pace of reviews may have been expected by the legislature and stakeholders. According to the department, this deliberate pace is directly related to reviewing the most violent and sophisticated STG members and associates with caution as it implements this pilot program to enhance safety and security. The department intends to continue this process until all inmates validated prior to March 1, 2013, have received case-by-case reviews.  The department has implemented and is adhering to the comprehensive housing plan described in the Blueprint. The department is housing inmates, for the most part, at levels established in the Blueprint. Additionally, thus far, the construction projects identified in the Blueprint have been completed within the time frames identified. There are still a few large-scale construction projects needing to be completed, but those appear to be on schedule and the OIG will continue to monitor the progress. The department is also addressing the in-state prison overcrowding with the activation of a California City Correctional Facility (CAC) The department also activated and increased capacity at public and private Modified Community Correctional Facilities (MCCF), located in the cities of Delano, Shafter, and Taft, with potentially more in progress. As noted above, the department has demonstrated progress in implementing its Blueprint goals, but considerable progress is still needed to realize the rehabilitation goals. It will also take more time to achieve the projected fiscal benefits of the changes in the ICSS score thresholds and the changes to the new gang management system. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 32 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDICES Appendix A – Programming Plans Appendix B – Core COMPAS Assessments Appendix C – Standardized Staffing Appendix D – Housing Plans Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 33 of 78 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 2013–14 as identified in Appendix B of the Blueprint. 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 slots as they were identified in the initial Blueprint. 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 numbers as identified in the final version of the Blueprint. As discussed in its report, the OIG reduced 35 academic teachers and 21 CTE teachers from the proposed staffing since the Office of Correctional Education changed these positions to be unallocated until the inmate population stabilizes. Then the OIG shows the results of its fieldwork identifying the number of programs that were actually fully operational when the OIG performed the fieldwork. The last set of columns identifies the differences between the number of courses that were supposed to be operational (and related available slots) and the number of courses that the OIG actually found to be operational during the site visit. The fieldwork performed in this exercise was conducted from December 2013 through January 2014. Therefore, the numbers may have changed since the time of the report. Additionally, some of the detail of the specific courses may have changed from institution to institution, but the departmental totals in terms of scheduled courses still match the original Blueprint numbers. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 34 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A: PROGRAMMING PLANS STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTALS – REHABILITATION PROGRAMS Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 FY 13-14 December 2013 - (Version 1) (Version 5)* January 2014 (Actuals - Final) Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Actual Staff Student (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Programs) Capacity Differences Differences General Population 385 20,790 324 17,442 298 15,780 -26 -1,662 Alternative Programming 15 1,620 11 594 8 432 -3 -162 Voluntary Educ. Program 169 20,280 194 23,280 171 20,388 -23 -2,892 TOTALS 569 42,690 529 41,316 477 36,600 -52 -4,716 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Actual Staff Student Education (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Programs) Capacity Differences Differences Auto Mechanics 19 513 17 459 12 324 -5 -135 Auto Repair 14 378 14 378 12 324 -2 -54 Building Maintenance 24 648 24 648 19 513 -5 -135 Carpentry 18 486 15 405 13 351 -2 -54 Computer Literacy ** 36 972 26 1,323 24 1,255 -2 -68 Cosmetology 3 81 3 81 3 81 0 0 Electric Work 11 297 18 486 13 351 -5 -135 Electronics 31 837 29 783 25 675 -4 -108 HVAC 16 432 14 378 8 216 -6 -162 Machine Shop 4 108 4 108 3 81 -1 -27 Masonry 13 351 14 378 9 243 -5 -135 Office Technologies 42 1,134 41 1,134 38 1,053 -3 -81 Painting 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 14 378 9 243 8 216 -1 -27 Sheet Metal 2 54 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Small Engine Repair 14 378 10 270 9 243 -1 -27 Welding 17 459 19 513 16 432 -3 -81 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 280 7,560 260 7,668 213 6,385 -47 -1,283 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Students in Capacity (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Program (Projected) Differences Differences Substance Abuse 1,720 3,352 1,902 3,804 1,300 2,715 -506 -897 Cognitive-Behavioral 2,352 7,824 2,616 8,304 258 856 -2,358 -7,832 TOTALS 4,072 11,176 4,518 12,108 1,558 3,571 -2,864 -8,729 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Differences Differences Transitions Program 220 2,568 650 5,358 80 720 -510 -4,638 Identification (ID) Project 40 7,637 1,000 12,000 1,165 12,000 165 0 TOTALS 260 10,205 1,650 17,358 1,245 12,720 -345 -4,638 * Final Blueprint (Version 5) includes 6 Academic Education Teachers and 1 CTE Teacher at DeWitt Nelson Correctional Annex that were not included in the Initial Blueprint proposed staffing for Academic Education and CTE. ** The computer literacy slots were adjusted to account for a morning and afternoon session. The slots were reported in the Blueprint as only available once per day for most classes so the adjustment doubled the slot amount for numerous classes. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 35 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 23 1242 19 1026 18 972 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 720 6 720 6 720 0 0 TOTALS 29 1962 25 1746 24 1692 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 2 54 2 54 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 2 108 2 108 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 HVAC 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 4 108 3 81 3 81 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 19 513 17 513 17 513 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Actual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 192 384 156 374 -36 -10 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 Lifer Program 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 480 1344 480 1344 156 374 -324 -970 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 1007 0 0 1 12 1 12 TOTALS 20 1235 60 540 1 12 -59 -528 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 36 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A: PROGRAMMING PLANS CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL CENTER (CCC) CCC 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 8 432 10 540 8 356 -2 -184 Alternative Programming 1 108 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 3 360 -2 -240 TOTALS 14 1140 15 1140 11 716 -4 -424 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 11 297 8 216 8 216 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 37 of 78 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): Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 17 918 10 540 10 498 0 -42 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 9 1080 8 960 -1 -120 TOTALS 24 1758 19 1620 18 1458 -1 -162 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 3 81 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 2 54 2 54 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 12 324 11 297 9 243 -2 -54 Student Student Student Student Annual Actual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 138 276 138 276 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 144 480 0 0 -144 -480 TOTALS 240 672 282 756 138 276 -144 -480 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 0 0 0 0 0 0 Identification (ID) Project 0 831 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 1059 0 0 0 0 0 0 California Correctional Institution (CCI) was removed from the list of proposed Reentry Hub sites on 12/4/12. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 38 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 15 810 14 756 10 516 -4 -240 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 7 840 4 480 -3 -360 TOTALS 22 1650 21 1596 14 996 -7 -600 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Carpentry 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 15 405 15 432 12 351 -3 -81 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 192 384 131 314 -61 -69.6 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 TOTALS 480 1344 480 1344 131 314.4 -349 -1029.6 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 1101 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 1329 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 39 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 6 324 8 432 7 378 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 3 360 2 240 2 240 0 0 TOTALS 9 684 10 672 9 618 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 5 135 5 135 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 96 192 96 192 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 120 384 120 384 0 0 -120 -384 TOTALS 216 576 216 576 96 192 -120 -384 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 288 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 20 249 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 40 537 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 40 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 7 378 5 270 4 216 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 3 360 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 10 738 9 750 8 696 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 162 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 41 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 20 1080 13 702 13 702 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 1 54 1 54 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 8 960 9 1080 8 960 -1 -120 TOTALS 28 2040 23 1836 22 1716 -1 -120 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Masonry 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 13 351 12 324 9 243 -3 -81 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 72 144 72 144 72 144 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 144 480 114 376 -30 -104 TOTALS 216 624 216 624 186 520 -30 -104 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 871 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 1099 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 42 of 78 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 designed 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): Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 18 972 11 594 11 594 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 720 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 24 1692 15 1074 14 954 -1 -120 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 19 513 9 270 9 270 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Actual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 TOTALS 480 1344 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 20 228 0 0 -20 -228 Identification (ID) Project 0 1104 0 1104 0 0 0 -1104 TOTALS 20 1332 20 1332 0 0 -20 -1332 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 43 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 12 648 10 486 10 540 0 54 Alternative Programming 3 324 3 162 3 162 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 6 720 5 600 -1 -120 TOTALS 19 1452 19 1368 18 1302 -1 -66 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Welding 0 0 0 0 1 27 1 27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 5 135 4 108 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 44 of 78 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): Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 10 540 8 432 7 378 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 15 1140 13 1032 12 978 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Painting 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 7 189 7 216 4 135 -3 -81 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 0 0 72 144 0 0 -72 -144 Cognitive-Behavioral 0 0 120 384 0 0 -120 -384 TOTALS 0 0 192 528 0 0 -192 -528 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 California State Prison, Los Angeles County (LAC) was added to the list of proposed Reentry Hub sites on 12/4/12. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 45 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 7 378 6 324 5 270 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 5 600 6 720 1 120 TOTALS 11 858 11 924 11 990 0 66 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 3 81 3 81 2 54 -1 -27 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3 81 3 81 2 54 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 46 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 10 540 7 378 7 378 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 720 7 840 6 720 -1 -120 TOTALS 16 1260 14 1218 13 1098 -1 -120 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 0 0 -1 -54 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Masonry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 11 297 5 162 2 54 -3 -108 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 47 of 78 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): Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 20 1080 13 702 9 388 -4 -314 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 6 720 6 720 4 480 -2 -240 TOTALS 26 1800 19 1422 13 868 -6 -554 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD -1 -27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 7 189 8 243 8 243 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 72 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 72 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 California State Prison, Solano (SOL) was removed from the list of proposed Reentry Hub sites on 12/4/12. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 48 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 17 918 18 972 18 972 0 0 Alternative Programming 3 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 9 1080 11 1320 11 1320 0 0 TOTALS 29 2322 29 2292 29 2292 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 16 432 15 432 14 405 -1 -27 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 184 280 232 464 167 334 -65 -130 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 TOTALS 328 760 520 1424 167 334 -353 -1090 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 TOTALS 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 49 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 15 810 12 648 11 594 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 19 1290 17 1248 16 1194 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 2 108 2 108 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 6 216 5 189 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 50 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 13 702 13 702 10 540 -3 -162 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 7 840 6 720 7 840 1 120 TOTALS 20 1542 19 1422 17 1380 -2 -42 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD -3 -81 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 162 8 216 7 189 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 51 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint * Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 12 648 11 594 10 540 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 16 1128 15 1074 13 900 -2 -174 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 9 243 10 297 8 243 -2 -54 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 96 192 91 182 -5 -10 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 144 480 0 0 -144 -480 TOTALS 240 672 240 672 91 182 -149 -490 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 20 180 -40 -360 Identification (ID) Project 0 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 586 60 540 20 180 -40 -360 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 52 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 12 648 10 540 9 486 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 16 1128 14 1020 13 966 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 10 270 12 351 10 297 -2 -54 Student Student Student Student Annual Actual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 96 192 96 192 96 192 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 144 480 144 480 0 0 -144 -480 TOTALS 240 672 240 672 96 192 -144 -480 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 545 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 773 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 53 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 22 1188 18 972 18 944 0 -28 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 9 1080 10 1200 9 948 -1 -252 TOTALS 31 2268 28 2172 27 1892 -1 -280 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Building Maintenance 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 2 108 1 54 -1 -54 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 16 432 16 486 9 270 -7 -216 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 120 240 117 234 -3 -6 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 144 480 0 0 -144 -480 TOTALS 480 1344 264 720 117 234 -147 -486 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 896 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 1124 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 54 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 4 216 3 162 2 108 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 5 600 2 240 -3 -360 TOTALS 8 696 8 762 4 348 -4 -414 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 1 27 1 27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 4 135 4 135 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 55 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 14 756 9 486 10 504 1 18 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 1 120 7 840 8 960 1 120 TOTALS 15 876 16 1326 18 1464 2 138 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 2 94 1 40 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Office Technologies 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 13 351 11 324 10 310 -1 -14 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 56 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 0 0 1 54 1 54 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 1 120 1 120 1 120 0 0 TOTALS 1 120 2 174 2 174 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 48 96 48 96 0 0 -48 -96 Cognitive-Behavioral 72 240 72 240 0 0 -72 -240 TOTALS 120 336 120 336 0 0 -120 -336 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 0 0 30 270 0 0 -30 -270 Identification (ID) Project 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 0 42 30 270 0 0 -30 -270 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 57 of 78 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 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 8 432 8 432 9 486 1 54 Alternative Programming 1 108 1 54 0 0 -1 -54 Voluntary Educ. Program 2 240 3 360 3 360 0 0 TOTALS 11 780 12 846 12 846 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 4 108 3 108 3 108 0 0 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 0 0 96 192 0 0 -96 -192 Cognitive-Behavioral 0 0 144 480 0 0 -144 -480 TOTALS 0 0 240 672 0 0 -96 -192 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences Programs (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 TOTALS 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 58 of 78 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 change in designation): Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 10 540 12 648 11 594 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 8 960 9 1080 6 720 -3 -360 TOTALS 18 1500 21 1728 17 1314 -4 -414 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 2 108 2 108 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 2 54 1 27 -1 -27 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD -4 -108 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 15 459 11 351 -4 -108 Student Student Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 0 0 96 192 96 192 0 0 Cognitive-Behavioral 0 0 144 480 144 480 0 0 TOTALS 0 0 240 672 240 672 0 0 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Identification (ID) Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 0 0 60 540 0 0 -60 -540 Ironwood State Prison (ISP) was added to the list of proposed Reentry Hub sites on 12/4/12. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 59 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 15 810 14 756 14 756 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 6 720 4 480 -2 -240 TOTALS 19 1290 20 1476 18 1236 -2 -240 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 2 54 2 54 2 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 6 162 5 135 4 108 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 60 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 10 540 8 432 8 432 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 3 360 -1 -120 TOTALS 14 1020 12 912 11 792 -1 -120 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD -3 -81 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3 81 5 135 4 108 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 61 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 2 108 3 162 3 162 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 3 360 3 360 0 0 TOTALS 7 708 6 522 6 522 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3 81 2 54 2 54 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 62 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative Programming 5 540 4 216 4 216 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 3 360 6 720 6 720 0 0 TOTALS 8 900 10 936 10 936 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 63 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 17 918 13 702 13 702 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 21 1398 17 1182 17 1182 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD -5 -135 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 5 135 9 243 9 243 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 64 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 4 216 4 216 5 262 1 46 Alternative Programming 2 216 2 108 0 0 -2 -108 Voluntary Educ. Program 9 1080 8 960 8 960 0 0 TOTALS 15 1512 14 1284 13 1222 -1 -62 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Computer Literacy 2 54 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 HVAC 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Machine Shop 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 7 189 6 189 3 108 -3 -81 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 65 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 6 324 6 324 6 324 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 5 600 5 600 3 360 -2 -240 TOTALS 11 924 11 924 9 684 -2 -240 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 66 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 13 702 9 486 8 432 -1 -54 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 3 360 6 720 6 720 0 0 TOTALS 16 1062 15 1206 14 1152 -1 -54 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Auto Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Building Maintenance 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 TBD 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 11 297 8 216 5 135 -3 -81 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 67 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 16 864 12 648 12 648 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 5 600 5 600 0 0 TOTALS 20 1344 17 1248 17 1248 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 1 27 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 2 54 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Carpentry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Computer Literacy 2 54 1 54 1 54 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 Electronics 2 54 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Welding 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 TBD 2 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 16 432 11 324 9 270 -2 -54 Student Student * Student Student Annual Contract Treatment Capacity Capacity Capacity Capacity Actual Student Students in Differences Differences Programs (/Program) (Annual) (/Program) (Annual) Capacity Program (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Projected) Substance Abuse 192 384 216 432 0 0 -216 -432 Cognitive-Behavioral 288 960 288 960 0 0 -288 -960 TOTALS 480 1344 504 1392 0 0 -504 -1392 Program Annual Program Annual Inmates Annual Employment Programs Slots Served Slots Served Served Served Differences Differences (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) (Actual) (Projected) Transitions Program 20 228 60 540 60 540 0 0 Identification (ID) Project 0 405 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 20 633 60 540 60 540 0 0 * The contract for the substance abuse treatment was to provide a gender responsive program for women; therefore, the slots could not be used when VSP converted to a male prison. The program was transferred to neighboring CCWF and a new contract for male inmates is in the works for FY 2013/14. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 68 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 4 480 4 480 4 480 0 0 TOTALS 4 480 4 480 4 480 0 0 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 1 27 1 27 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 1 27 1 27 1 27 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 3 81 2 54 2 54 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 69 of 78 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 2 108 2 324 1 54 -1 -270 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 1 120 1 360 1 120 0 -240 TOTALS 3 228 3 684 2 174 -1 -510 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 1 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 1 54 1 54 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 1 27 1 54 1 54 0 0 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 70 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX A: PROGRAMMING PLANS DEWITT NELSON CORRECTIONAL ANNEX (DNCA) DNCA is planned to be activated as a Standard Program Site by June 2014. 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: Initial Blueprint Final Blueprint Actuals Differences FY 13-14 (Version 1) FY 13-14 (Version 5) December 2013 - (Actuals - Final) January 2014 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Actual Staff Academic Education Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity General Population 0 0 4 216 0 0 -4 -216 Alternative Programming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Voluntary Educ. Program 0 0 2 240 0 0 -2 -240 TOTALS 0 0 6 456 0 0 -6 -456 Proposed Budgeted Proposed Budgeted Actual Career Technical Actual Staff Staff Capacity Staff Capacity Student Differences Differences Education (Programs) (Version 1) (Version 1) (Version 5) (Version 5) Capacity Auto Mechanics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Auto Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Building Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Carpentry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Computer Literacy 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Cosmetology 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electric Work 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Electronics 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HVAC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Machine Shop 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Masonry 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Office Technologies 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Plumbing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sheet Metal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Small Engine Repair 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Welding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TBD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTALS 0 0 1 27 0 0 -1 -27 Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 71 of 78 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 7, 2014. Inmates with Inmates Percent Inmate Core Without with Core Institution Population COMPAS COMPAS COMPAS Avenal State Prison 4,097 2,723 1,374 66.5% California Correctional Center 5,079 4,622 457 91.0% California Correctional Institution 4,451 2,496 1,955 56.1% California Health Care Facility 1,210 357 853 29.5% California Institution for Men 4,927 3,234 1,693 65.6% California Institution for Women 2,165 1,337 828 61.8% California Medical Facility 2,074 746 1,328 36.0% California Men's Colony 4,921 2,883 2,038 58.6% California Rehabilitation Center 3,304 2,875 429 87.0% California State PrisonL, o(cid:10)s Angeles County 3,726 1,438 2,288 38.6% California State Prison, Corcoran 4,354 2,371 1,983 54.5% California State Prison, Sacramento 2,234 807 1,427 36.1% California State Prison, San Quentin 4,161 1,469 2,692 35.3% California State Prison, Solano 4,139 2,055 2,084 49.6% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran 5,548 3,014 2,534 54.3% Calipatria State Prison 3,871 2,114 1,757 54.6% Centinela State Prison 2,982 1,808 1,174 60.6% Central California Women's Facility 3,632 1,675 1,957 46.1% Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 2,405 1,433 972 59.6% Correctional Training Facility 5,229 3,081 2,148 58.9% Deuel Vocational Institution 2,432 1,128 1,304 46.4% Folsom State Prison 3,099 1,779 1,320 57.4% Folsom Women's Facility 341 260 81 76.2% High Desert State Prison 3,379 2,150 1,229 63.6% Ironwood State Prison 3,083 1,784 1,299 57.9% Kern Valley State Prison 3,766 1,932 1,834 51.3% Mule Creek State Prison 2,876 1,194 1,682 41.5% North Kern State Prison 4,739 1,836 2,903 38.7% Out of State Correctional Facilities-Various 8,897 4,415 4,482 49.6% Pelican Bay State Prison 2,663 1,093 1,570 41.0% Pleasant Valley State Prison 3,278 2,250 1,028 68.6% Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 3,152 1,318 1,834 41.8% Salinas Valley State Prison 3,405 1,359 2,046 39.9% Sierra Conservation Center 4,969 3,763 1,206 75.7% Valley State Prison 3,303 1,840 1,463 55.7% Wasco State Prison 5,086 1,828 3,258 35.9% TOTALS 132,977 72,467 60,510 54.5% Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 72 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX C – STANDARDIZED STAFFING Appendix C displays a statewide summary of the numbers the Blueprint contained for each institution and compares it with the budget positions since they should match in total. The summary also contains the number of filled positions on the payroll32 for each institution and displays the difference between the filled positions and those budgeted.33 When performing the comparison against payroll data, the OIG reviewed the information similar to the staffing plans in the Blueprint. Primarily in the administrative reporting units for each institution, the OIG placed the payroll information in the category or categories where it best appeared to apply. Also, the department was allowed to move positions among the institutions, but they were mandated to conform to the departmental total. 32 The payroll data from February 6, 2014, were obtained directly from the department, which uses a system maintained by the State Controller’s Office named the Management Information Retrieval System (MIRS). 33 The filled position data at each prison do not contain medical position data (with the exception of custody health care access positions). The medical positions were not included in the Blueprint as part of the standardized staffing plan. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 73 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX C: STANDARDIZED STAFFING Standardized Staffing - Statewide Summary DOF Budget CDCR Diff Diff of Blueprint Authority Budgets Between ***Filled Filled & Budget Positions CDCR Institution Jul 2011 July 2013 July 2013 Sept 2013 Authority as of 2/6/14 Budget Avenal State Prison 1,437.4 1,306.8 1,318.3 1,302.5 -15.8 1,081.0 -221.5 California Correctional Center** 1,088.6 987.8 1,066.6 1,037.3 -29.3 676.0 -361.3 California Correctional Institution 1,893.7 1,578.7 1,599.4 1,617.6 18.2 1,412.0 -205.6 California Institution for Men 1,791.9 1,330.2 1,354.6 1,427.8 73.2 1,296.0 -131.8 California Institution for Women 826.9 798.8 799.9 755.5 -44.4 767.0 11.5 California Medical Facility 1,291.6 1,283.0 1,298.7 1,259.4 -39.3 1,123.0 -136.4 California Men's Colony 1,716.4 1,486.8 1,511.0 1,507.5 -3.5 1,455.0 -52.5 California Rehabilitation Center 1,143.3 1,150.7 1,168.0 1,117.9 -50.1 957.0 -160.9 California State Prison, Corcoran 1,846.8 1,737.7 1,754.5 1,796.5 42.0 1,637.0 -159.5 California State Prison, Los Angeles County 1,385.6 1,247.8 1,247.8 1,265.0 17.2 1,086.0 -179.0 California State Prison, Sacramento 1,423.8 1,394.8 1,410.7 1,449.9 39.2 1,380.0 -69.9 California State Prison, San Quentin 1,675.2 1,594.1 1,622.6 1,511.3 -111.3 1,269.0 -242.3 California State Prison, Solano 1,133.3 1,095.8 1,103.4 1,122.4 19.0 938.0 -184.4 California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran 1,744.1 1,625.5 1,635.6 1,669.2 33.6 1,492.0 -177.2 Calipatria State Prison 1,123.3 1,090.9 1,095.6 1,087.1 -8.5 963.0 -124.1 Centinela State Prison 1,118.3 1,116.2 1,112.7 1,100.3 -12.4 981.0 -119.3 Central California Women's Facility 954.3 855.9 861.0 906.0 45.0 833.0 -73.0 Chuckawalla Valley State Prison 809.9 784.7 790.1 787.6 -2.5 679.0 -108.6 Correctional Training Facility 1,544.8 1,339.8 1,362.7 1,248.9 -113.8 1,074.0 -174.9 Deuel Vocational Institution 1,184.5 908.2 916.6 893.9 -22.7 704.0 -189.9 Folsom State Prison* 921.1 913.4 924.8 924.7 -0.1 823.0 -101.7 High Desert State Prison 1,270.5 1,250.0 1,259.5 1,266.1 6.6 1,042.0 -224.1 Ironwood State Prison 1,084.3 1,052.8 1,046.5 1,022.4 -24.1 911.0 -111.4 Kern Valley State Prison 1,548.0 1,390.2 1,402.4 1,441.5 39.1 1,303.0 -138.5 Mule Creek State Prison 1,032.9 1,061.6 1,056.7 1,082.6 25.9 1,004.0 -78.6 North Kern State Prison 1,407.1 1,219.7 1,230.3 1,237.2 6.9 1,080.0 -157.2 Pelican Bay State Prison 1,370.2 1,361.0 1,375.3 1,426.2 50.9 1,161.0 -265.2 Pleasant Valley State Prison 1,302.1 1,246.0 1,244.7 1,241.5 -3.2 1,046.0 -195.5 Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility 1,425.6 1,295.1 1,295.6 1,313.2 17.6 1,227.0 -86.2 Salinas Valley State Prison 1,410.7 1,370.5 1,381.9 1,381.4 -0.5 1,235.0 -146.4 Sierra Conservation Center** 1,041.6 1,030.6 1,110.4 1,039.1 -71.3 893.0 -146.1 Valley State Prison 882.9 889.1 894.3 827.3 -67.0 771.0 -56.3 Wasco State Prison 1,525.4 1,350.0 1,365.1 1,337.3 -27.8 1,151.0 -186.3 TOTALS 43,356.1 40,144.2 40,617.3 40,404.1 -213.2 35,450.0 -4,954.1 * Expanded fire camp capacity by a total of 140 positions in Fiscal Year 2013-14 (and ongoing) to retain the maximum number of fire camps and inmate crews. ** Includes positions for Folsom Women's Facility. *** Filled positions derived from payroll data provided 2/6/14. The data displayed includes 145.0 positions physically located at the prisons but not contained in institution payroll information as they appear in headquarters payroll data. For the purposes of this comparison they were added in as budgeted in the Blueprint since the amount was negligible in comparison to the total positions. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 74 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX D – 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 D displays a summary of a comparison of actual population data against the design capacity beds identified for each prison in the Blueprint.34 The data is summarized by different housing types. This comparison was performed to assess whether the actual housing of inmates is consistent with the level and types of housing identified in the Blueprint. The data show that in each of the major categories, the department is consistently surpassing the inmate housing levels for each individual housing type identified in the Blueprint, as the overcrowding rate is over 100 percent in each major category. There are only a few housing categories that show a housing rate less than 100 percent and those categories are for special types of housing, such as beds for condemned inmates, hospice beds, or mental health crisis beds.35 The subsequent pages of Appendix D display 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 “positive shift count” reports obtained at each institution. 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 on the day of the site visit. The fieldwork time frame for the data collected commenced in December 2013 and concluded in January 2014. The capacity data that were identified in the Blueprint are color-coded in green while the data from the “positive shift count” reports and the calculations the OIG derived from the data are color-coded in yellow. In summary, the OIG’s assessment found that the actual housing of inmates is substantially consistent with the housing plans identified in the Blueprint. 34 The electronic population data is effective January 7, 2014, and was provided by CDCR. 35 Some of the beds identified in Appendix D are for very temporary housing. However, the OIG identified them since they are identified in the Blueprint. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 75 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX D: HOUSING PLANS CDCR Inmate Population Summary Per Housing Type Male Prisons General Population (GP) /A Blueprint Overcrowding GP Level Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Level I 7,664 6,683 -981 87% Level II 15,254 26,545 11,291 174% Level III 10,934 10,553 -381 97% Level IV 8,228 12,381 4,153 150% GP, Level Unknown 570 570 Subtotal, General Population 42,080 56,732 14,652 135% Special Needs Yards (SNY) /A Blueprint Overcrowding SNY Level Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Level I 619 1,461 842 236% Level II 7,654 16,098 8,444 210% Level III 5,650 8,472 2,822 150% Level IV 4,896 7,761 2,865 159% SNY, Level Unknown 146 146 Subtotal, Special Needs Yards 18,819 33,938 15,119 180% Miscellaneous Housing Types - Various Prison or Off-Site Locations Blueprint Overcrowding Housing Type Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Administrative Segregation Unit 5,601 6,395 794 114% Fire Camps /C 3,924 3,931 7 100% Reception Center 4,972 10,551 5,579 212% Segregated Housing Unit 2,934 3,823 889 130% Subtotal, Various Housing Types 17,431 24,700 7,269 142% Miscellaneous Housing Types-Limited Prison Locations Blueprint Overcrowding Housing Type Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Acute Care 150 243 93 162% CHCF CTC Medical High Acuity 420 0 -420 0% CHCF OHU Medical Low Acuity 590 0 -590 0% Condemned 684 679 -5 99% General Acute Care Hospital 29 91 62 314% Hospice 17 12 -5 71% Integrated Housing Unit 200 379 179 190% Intermediate Care Facility 879 640 -239 73% Mental Health Crisis Beds 282 162 -120 57% Protective Housing Unit 20 15 -5 75% Psychiatric Services Unit 512 327 -185 64% Subtotal, Limited Housing Types 3,783 2,548 -1,235 67% Subtotal, Male Prisons and Camps 82,113 117,918 35,805 144% Female Prisons Blueprint Overcrowding Housing Types Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Acute Care 45 42 -3 93% Administrative Segregation Unit 83 156 73 188% Condemned 17 16 -1 94% Fire Camps /C 320 248 -72 78% General Population 2,904 4,953 2,049 171% Psychiatric Services Unit 23 16 -7 70% Reception Center 356 615 259 173% Segregated Housing Unit 60 64 4 107% Subtotal, Female Prisons and Camps 3,808 6,110 2,302 160% Blueprint Overcrowding Design Beds Population /B Difference Rate Totals, CDCR Prisons-Inmate Population 85,921 124,028 38,107 144% /A - The data for the GP and SNY tables include Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP) inmate design beds and population. /B - The inmate population is based on January 7, 2014 data from the CDCR Office of Research; however, the inmate population for female prisons in the segregated housing unit was obtained as of February 10, 2014. /C - The fire camp capacities are higher than Blueprint levels due to approved budget proposal. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 76 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX D: HOUSING PLANS HOUSING PLAN - STATEWIDE SUMMARY TOTAL INMATE OVERCROWDING RATE * DESIGN * STAFFED COUNTS REVIEWED ON REVIEW DATE INSTITUTION CAPACITY CAPACITY BY OIG (DEC 2013 - (BASED ON DESIGN JAN 2014) CAPACITY) Avenal State Prison 2,920 4,350 4,079 140% California Correctional Center 3,875 4,708 5,036 130% California Correctional Institution 2,783 3,870 4,407 158% California Health Care Facility 1,722 1,722 1,312 76% California Institution for Men 2,944 4,130 4,755 162% California Institution for Women 1,401 1,848 2,158 154% California Medical Facility 2,412 2,871 2,067 86% California Men's Colony 3,888 4,490 4,975 128% California Rehabilitation Center 2,431 3,643 3,191 131% California State Prison, Corcoran 3,116 4,136 4,327 139% California State Prison, Los Angeles County 2,300 3,250 3,687 160% California State Prison, Sacramento 1,828 2,362 2,183 119% California State Prison, San Quentin 3,081 4,062 4,050 131% California State Prison, Solano 2,610 3,890 4,151 159% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 3,424 4,910 5,505 161% Calipatria State Prison 2,308 3,308 3,895 169% Centinela State Prison 2,308 3,308 2,966 129% Central California Women's Facility 2,004 2,972 3,577 178% Chuchawalla Valley State Prison 1,738 2,478 2,388 137% Correctional Training Facility 3,312 4,899 5,120 155% Deuel Vocational Institution 1,673 2,333 2,316 138% Folsom State Prison 2,064 2,898 2,988 145% Folsom Women's Facility 403 403 346 86% High Desert State Prison 2,324 3,329 3,399 146% Ironwood State Prison 2,200 3,175 2,994 136% Kern Valley State Prison 2,448 3,506 3,758 154% Mule Creek State Prison 1,700 2,400 2,836 167% North Kern State Prison 2,694 3,911 4,626 172% Pelican Bay State Prison 2,380 3,041 2,655 112% Pleasant Valley State Prison 2,308 3,308 3,267 142% Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility 2,200 3,138 3,128 142% Salinas Valley State Prison 2,452 3,361 3,412 139% Sierra Conservation Center 3,706 4,544 4,868 131% Valley State Prison 1,980 2,948 3,247 164% Wasco State Prison 2,984 4,351 4,951 166% GRAND TOTAL 85,921 117,853 122,620 143% * Capacity totals per site may not match Blueprint numbers due to incorrect formulas or a lack of rounding in the Blueprint numbers. Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 77 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California APPENDIX D: HOUSING PLANS HOUSING UNITS - STATEWIDE SUMMARY Housing Units In Use Reviewed by Housing Unit Count Housing Units - Percent Of Housing INSTITUTION OIG Per Blueprint VACANT Units In Use (Dec 2013 - Jan 2014) Avenal State Prison 25 0 25 100.0% California Correctional Center 32 2 30 93.8% California Correctional Institution 37 2 35 94.6% California Health Care Facility 24 3 21 87.5% California Institution for Men 30 0 30 100.0% California Institution for Women 21 2 19 90.5% California Medical Facility 41 5 36 87.8% California Men's Colony 19 2 17 89.5% California Rehabilitation Center 51 7 44 86.3% California State Prison, Corcoran 41 2 39 95.1% California State Prison, Los Angeles County 23 0 23 100.0% California State Prison, Sacramento 27 0 27 100.0% California State Prison, San Quentin 29 2 27 93.1% California State Prison, Solano 24 0 24 100.0% California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 31 0 31 100.0% Calipatria State Prison 24 0 24 100.0% Centinela State Prison 24 1 23 95.8% Central California Women's Facility 20 2 18 90.0% Chuchawalla Valley State Prison 15 0 15 100.0% Correctional Training Facility 23 0 23 100.0% Deuel Vocational Institution 17 0 17 100.0% Folsom State Prison 21 0 21 100.0% Folsom Women's Facility 2 0 2 100.0% High Desert State Prison 29 1 28 96.6% Ironwood State Prison 22 0 22 100.0% Kern Valley State Prison 36 0 36 100.0% Mule Creek State Prison 19 0 19 100.0% North Kern State Prison 26 0 26 100.0% Pelican Bay State Prison 42 3 39 92.9% Pleasant Valley State Prison 24 1 23 95.8% Richard J. Donavon Correctional Facility 24 0 24 100.0% Salinas Valley State Prison 31 2 29 93.5% Sierra Conservation Center 31 0 31 100.0% Valley State Prison 16 0 16 100.0% Wasco State Prison 29 0 29 100.0% GRAND TOTAL 930 37 893 96% Third Report on CDCR’s Progress Implementing the Blueprint 78 of 78 Office of the Inspector General State of California 2014 Blueprint Monitoring Report OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Robert A. Barton INSPECTOR GENERAL Roy W. Wesley CHIEF DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA March 2014