OIG
Use-of-Force within Cdcr January-June 2012
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Robert A. Barton, Inspector General
State of California
Use-of-Force within the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
January-June 2012
© CDCR
October 2012
Office of the Inspector General
October 2012 Use-of-Force Report
oig
Robert A. Barton
Inspector General
Roy Wesley
Chief Deputy Inspector General
James Spurling
Chief Counsel
Renee Hansen
Public Information Officer
P.O. Box 348780
Sacramento, CA 95834-8780
Telephone: 916-830-3600
Facsimile: 916-928-4684
October 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Office of the Inspector General The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) monitors use-of-force incidents within California’s
33 adult institutions. This is accomplished by conducting independent structured reviews of
October 2012 Use-of-Force Report use-of-force reports and subsequent California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR or department) reviews, as well as attending selected use-of-force committee meetings.
The department indicated they are currently implementing some of the recommendations
contained in our May 2012 Use-of-Force report.
In the six-month period from January through June 2012, the department reported a total of
3,189 incidents involving force at institutions housing adult inmates. Of these incidents, the
OIG monitored 1,440 incidents, or 45 percent, by attending institutional use-of-force review
committee meetings and completing structured reviews. Specifically, the OIG attended 114
use-of-force meetings, where a total of 657 incidents were evaluated, and completed structured
reviews of an additional 783 incidents. The OIG also completed seven structured reviews of
use-of-force incidents in the Office of Correctional Safety, and completed structured reviews of
46 use-of-force incidents occurring throughout the four parole regions. Overall, the department
complied with policies and procedures in 93 percent of the reviews conducted.
Incidents Reviewed Incidents in Compliance Compliance
by the OIG with CDCR Policy Rate
Division of Adult Institutions 1440 1342 93%
Division of Adult Parole Operations 46 45 98%
Office of Correctional Safety 7 7 100.0%
Total 1493 1394 93%
Division of Adult Institutions
The OIG found that the department complied with its use-of-force policies in 1,342 of those
cases, a compliance rate of 93 percent. The OIG found staff actions contributed to the need to
use force in 38 of the monitored incidents taking place at the adult institutions. The OIG’s active
participation in the review process influenced the outcome of 349 of the incidents monitored by
requesting clarification, investigations, or recommending employee training.
Incident reports continue to properly describe the need to use force; however, some still lack
the appropriate descriptions of the actual force used. Of the 783 structured reviews the OIG
conducted, the department completed 356 reviews in the required 30-day timeframe. Four
institutions did not meet the CDCR 30-day review requirement for any reviews during this
reporting period, and the OIG is working with the department to institute a transparent,
streamlined review process for less serious incidents so the department can direct its resources to
more effective examination of incidents that require more scrutiny.
Of the 783 incidents for which the OIG conducted structured reviews, 92 incidents were identified
as requiring and receiving video-recorded interviews. The department achieved 100 percent
compliance with the requirement to video-record interviews. We reviewed the video-recorded
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Executive Summary Page i
Office of the Inspector General State of California
interviews and found only 62 recordings were actually conducted according to CDCR policy, a
compliance rate of 67 percent.
Division of Adult Parole Operations
The OIG attended 17 committee meetings and completed structured reviews of 46 use-of-force
incidents occurring throughout the four parole regions. Within the total number of incidents
reviewed, there were 161 applications of force. The structured reviews revealed that 98 percent of
parole agents’ use-of-force reports adequately described the need to use force. However, only 70
percent provided an appropriate description of the force used.
Office of Correctional Safety
During the reporting period, the OIG conducted seven structured reviews of use-of-force
incidents involving 14 applications of force by the Office of Correctional Safety employees. For
those incidents, the OIG found that the reports appropriately articulated the justification for
using force and adequately described the force used in all cases.
Status of Prior Recommendations and Recommendations from this Report
In the OIG’s May 2012 Use-of-Force report, the OIG made seven recommendations to the
department. The department reported that two of the recommendations have been fully
implemented, four recommendations are partially implemented with full implementation in
progress, and one recommendation is not implemented as the department contends adequate
controls and policy are currently in place.
The department should review the use-of-force training video and test materials developed by
California State Prison, Sacramento, and consider statewide implementation of similar training
resources.
Looking Ahead
The OIG continues to monitor use-of-force committee meetings; however, we have put our
structured review process on hold in anticipation that the department will institute a streamlined
review process for less serious incidents. We continue to work with the department during this
period to define our involvement in the new process.
Conclusion
Institutions are improving their use-of-force review process and several have significantly
reduced the number of days it is taking them to complete the review process. Of the incidents
reviewed by the OIG, two institutions met the 30-day review timeline for all of their incident
reviews, and the OIG encourages continued progress toward more efficient and complete
reviews. Additionally, the OIG recognizes that Parole Regions I and II now have executive
review committees conducting regular use-of-force meetings, bridging a previously identified
information gap and moving toward consistent statewide application of its use-of-force policy.
Use-of Force Report January-June 2012 Executive Summary Page ii
Office of the Inspector General State of California
The department has been very responsive in reviewing and correcting deficiencies in use-of-force
reviews and has completed the reviews for all outstanding issues identified by the OIG. The OIG notes
with great satisfaction that by the end of the use-of-force incident review process, the department has
properly handled all incidents reviewed by the OIG. Even in instances where the OIG identified gaps,
department managers have been diligent in resolving those issues after the issues were brought to
their attention.
Use-of Force Report January-June 2012 Executive Summary Page iii
Office of the Inspector General State of California
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................1
USE-OF-FORCE PROCESS OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................1
OIG MONITORING METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 2
Attendance at Use-of-Force Review Committee Meetings .................................................2
Structured Reviews .............................................................................................................2
Independent Oversight .......................................................................................................3
DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS ..................................................................................................3
Unreasonable Use of Force ................................................................................................3
Types of Force ...................................................................................................................4
Use-of-Force Incident Reports ...........................................................................................5
Institutional Use-of-Force Reviews ....................................................................................5
Timeliness of Reviews ........................................................................................................8
Video-Recorded Interviews ...............................................................................................9
DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS ....................................................................................9
OFFICE OF CORRECTIONAL SAFETY ................................................................................................12
STATUS OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................13
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS REPORT...................................................................................14
LOOKING AHEAD ....................................................................................................................................14
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................................15
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Institution Acronyms....................................................................................16
Appendix B: Applications of Force in Structured Reviews Completed ...........................17
Appendix C: Timeliness of Reviews .................................................................................18
Appendix D: Statewide Review Summary .......................................................................19
Appendix E: Total Use-of-Force Incidents January-June 2012 Reporting Period ...........20
I
ntroductIon
2012. The OIG worked collaboratively with the
This is the Office of the Inspector General’s department to compile relevant data on incidents
(OIG) third report on the use of force within involving force.
the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR or the department).
This report covers the OIG’s monitoring of
the department’s use-of-force process from
January through June 2012. The majority
of the department’s use-of-force incidents
occur in its adult institutions, which, during
this reporting period, housed over 125,000
inmates and employed approximately 30,000
peace officers authorized by law to use force.
In addition, parole agents and special agents
outside the walls of an institution must
occasionally engage in the use of force with
the adult parolees they supervise.
The OIG is committed to attending a
significant number of the department’s u - -f P o
se of orce rocess vervIew
use-of-force review committee meetings
The department is tasked with maintaining the
to provide public transparency, and when
safety and security of staff, inmates, visitors,
appropriate, ensure cases are forwarded to
and the public. At times, this responsibility
CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs (OIA) for
requires the reasonable use of force by peace
investigation.
officers. In doing so, officers are authorized
In August 2010, the department implemented to use only “reasonable force,” defined as “the
a new use-of-force policy based, in part, force that an objective, trained, and competent
on recommendations from the OIG. The correctional employee, faced with similar facts
department’s implementation of the new and circumstances, would consider necessary
policy included statewide use-of-force and reasonable to subdue an attacker, overcome
training and the focus of significant resources resistance, effect custody, or gain compliance
to make the new policy work. Among its more with a lawful order.” The use of greater force than
significant changes, the new policy requires justified by this standard is deemed “excessive
institutions’ use-of-force review committees force,” while using any force not required or
to evaluate and review all allegations of appropriate in the circumstances is “unnecessary
unreasonable force. force.” Both unauthorized types of force are
categorized as “unreasonable.”
The OIG has further committed to continue
its monitoring of the committee reviews and Departmental policy requires that, whenever
make recommendations to the department possible, verbal persuasion or orders be
to ensure continuous improvement. This attempted before resorting to force. In situations
report details our observations, analysis, and where verbal persuasion fails to achieve desired
evaluation of the department’s use-of-force results, a variety of force options are available.
practices from January 1 through June 30, The department’s policy does not require these
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 1
Office of the Inspector General State of California
options be employed in any predetermined raising concerns about the incidents when
sequence. Rather, officers select the force appropriate, asking for clarification if reports
option they reasonably believe is necessary to are inconsistent or incomplete, and engaging
stop the perceived threat. in discussions with the committee about the
incidents. Through this process, the OIG
Any department employee who uses force,
draws an independent conclusion about
or who observes another employee use
whether the force used was in compliance
force, is required to report the incident to a
with policies, procedures, and applicable
supervisor and submit a written report prior
laws and whether the review process was
to being released from duty. After the report
thorough and meaningful. When appropriate,
is submitted, a multi-tiered review process
the OIG recommends an incident be referred
begins. Every use of deadly force by staff is
to CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs for
reviewed by the department’s Deadly Force
investigation or approval to take disciplinary
Review Board (DFRB) and monitored by
action based on the information already
the OIG. During the time the DFRB review
available. In the event the OIG does not
is pending, all other reviews specific to the
concur with the decision made by the local
case cease, pending completion of the DFRB
hiring authority (i.e., the warden or parole
process. Certain use-of-force incidents are
administrator), the OIG may confer with
also reviewed at the division and executive
higher level department managers.
levels of the department.
Structured Reviews
oIG M M
onItorInG ethodoloGy
The OIG reviews use-of-force incidents The OIG’s active participation in the review
utilizing two primary methods: attendance process influenced the outcome for 349 of
at use-of-force review committee meetings these incidents by requesting clarification,
and document-based structured reviews. recommending investigations, or
recommending employee training.
The OIG also provides oversight and makes
recommendations to the department in their
The OIG reviews use-of-force incidents
development of new use-of-force policies and
by conducting structured reviews of some
procedures.
monitored cases. This includes evaluating
Attendance at Use-of-Force Review video-recordings, officer reports, and the
Committee Meetings conclusions reached by the department’s
review process at each institution. These
OIG representatives attend use-of-force
structured reviews take place in addition
review committee meetings at all adult
to the OIG’s attendance at use-of-force
institutions and parole regions statewide,
committee meetings. The OIG evaluates staff
visiting each institution at least six times
compliance with use-of-force policies before,
annually on alternating months. Generally,
during, and after each incident. In addition,
each committee meeting evaluates 5 to 15
the OIG evaluates each application of force
incidents involving force. The OIG also
and determines if staff actions contributed
evaluates all departmental reviews completed
to the need to use force. If the OIG discovers
prior to the meeting. During the meeting,
a problem during a structured review, the
the OIG observes the review process and
OIG alerts the responsible department
engages in contemporaneous oversight by
manager and seeks an appropriate resolution.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 2
Office of the Inspector General State of California
As a result of the OIG’s structured reviews, with its use-of-force policies in 1,342 of those
certain incidents may be placed back on incidents, a compliance rate of 93 percent.
the use-of-force review committee calendar
The OIG found staff actions contributed to
for reconsideration. If the OIG still believes
the need to use force in 38 of the monitored
the issue was not properly addressed, the
incidents taking place at the adult institutions.
OIG may elevate the case to higher level
For example, policy violations such as
department management.
improper application of restraints or allowing
Independent Oversight inmates to enter restricted areas resulted in
the need to use force. Some cases resulted
In addition to monitoring the department’s
in disciplinary actions against employees if
use-of-force review process, the OIG monitors
policy violations warranted adverse action.
and participates as an active stakeholder
The OIG’s active participation in the review
in the department’s development of new
process influenced the outcome of 349
regulations and policies governing the use of
of the incidents monitored by requesting
force.
clarification, recommending investigations, or
recommending employee training.
d A I
IvIsIon of dult nstItutIons
Unreasonable Use of Force
In the six-month period from January
through June 2012, the department reported
During this six-month reporting period,
a total of 3,189 incidents involving force
CDCR’s Office of Internal Affairs received
at institutions housing adult inmates. Of
62 requests for investigation from the adult
these incidents, the OIG monitored 1,440
institutions related to the use of force.
incidents, or 45 percent, by attending
Allegations of misconduct were made against
use-of-force review committee meetings and
122 officers. The types of investigations
completing structured reviews. Specifically,
involving misconduct in the use of force
the OIG attended 114 use-of-force meetings,
remained relatively consistent between this
where a total of 657 incidents were evaluated,
and the prior reporting period with one
and additionally completed 783 structured
exception; there was a notable increase in the
reviews.
number of allegations that officers failed to
report force that they witnessed.
The 783 structured reviews the OIG
performed included 1,440 incidents. Of the
Table 1 provides a comparison summary of
1,440 incidents examined by a combination
the types of allegations the Office of Internal
of structured reviews and meetings attended,
Affairs received for investigation during the
the OIG found that the department complied
current and previous reporting periods.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 3
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Table 1: Investigation Requests by Use-of-Force Allegation Types
Requests for Investigation of Use-of-Force by Allegation
Reporting Period Comparison
Current Previous
Allegation Reporting Period Reporting Period Increase/
Jan-June 2012 Jul-Dec 2011 Decrease
Unreasonable use of force 45 43 +2
Failure to report use of force witnessed 57 33 +24
Failure to report own use of force 29 28 +1
Unreasonable force likely to cause injury 7 7 0
Other minor policy violations 4 27 -23
Total Allegations 142 138 +4
Types of Force
A single incident requiring the use of force may involve more than one application of force
and may require use of different types of force. For example, during a riot, officers may use
lethal force, chemical agents, expandable batons, and less-lethal force to address varying threat
scenarios as the riot progresses. The OIG monitored 1,440 incidents during this reporting period
and conducted structured reviews of 783 of those monitored incidents. There were 2,461 separate
applications of force used in the 783 incidents.
During the previous reporting period, the OIG monitored 1,422 incidents and conducted 783
structured reviews of those monitored incidents that included 2,733 separate applications of force.
Table 2: Types of Force Comparison Between Reporting Periods
Current Reporting Previous Reporting
Comparative
Types of Force Period Period
percentage +/-
(6 months) (6 Months)
Physical Force 24% 27% -3%
Chemical Agents 49% 48% +1%
Baton 7% 12% -5%
Less-Lethal 19% 13% +6%
Deadly Force 1% 0% +1%
The types of force used in incidents are such as decontamination of inmates, proper
always examined by the use-of-force video-recorded interviews, escorting inmates
review committees, but the department has post-incident, completion of log entries, etc.,
discretion in determining the level of force were followed.
required in each situation. In the vast majority
A list of the adult institutions and their
of cases, the type of force used is appropriate
acronyms can be found in Appendix A. For a
for the situation and does not become an
comprehensive list of the types of force used
issue of discussion. The primary focus of
during the reporting period at each of the
committee review is to evaluate whether
department’s adult institutions, please refer to
the use-of-force policy and other policies,
Appendix B.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 4
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Use-of-Force Incident Reports conducted during this reporting period, the
OIG noted that every level of the department’s
As part of its structured reviews, the OIG
review process made errors in identifying
examined staff reports to evaluate the adequacy
deficiencies in use-of-force reports. Of the
of the description of circumstances leading to
incidents we reviewed, 222 contained reports
the use of force and for the sufficiency of the
with missing or conflicting information
description of the
after institutional incident commanders
force used. The
performed the initial level of review. Thus,
OIG evaluated
incident commanders resolved incomplete or
783 incidents and
conflicting information on reports 71 percent
found 92 percent
of the time, forwarding incomplete reports
of the related
for management review in 29 percent of the
reports adequately
incidents. This is a slight improvement from
described the
the previous reporting period in which it was
need to use
noted incident commanders in most of the
force, the same percent of incidents in the
adult institutions failed to address clarification
previous reporting period. However, 71
or policy deviations in 32 percent of the
percent of the 783 incidents in the current
incidents.
period appropriately described the actual force
used during the incident. This is a 4 percent The OIG further evaluated how first-level
improvement above 67 percent in the previous management reviewers addressed policy
reporting period, but still leaves room for deviations or inadequate reports in the 222
additional improvement. use-of-force incidents containing issues not
addressed by the incident commanders. First-
Institutional Use-of-Force Reviews
level management reviewers failed to address
clarification or policy deviations in 64 percent
At each level of review, the CDCR reviewer
of the incidents and accurately completed
is tasked with evaluating reports, requesting
reviews in 36 percent of the reports. Although
necessary clarifications, identifying deviations
unacceptably high, this does represent an
from policy, and determining whether the
improvement from the 66 percent unaddressed
use of force was within policies, procedures,
incidents in the previous reporting period.
and applicable laws. The review process
First-level management reviewers in 18
begins with an initial review conducted by the
institutions did not address at least half of
incident commander. After the first review,
the clarifications or policy deviations left
the incident packages are forwarded to the
undetected by their incident commanders’
first-level management review conducted
initial reviews. By comparison, this occurred at
by a captain, the second-level management
19 institutions in the prior reporting period.
review conducted by an associate warden, and
the final level of review where the incident is
Upon reaching the second-level managers’
reviewed by the use-of-force review committee
reviews, 143 unaddressed issues remained.
chaired by the warden or chief deputy. Each
The second-level managers’ reviews at all
level examines the incident package for issues
institutions addressed only 34 issues (24
that may have been missed at previous levels of
percent) of the 143 issues previously undetected
review.
by first-level managers. Seventy-six percent
of the cases reviewed at the second level still
In the 783 structured reviews of incidents
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 5
Office of the Inspector General State of California
had unresolved issues when they were forwarded for committee review. This percentage was primarily
impacted by 12 of the adult institutions’ second-level managers failing to address any issues. This
represents a 3 percent increase in incomplete reviews from the prior reporting period where second-level
reviewers left 73 percent of the unaddressed issues passed on from first-level managers unresolved.
At the use-of-force executive review committee and institution-head level of review, 109 issues (48
percent), originally noted by the OIG, still remained unaddressed by previous review levels. This
final executive level of review addressed only 62 of these outstanding issues – a completion rate of 57
percent. Forty-seven of the original 222 issues remained unresolved after all levels of review; thus, only
79 percent of the incidents were ultimately cleared with complete information. Although 21 percent
of incidents were initially cleared with incomplete reviews, the department has been very responsive
in reviewing and correcting deficiencies in use-of-force reports and has completed reviews for all
outstanding issues identified by the OIG in its structured reviews of use-of-force incident reports.
Charts 2 and 2A on the following page illustrate the percentage of complete reports forwarded at each
level of review.
The department must continue to improve the overall review process and has reported efforts to do so.
High rates of turnover and changes in personnel assignments continue to be a challenge.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 6
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Charts 2 and 2A: Comparison of Monitored Incident Reports Properly Completed at Each Level of Review
Between Reporting Periods
Incident Reports Properly Completed
at Each Level of Review
Jan-June 2012
Incidents cleared with complete
information 79%
Complete Review: Executive-level UOF
Committee 57%
79%
Complete Review: 2nd-level management 57%
24%
24%
Complete Review: 1st-level management 36%
36%
71%
Complete Review: Incident Commander
71%
Incident Reports Properly
Completed at Each Level of Review
Jul-Dec 2011
Incidents cleared with complete
information 78%
Complete Review: Executive-level UOF
Committee 54%
78%
Complete Review: 2nd-level management
54%
27%
27%
Complete Review: 1st-level management
34%
34%
68%
Complete Review: Incident Commander
68%
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 7
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Timeliness of Reviews revision currently under review to streamline
and make the use-of-force committee process
Pursuant to CDCR policy, use-of-force incidents
more efficient and effective. The revision
should normally be reviewed within 30 days
suggestion originated from an institution
from the date of the incident1. This includes all
adapting its review process to handle many of
levels of the review process, as well as obtaining
the“low-level” use-of-force incident reviews
any necessary clarifications. Of the incidents
outside the formal committee process. That
evaluated by the OIG, four institutions did not
institution established in-house criteria defining
complete any reviews in 30 days or less: California
“low-level incidents” as those with minimal staff
Correctional Women’s Facility (CCWF), Pleasant
or inmate involvement involving no injuries or
Valley State Prison (PVSP), California State
misconduct allegations for a “paper review” by
Prison, Sacramento (SAC), and California State
a member of the committee. This enabled the
Prison, San Quentin (SQ). Although these
institution’s review committee to spend its time
institutions need considerable improvement in
on cases that were more serious, complicated, or
timeliness of reviews, several institutions showed
problematic.
significant improvement in reducing review
times. Valley State Prison for Women (VSPW) While the OIG recognized and even commended
completed 17 of its 19 reviews in 30 days or less. the institution’s intent to improve the review
Similarly, Centinela State Prison (CEN) improved process, at the time its process did not comply
by completing 17 of its 28 reviews in 30 days or with policy2 and lacked transparency. The OIG
less, Ironwood State Prison (ISP) improved by suggested the process include the OIG as a
completing 15 of its 23 reviews in 30 days or less, reviewer to provide transparency, and include
and California State Prison, Los Angeles County a provision to allow the OIG to request any
(LAC) improved by completing 21 of its 31 case be brought before the committee if there
reviews in 30 days or less. was a concern. Such a change would ensure
transparency and ensure committee review for
The OIG encourages the department to continue
any major issues. The OIG was informed at the
this improvement trend, since delays in reviewing
time of our last report that the proposal was
use-of-force incidents can negatively impact
under consideration. The department is now
potential peace officer misconduct cases in
addressing this worthwhile revision, and has
which the hiring authority has only one year to
been working with the OIG on establishing this
identify misconduct, complete an investigation,
process. Such a change would divert hours of the
and impose discipline if appropriate. Of the
review committee’s time from routine cases and
structured reviews the OIG conducted, two
allow it to focus its scrutiny on the most critical
institutions completed all reviews within 30 days.
cases.
As reflected in Appendix C, Deuel Vocational
Institution (DVI) and Chuckawalla Valley State To compare the timeliness of reviews for the
Prison (CVSP) completed all their reviews in the incidents evaluated by the OIG, please refer
required timeframe. to Appendix C, and for a statewide review
summary, please refer to Appendix D.
The OIG has urged the department, as noted in
our previous report, to adopt the internal policy
1 Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Sections 2 Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Section
51020.19.1-51020.19.5; California Code of Regulations, Title 51020.19.5-51020.19.6
15, Div.3 Section 3268.3.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 8
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Video-Recorded Interviews
the incident log number, or the inmate’s
injuries. Additionally, when recording inmates’
The department’s use-of-force policy3
refusals to be interviewed, staff did not always
requires video-recorded interviews if an
ask the inmates to identify themselves on
inmate alleges unreasonable
record.
force or has sustained serious or
In our May 2012 Use-of-Force Report, we
great bodily injury that could
recommended the department make efforts
have been caused by the use
to increase compliance with the use-of-force
of force. The video recording
video-recording policy, including providing
should be conducted within 48
additional training or policy memos regarding
hours of discovery of the injury or allegation.
the proper video-recording protocol. In
If the inmate refuses to be video recorded,
response to the OIG’s recommendation,
the CDCR policy requires staff to record the
the department circulated a policy memo
inmate confirming his or her refusal to be
to the adult institutions providing the
interviewed. However, the actual practice
specific regulation governing video-recorded
for conducting video-recorded interviews of
interviews and required additional training
inmates involved in a use-of-force incident
for custody employees authorized to perform
still varies among the adult institutions.
these interviews. The 100 percent compliance
Of the 783 incidents for which the in incidents where video-recorded interviews
OIG conducted structured reviews, 92 were required reflects the department’s effort
incidents were identified as requiring on this issue.
and receiving video-recorded interviews.
d A P
The department complied with policy IvIsIon of dult Arole
by recording interviews in all of these o PerAtIons
incidents. The OIG reviewed the
The Division of Adult Parole Operations
video-recorded interviews and found only 62
(DAPO) is divided into four parole regions
of the recordings were conducted according
and during the reporting period was
to policy guidelines, a compliance rate of 67
responsible for supervising over 70,000
percent. This compliance rate has dropped
parolees. During that time, DAPO reported
10 percent from the previous reporting
46 incidents involving the use of force.
period, a significant regression in adherence
Parole Regions III and IV conducted regular
to video-recording policy. However, in
use-of-force committee meetings during this
a positive light, 100 percent of incidents
reporting period, and Parole Regions I and
requiring video-recorded interviews were at
II both formed executive committees and
least attempted. Unfortunately, not all were
began meeting regularly. This is a significant
completed according to policy requirements.
development since during the previous
The OIG found that the most common reporting period, Parole Region I did not meet
deviations from departmental policy at all, and Parole Region II met only on an
involved interviewers not adequately “as-needed basis” due to the infrequency of
identifying themselves, the date, the time, incidents involving force. DAPO has indicated
3 Department Operations Manual Chapter 5, Section
51020.17.3; California Code of Regulations, Title 15,
section 3268.1(d)
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 9
Office of the Inspector General State of California
it is currently in the process of amending force used in the parole regions from January
its policy to incorporate a regional review through June 2012.
committee meeting component.
Throughout all parole regions, the unit
The OIG attended 17 committee meetings supervisors who perform the initial
and completed structured reviews of reviews requested clarifications on only
all 46 use-of-force incidents occurring one inadequate report among 14 reports
throughout the four parole regions. Within that needed additional clarification. The
the total number of incidents reviewed, next levels of review addressed only seven
there were 161 applications of force. The policy deviations or clarifications, leaving
structured reviews revealed that 98 percent six deviations unaddressed after all levels of
of parole agents’ use-of-force reports review. Of the 46 reviews completed in the
adequately described the need to use force. Division of Adult Parole Operations, only 28
However, only 70 percent provided an of 46 required reviews were completed in the
appropriate description of the force used. required timeframe of 30 days or less.
Chart 3 provides a summary of the types of
Chart 3 Types of Force Used in Monitored Incidents
(Parole Regions)
Physical Force
6% 13%
Chemical Agents
Less-Lethal (Electronic
Control Device)
81%
Physical Force
*No instances of baton or deadly force were used in parole regions during
this reporting period.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 10
Office of the Inspector General State of California
Tables 3 and 4 illustrate the adequacy of reports initially submitted by parole agents and the number of
incidents for which supervisors and managers addressed inadequate reports or policy deviations. Compared
to the prior reporting period, the percentage of reports needing clarification dropped to 30 percent, an
improvement over the 50 percent requiring clarification from the previous reporting period. We also note an
overall improvement in the quality of supervisory review at all levels.
Table 3: Jan-June 2012 Insufficient Incident Reports and Management Review-DAPO
Clarifications or Policy
Clarification
Parole Agent Reports
Requested
Deviations Addressed
Cases
Reports
Parole Incidents By Unit By District By Hiring Completed
Needing
Region Evaluated Supervisor Administrator Authority in 30 days
Clarification
or less
Region I 11 27% 0% 67% 100% 11
Region II 13 23% 0% 0% 0% 13
Region III 7 57% 0% 0% 25% 1
Region IV 15 27% 25% 25% 67% 3
Table 4: Jul-Dec 2011 Insufficient Incident Reports and Management Review-DAPO
Clarification Clarifications or Policy
Parole Agent Reports
Requested Deviations Addressed
Cases
Reports
Parole Incidents By Unit By District By Hiring Completed
Needing
Region Evaluated Supervisor Administrator Authority in 30 days
Clarification
or less
Region I 18 50% 0 0 11% 13
Region II 7 43% 0 0 0 7
Region III 3 67% 0 0 0 1
Region IV 8 63% 0 20% 0 0
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 11
Office of the Inspector General State of California
o c s
ffIce of orrectIonAl Afety
In addition to monitoring use-of-force incidents involving personnel at correctional institutions
and in the parole system, the OIG also monitors such incidents involving employees of the
department’s Office of Correctional Safety (OCS).
The OCS is the department’s primary link with state and local law enforcement agencies and is
responsible for, among other duties, apprehending prison escapees and parolees who abscond
from supervision, and conducting complex investigations of gang activity.
During the reporting period, the OIG conducted seven structured reviews of use-of-force
incidents involving 14 applications of force by OCS employees. Of those seven incidents, the OIG
found the reports adequately articulated the justification for using force and adequately described
the force used in all seven cases. Table 5 summarizes the force used in these incidents by type.
Table 5: Type and Application of Force: Office of Correctional Safety
Types of Force Applications
Physical Force 9
Chemical Agents 0
Baton 0
Less-Lethal 5
Deadly Force 0
Totals 14
The OCS’s executive committee reviewed each of these incidents for compliance with the
department’s use-of-force policy, and the OIG concurred with the executive committee’s
assessment in all cases. The OCS committee completed two reviews in 30 days or less, and five
reviews took more than 30 days. For reviews that took more than 30 days, four were between 31
and 36 days, the final review took 54 days.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 12
Office of the Inspector General State of California
s P r
tAtus of rIor ecoMMendAtIons
In the OIG’s May 2012 Use-of-Force Report, the OIG made seven recommendations to the
department. The department’s 2012 Corrective Action Plan, updated annually, includes the following
implementation status for the seven recommendations:
The department is in the process of
1. The department should consult with the OIG
reviewing the consent calendar process and
and consider adopting the internal policy
has consulted with the OIG.
revision currently under review to streamline
and make the use-of-force committee process
more efficient and effective.
This recommendation has been fully
2. The department should clearly establish who implemented. The department issued a
can conduct and participate in video-recorded training memo regarding video
requirements, and all institutions have
interviews of a use-of-force incidentv and
submitted proof of practice.
ensure staff members involved in the incident
under investigation do not take part in video
recording the interviews.
Full implementation is expected by the end
of 2012. The department issued a policy
3. The department should establish a single
memo and additional training will be
designated reporting point for tracking provided for completing use-of-force
allegations of force. inquiries.
4. Each of the four adult parole regions should
identify and train a use-of-force coordinator This recommendation has been fully
to manage the use-of-force incident review implemented.
process.
5. The institutional appeals coordinator should
notify the use-of-force coordinator of all inmate This recommendation has been partially
implemented. Additional training will be
appeals containing a use-of-force allegation.
provided, and the department expects full
6. All allegations of force examined through a implementation by the end of 2012.
report of findings or appeal inquiry should
specify any research conducted to locate
This recommendation has been partially
related incident reports or video recordings, implemented. The department will provide
and document witness statements, interviews, additional training and expects full
e-mails, videos, or other evidence relied upon implementation by the end of 2012.
to support the findings and conclusion.
7. The department should make training available
Not implemented. The department
to supervisory and managerial staff who will
contends adequate controls and policy are
conduct administrative interviews, and each
currently in place. A list of trained
institution should maintain an updated list of
instructors is accessible from the in-
qualified instructors/interviewers.
service training department.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 13
Office of the Inspector General State of California
r f t
ecoMMendAtIons roM hIs
The department should review the training
r
ePort
video and consider statewide implementation
Analysis of available 2012 use-of-force data of training resources for consistent
and observations made during the OIG’s use-of-force application statewide. These
contemporaneous monitoring activities is the locally-developed innovations could be
basis for the following recommendation. evaluated by departmental management for
possible adoption statewide as a means to
1. The department should review the
enhance consistent application of policy and
use-of-force training video and test
improve the quality of managerial review of
materials developed by california state
use-of-force incidents.
prison, sacramento and consider state-
wide implementation of similar training
resources. l ookInG A heAd
California State Prison, Sacramento has The OIG continues to monitor use-of-force
developed a scenario-based training committee meetings; however, we have put
video based on actual incidents to train our structured review process on hold in
supervisors on the application of force during anticipation that the department will institute
cell-extractions (situations in which a streamlined review process for less serious
correctional staff must enter an occupied cell incidents. We continue to work with the
to prevent an inmate from harming himself department during this period to define
or others, or otherwise endangering the our involvement in the new process. Our
security of the institution). In addition, SAC use-of-force committee review statistics will
enhances its managers’ working knowledge be reported in our semi-annual report for the
of the department’s use-of-force policy by July-December 2012 reporting period. We
administering a written knowledge test on anticipate a stand-alone use-of-force report
which managers are expected to achieve a for the January-June 2013 reporting period,
minimum passing score. which will contain an evaluation of any new
streamlined review process.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 14
Office of the Inspector General State of California
c
onclusIon
Institutions are improving their use-of-force review process and several have significantly reduced
the number of days it is taking them to complete the review process. Of the incidents reviewed by
the OIG, two institutions met the 30-day review timeline for all their incident reviews, and the
OIG encourages continued progress toward more efficient and complete reviews.
The department has been very responsive in reviewing and correcting deficiencies in use-of-force
reviews, and has completed the reviews for all outstanding issues identified by the OIG. The
OIG notes with great satisfaction that by the end of the use-of-force incident review process, the
department has properly handled all incidents reviewed by the OIG. Even in instances in which
the OIG identified gaps, department managers have been diligent in resolving those issues after
the issues were brought to their attention.
It is also notable that six of the seven recommendations from the May 2012 Use-of-Force report
are partially or fully implemented.
Finally, the OIG recognizes Parole Regions I and II who now have executive review committees
conducting regular use-of-force meetings, bridging a previously identified information gap and
moving toward consistent statewide application of its use-of-force policy.
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 15
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPendIces
APPendIX A: I A
nstItutIon cronyMs
Adult Institutions and Locations City
ASP Avenal State Prison Avenal
CCC California Correctional Center Susanville
CCI California Correctional Institution Tehachapi
CIM California Institution for Men Chino
CIW California Institution for Women Frontera
CMF California Medical Facility Vacaville
CMC California Men's Colony San Luis Obispo
CRC California Rehabilitation Center Norco
COR California State Prison, Corcoran Corcoran
LAC California State Prison, Los Angeles County Lancaster
SAC California State Prison, Sacramento Represa
SQ California State Prison, San Quentin San Quentin
SOL California State Prison, Solano Vacaville
SATF Substance Abuse Treatment Facility & State Prison at Corcoran Corcoran
CAL Calipatria State Prison Calipatria
CEN Centinela State Prison Imperial
CCWF Central California Women’s Facility Chowchilla
CVSP Chuckawalla Valley State Prison Blythe
CTF Correctional Training Facility Soledad
DVI Deuel Vocational Institution Tracy
FSP Folsom State Prison Represa
HDSP High Desert State Prison Susanville
ISP Ironwood State Prison Blythe
KVSP Kern Valley State Prison Delano
MCSP Mule Creek State Prison Ione
NKSP North Kern State Prison Delano
PBSP Pelican Bay State Prison Crescent City
PVSP Pleasant Valley State Prison Coalinga
RJD Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility San Diego
SVSP Salinas Valley State Prison Soledad
SCC Sierra Conservation Center Jamestown
VSPW Valley State Prison for Women Chowchilla
WSP Wasco State Prison-Reception Center Wasco
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 16
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPendIX B: A f s r
PPlIcAtIons of orce In tructured evIews
c
oMPleted
Applications of Force in the 783 Structured Reviews Completed by the OIG
Adult Institutions
Applications Physical Chemical Expandable Less-lethal Deadly
Institution Mission of Force Force Agents Baton Force Force
ASP General Population 67 15% 67% 15% 3% 0%
CAL High Security 63 3% 51% 5% 33% 8%
CCC General Population 5 60% 0% 0% 40% 0%
CCI High Security 106 16% 58% 19% 8% 0%
CCWF Female Programs 8 25% 50% 0% 25% 0%
CEN High Security 59 14% 66% 8% 12% 0%
CIM Reception Centers 44 27% 45% 0% 27% 0%
CIW Female Programs 62 71% 24% 5% 0% 0%
CMC General Population 80 58% 39% 4% 0% 0%
CMF General Population 28 75% 25% 0% 0% 0%
COR High Security 139 24% 71% 5% 0% 0%
CRC General Population 48 71% 29% 0% 0% 0%
CTF General Population 34 41% 53% 6% 0% 0%
CVSP General Population 19 26% 63% 11% 0% 0%
DVI Reception Centers 7 14% 71% 14% 0% 0%
FSP General Population 104 12% 41% 0% 44% 3%
HDSP High Security 32 19% 63% 0% 16% 3%
ISP General Population 56 13% 55% 16% 16% 0%
KVSP High Security 382 12% 36% 1% 50% 1%
LAC Reception Centers 83 41% 30% 23% 6% 0%
MCSP High Security 49 31% 53% 2% 14% 0%
NKSP Reception Centers 135 11% 52% 12% 25% 0%
PBSP High Security 102 5% 80% 2% 12% 1%
PVSP General Population 99 16% 38% 16% 29% 0%
RJD Reception Centers 72 31% 40% 11% 18% 0%
SAC High Security 88 53% 39% 0% 8% 0%
SATF High Security 90 29% 44% 9% 18% 0%
SCC General Population 23 43% 52% 4% 0% 0%
SOL General Population 64 16% 69% 2% 14% 0%
SQ Reception Centers 55 11% 40% 40% 9% 0%
SVSP High Security 106 13% 75% 4% 8% 0%
VSPW Female Programs 38 68% 29% 3% 0% 0%
WSP Reception Centers 114 25% 54% 11% 9% 0%
24% 49% 7% 19% <1%
2,461
TOTAL Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall
Applications
Average Average Average Average Average
Use-of Force Report January-June 2012 Page 17
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPendIX c: t r
IMelIness of evIews
*(Days for review were averaged and rounded to the nearest day. Of the 783 incidents the
OIG evaluated, completion was significantly delayed by investigations requested by the hiring
authority for seven incidents. Accordingly, we did not evaluate timeliness for those seven
incidents [COR 1, CRC 2, KVSP 1, NKSP 2, SATF 1].)
Timeliness of Reviews (average number of days for review at each level)
Adult Institutions
Average Number of Review Days by:
Reviews
Incidents Reviews Average
Completed
Evaluated Completed Institution Total Days
Institution in More Incident 1st Level 2nd Level
(Total in 30 days or Head/ for
Than 30 Commander Manager Manager
Reviews) less IERC Review
Days
ASP 27 14 13 1 8 6 15 30
CAL 15 9 6 3 12 3 19 37
CCC 4 3 1 2 10 3 16 31
CCI 41 28 13 1 5 6 29 41
CCWF 5 0 5 1 9 5 34 49
CEN 28 17 11 1 7 6 17 31
CIM 19 17 2 2 12 5 9 28
CIW 23 4 19 2 15 5 33 55
CMC 31 8 23 4 15 6 16 41
CMF 17 14 3 3 6 2 17 28
COR 35 10 24 4 9 7 53 73
CRC 19 8 9 2 4 4 21 31
CTF 16 6 10 1 7 6 31 45
CVSP 13 13 0 1 4 4 17 26
DVI 5 5 0 1 5 1 14 21
FSP 19 17 2 1 6 1 14 22
HDSP 10 4 6 8 8 1 20 37
ISP 23 15 8 2 6 12 10 30
KVSP 46 9 36 2 16 7 59 84
LAC 31 21 10 1 6 3 18 28
MCSP 23 2 21 4 6 4 41 55
NKSP 52 25 25 3 11 9 25 48
PBSP 18 9 9 14 5 6 21 46
PVSP 38 0 38 1 11 6 42 60
RJD 34 13 21 1 6 8 33 48
SAC 27 0 27 2 8 5 40 55
SATF 26 6 19 1 10 8 34 53
SCC 9 3 6 2 5 5 24 36
SOL 26 21 5 2 8 4 12 26
SQ 11 0 11 1 14 2 98 115
SVSP 31 18 13 1 15 9 8 33
VSPW 19 17 2 1 9 11 14 35
WSP 42 20 22 3 8 8 18 37
TOTAL /
783 356 420 2 9 5 26 43
AVGS
Use-of Force Report January-June 2012 Page 18
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPendIX d: s r s
tAtewIde evIew uMMAry
Statewide Review Summary
Adult Institutions
Clarifications or Policy Deviations Addressed at Each Level
Addressed at 2nd Percent Missed Addressed at
Missed by Incident Addressed at 1st Percent Missed at Level Manager at 2nd Manager Institution Head Percent Missed at
Institution Commanders Manager Level 1st Manager Level Level Level Level Institution Head Level
ASP 12 7 42% 4 20% 0 100%
CAL 5 1 80% 0 100% 2 50%
CCC 2 2 0 0 N/A 0 N/A
CCI 5 1 80% 0 100% 3 25%
CCWF 3 0 100% 3 0% 0 N/A
CEN 4 0 100% 1 75% 3 0%
CIM 2 2 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A
CIW 7 0 100% 0 100% 2 71%
CMC 4 3 25% 0 100% 1 0%
CMF 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
COR 10 2 80% 2 75% 4 33%
CRC 1 0 100% 0 100% 0 100%
CTF 11 3 73% 6 25% 1 50%
CVSP 1 1 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A
DVI 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A
FSP 1 1 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A
HDSP 3 1 67% 2 0% 0 N/A
ISP 3 1 67% 2 0% 0 N/A
KVSP 22 5 77% 5 71% 5 58%
LAC 6 2 67% 0 100% 2 50%
MCSP 2 0 100% 0 100% 1 50%
NKSP 22 13 41% 1 89% 5 29%
PBSP 6 3 50% 0 100% 2 33%
PVSP 12 8 33% 0 100% 3 25%
RJD 15 0 100% 0 100% 5 67%
SAC 10 5 50% 2 60% 2 33%
SATF 12 4 67% 1 88% 6 25%
SCC 1 1 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A
SOL 9 3 67% 2 67% 2 50%
SQ 6 0 100% 0 100% 2 67%
SVSP 10 3 70% 1 86% 6 0%
VSPW 1 1 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A
WSP 14 6 57% 2 75% 5 17%
TOTALS 222 79 64% 34 76% 62 44%
Use-of Force Report January-June 2012 Page 19
Office of the Inspector General State of California
APPendIX e: t u - -f I J -J 2012
otAl se of orce ncIdents AnuAry une
r P
ePortInG erIod
Use-of-Force Incidents in the January-June 2012 Reporting Period
Adult Institutions
Total Number of Use-of-Force Percentage of Total
Institution Mission
Incidents Reported Incidents
ASP General Population 52 1.63%
CAL High Security 88 2.76%
CCC General Population 44 1.38%
CCI High Security 95 2.98%
CCWF Female Programs 75 2.35%
CEN High Security 73 2.29%
CIM Reception Centers 62 1.94%
CIW Female Programs 36 1.13%
CMC General Population 94 2.95%
CMF General Population 55 1.72%
COR High Security 160 5.02%
CRC General Population 35 1.10%
CTF General Population 30 0.94%
CVSP General Population 15 0.47%
DVI Reception Centers 83 2.60%
FSP General Population 81 2.54%
HDSP High Security 70 2.20%
ISP General Population 51 1.60%
KVSP High Security 206 6.46%
LAC Reception Centers 214 6.71%
MCSP High Security 80 2.51%
NKSP Reception Centers 147 4.61%
PBSP High Security 125 3.92%
PVSP General Population 109 3.42%
RJD Reception Centers 126 3.95%
SAC High Security 201 6.30%
SATF High Security 100 3.14%
SCC General Population 33 1.03%
SOL General Population 69 2.16%
SQ Reception Centers 74 2.32%
SVSP High Security 282 8.84%
Transportation Unit ____ 1 0.03%
VSPW Female Programs 59 1.85%
WSP Reception Centers 164 5.14%
TOTAL 3,189 100%
Use-of-Force Report January-June 2012 Page 20
Office of the Inspector General State of California