OIG
Use-of-Force within Cdcr July-December 2011
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
Robert A. Barton, Inspector General
State of California
Use-of-Force within the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
July – December 2011
© CDCR 2008
May 2012
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2011 the Offi ce of the Inspector General (OIG) expanded its regional discipline monitoring
units (DMU) to include use-of-force monitoring as well as our traditional monitoring of serious
internal affairs investigations and employee disciplinary processes. This restructuring allows
even more frequent contact between our OIG monitors and the prisons in their regions. In
addition, our regional teams now interact with the local prisons on use-of-force complaints
processed by our statewide intake team that require follow up reviews. In preparing this
report, feedback was obtained from the department indicating they are currently implementing
some of the recommendations contained in this report. Implementation status for the current
recommendations will be provided in the January-June 2012 report.
Report Highlights
The OIG’s participation in the review process infl uenced the
In the six-month period from outcome for 288 of these incidents by requesting clarifi cations,
July through December 2011, the investigations, or recommending employee training.
Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR or department), reported a total of 4,005 incidents involving force at
institutions housing adult inmates. Of these incidents, the OIG monitored 1,422 incidents, or
36 percent, by attending use-of-force review committee meetings and completing structured
reviews. Specifi cally, the OIG attended 101 use-of-force meetings, where a total of 639 incidents
were evaluated, and additionally completed 783 structured reviews.
In its own review process, the department found an 83 percent compliance rate with departmental
policy in use-of-force incidents. The OIG concurred with the department’s assessments in 1,223
of these cases (94 percent of 1,301 department determined cases). Seventy-four percent of the
4,005 total use-of-force incidents occurred within the high security (44 percent) and reception
center (30 percent) institutions, and 20 percent in the general population, while only 6 percent of
the total incidents occurred in female offender institutions.
Unreasonable Use of Force
Allegations of unreasonable use of force increased by 5 percent in the current reporting period,
but we note an 11 percent decrease in failure to report use of force witnessed and a 6 percent
decrease in use of unreasonable force likely to cause injury. This indicates a positive trend in
reporting and fewer instances of unreasonable force likely to cause injury.
Types and Frequency Distribution of Application of Force
During this reporting period, the OIG conducted structured reviews of 783 incidents that
included 2,773 separate applications of force. Regardless of the mission, and consistent with the
past reporting period, chemical agents and physical force are used most often. In this reporting
period, the use of physical force decreased almost 10 percent, while the use of chemical agents
increased slightly by 2 percent.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Executive Summary Page i
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Use-of-Force Incident Reports and Reviews
Overall, the incident reports continue to adequately describe the need to use force; however, some
still lack the appropriate descriptions of the actual force used.
Timeliness of Reviews
Of the 783 structured reviews the OIG conducted, the overall average time for review from the
time of incident to the time of completion at the executive level was 54 days, with most of that
time spent at the fi nal level of review. During this reporting period, only fi ve adult institutions
averaged complete reviews within the 30 day threshold.
Video-Recorded Interviews
Of the 783 incidents for which the OIG conducted structured reviews, 96 incidents were
identifi ed as requiring and receiving video-recorded interviews. We reviewed the video-recorded
interviews and found 74 recordings were conducted according to policy guidelines, a compliance
rate of 77 percent. This 7 percent increase in compliance during this reporting period refl ects the
department’s efforts at addressing this recommendation from our previous Use-of-Force Report.
Addressing Inmate Allegations of Unreasonable Force
The OIG noted the majority of institutions are not following required policy on addressing
inmate allegations of unreasonable force. The OIG evaluated 268 allegations of unreasonable
force occurring during the 2011 calendar year at 29 institutions and found only 55 percent
of those allegations were reviewed by an executive review committee. The OIG also found
inconsistencies in how each institution ensures its use-of-force coordinator receives the allegation
package for logging, tracking, and presentation to the executive review committee.
Division of Adult Parole Operations
The OIG attended eight committee meetings and completed structured reviews of 36 use-of-force
incidents occurring throughout the four parole regions. Within the total number of incidents
reviewed, there were 126 applications of force. The structured reviews revealed that 92 percent of
parole agents’ use-of-force reports adequately described the need to use force. However, only 50
percent provided an appropriate description of the force used.
Status of Prior Recommendations
In our November 2011 Use-of-Force Report, the OIG made fi ve recommendations to the
department. The department’s 2011 Corrective Action Plan, which is updated annually, indicates
four recommendations will be substantially implemented in 2012. The department believes the
last recommendation regarding training for pepper spray use is already suffi ciently covered in the
use-of-force policy.
Recommendations from this Report
This report makes additional recommendations to address the timeliness and adequacy of report
review, process improvements to streamline review, and recommendations to increase adherence
to departmental policy regarding use-of-force processes for documenting, video recording, audio
recording, and reporting.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Executive Summary Page ii
Offi ce 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 ...........................................................................................................3
Independent Oversight.......................................................................................................3
DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS .....................................................................................................4
Unreasonable Use of Force ................................................................................................5
Types of Force ...................................................................................................................6
Frequency Distribution of Application of Force by Mission Group .................................6
Use-of-Force Incident Reports ..........................................................................................8
Institutional Use-of-Force Reviews ...................................................................................9
Timeliness of Reviews ......................................................................................................11
Video-Recorded Interviews .............................................................................................12
DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS ......................................................................................14
ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF UNREASONABLE FORCE ..................................................................16
Allegation Review Process ...............................................................................................16
Tracking of Allegations ....................................................................................................16
Allegations Referred for Committee Review ...................................................................17
Training and Listing of Staff Conducting Administrative Interviews .............................18
STATUS OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................19
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS REPORT........................................................................................20
Recommendation 1: The department should consult with the OIG and consider
adopting the internal policy revision currently under review to streamline and
make the use-of-force committee process more effi cient and effective ...........................20
Recommendation 2: The department should provide additional training or policy
memos to ensure video-recorded interviews are conducted for all allegations of
use-of-force. The department should also clearly establish who can conduct and
participate in video-recorded interviews, and ensure staff members involved in the
incident do not take part in video recording the interviews ...........................................20
Recommendation 3: The department should establish a single designated reporting
point for tracking allegations of force .............................................................................20
Recommendation 4: Each of the four adult parole regions should identify and
train a use-of-force coordinator to manage the use-of-force incident review
process ..............................................................................................................................21
Recommendation 5: The institutional appeals coordinator should notify the
use-of-force coordinator of all inmate appeals containing a use-of-force allegation .....21
Recommendation 6: All allegations of force examined through
a Report of Findings or Appeal Inquiry should specify any research conducted
to locate related incident reports and video recordings, and document any witness
statements, interviews, e-mails, videos, or other evidence relied upon to support the
fi ndings and conclusion ...................................................................................................21
Recommendation 7: The department should provide training to supervisory
and managerial staff who conduct administrative interviews, and each
institution should maintain an updated list of trained instructors/interviewers. ............21
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Acronyms for Adult Institutions ................................................................22
Appendix B: Incidents Involving Force – Adult Institutions ..........................................23
Appendix C: Timeliness of Reviews – Adult Institutions ...............................................24
Appendix D: Statewide Review Summary – Adult Institutions .....................................25
INTRODUCTION
This is the Offi ce of the Inspector General’s In August 2010, the department implemented
(OIG) second Use-of-Force Report covering a new use-of-force policy based, in part,
adult institutions and parole operations within on recommendations from the OIG. The
the California Department of Corrections and department’s implementation of the new
Rehabilitation (CDCR or the department). policy included conducting statewide use-
This report covers the OIG’s monitoring of of-force training and focusing signifi cant
the department’s use-of-force process from resources to make the new policy work.
July through December 2011. The majority Among its more signifi cant changes, the
of the department’s use-of-force incidents new policy requires institutions’ use-of-force
occur in its institutions which, during this review committees to evaluate and review all
reporting period, housed over 148,000 allegations of unreasonable force.
inmates and employed approximately 30,000
The OIG has further committed to report
peace offi cers authorized by law to use force.
semi-annually on our monitoring and make
In addition, parole agents must occasionally
recommendations to the department to
engage in the use of force with the adult
continue to improve use-of-force training
parolees they supervise.
and reporting. This
The OIG is committed report details our
to attending the observations, analysis,
department’s use-of- and evaluation of the
force review committee department’s use-
meetings to provide of-force practices
public transparency, from July 1 through
and when appropriate, December 31, 2011.
ensure cases are The OIG worked
forwarded to the department’s Offi ce of collaboratively with the department to
Internal Affairs (OIA) for investigation or compile relevant data on incidents involving
approval to take direct disciplinary action. force.
USE-OF-FORCE PROCESS OVERVIEW
The department is tasked with maintaining effect custody, or gain compliance with a
the safety and security of staff, inmates, lawful order.” The use of greater force than
visitors, and the public. At times, this justifi ed by this standard is deemed “excessive
responsibility requires the use of force by force,” while using any force not required
peace offi cers. In doing so, offi cers are or appropriate in the circumstances is
authorized to use only “reasonable force,” “unnecessary force.” Both unauthorized types
defi ned as “the force that an objective, of force are categorized as “unreasonable.”
trained, and competent correctional employee,
Departmental policy requires that, whenever
faced with similar facts and circumstances,
possible, verbal persuasion or orders be
would consider necessary and reasonable
attempted before resorting to force. In
to subdue an attacker, overcome resistance,
situations where verbal persuasion fails to
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 1
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Any department employee who uses force,
achieve desired results, a variety of force
or who observes another employee use
options are available. The department’s policy
force, is required to report the incident to a
does not require these options be employed in
supervisor and submit a written report prior
any predetermined sequence. Rather, offi cers
to being released from duty. After the report
select the force option they reasonably believe
is submitted, a multi-tiered review process
will stop the perceived threat.
begins. Every use of deadly force by staff is
Per departmental policy, use-of-force options reviewed by the department’s Deadly Force
include, but are not limited to, the following: Review Board (DFRB) and monitored by
the OIG. Whenever an employee uses deadly
a) Chemical agents such as pepper spray
force, the OIA Deadly Force Investigation
and tear gas,
Team (DFIT) reviews and/or investigates
b) Hand-held batons,
the event. The DFIT report is reviewed by
c) Physical force such as control holds and
the independent DFRB. During the time the
controlled take downs,
DFRB review is pending, all other reviews
d) Less-lethal weapons (weapons not likely specifi c to the case cease, pending completion
to cause death). of the DFRB process. Certain use-of-force
Examples include a 37mm or 40mm incidents are also reviewed at the division and
launcher used to fi re rubber, foam, or executive level of the department.
wooden projectiles, and tasers (pilot
program utilized by the Division of
Adult Parole), and
e) Lethal (deadly) force. This includes any
use-of-force that is likely to result in
death, and any discharge of a fi rearm
(other than during weapons qualifi ca-
tion, training, or legal recreational use).
OIG MONITORING METHODOLOGY
The OIG reviews use-of-force incidents institutions and parole regions statewide,
utilizing two primary methods: attendance working to visit each institution at
at use-of-force review committee meetings least six times annually on alternating
and document-based structured reviews. months. Generally, each committee
The OIG also provides oversight and makes meeting evaluates 5 to 15 incidents
recommendations to the department in their involving force. The OIG also evaluates
development of new use-of-force policies and all departmental reviews completed prior
procedures. to the meeting. During the meeting, the
OIG observes the review process and
Attendance at Use-of-Force Review
engages in contemporaneous oversight
Committee Meetings
by raising concerns about the incidents,
asking for clarifi cations if reports are
OIG representatives attend use-of-force
inconsistent or incomplete, and engaging
review committee meetings at all adult
in discussions with the committee about
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 2
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
the incidents. Through this process, the seeks an appropriate resolution.1 As a result
OIG draws an independent conclusion about of the OIG’s structured reviews, certain
whether the force used was in compliance incidents may be placed back on the use-
with policies, procedures, and applicable of-force review committee calendar for
laws and whether the review process was reconsideration. If the OIG still believes
thorough and meaningful. When appropriate, the issue was not properly addressed, the
the OIG recommends an incident be referred OIG may elevate the case to higher level
to CDCR’s Offi ce of Internal Affairs for department management or OIA directly.
investigation (or approval to take direct
Independent Oversight
disciplinary action). In the event the OIG
does not concur with the decision made by In addition to monitoring the department’s
the local hiring authority (i.e. the warden or use-of-force review process, the OIG
parole administrator), the OIG may confer monitors and participates as an active
with higher level department managers or stakeholder in the department’s development
OIA directly. of new regulations and policies governing the
use of force.
Structured Reviews
The OIG performs structured reviews
1 Because the OIG performed structured reviews of
of use-of-force incidents by evaluating
the 18 use-of-force incidents from Parole Region I
video recordings, offi cer reports, and the
after the end of the reporting period, contemporaneous
conclusions reached by the department’s discussion of those cases did not occur.
review process. These structured reviews
take place in addition to the OIG’s attendance
at use-of-force committee meetings. The
OIG evaluates staff compliance with use-
of-force policies before, during, and after
each incident. In addition, the OIG evaluates
each application of force and determines
if staff actions contributed to the need to
use force. If the OIG discovers a problem
during a structured review, the OIG alerts
the responsible department manager and
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 3
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
DIVISION OF ADULT INSTITUTIONS
In the six-month period from July through the need to use force. Some incidents resulted
December 2011, the department reported in disciplinary actions against employees
a total of 4,005 incidents involving force for policy violations. The OIG’s active
at institutions housing adult inmates. Of participation in the review process infl uenced
these incidents, the OIG monitored 1,422 the outcome of 288 of the incidents monitored
incidents, or 36 percent, by attending use- by requesting clarifi cation, investigations, or
of-force review committee meetings and recommending employee training.
completing structured reviews. Specifi cally,
The OIG also found the number of use-of-
the OIG attended 101 use-of-force meetings,
force incidents varied depending on the
where a total of 639 incidents were evaluated,
institution’s primary purpose or mission. The
and additionally completed 783 structured
department categorizes its adult institutions
reviews.
into primary mission groups: female offender
In its own review process, CDCR found an institutions, which classify and house all
83 percent compliance rate with departmental female inmates; reception center institutions,
policy. The department found the use of which evaluate and classify incoming male
force employed by staff complied with inmates; high security institutions, which
departmental policies in 1,179 of the 1,422 house the most violent and dangerous male
monitored incidents, and staff did not comply inmates; and general population institutions,
with departmental policies in 122 of the which provide dormitory and in-cell housing
incidents. Of these 1,301 incidents where for male inmates.
the department rendered a fi nding, the OIG
Over 70 percent of the 4,005 use-of-force
concurred with the department’s assessments
incidents occurred within the high security
in 1,223 of these incidents (94 percent). In the
and reception center institutions combined,
remaining 121 incidents, the committee had
while only 6 percent of the total incidents
not yet reached a determination, primarily
occurred in female offender institutions,
because of pending unanswered questions
with the remaining 20 percent in the general
necessary to clarify incomplete or confl icting
population.
reports that could not be provided before
the 30-day review period. It is possible that Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of use-of-
these incidents may have been prematurely force incidents in each mission group from
submitted in the hopes that information would July through December 2011.
be available at the time of the committee
meeting, or it just may be that some of the
reports were not up to the committee’s
standards.
The OIG’s active participation in the review
The OIG found staff actions contributed to process infl uenced the outcome for 288 of these
the need to use force in 43 of the monitored incidents by requesting clarifi cations, investigations,
incidents occurring at the adult institutions. or recommending employee training.
For example, policy violations such as
improper application of restraints or allowing
inmates to enter restricted areas resulted in
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 4
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
July-Dec 2011 Use-of-Force Incidents
(Adult Institutions)
General Population (Males)
797 (19.9%)
High Security (Males)
1,769 (44.17%)
Female Offender
237 (5.92%)
(cid:5)(cid:18)(cid:16)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:10)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:29)(cid:24)(cid:18)(cid:26)(cid:30)(cid:1)(cid:32)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:25)(cid:33)(cid:1)
44%
(cid:9)(cid:14)(cid:12)(cid:14)(cid:23)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:26)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:1)(cid:32)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:25)(cid:33)(cid:1)
(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:20)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:13)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:1)
30%
(cid:4)(cid:14)(cid:21)(cid:14)(cid:24)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:22)(cid:23)(cid:29)(cid:19)(cid:11)(cid:27)(cid:22)(cid:21)(cid:1)(cid:32)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:19)(cid:14)(cid:25)(cid:33)(cid:1)
Figure 1
Reception Center (Males)
1,202 (30.01%)
Over 70 percent of the use-of-force incidents
occurred at high security and reception center
institutions.
Unreasonable Use of Force
During this six-month reporting period, CDCR’s Offi ce of Internal Affairs received 53 requests
for investigation from the adult institutions related to the use of force. Allegations of misconduct
were made against 102 offi cers. Although the previous reporting period covered ten months, we
compared the use-of-force allegations between the two periods on a percentage basis. Allegations
of unreasonable use of force increased by 5 percent in the current reporting period, but we note
an 11 percent decrease in allegations of failure to report use of force witnessed and 6 percent
decrease in allegations of use of unreasonable force likely to cause injury. This indicates a
positive trend in reporting and less instances of unreasonable force likely to cause injury.
Figure 2 provides a comparison table summary of the types of allegations the Offi ce of Internal
Affairs received for investigation during the current and previous reporting periods.
Requests for Investigation of Use-of-Force by Allegation
Reporting Period Comparison
Current Reporting Previous Increase/
Allegation Period Reporting Period Decrease
Jul-Dec 2011 Sept 2010-June 2011
Unreasonable use of force 31% 26% +5%
Failure to report use of force witnessed 24% 35% -11%
Failure to report own use of force 20% 19% +1%
Unreasonable force likely to cause injury 5% 11% -6%
Other minor policy violations 20% 9% +11%
Figure 2
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 5
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
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, offi cers may use chemical
agents, expandable batons, and less-lethal force to address varying threat scenarios as the riot
progresses. During this reporting period, the OIG conducted structured reviews of 783 incidents
that included 2,773 separate applications of force. During the previous 10-month reporting
period, the OIG monitored 1,173 incidents that included 3,271 separate applications of force.
Comparison of Types of Force Used in Monitored
Incidents (Adult Institutions)
Current v. Previous Reporting Periods
60%
50%
40% Current Reporting Period
(6 months)
30%
Previous Reporting Period
20% (10 Months)
10%
0%
Figure 3
Physical Chemical Baton Less-
Force Agents Lethal
Frequency Distribution of Application of Force by Mission Groups
As detailed in the following chart, the
this reporting period and 82 percent in the
prevailing type of force used varies by
previous reporting period. These numbers
institution mission. However, regardless
indicate the department is utilizing the
of the mission, and consistent with the
minimal force required in most instances.
past reporting period, chemical agents and
physical force are used most often. During
the current reporting period, adult institutions
used chemical agents in 48 percent of the
applications of force, a slight increase from
the 46 percent in the previous reporting
period; while physical force comprised
27 percent of the applications of force, a
measurable decrease from the 36 percent in
the previous reporting period. Nevertheless,
the two minimal types of force, physical and
chemical agents, continue to account for the
highest percentages of application: 75 percent
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 6
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Previous Reporting
Current Reporting Period Period Comparative
Types of Force (6 months) (10 Months) percentage +/-
Physical Force 27% 36% -9%
Chemical Agents 48% 46% 2%
Baton 12% 8% 4%
Less-Lethal 13% 9% 4%
Deadly Force 0% 1% -1%
Use-of-force committees do not analyze the types of force used. The primary focus of committee
review is to evaluate the determination on whether use-of-force policy and other policies such as
decontamination of inmates, proper video-recorded interviews, escorting inmates post-incident,
completion of log entries, etc., were followed.
The following three graphs provide a summary of the data for these 2,773 applications of force by
institution mission groups and provide a comparison to the 3,271 applications of force from the
previous reporting period.
Frequency Distribution of Applications of Force Monitored by OIG
Sep Sep Sept
Sep 2010- 2010- July- 2010- July- 2010- July-
June July-Dec Sep 2010- July-Dec June Dec June Dec June Dec
2011 2011 June 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011 2011
Less- Less-
Program Physical Physical Chemical Chemical Lethal Lethal Deadly Deadly
Force Force Agents Agents Baton Baton Force Force Force Force
Reception
Center 43.82% 29.53% 36.33% 42.75% 10.45% 18.87% 9.08% 8.73% 0.32% 0.13%
Female Of-
fender 41.27% 46.61% 53.97% 46.61% 4.76% 5.93% 0.00% 0.85% 0.00% 0.00%
General Popu-
lation 37.38% 31.23% 47.20% 54.78% 7.13% 9.39% 8.06% 4.61% 0.23% 0.00%
High Security 29.66% 21.55% 51.49% 48.53% 6.89% 8.60% 10.80% 20.85% 1.17% 0.47%
Figure 4
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 7
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Frequency Sept-June 2011
Deadly Force
Less-Lethal Force
High Security
General Population
Baton
Female Offender
Reception Center
Chemical Agents
Physical Force
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Frequency July-Dec 2011
Deadly Force
Less-Lethal Force
High Security
General Population
Baton
Female Offender
Reception Center
Chemical Agents
Physical Force
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
A list of the adult institutions and their acronyms can be found in Appendix A. For a
comprehensive list of the types of force used during the reporting period at each of the
department’s adult institutions, please refer to Appendix B.
Use-of-Force Incident Reports
As part of its structured reviews, the OIG examined correctional staff reports to evaluate the
adequacy of the description of circumstances leading to the use of force and for the suffi ciency
of the description of the force used. The OIG evaluated 783 incidents and found 92 percent of the
related reports adequately described the need to use force, a slight decrease from the 96 percent
of 1,173 incidents in the previous reporting period. However, only 67 percent of the 783 incidents
appropriately described the actual force used during the incident. This is up only 1 percentage
point from 66 percent in the previous reporting period.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 8
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Individual institutions exhibited varying where the incident is reviewed by the use-of-
degrees of accuracy in describing the actual force review committee.
force used. For example, at Salinas Valley
State Prison, 100 percent of the reports we
reviewed adequately described the need
for force, but only 56 percent adequately
described the force used during the incidents.
Similar documentation patterns were found
at High Desert State Prison, Kern Valley
State Prison, the Substance Abuse Treatment
Facility, and Corcoran State Prison. More
favorable results were found at Chuckawalla
Valley State Prison with 100 percent of
the reports adequately describing the need
In the 783 structured reviews of incidents
for force and 100 percent appropriately
conducted during this reporting period, the
documenting the force used. There were
OIG noted that every level of the department’s
similarly favorable documentation patterns
review process made errors in identifying
at the California Conservation Center, the
defi ciencies in use-of-force reports. Of the
California Institution for Men, and the
incidents we reviewed, 248 contained reports
California Rehabilitation Center.
with missing or confl icting information after
institutional incident commanders performed
Institutional Use-of-Force Reviews
the initial level of review. Thus, incident
At each level of review, the CDCR reviewer commanders collectively moved reports with
is tasked with incomplete or confl icting information forward
evaluating for management review in 32 percent of the
reports, incidents. This is a signifi cant improvement
requesting from the previous reporting period in which
necessary it was noted that incident commanders in
clarifi cations, most of the adult institutions failed to address
identifying clarifi cation or policy deviations in 78 percent
deviations of the incidents (Figure 5 below).
from
The OIG further evaluated how fi rst-level
policy, and
management reviewers addressed policy
determining
deviations or inadequate reports in the 248
whether
use-of-force incidents containing issues not
the use of
addressed by the incident commanders. We
force was within policies, procedures, and
found fi rst-level management reviewers failed
applicable laws. The review process begins
to address clarifi cation or policy deviations in
with an initial review conducted by the
66 percent of the incidents, an improvement
incident commander. Unresolved issues
from 73 percent unaddressed incidents in
progress to the fi rst-level management
the previous reporting period. First-level
review conducted by a captain, the second-
management reviewers in 19 institutions still
level management review conducted by an
failed to address over half of the clarifi cations
associate warden, and the fi nal-level of review
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 9
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Incident Reports with Missing or Incomplete
Information at Each Level of Review
Jul-Dec 2011
Incidents cleared without complete 22%
information 22%
46%
Incomplete Review: Executive-level UOF
Committee 46%
73%
Incomplete Review: 2nd-level management
73%
Incomplete Review: 1st-level management 66%
66%
32%
Incomplete Review: Incident Commander
Figure 5
32%
Figure 5
Incident Reports with Missing or Incomplete
Information at Each Level of Review
Sep 2010-June 2011
Incidents cleared without complete
17%
information 17%
Incomplete Review: Executive-level UOF 67%
Committee 67%
44%
Incomplete Review: 2nd-level management
44%
73%
Incomplete Review: 1st-level management
73%
78%
Incomplete Review: Incident Commander
78%
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 10
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
or policy deviations left undetected by the For the 783 structured reviews the OIG
incident commanders’ initial review. conducted, the overall average time for review
from the time of incident to the time of
Upon reaching the second-level managers’
completion at the executive level was 54 days,
review, 163 unaddressed issues remained.
with most of that time spent at the fi nal level
The second-level managers’ reviews in
of review.
all institutions addressed only 44 issues
(27 percent) of the 163 issues previously At several of the adult institutions, total
undetected by fi rst-level managers. Second- average review time equaled or exceeded 60
level reviewers failed to address 119 issues days. Valley State Prison for Women averaged
leaving 73 percent of the fi rst-level issues 192 days to complete their use-of-force review
unresolved. This cumulative average was process, while both Kern Valley State Prison
primarily impacted by 12 of the adult and California State Prison, San Quentin
institutions’ second-level managers failing exceeded the required time by averaging
to address any issues. This is a signifi cant 107 and 99 days, respectively. This delay
increase in undetected issues at the second- can signifi cantly impact potential employee
level review from the prior reporting period misconduct cases since the hiring authority
of 44 percent unaddressed. has only one year to identify misconduct,
complete an investigation, and impose
At the use-of-force executive review
discipline if appropriate. During the reporting
committee and institution-head level of
period, only fi ve adult institutions fell within
review, 119 issues (48 percent) originally
the 30 day threshold for completing the use-
noted by the OIG still remained unaddressed
of-force review process. These institutions are
by previous review levels. This fi nal
Avenal State Prison, California Rehabilitation
executive level of review addressed 64 of
Center, Chuckawalla Valley State Prison,
the outstanding issues - failing to address
Deuel Vocational Institution, and Folsom
46 percent of the issues - leaving 55 of the
State Prison.
original 248 issues unresolved after all levels
of review. Thus, after all levels of review, 22 The department should consult with the OIG
percent of the incidents were cleared without and consider adopting the internal policy
appropriate information, compared to 17 revision currently under review to streamline
percent in the previous reporting period. and make the use-of-force committee process
This indicates the department made efforts more effi cient and effective. It is clear from
with fi rst-level reviewers, but overall, more the data in both the fi rst, and now this second
training and emphasis on complete reviews is report, that the bulk of the use of force
still needed. incidents occur at high security and reception
center prisons. These same prisons struggle
T imeliness of Reviews
to meet the 30 day requirement for committee
Pursuant to CDCR policy, use-of-force review, even though they spend more time
incidents should normally be reviewed within in committee and hold committee reviews
30 days from the date of the incident. This more frequently. This sometimes results in
includes all levels of the review process, as preliminary “reviews” of incidents that are
well as obtaining any necessary clarifi cations. incomplete when they reach committee in
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 11
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
order to claim compliance with policy. climate, it would seem that a good suggestion
such as this, submitted from within their own
The OIG noted that at least one prison was
agency, should not only be considered but
adapting its process to handle many of the
commended. The OIG is willing to consult on
use-of-force reviews outside of the formal
the criteria to be used and the process to be
committee process. They had established
followed and provide the required third party
in-house criteria defi ning low-level incidents
transparency.
with minimal staff or inmate involvement,
and without injury or misconduct allegations, To compare the timeliness of reviews for the
for a “paper review” only, by a member of adult institutions, please refer to A ppendix C,
the committee. This enabled them to spend and for a statewide review summary, please
committee time on those incidents that were refer to A ppendix D.
more serious, complicated, or problematic.
Video-Recorded Interviews
The OIG recognized and even commended
the fact that they were trying to improve The department’s use-of-force policy requires
the system. However, the process does not video recorded interviews if an inmate
comply with policy and lacks transparency. alleges unreasonable force or has sustained
The OIG suggested the process be formulated serious or great bodily injury that could have
to include a component with the OIG as a been caused by the use of force. The video
reviewer and submitted to management for recording should be conducted within 48
formal adoption. Such a process would still hours of discovery of the injury or allegation.
provide transparency and the opportunity to If the inmate refuses to be video-recorded,
request a matter be put before the committee CDCR policy requires staff to record the
if there was an issue. It would also save inmate confi rming his or her refusal to be
countless hours of high-level employee time interviewed. However, the current practice
and increase the scrutiny on the incidents that for conducting video-recorded interviews of
require more discussion. inmates involved in a use-of-force incident
varies among the adult institutions.
This process would be similar to the
“consent calendar” used by OIA’s Central Incident commanders are not consistently
Intake Committee to handle the majority interviewing identifi ed inmate witnesses
of the straightforward, lower-level requests or documenting all relevant facts in their
for investigation. This process has been Report of Findings or Appeal Inquiry
thoroughly accepted and adopted by the memo. The OIG noted incidents where the
department and the stakeholders. The OIG inmate provided names of inmate witnesses
was informed that the recommendation on the video recording, yet the incident
was going to be formally sent up the chain commander did not list those witnesses on the
of command for consideration over six Report of Findings, nor were the witnesses
months ago. At the time of this second interviewed. There were also instances where
report, there has still been no action taken the incident commander listed the names of
or even consultation requested with the OIG inmate witnesses on the Report of Findings,
to consider the inter-departmental process but did not conduct interviews with them.
recommendation. When inquiring, the OIG Additionally, staff did not make the effort to
was informed that the recommendation is identify and interview potential additional
still under consideration. In the current fi scal witnesses when an interviewed inmate could
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 12
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
identify those other witnesses only by their Of the 783 incidents for which the OIG
assigned cell number or bed assignment. conducted structured reviews, 96 incidents
were identifi ed as requiring and receiving
Video recorded interviews with inmates,
video recorded interviews. We reviewed
or their refusals to be interviewed, did not
the video recorded interviews and found
consistently document required information.
74 recordings were conducted according to
The OIG found that some interviewers did not
policy guidelines, a compliance rate of 77
adequately identify themselves, the date, the
percent. North Kern State Prison, responsible
time, the incident log number, or suffi ciently
for 13 of the 96 incidents requiring video-
document the inmate’s injuries. Additionally,
recorded interviews, was a notable exception
when recording inmates’ refusals to be
to the statewide average, with a 100 percent
interviewed, staff did not ask the inmates to
compliance rate.
identify themselves on record.
In our November 2011 Use-of-Force Report
The OIG found that no video recording was
we recommended the department make
conducted for 31 percent of inmate appeals
efforts to increase compliance with the use-
involving allegations of force. The OIG also
of-force video recording policy. The 7 percent
found many institutions allow correctional
increase in compliance during this reporting
offi cers to act as video camera operators;
period refl ects the department’s efforts
thus, offi cers are present while an inmate is
to implement this recommendation. The
making allegations against other offi cers or
department indicated in its 2011 Corrective
supervisors. In one instance, a correctional
Action Plan that this recommendation will
offi cer was interviewed as a witness to
be fully implemented by the end of 2012.
an allegation of force but later acted as
The department should also establish who
the camera operator during the inmate’s
can conduct and participate in interviews,
interview describing his account of the force.
provide training and/or procedure memos to
This practice may inhibit some inmates
ensure recordings are consistently completed,
from making allegations due to the potential
and prohibit staff members involved in the
of staff retaliating against the inmate.
incident from participating in video recording
Correctional offi cers should not be placed in a
the inmate interview.
position to learn of alleged staff misconduct,
especially when it may result in an internal
affairs investigation or disciplinary action.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 13
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
DIVISION OF ADULT PAROLE OPERATIONS
The Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) is divided into 4 parole regions and in 2011
was responsible for supervising over 100,000 parolees. During that year, the adult parole regions
reported 36 incidents statewide involving the use of force. Parole Regions III and IV conducted
regular use-of-force committee meetings during this reporting period, and Parole Region II
conducted meetings on an “as-needed basis” due to infrequency of incidents involving force.
Parole Region I managers, in lieu of committee meetings, reviewed each use-of-force incident
independently as incidents progressed through the successive levels of review. DAPO has
indicated that it is currently in the process of amending its policy to incorporate a regional review
committee meeting component.
The OIG attended eight committee meetings and completed structured reviews of 36 use-of-
force incidents occurring throughout the four parole regions. Within the total number of incidents
reviewed, there were 126 applications of force. The structured reviews revealed that 92 percent of
parole agents’ use-of-force reports adequately described the need to use force. However, only 50
percent provided an appropriate description of the force used. Figure 6 provides a summary of the
types of force used in the parole regions from July through December 2011.
Throughout all parole regions, the unit supervisors, who perform the initial reviews, did not
request clarifi cations for inadequate reports in any of the 36 incidents reviewed by the OIG
despite the fact that over half (19 of 36) the incidents required clarifi cation. Additionally the next
levels of review addressed only two policy deviations or clarifi cations. Finally we noted during
our review that parole agents who were witnesses to other agents’ use of force did not consistently
prepare written reports of what they witnessed.
The following tables 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. These tables also include the average days the review process took from the date of the
incident to the date the previous reviewer signed his or her review. Compared to the prior reporting
Types of Force Used in Parole Regions, July-Dec 2011
Chemical Agents
Physical Force
Baton Chemical Agents
Physical Force Baton
Figure 6
*No instances of less-lethal or deadly force were used in parole
regions during this reporting period.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 14
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
period, the number of complete reports increased to 50 percent, an improvement of 25 percent
from the previous reporting period. The suffi ciency of report review decreased, however, and
the unit supervisor failed to request clarifi cation or review of any incident reports, and only one
clarifi cation or policy deviation was addressed at the executive review level.
Jul-Dec 2011 Insuffi cient Incident Reports and Management Review
Clarifi cation Clarifi cations or Policy
Parole Agent Reports
Requested Deviations Addressed
Average
Parole Incidents Reports Needing By Unit By District By Hiring
Total Days
Region Evaluated Clarifi cation Supervisor Administrator Authority
for Review
Region I 18 50% 0 0 11% 26
Region II 7 43% 0 0 0 6
Region III
3 67% 0 0 0 44
Region IV
8 63% 0 20% 0 57
Statewide 36
50% 0 20% 11% 33.25
Average *total
Figure 7
Sep 2010 -June 2011 Insuffi cient Incident Reports and Management Review
Clarifi cation Clarifi cations or Policy
Parole Agent Reports
Requested Deviations Addressed
Average
Parole Incidents Reports Needing By Unit By District By Hiring
Total Days for
Region Evaluated Clarifi cation Supervisor Administrator Authority
Review
Region I 22 88% 22% 8% 0% 49
Region II 21 94% 33% 25% 0% 19
Region III 11 35% 0% 10% 27% 102
Region IV 20 78% 40% 50% 0% 168
Statewide 74
74% 24% 23% 7% 85
Average *total
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 15
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
ADDRESSING ALLEGATIONS OF UNREASONABLE FORCE
Incident reports by offi cers who use force against inmates or parolees are not the only source
through which review committees become aware of use-of-force incidents. Inmates use the
appeal process to allege that they were victims of unreasonable force, or may report unreasonable
force to medical personnel treating their injuries. Other reporting sources include correctional
staff or visitors who may witness unreasonable force. All such allegations that come to the
attention of institution management must, after investigation, be reviewed by the appropriate
executive review committee.
Allegation Review Process
and witnesses; review medical reports; and
Allegations of unreasonable force are
prepare a Report of Findings or Appeal
processed in two ways:
Inquiry.
1. If an inmate verbally alleges they were a
The OIG noted the majority of institutions
victim of unreasonable use-of-force, the
are not following the policy requirements
allegation is evaluated in the same way as
described above. The OIG evaluated
all other use-of-force incidents, culminat-
268 allegations of unreasonable force
ing with a fi nal review by the institution’s
executive review committee. occurring during the 2011 calendar year at
29 institutions and found only 55 percent
2. If anyone (including an inmate) claims,
of those allegations were reviewed by an
verbally or in writing, to have witnessed
executive review committee. The OIG also
unreasonable use-of-force, or if an inmate
found inconsistencies in how each institution
submits a written appeal (CDCR Form
ensures its use-of-force coordinator receives
602) claiming to have been a victim of
the allegation package for logging, tracking,
unreasonable use-of-force, the institution
and presentation to the executive review
conducts an Appeal Inquiry and the fi nd-
committee. Additionally, the OIG found that
ings are required to be reviewed by the
only 69 percent of required video-recorded
executive review committee.
interviews with inmates were completed, and
Tracking of Allegations that many of those were conducted after the
48-hour deadline.
The Department’s use-of-force policy
requires each institution’s executive review The OIG examined 268 allegations of
committee to review all allegations of force. unreasonable force reported through the
The policy also requires the use-of-force adult institutions’ inmate appeal process or
coordinator to log and track all use-of-force through written or oral complaints from staff,
incidents and all allegations including those members of the public, or inmates. Nearly
brought forth by the inmate appeal process. In half (121) of the allegations of unreasonable
addition, the incident commander or appeals force in our examination escaped executive
coordinator must video record an interview committee review, and institutions’ practices
with any inmate fi ling an allegation, within with respect to tracking these allegations
48 hours from the time of discovery; conduct varied. The OIG found various methods
and document interviews of the subjects employed for processing and tracking staff
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 16
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
misconduct complaints among the 30 adult reporting point for tracking use-of-force
institutions we contacted. We further noted allegations, research of any related incident
multiple methods for tracking allegations reports, and notifi cation by the appeals
and logging complaints within individual coordinator to the use-of-force coordinator
institutions. These include a general TIC of all Appeal Inquiries stemming from a
(taken into consideration) assignment tracking use-of-force allegation. The current use-
database maintained in the warden’s offi ce; of-force policy does not direct the appeals
a log book kept by the Investigative Services coordinator to contact the use-of-force
Unit; logs maintained in the inmate appeals coordinator when an appeal alleging force is
offi ce; use-of-force coordinators’ logs; received. Consequently, the OIG found that
the delegated assignment tracking system not all completed reports on such appeals are
(DATS); the citizens complaint log (CDCR forwarded to the use-of-force coordinator for
Form 2142); and the internal affairs allegation review by the executive review committee.
log (CDCR Form 2140). Without a single
The reports that are forwarded may stall
designated reporting point for tracking use-
at the use-of-force coordinator’s offi ce. For
of-force allegations, effective review cannot
example, one use-of-force coordinator has
be ensured.
not presented any inmate allegations of
Allegations Referred for Committee force to the executive review committee
Review through the end of calendar year 2011. The
institution only began using the executive
Nearly half of the inmate appeals we
review allegation review form in November
examined involving use-of-force allegations
2011, 15 months after the policy became
were not properly referred for committee
effective, and had seven allegations awaiting
review, largely due to poor tracking and lack
completion from the appeals coordinator. The
of notifi cation to the use-of-force coordinator.
OIG had previously notifi ed that institution’s
In order to effectively address use-of-force
use-of-force coordinator and warden on four
allegations, coordination between the appeals
previous occasions (most recently in October
coordinator and the use-of-force coordinator
2011) about this policy requirement.
must be established, and should include:
implementation of a single designated This lack of internal coordination may allow
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 17
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
the executive review committee to render
separate, and perhaps different, conclusions
than those reached in the Appeal Inquiry,
and allows some reports to escape executive
review committee evaluation altogether. For
instance, at one institution, the OIG requested
the reviews for eight inmate appeals in which
the inmates claimed to have been victims of
force in incidents dating from March through
October 2011. However, even at the time of
our fi eld visit to the institution in January
2012, the institution could confi rm that only
two of the eight appeals were ever presented
to the executive review committee.
Training and Listing of Staff Conducting Administrative Interviews
The OIG learned that when an institution However, after contacting appeals
conducts an Appeal Inquiry, the individual coordinators and IST staff at the institutions,
may not have received training on how to the OIG noted that Administrative Bulletin
conduct administrative interviews. In April 05/03 is obsolete and that most institutions
2006, the department distributed to all have not developed a replacement training
institutions a training module for conducting program for interviewers, nor are they
administrative interviews in accordance with maintaining a list of staff qualifi ed to conduct
Administrative Bulletin 05/03. administrative interviews. We did fi nd one
institution, the California Men’s Colony,
The institutions’ in-service training (IST)
which had created a one-hour training
managers were directed to document this
module, “Administrative Interview Process
training in each employee’s training fi le and
(Staff Complaint 2011),” to provide training to
maintain a list of supervisors and managers
those conducting administrative interviews.
trained and qualifi ed as administrative
interviewers for staff complaints received
through inmate appeals.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 18
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
STATUS OF PRIOR RECOMMENDATIONS
In the OIG’s November 2011 Use-of-Force Report,
the OIG made fi ve recommendations to the
department. The department’s 2011 Corrective
Action Plan, which is updated annually, includes
the following implementation status for the fi ve
recommendations:
1. The department should distinguish between
non-compliance with the use-of-force policy 1. The department indicates substantial compliance by
2012.
versus non-compliance in other department
policies,
2. The department should ensure all use-of-
2. The department indicates full implementation of
force reports are complete and accurate, and
training for report writing and accountability for
documents are submitted timely prior to fi nal fi rst-line reviewers in 2012.
review decisions,
3. The department should ensure use-of-force ex- 3. The department indicates this has been fully
ecutive review committees are held in compli- implemented at the institutions and DAPO is
incorporating a regional review committee meeting
ance with department policies,
component.
4. The department should ensure that use-of-force
4. The department indicates substantial compliance
video-recorded interviews are conducted in a
by 2012 through issuance of a training
manner that is consistent with policy, and memorandum, quarterly internal audits, and
accountability measures.
5. The department should ensure appropri-
5. The department contends the current use-of-force
ate training for pepper spray use during cell
policy adequately controls the use of pepper spray.
extractions, including guidelines for assessing
exposure elements, time, and effectiveness.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 19
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS REPORT
Analysis of available 2011 use-of-force data and observations made during contemporaneous
monitoring activities is the basis for the following recommendations to improve the use-of-force
incident review process.
1. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD CONSULT WITH THE OIG AND CONSIDER ADOPTING THE INTERNAL POLICY REVI-
SION CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW TO STREAMLINE AND MAKE THE USE-OF-FORCE COMMITTEE PROCESS MORE
EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE
The policy revision currently under review is similar to the “consent calendar” used by OIA’s
Central Intake Committee to handle the majority of the straightforward, lower-level requests for
investigation. The OIG suggested the process be formulated to include a component with the
OIG as a reviewer and submitted to management for formal adoption. Such a process would still
provide transparency and the opportunity to request a matter be put before the committee if there
was an issue. It would also save countless hours of high-level employee time and increase the
scrutiny on the incidents that require more discussion. The OIG is willing to consult on the crite-
ria to be used and the process to be followed and provide the required third party transparency.
2. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TRAINING OR POLICY MEMOS TO ENSURE VIDEO-
RECORDED INTERVIEWS ARE CONDUCTED FOR ALL ALLEGATIONS OF USE-OF-FORCE. THE DEPARTMENT
SHOULD ALSO CLEARLY ESTABLISH WHO CAN CONDUCT AND PARTICIPATE IN VIDEO-RECORDED INTERVIEWS
AND ENSURE STAFF MEMBERS INVOLVED IN THE INCIDENT DO NOT TAKE PART IN VIDEO RECORDING THE
INTERVIEWS
The current practice for conducting video-recorded interviews of inmates involved in a use-
of-force incident varies among the adult institutions. Incident
commanders are not consistently interviewing identifi ed inmate
witnesses or documenting all relevant facts in their Report of
Findings or Appeal Inquiry memo. Of the 783 incidents for
which the OIG conducted structured reviews, 96 incidents were
identifi ed as requiring and receiving video-recorded interviews.
We reviewed the video recorded interviews and found 74
recordings were conducted according to policy guidelines, a
compliance rate of 77 percent.
3. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ESTABLISH A SINGLE DESIGNATED REPORTING POINT FOR TRACKING ALLEGA-
TIONS OF FORCE
Allegations of employee misconduct may be logged at various recording points within an
institution and tracking and accountability for investigating those complaints is fragmented.
Furthermore, allegations of unreasonable force not ultimately tracked by an institution’s use-of-
force coordinator may escape presentation to the use-of-force review committee. CDCR policy
provides that each hiring authority is responsible for “[e]nsuring each allegation of employee
misconduct is logged (regardless of whether the allegation is referred for investigation), receives
prompt attention, and is addressed appropriately.”
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 20
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
4. EACH OF THE FOUR ADULT PAROLE REGIONS SHOULD IDENTIFY AND TRAIN A USE-OF-FORCE COORDINATOR
TO MANAGE THE USE-OF-FORCE INCIDENT REVIEW PROCESS
The OIG recommends that each of the four adult parole regions identify and train a use-of-force
coordinator in each region to manage the use-of-force incident review process. A single use-of-
force point of contact for each parole region will facilitate a consistent process for policy updates,
information sharing, and report oversight.
5. THE INSTITUTIONAL APPEALS COORDINATOR SHOULD NOTIFY THE USE-OF-FORCE COORDINATOR OF ALL
INMATE APPEALS CONTAINING A USE-OF-FORCE ALLEGATION
The OIG found that nearly half of the inmate appeals we examined (121 out of 268) involving
allegations of force escaped committee review, largely due to poor tracking of allegations and
inadequate coordination between the appeals coordinator and the use-of-force coordinator. The
OIG found some institutions have not implemented a local procedure to ensure all use-of-force
appeals are adequately tracked and forwarded to the use-of-force coordinator for review by the
executive review committee. Consequently, the OIG found that not all completed reports on such
appeals are forwarded to the use-of-force coordinator for review by the executive review com-
mittee. Improved coordination is necessary to avoid multiple reviews or duplication of effort by
the executive review committee for instances in which an inmate submits an appeal near the end
of the use-of-force coordinator’s 30-day deadline.
6. ALL ALLEGATIONS OF FORCE EXAMINED THROUGH A REPORT OF FINDINGS OR APPEAL INQUIRY SHOULD
SPECIFY ANY RESEARCH CONDUCTED TO LOCATE RELATED INCIDENT REPORTS AND VIDEO RECORDINGS, AND
DOCUMENT WITNESS STATEMENTS, INTERVIEWS, E-MAILS, VIDEOS, OR OTHER EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SUP-
PORT THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION
Incident commanders are not consistently documenting all relevant facts in their Report of Find-
ings or Appeal Inquiry memo or interviewing identifi ed inmate witnesses. Staff members tasked
with investigating allegations should document their research and analysis of all critical informa-
tion used to support the fi ndings and conclusions made in their fi nal reports.
7. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD PROVIDE TRAINING TO SUPERVISORY AND MANAGERIAL STAFF WHO CONDUCT
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERVIEWS, AND EACH INSTITUTION SHOULD MAINTAIN AN UPDATED LIST OF TRAINED
INSTRUCTORS/INTERVIEWERS
The OIG found that most institutions assign staff to conduct Appeal Inquiry interviews without
ensuring they have received training to conduct administrative interviews. Typically, a depart-
ment head (e.g. associate warden) acts as a “reviewer” of the Appeal Inquiry and assigns a
lieutenant or sergeant to conduct the administrative interview. Without
a listing of qualifi ed interviewers, it is unknown whether the assigned
lieutenant or sergeant has been trained to properly complete the administra-
tive interview.
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 21
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX A: Acronyms for Adult Institutions
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
FOL 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 Wasco
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 22
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX B: INCIDENTS INVOLVING FORCE - ADULT INSTITUTIONS
Incidents Involving Force
Adult Institutions
Incidents
Involving Physical Chemical Expandable Less-lethal Deadly
Institution Mission Force Force Agents Baton Force Force
ASP General Population 50 28% 64% 8% 0% 0%
CAL High Security 61 16% 61% 0% 16% 7%
CCC General Population 23 13% 83% 4% 0% 0%
CCI High Security 94 26% 48% 9% 18% 0%
CCWF Female Offender 53 49% 51% 0% 0% 0%
CEN High Security 52 15% 69% 8% 8% 0%
CIM Reception Center 125 14% 83% 1% 1% 1%
CIW Female Offender 42 26% 57% 17% 0% 0%
CMC General Population 60 65% 28% 7% 0% 0%
CMF General Population 47 49% 47% 4% 0% 0%
COR High Security 64 28% 50% 14% 8% 0%
CRC General Population 53 30% 43% 26% 0% 0%
CTF General Population 27 33% 52% 4% 11% 0%
CVSP General Population 28 25% 61% 14% 0% 0%
DVI Reception Center 134 22% 16% 61% 1% 0%
FOL General Population 71 14% 66% 4% 15% 0%
HDSP High Security 148 7% 48% 27% 17% 1%
ISP General Population 69 7% 61% 23% 9% 0%
KVSP High Security 168 14% 48% 4% 33% 0%
LAC Reception Center 70 59% 30% 4% 7% 0%
MCSP High Security 54 11% 54% 17% 19% 0%
NKSP Reception Center 89 17% 49% 18% 16% 0%
PBSP High Security 148 9% 83% 3% 5% 0%
PVSP General Population 76 53% 32% 7% 9% 0%
RJD Reception Center 143 36% 37% 15% 12% 0%
SAC High Security 317 22% 35% 8% 35% 0%
SATF High Security 104 78% 9% 2% 12% 0%
SCC General Population 30 10% 90% 0% 0% 0%
SOL General Population 52 27% 71% 2% 0% 0%
SQ Reception Center 106 40% 34% 8% 18% 0%
SVSP High Security 80 18% 64% 5% 14% 0%
VSPW Female Offender 23 78% 17% 0% 4% 0%
WSP Reception Center 112 29% 48% 13% 10% 0%
TOTAL 2,773 29% 51% 10% 9% <1%
Incidents Overall Overall Overall Overall Overall
Average Average Average Average Average
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 23
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX C: Timeliness of Reviews – Adult Institutions
Timeliness of Reviews (average number of days for review at each level)
Adult Institutions
Institu- Average
Incidents Incident 1st Level 2nd Level
Institution tion Head/ Total Days
Evaluated Commander Manager Manager
IERC for Review
ASP 22 2 7 5 10 24
CAL 17 2 10 4 17 33
CCC 12 4 5 4 23 36
CCI 34 1 6 5 24 36
CCWF 14 1 9 4 66 80
CEN 24 2 7 4 73 86
CIM 25 2 13 2 16 33
CIW 13 1 14 3 28 46
CMC 17 4 22 8 26 60
CMF 16 5 6 5 18 34
COR 23 1 13 8 23 45
CRC 20 1 5 5 17 28
CTF 16 1 5 4 37 47
CVSP 17 1 4 1 18 24
DVI 27 2 3 2 21 28
FOL 20 1 7 4 16 28
HDSP 28 9 6 2 30 47
ISP 21 3 7 11 42 63
KVSP 39 1 31 18 57 107
LAC 26 1 7 3 40 51
MCSP 20 1 6 8 34 49
NKSP 37 3 12 9 16 40
PBSP 36 13 10 8 33 64
PVSP 22 1 14 9 40 64
RJD 51 2 8 9 38 57
SAC 35 3 8 4 43 58
SATF 26 1 11 9 29 50
SCC 11 1 5 6 57 69
SOL 19 2 10 7 18 37
SQ 25 3 23 9 64 99
SVSP 25 1 14 4 19 38
VSPW 10 1 11 42 138 192
WSP 35 2 11 9 16 38
TOTAL/
AVG 783 2 10 7 35 54
*(Days for review were averaged and rounded to the nearest day)
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 24
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
APPENDIX D: Statewide Review Summary – Adult Institutions
Statewide Review Summary
Adult Institutions
Clarifi cations or Policy Deviations Addressed at Each Level
Addressed Percent
Missed by Addressed at Percent Missed at 2nd Level Missed at Addressed at Percent Missed at
Incident 1st Manager at 1st Manager Manager 2nd Manager Institution Head Institution Head
Institution Commanders Level Level Level Level Level Level
ASP 7 2 71% 2 60% 3 0%
CAL 6 3 50% 0 100% 0 50%
CCC 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
CCI 8 1 88% 6 14% 1 0%
CCWF 1 0 100% 1 0% 0 0%
CEN 7 3 57% 0 100% 1 43%
CIM 2 1 50% 0 100% 0 50%
CIW 5 1 80% 0 100% 4 0%
CMC 5 0 100% 3 40% 1 20%
CMF 8 5 38% 1 67% 2 0%
COR 12 2 83% 0 100% 8 17%
CRC 6 1 83% 3 40% 1 17%
CTF 3 1 67% 1 50% 0 33%
CVSP 0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
DVI 5 3 40% 1 50% 1 0%
FOL 4 0 100% 1 75% 1 50%
HDSP 6 5 17% 0 0% 1 0%
ISP 7 2 71% 2 60% 3 0%
KVSP 32 8 75% 7 71% 7 31%
LAC 10 5 50% 0 100% 5 0%
MCSP 5 3 40% 0 100% 0 40%
NKSP 15 8 47% 5 29% 1 7%
PBSP 6 1 83% 3 40% 1 17%
PVSP 8 4 50% 3 25% 0 13%
RJD 14 0 100% 0 100% 3 79%
SAC 15 7 53% 1 88% 2 33%
SATF 13 7 46% 1 83% 5 0%
SCC 1 0 100% 1 0% 0 0%
SOL 4 0 100% 0 100% 1 75%
SQ 9 1 89% 1 88% 7 0%
SVSP 8 0 100% 0 100% 1 88%
VSPW 5 4 20% 0 0% 1 0%
WSP 11 7 36% 1 75% 3 0%
TOTALS 248 85 67% 44 67% 64 25%
Use-of Force Report July-December 2011 Page 25
Offi ce of the Inspector General State of California
Use-of-Force within the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
July – December 2011
May 2012