Warden Anthony Hedgpeth One Year Audit Salinas Valley State Prison

SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON WARDEN ANTHONY HEDGPETH ONE-YEAR AUDIT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA APRIL 2011 Contents Results in Brief .......................................................................................1 One-Year Evaluation of Warden Anthony Hedgpeth ..............................1 Background of Warden Hedgpeth................................................1 Institution Overview .....................................................................2 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ..........................................3 Review Results ............................................................................5 Category 1 - Safety and Security ............................................6 Category 2 - Inmate Programming .........................................9 Category 3 - Business Operations ..........................................13 Category 4 - Employee-Management Relations .....................16 Overall Summary .........................................................................19 Appendix – Employee Survey Results....................................................21 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response.....23 Results in Brief SALINAS VALLEY STATE PRISON Warden Anthony Hedgpeth FACTS AT A GLANCE From its review, the Office of the Inspector General Location: Soledad, CA (OIG) found that Warden Hedgpeth has successfully performed his job as warden at Salinas Opened: May 1996 Valley State Prison (SVSP). With over 29 years of Mission: Multi – High Security, Medical, correctional experience in the California Mental Health and Minimum Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Security (CDCR), he has obtained the skills necessary to manage a multi-mission institution like SVSP. Inmate Population: 3,734 Designed Capacity: 2,388 inmates Many SVSP employees we interviewed told us the institution’s operations have improved since Employees: 1,623 Hedgpeth became warden in October 2009, and several said he is the best warden they have ever Budget: $183 million, FY 2009/10 worked for. During our review, we surveyed SVSP employees, key stakeholders, and department executives; analyzed operational data compiled and maintained by the department; interviewed SVSP employees, including the warden, and toured the institution. We compiled the results and categorized them into four areas: safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee-management relations. We received mainly positive responses regarding the warden’s performance. On average, the warden’s managers and employees rated him between very good and outstanding. Salinas Valley State Prison Warden Anthony Hedgpeth. Photo: CDCR One-Year Evaluation of Warden Anthony Hedgpeth California Penal Code section 6126(a)(2) requires the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) to audit each warden of an institution one year after his or her appointment. To satisfy this requirement, we evaluated Warden Hedgpeth’s performance at Salinas Valley State Prison (SVSP) since his appointment. Background of Warden Hedgpeth Warden Hedgpeth has over 29 years of correctional experience at CDCR. He began his career in May 1981 as a correctional officer at the Correctional Training Facility (CTF) and worked his way through the correctional ranks at various institutions. In June 2004, he promoted to Associate Warden at SVSP, and in February 2006, he promoted to Chief Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 1 Deputy Warden at the same institution. In January 2007, he was selected as acting warden at Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP), and in August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger appointed him warden of that institution. In December 2008, he transferred to SVSP as acting warden, and in October 2009, the Governor appointed him warden of SVSP. Institution Overview Salinas Valley State Prison opened on May 1, 1996. The prison has more than 1,600 employees and had an operating budget of $183 million (including medical, dental, and mental health services) in fiscal year 2009-10. Although SVSP was designed to house 2,388 innmates, as of December 1, 2010, it housed 3,734 male inmates or 156% of design capacity. Aerial view of Salinas Valley State Prison. Photo: CDCR Inmate Housing The mission of SVSP is to provide long-term housing and services for minimum and maximum custody inmates. SVSP was constructed to meet the access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and houses inmates who meet the criteria of the Department’s Disability Placement Program (DPP). SVSP has a 100-cell stand-alone Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU) and a Correctional Treatment Center (CTC) where inmates receive professionally supervised health care. SVSP also provides mental health services through its • Correctional Clinical Case Management System (CCCMS), • Enhanced Outpatient Program (EOP), and • Mental Health Crisis Bed (MHCB) services. Within its secured perimeter, SVSP also provides an inpatient psychiatric program through the Department of Mental Health (DMH). This program is called the Salinas Valley Psychiatric Program (SVPP). The SVPP is an intermediate care inpatient psychiatric program servicing primarily Level IV high security inmates who have a major mental disorder that has diminished their ability to function within the prison environment. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 2 Rehabilitation Programs Productivity and self improvement opportunities are provided for inmates through academic classes, work programs, and religious and self-help groups. SVSP offers academic classes through its New Academic Education Models (NAEM). The NAEM provide inmates reading skills training, assessments, and the opportunity to earn time credits for educational achievement. High school diploma opportunities are also offered for inmates with a minimum amount of credits to earn. In addition, SVSP is implementing an institution-wide tutor program where teachers train the inmate tutors on each facility. Work programs for inmates include office support, janitorial services, and kitchen services. Self help groups include Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Veterans groups, and Alternatives to Violence. Religious services are also offered on all facilities at the institution. Budget and Staffing For fiscal year 2009-10, SVSP’s budget for institution and education operations was $125 million plus $58 million for medical, dental and mental health operations. The institution has 1,623 budgeted positions, of which 1,010 (or 62 percent) are custody positions. The table below compares SVSP’s budgeted and filled positions as of June 30, 2010. Overall, the institution filled 92 percent of its total budgeted positions. Table 1: Staffing Levels at Salinas Valley State Prison Position Filled Positions Budgeted Positions Percent Filled Custody 946 1,010 94% Education 19 24 79% Medical 192 225 85% Support 189 206 92% Trades 137 142 96% Management 14 16 88% Total 1,497 1,623 92% Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology To fulfill our objective of assessing the warden’s performance, we employed a three-part approach. First, surveys were used to solicit opinions and comments from employees, department management team members, and other stakeholders. Next, operational data maintained by the department was analyzed by comparing it with the averages for like institutions1 and all institutions statewide. In addition, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by the department or other external agencies. Finally, we visited the institution, interviewed various employees and representatives from the Inmate Advisory Council, 1Institutions with a similar mission include: California Correctional Institution, Kern Valley State Prison, High Desert State Prison, Pelican Bay State Prison, California State Prison - Corcoran, and California State Prison – Sacramento. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 3 and followed up on noteworthy concerns identified from the surveys, operational data, or reports. To understand how the staff members and other stakeholders view the warden’s performance, we sent surveys to three distinct groups: department and SVSP managers, SVSP employees, and key stakeholders outside the department. For the employee survey, we randomly selected 229 of the institution’s employees and sent them a questionnaire and requested an anonymous response. The survey provides information about employees’ perceptions of the warden’s overall performance plus information about specific operational areas at the prison—Safety and Security, Inmate Programming, Business Operations, and Employee-Management Relations. To simplify the analysis of the survey results, we requested respondents to broadly classify their job positions. From this information, survey respondents were grouped into three employment categories: Custody; Health Care; and Other (which includes employees in education, plant operations, administration, and clerical positions.) Then, to identify strong trends or patterns, we classified responses to our questions as either positive or negative. For example, if the respondent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with a question, we classified it as positive, and if the respondent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with a question, we classified it as negative. If employees responded that they were “neutral” or responded “unknown,” we excluded their passive response. Our inspectors also analyzed operational data maintained by the department (called CompStat – comparative statistics) and analyzed the responses to the surveys. We also reviewed relevant reports related to the institution’s operations prepared by the department or external agencies. From these efforts, strong trends or patterns were identified – either negative or positive – or other issues that helped us identify topics for further review and evaluation during our on-site visit to SVSP. During our visit to SVSP, we gained insight into the warden’s work environment. We interviewed certain key employees and other randomly selected employees, using information gathered from our analysis of statistical information and from employee surveys to identify potential issues for review. Our interviews involved employees in various operational areas throughout the prison, including: Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 4 (cid:1) Armory (cid:1) Inmate case records (cid:1) Business services (cid:1) In-service training (cid:1) Educational programs (cid:1) Investigative services (cid:1) Employee/labor relations (cid:1) Litigation (cid:1) Food services (cid:1) Mental health (cid:1) Health care (cid:1) Personnel assignment (cid:1) Housing units (cid:1) Plant operations (cid:1) Human resources (cid:1) Receiving and release (cid:1) Information technology (cid:1) Use-of-force review (cid:1) Inmate appeals (cid:1) Warehouse management (cid:1) Inmate assignments We performed a site visit the week of October 25, 2010, and interviewed 57 individuals throughout the prison to describe and rate the warden’s performance. These individuals included custody employees, executive management, health care professionals, and two inmate representatives from the Inmate Advisory Council. Review Results We found that most responding stakeholders, including CDCR management, institutional managers, and employees believe the warden is doing a very good to outstanding job. The Inmate Advisory Council representatives we interviewed had no concerns with the warden or inmate relations. In the four categories of safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee-management relations, most respondents provided positive answers. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 5 Category 1: Safety and Security The department’s primary mission is Table 2: Safety and Security – Employee Survey Results to enhance public safety through safe Respondents Positive Negative and secure incarceration of offenders. Custody 72% 28% Health Care 83% 17% The importance of safety and security Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 90% 10% is embodied in the department’s Weighted Average 82% 18% Source: OIG survey of SVSP employees. See Appendix for details. requirement that custodial security and the safety of staff, inmates, and the public must take precedence over all other considerations in the operation of all the department’s programs and activities. As shown in Table 2 above, 82 percent of the prison employees who answered our survey gave a positive rating regarding the safety and security of the institution. After considering the interviews in conjunction with comments from the warden, results from our employee survey, and departmental data on segregation housing and use of force incidents, we noted three areas for discussion: Use of Force, Administrative Segregation Unit, and Overall Safety and Security. Use of Force The number of incidents where force is necessary to subdue an attacker, overcome resistance, effect custody, or gain compliance with a lawful order is a measure of inmate behavior and the institution’s ability to safely incarcerate inmates. To assess SVSP’s use of force, we reviewed the department’s use of force data during the 13-month period from June 2009 through June 2010. As shown in Chart 1, documented use of force was higher at SVSP than both the statewide average and other similar institutions. During our on-site interviews, the use of force coordinator and the warden explained that SVSP’s use of force may be higher than other similar institutions and statewide averages because of its many mental health inmates. As of June 2010, SVSP had the seventh highest statewide number of EOP inmates at 338. In fact, the use-of-force coordinator estimated that 65-70 percent of the use-of-force incidents involve mentally disordered inmates. The warden commented that minor assaults make the number very high, primarily because of the DMH inmates. We reviewed the SVSP Daily Reports for the June 2009 through June 2010 time period and it appeared the use-of-force incidents2 involved reasonable force. 2 CDCR’s June 2009 analysis of use of force (UOF) incidents involving participants in the mental health (MH) delivery system concluded that institutions with higher EOP populations experienced greater MH, UOF incidents. Institutions with higher level IV MH populations experienced higher MH, UOF incidents. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 6 Chart 1: Documented Use of Force 16.0 14.0 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 O ct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 D e c- 0 9 J a n- 1 0 F e b- 1 0 M ar- 1 0 A pr- 1 0 M a y- 1 0 J u n- 1 0 Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 7 setamnI 000,1 reP rebmuN SVSP Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Administrative Segregation Unit Inmates that are disruptive to other inmates or victimized by other inmates are temporarily segregated from the inmate population by being placed in housing areas known as Administrative Segregation Units (ASU) while employees investigate the level of threat to the prison or inmate. ASU housing areas are more expensive to operate than general population housing units because they have increased security requirements. Effectively managing the time it takes the prison to investigate the threat level can significantly reduce the average length of stay, and in turn, reduce the cost of housing inmates in ASU. As a result, the average length of stay in ASU is both an indicator of how well a prison manages its resources and of how well it protects inmates’ due process rights. Our initial review of the department’s data in Chart 2 revealed that the average ASU length of stay at SVSP was slightly longer than the statewide averages but shorter than the similar mission averages. When we asked the warden and management about this issue, we heard two main reasons. • First, the warden stated, “Salinas Valley State Prison is one of seven high security and transitional housing institutions. The high security inmate population is more violent thus their stay in an administrative segregation unit (ASU) is more lengthy. This being said, my management team keeps a close eye on our ASU case load, reviewing them periodically to ensure ASU retention is warranted.” • Second, a Correctional Counselor II supervisor stated that correctional counselors track and monitor the Distributed Data Processing System (DDPS) and the Inmate Classification Information System (ICIS) to ensure that all paperwork is completed in a timely manner so inmates have their Inmate Classification Committee (ICC) hearing when required. Chart 2: Average Length of Stay in Administative Segregation Housing 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 O ct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 D e c- 0 9 J a n- 1 0 F e b- 1 0 M ar- 1 0 A pr- 1 0 M a y- 1 0 J u n- 1 0 Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 8 syaD SVSP Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Overall Safety and Security Many employees said they feel secure or had no issues with Warden Hedgpeth and his policies regarding safety and security even though they work at a maximum security prison. As previously mentioned, 82 percent of all survey respondents gave favorable responses with regard to Safety and Security. One employee provided the following example to illustrate the warden’s attempts to maintain security at the institution. During Operation Disconnect, a security measure designed to prevent contraband from entering the institution, security staff searched all staff entering the institution. The employee said they thoroughly searched her purse and had her empty her pockets. However, some employees were concerned with the reduced staffing, also known as rolling blackouts. This occurs when custody personnel are redirected within the institution to cover vacancies rather than hiring additional staff or incurring overtime. A lieutenant said you are expected to do more with less. On any given day, each yard has reduced staffing due to the 3 percent staff redirection. Another staff member said safety and security concerns result from the rolling blackouts, furlough days, and redirection plans. He said rolling blackouts cause staff to travel further to assist other staff. Another employee said the 3 percent reduction hampers alarm response time. However, the warden responded that the 3 percent reduction has not hampered alarm response time because those officers designated as emergency responders are not, and have never been redirected. As mentioned previously, to prevent the introduction of contraband into the institution, the department, in conjunction with the institution, implemented Operation Disconnect. Selected department employees stop and search all people entering controlled areas of the institution while looking for cell phones, drugs, and other contraband. When asked about the cell phone and contraband issues, the warden stated their process is not unique. They Figure 1 – Operation Disconnect at SVSP. conduct Operation Disconnect at least once Photo: OIG, October 2010 a month. As another example of the warden’s proactive attempts to maintain institution security, he had plant operations personnel install an unused surveillance camera system in the visiting areas. All activity is recorded and a CD copy is retained for use in court when necessary to prosecute offenders. In addition, the warden created a committee to address contraband issues. Category 2: Inmate Programming Research shows that inmate Table 3: Inmate Programming – Employee Survey Results programs can reduce the likelihood Respondents Positive Negative Custody 56% 44% that offenders will commit new Health Care 56% 44% crimes and return to prison. In fact, Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 69% 31% Weighted Average 61% 39% a 2006 Washington State Institute Source: OIG survey of SVSP employees. See Appendix for details. for Public Policy study of adult basic and vocational education programs found that such programs reduce inmate recidivism by an average of 5.1 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively.3 The department recognizes these benefits and provides academic and vocational training and a number of self-help and self improvement services. An added benefit is that programming provides inmates a more structured day and less idle time. As a general rule, inmates with a structured day tend to be easier to manage. As a result, the institution’s safety and security can be affected by the amount of available inmate programming. Overall, as shown in Table 3 above, 61 percent of all respondents gave favorable ratings to questions related to inmate programming. Analysis of the information gathered from departmental statistics, employee survey results, and employee interviews, revealed three areas for more detailed comment: Inmate Program Attendance, Programming Accomplishments and Custody/Mental Health Relationship. 3 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not,” January 2006. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 9 Inmate Program Attendance The department establishes the amount of time that assigned inmates must attend academic and vocational training classes each day. As a result, each institution can be evaluated as to how effectively it complies with school-day attendance requirements because administrators must track inmate class absences. The department refers to absences caused by circumstances beyond the inmate’s control as “S-time.” Such absences may result from security-related needs such as lockdowns, modified programming, investigations, and inmate medical appointments. Education-related absences, such as teachers calling in sick also contribute to S-time. Institutions with high or increasing patterns of S-time indicate that prison management may be ineffectively using their academic and vocational programs. Our analysis of survey responses, interviews and department data in Chart 3 found the average S-time at SVSP was well above both the statewide and mission specific averages. When we inquired about the high S-time, the education principal noted his employees were misclassifying X-time (the amount of time an inmate attends the classroom in which they are assigned) as S-time. In addition, some staff were not using the 72 hour lockdown procedure (first 72 hours of lockdown is considered S-time). Thus, while SVSP may have had the same amount of lockdowns or modified programs as other institutions, on paper it would look as though other institutions were “programming better” than SVSP. Also, the principal stated the spike in S-time in February 2010 was due to starting the process of converting the Adult Basic Education (ABE) program to the New Academic Education Model (NAEM). Additionally, the education principal told us that SVSP has a large number of lockdowns and that various ethnic groups cannot be programmed together. The warden concurred with this assessment regarding difficulties with certain ethnic groups programming together. Nevertheless, a custody employee told us that the warden’s number one goal is to keep the inmates busy, “the busier the better.” Employees we interviewed confirmed that the warden is trying to program inmates as much as possible while also coping with the current budget climate and lack of funds. Some of their comments regarding programming include: “As much as possible with what is available to them.” “With what they have in the budget.” “Offer the inmates as much programming as we can and dealing with the limits that we have.” “Within funding levels.” “If there is money to do something.” Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 10 Chart 3: Percent of Time Inmates Did Not Attend Class (S-Time) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 O ct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 D e c- 0 9 J a n- 1 0 F e b- 1 0 M ar- 1 0 A pr- 1 0 M a y- 1 0 J u n- 1 0 Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 11 egatnecreP SVSP Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Programming Accomplishments To gain a further understanding of inmate programming opportunities, we interviewed the education principal. He said just last year in E facility, SVSP had the largest graduation class ever (Figure 2). Twenty-four (24) Level 1 minimum support facility (MSF) inmates received General Educational Development (GED) certificates. As noted in CDCR’s press release in September 2010, the warden said “By mastering educational basics, these graduates are equipping themselves with the tools they need Figure 2 – Inmates receiving their GED certificates at to succeed when they are released SVSP. Photo: CDCR and turn away from a life of crime.” The principal said “We are proud of these graduates for their enthusiasm and motivation to complete their educational requirements and of the academic staff who have encouraged them on this path to a positive future.” A graduating inmate stated “This GED gave me dignity and will help me further my education and chances for a good job when I leave prison. Other inmates and staff look at me differently since I took and passed this exam. I have a sense of accomplishment in the correctional environment. I also am appreciative that I can get six weeks off my sentence for completing and passing this exam.” Attesting to the warden’s commitment to inmate education, an academic teacher told us that the warden attends ceremonies in his classroom. He said he has seen this warden more in his classroom or at ceremonies than any other warden in any other institution that he has worked. In early 2010 SVSP implemented New Academic Education Models (NAEM). These models have 11 NAEM classrooms and provide inmates reading skills training, assessments, and the opportunity to gain credit earnings for educational achievement. The NAEM’s use inmate tutors to assist other inmates in their academic pursuits. On October 28, 2010, SVSP’s education department held a tutor recognition ceremony for 46 new inmate tutors from facility A. As noted in SVSP’s draft press release which was submitted to CDCR Headquarters in October 2010, one NAEM coordinator stated “We are really pleased with the response of tutors from facility A. We look forward to working with them and making this program successful.” Another fellow NAEM coordinator added “This is an ideal program and meets the needs of the inmates who want to improve their academic skills to get their GED.” The education principle said “the tutor program at the facility A is planned to be replicated on each facility at SVSP” and “the staff and inmates on the facility A have supported this program through the training and we look forward to full implementation.” A senior inmate tutor stated “the tutor program for me is positive because it helps me to help others when the vast majority of my life has been the opposite.” Custody/Mental Health Relationship The warden commented that one of his biggest challenges was resolving the poor collaboration between mental health and custody staff that was adversely impacting the mental health treatment of inmates. When he arrived at SVSP, he had to build a bridge between custody and mental health staff. This required him to replace some of his custody personnel in the mental health housing units. In turn, the Department of Mental Health (DMH) replaced some of its staff. These staffing changes allowed the new people to work better together. For example, mental health staff just completed specialized training with custody staff that required everyone to work together. In addition, as mandated by the Coleman lawsuit, the warden meets monthly with all mental health and custody staff to discuss current issues. The warden said that if the mandate ends, he will continue to conduct the meetings. He continues to receive compliments from the mental health and custody staff that they get along great. Many employees commented about the custody/mental health relationship. Some of their comments included: “Warden is trying to promote dialogue between mental health and custody staff.” Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 12 “Warden set up monthly meetings with all staff associated with mental health programs. He is trying to promote good relationships.” At least four employees stated the warden’s greatest accomplishment since his appointment involved the custody/mental health relationship. In part, they stated: • Warden helped manage the relationship between mental health and custody. He redirected officers that were not getting along with mental health staff. This helped set a good tone. • Mental health staff and custody staff relations have improved. Category 3: Business Operations An institution’s business operations Table 4: Business Operations – Employee Survey Results Respondents Positive Negative include budget planning and Custody 61% 39% control, personnel administration, Health Care 62% 38% Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 65% 35% accounting and procurement Weighted Average 63% 37% services, employee training and Source: OIG survey of SVSP employees. See Appendix for details. development, and facility maintenance and operations. It is important for the warden to be knowledgeable in these areas to effectively perform his duties. As shown in Table 4, 63 percent of the prison employees had positive responses about the institution’s business operations. Analyzing the information gathered from the department’s data, employee survey responses, and employee interviews uncovered four areas we discussed with the warden and other management team members: Overtime Usage, Budget and Staffing, Plant Operations and Maintenance, and Proposed 12-Hour Shift Schedule. Overtime Usage The control of overtime is one indicator of a warden’s ability to manage an institution’s overall operations because it requires the warden to ensure that good budgeting, planning, and personnel administration practices are in place. To assess SVSP’s overtime usage, we compared its overtime statistics to both the statewide average for all prisons, as well as the average for the other prisons with a similar high security mission. As displayed in Chart 4, overtime is high during the months June 2009 through November 2009 and January 2010 as compared to statewide and mission specific institutions. However, the chart also shows improvement in overtime as SVSP was below the statewide and mission specific for the last five months we reviewed. This is an indication that the warden is actively dealing with overtime issues. In fact, the warden told us that overtime has decreased because of the rolling blackouts or redirection of staff as discussed in the safety and security section of this report, and the sick leave management program. The sick leave management program was implemented in 2008 and includes management’s review of employees’ sick leave usage. For those employees whose sick leave usage is deemed excessive, the warden or his designees provide counseling to the employee and document their actions in the employee’s personnel file. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 13 The warden also discusses general sick leave usage issues with employees in the “warden’s rap.” “Warden’s rap” occurs in block training as the warden answers employee questions on issues that may be concerning them. Chart 4: Overtime 28 24 20 16 12 8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 J u n- 0 J ul- 0 A u g- 0 S e p- 0 O ct- 0 N o v- 0 D e c- 0 J a n- 1 F e b- 1 M ar- 1 A pr- 1 M a y- 1 J u n- 1 Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 14 eeyolpmE reP sruoH egarevA SVSP Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Budget and Staffing During surveys and interviews, state budget concerns surfaced as an issue at SVSP. Specifically, SVSP employees were very concerned about the state budget crisis and the employee furlough program. The warden said that budget cuts are impacting the programs because he has to redirect employees within the institution to deal with problems as they arise. Yet, even with the staffing shortages, he believes the institution still continues to adequately function. He said the only areas not impacted by the redirection of employees are medical, dental, and mental health. Plant Operations and Maintenance Seventy-three percent of employees responding to our survey feel favorably about plant operations and its ability to meet their needs. As we assessed plant operations and maintenance issues during our fieldwork, many SVSP employees told us that plant operations were the same or better since the warden was appointed. We asked the correctional plant manager how SVSP prioritizes projects. He said fire, life, safety, health and the American Disability Act/Disability Placement Program (ADA/ DPP) repairs are first priority. Next, is preventive maintenance, and then corrective maintenance. Unfortunately, due to the lack of staffing, corrective maintenance repairs usually come before preventive maintenance, even though SVSP Operational Procedure 48 states otherwise. He further stated that budget cuts have affected their ability to have replacement parts on hand to make repairs, and the hiring freeze has limited their ability to fill vacant positions. Nevertheless, they have been able to keep the institution running. As an example, the correctional plant manager and the warden commented that the fire sprinkler system on facilities C and D were in Figure 3 – Before Conversion to Wet System. very poor condition (Figures 3, 4, and 5). As Photo: CDCR noted in a SVSP’s June 2010 memo requesting to utilize emergency special repair funding, the warden stated that the existing dry sprinkler system installed during the original construction of the prison in 1996 was an inherent safety threat due to an inadequate design that allowed water and moisture to remain within the pipe. The water and moisture led to the corrosion of the majority of fire sprinkler system piping that delivers fire protection to the housing units. The warden stated this was a major health and Figure 4 – Results of a Dry-Pipe Fire safety problem and he submitted a request to Sprinkler System. Photo: CDCR CDCR headquarters for emergency special repair funding to correct this issue. He said he had constant communications with CDCR and received approval and funding to retrofit the buildings over the next three years. Repairs have already started on facilities C and D. The cost for repairs is approximately $789,000 per facility. The entire retrofit project is expected to cost approximately $1.6 million. The correctional plant manager stated the warden was helpful in advocating for this issue with CDCR management and obtaining approval Figure 5 – After Conversion to Wet System. for the special funding. Photo: CDCR Proposed 12-hour shift schedule Many employees expressed concerns about the proposed 12-hour-shift schedule that is being considered by the department for implementation at SVSP. Instead of working 8- Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 15 hour shifts, employees will be required to work 12 hours per shift. Some said it was the biggest problem that the warden has not addressed. In part, employees stated: • Warden acted like he didn’t know anything about it. • They wanted more information on the 12-hour-day plan. • They were unclear whether the change was going to happen. • No one wants to talk about the 12-hour shifts and how they are going to work. When we spoke to the warden about these concerns, he said he told his employees as much as he could about the proposed 12-hour-shift schedule. Category 4: Employee-Management Relations “Successful leaders invite Table 5: Employee-Management Relations – Employee Survey Results Respondents Positive Negative communication, listen well, Custody 61% 39% and prove themselves Health Care 79% 21% Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 77% 23% trustworthy by exhibiting Weighted Average 72% 28% rational, caring, and Source: OIG survey of SVSP employees. See Appendix for details. predictable behavior in their interpersonal relationships.”4 The warden’s ability to communicate plays an important role in employee relations and is vital in implementing the department’s vision and mission at the institution level. Not only must the warden interact with employees at all levels and communicate instructions and directions clearly and effectively, but the warden must also communicate effectively with departmental headquarters, as well as the surrounding community. As shown in Table 5 above, 72 percent of the prison employees had positive opinions about various areas related to employee-management relations. Although the opinions of employees and other stakeholders provide one measure of the warden’s employee- management relations, another measure can be found in the number of grievances filed by the institution’s employees. Analysis of employees’ responses to our surveys, interviews with the warden’s management team and other employees, and statistics on employee grievances identified four topics for further consideration: Institutional Communication, Employee Grievances, Survey and Interview Comments and Recreational Vehicle/Trailer/Motorhome Parking (RV’s). Institutional Communication Seventy two percent of the employee survey respondents gave Warden Hedgpeth an overall positive rating in regard to employee-management relations. Many interviewees stated the warden is constantly out on the yard, walking and talking with staff. Other interviewees said the warden has an open door policy, is a hands-on warden, acknowledges you, respects you, and is accessible. One associate warden said the warden’s door is always open and he is always walking and talking with staff. Another associate warden said he also keeps staff informed through memos, the “warden’s rap,” 4 Correctional Leadership Competencies for the 21st Century, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (December 2006). Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 16 and block training. One employee was so positive about the warden that she said she passed up a promotional opportunity to stay in the warden’s office. In contrast to the many positive comments about the warden, there were some survey and interview responses from dissatisfied employees. In part, they stated: • I have noticed he doesn’t listen to line staff and even some supervisors. He needs to start listening and stop micromanaging because it has and is breaking down morale. • Open communication issues. Disparate (unequal) treatment of employees. Employee disciplinary matrix is not applied equally. • There are no functioning systems in this facility – communication is very poor… Although these comments were negative, the number of employees with this viewpoint were in the minority. Employee Grievances All employees have the right to express their grievances through an established departmental procedure. The employee grievance process is one way employees have to file complaints against the employee investigation and discipline process. The grievance process can also be used to file complaints regarding general work place disputes. When we reviewed the grievance statistics in Chart 5, we noticed that grievance levels during October 2009 were significantly higher than the statewide and mission specific institutions. We asked the labor relations officer to explain why grievances were so high during October 2009. She commented that the Governor and Legislature eliminated the Columbus Day Holiday. Employees filed hundreds of grievances over this issue in October 2009. Other than the Columbus Day spike, SVSP grievances were below both the statewide average and mission specific average for most of the time period of June 2009 through June 2010. In six of these months, no grievances were filed at SVSP. This would suggest that employee morale is relatively stable at SVSP. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 17 Chart 5: Employee Grievances 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 J u n- 0 J ul- 0 A u g- 0 S e p- 0 O ct- 0 N o v- 0 D e c- 0 J a n- 1 F e b- 1 M ar- 1 A pr- 1 M a y- 1 J u n- 1 Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 18 seeyolpmE 000,1 rep rebmuN SVSP Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending June 30, 2010, Salinas Valley State Prison. Unaudited data. Survey and Interview Comments Employees commented mostly about the warden walking about the institution and communicating with employees one on one. One survey respondent said that “Warden Hedgpeth is a role model, leader, and friend to his staff. He has proven to me to be among the best individuals I have worked for in my career of nearly 24 years.” An interviewee said the warden really cares about his staff and his job as leader of the institution and is the interviewee’s favorite warden. Warden Hedgpeth is a real person. He makes you feel inspired. Another said “Have worked with seven wardens in the last 12 years. Tony stands above them.” In addition, department officials Table 6: Rating of Warden’s Management Skills and Qualities and SVSP managers rated Category Rating Hedgpeth favorably on his Personal Characteristics/Traits Outstanding management skills and qualities. Relationships with Others Very Good Leadership Very Good We surveyed four department Communication Outstanding officials and 16 SVSP managers Decision Making Outstanding and asked them to consider the Organization/Planning Outstanding Source: OIG survey of CDCR and SVSP management. warden’s performance in six management skills and qualities and rate his performance as either unacceptable, improvement needed, satisfactory, very good, or outstanding. As shown in Table 6, the survey respondents indicated that Warden Hedgpeth is performing at an outstanding level in most management categories. The results of this survey are consistent with the many comments we received from employees during our site visit. Recreational Vehicle/Trailer/Motorhome Parking (RV’s) In 2004, SVSP started allowing employees to park recreational vehicles (RV’s) on the prison grounds directly northeast of the institution. The public information officer told us this was permitted to help reduce the high number of employee vacancies at the prison. As noted in SVSP’s RV memo from warden Hedgpeth issued to staff September 2010, the RV parking provided temporary accommodations for employees that were experiencing difficulty in obtaining affordable housing in Monterey County (Figures 6, and 7). The maximum number of RV’s allowed at the prison site was twenty Figure 6 – SVSP RV Park. four (24). The memo states some staff used Photo: OIG, October 2010 this temporary accommodation as a permanent means of housing or allowed other staff to use their units. After some in- depth reviews and inspections by SVSP and the State Fire Marshall, the warden decided to discontinue allowing staff to park their RV’s on prison grounds. His decision was made in the interest of fire and life safety. Employees were to remove their RV’s from prison grounds no later than October 31, 2010. Some employees were distressed over the closure of the RV park. The warden reevaluated his decision and will reopen the RV park with CDCR headquarters support Figure 7 – SVSP RV Park. Photo: OIG, October 2010 and more restrictive guidelines regarding its usage. These new guidelines have addressed the fire and life safety issues that concerned the State Fire Marshall. Overall Summary The employee survey asked respondents to rate the warden’s overall performance from outstanding to unacceptable. Of the 73 respondents that provided either a positive or negative opinion, 78 percent rated the warden either “very good” or “outstanding.” The Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 19 remaining 22 percent rated the warden as either “improvement needed” or “unacceptable.” In addition to our review of the four key operational areas discussed in this report (safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee-management relations), our assessment of the warden’s performance also included an overall performance rating. We based the rating on survey responses from department officials, SVSP managers, and from interviews we conducted with SVSP employees during our site visit. As shown in Chart 6 below, those individuals rated Warden Hedgpeth’s overall performance between “very good” and “outstanding.” Chart 6: Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 20 elbatpeccanU yrotcafsitaS dooG yreV gnidnatstuO WARDEN OVERALL JOB PERFORMANCE Respondents 1 3 4 5 CDCR Executive 4 Responses Management Survey Institutional Management 15 Reponses Survey Staff Interviews 54 Responses tnemevorpmI dedeeN 2 4.75 4.47 4.11 Source: OIG surveys and interviews of CDCR and SVSP employees. Although only four people from the department’s executive management team responded to our inquiries regarding the warden’s overall performance, all respondents indicated that the warden was doing a “very good” to “outstanding” job. In addition, of the 15 persons responding to our institutional management survey, most respondents gave the warden a rating of “very good” to “outstanding.” Finally, of the 54 interviews we conducted with employees, the average warden rating was between “very good” and “outstanding.” In conclusion, according to the institution’s employees, and CDCR management, Warden Hedgpeth is doing a “very good” to “outstanding” job at managing the prison’s operations which include safety and security, inmate programming, business operations and employee-management relations. More importantly, a majority of interviewees responding to our questions about the warden’s effect on operations said that SVSP’s operations have improved since Hedgpeth took over the institution. Appendix Employee Survey Results To prepare for the site visit of SVSP, we randomly selected 229 of the institution’s employees and sent them a survey. The survey process provides information about employees’ perceptions of the warden’s overall performance plus information about specific operational areas at the prison—Safety and Security, Inmate Programming, Business Operations, and Employee-Management Relations. Fifty-seven SVSP employees responded to our survey―a 25 percent response rate. To simplify the analysis of the survey results, we grouped survey respondents by category and identified response trends. We did not, however, ask for the employee’s name as we wanted their responses to be anonymous. Specifically, we grouped the respondents into three employment categories: Custody, Health Care, and Other (which include employees in education, plant operations, administration, and clerical positions.) Then, to identify strong trends or patterns, we classified the responses to questions as either positive or negative. For example, if the respondent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the question, we classified it as positive. If the respondent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with the question, we classified it as negative. Passive responses were not included. If employees responded that they were “neutral” or responded “unknown,” we excluded their response. Results are reported in the table on the following page. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 21 Appendix: Compilation of Institutional Employee Survey Responses - Salinas Valley State Prison Respondents' Employment Category Total Responses Custody Health Care Other Operational Area/Question Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos (%) Neg (%) Safety and Security 1. The institution is meeting its safety and security mission. 12 6 13 3 22 0 47 84% 9 16% 2. Employees effectively respond to emergencies. 18 0 16 0 20 0 54 100% 0 0% 3. You are issued or have access to all safety equipment you need. 15 3 11 5 17 2 43 81% 10 19% 4. You receive all required safety training. 18 0 15 1 21 1 54 96% 2 4% 5. The CDC-115 inmate disciplinary process modifies inmate misbehavior. 4 12 10 5 13 3 27 57% 20 43% 6. The CDC-602 inmate appeal process provides inmates an effective method for airing 14 3 12 3 17 4 43 81% 10 19% their grievances. 7. Safety and Security has improved since the warden's appointment. 3 9 11 1 13 3 27 68% 13 33% Totals 84 33 88 18 123 13 295 64 Percent of Responses by Category 72% 28% 83% 17% 90% 10% 82% 18% Inmate Programming 8. The institution is meeting its inmate programming mission. 13 3 7 6 11 3 31 72% 12 28% 9. The inmate assignment process places the right inmate into the right rehabilitative 7 6 7 5 11 3 25 64% 14 36% program. 10.Inmate programming is adequate for the number of inmates at the institution who 8 6 6 6 9 7 23 55% 19 45% would benefit from the education or work experience. 11.Inmate programming has improved since the warden's appointment. 2 9 7 4 9 5 18 50% 18 50% Totals 30 24 27 21 40 18 97 63 Percent of Responses by Category 56% 44% 56% 44% 69% 31% 61% 39% Business Operations 12.Plant operations employees are able to meet maintenance and repair needs in your 13 5 11 5 17 5 41 73% 15 27% assigned area. 13.Your assigned area has enough employees to get all of the required work done. 9 8 9 6 10 12 28 52% 26 48% 14.Your work area operates without waste of resources. 13 5 8 7 17 5 38 69% 17 31% 15.Business operations have improved since the warden's appointment. 3 6 8 4 10 7 21 55% 17 45% Totals 38 24 36 22 54 29 128 75 Percent of Responses by Category 61% 39% 62% 38% 65% 35% 63% 37% Employee-Management Relations 16.The warden is knowledgeable about the day to day operations in your work area. 8 4 10 3 12 5 30 71% 12 29% 17.The warden welcomes feedback, including criticism from employees. 7 5 12 1 15 3 34 79% 9 21% 18.The warden does not abuse his or her power or authority. 8 5 12 0 18 1 38 86% 6 14% 19.The warden works effectively with the local bargaining unit representatives. 2 7 7 0 8 3 17 63% 10 37% 20.The warden is ethical, professional, and motivated. 11 4 10 0 20 1 41 89% 5 11% 21.The warden is in control of the institution. 15 1 11 1 20 1 46 94% 3 6% 22.The management team keeps employees informed about relevant issues. 7 10 10 6 15 6 32 59% 22 41% 23.The employee investigation/disciplinary process is fair, effective, and timely. 10 4 6 8 10 7 26 58% 19 42% 24.The employee grievance process is responsive to employee complaints, is fair in its 7 4 8 6 8 8 23 56% 18 44% application, and does not result in retaliation. 25.Employee-management relations have improved since the warden's appointment. 5 8 9 1 7 5 21 60% 14 40% Totals 80 52 95 26 133 40 308 118 Percent of Responses by Category 61% 39% 79% 21% 77% 23% 72% 28% Overall Warden Rating 26.Considering all institutional challenges, how would you rate the warden's 8 7 11 1 17 2 36 78% 10 22% performance? Percent of Responses by Category 53% 47% 92% 8% 89% 11% 78% 22% Source: OIG, Institutional Employee Survey Results for SVSP. Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 22 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response Bureau of Audits Office of the Inspector General PAGE 23