Warden Ken Clark One-Year Audit, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison, Corcoran

CALIFORNIA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY AND STATE PRISON AT CORCORAN WARDEN KEN CLARK, ONE-YEAR AUDIT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2009 Contents Results in Brief ………………………………………………………………….1 One-Year Evaluation of Warden Ken Clark ………………………………….2 Background of Warden Clark ……………………………………...2 Institution Overview .………………………………………………….2 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ………………………………...4 Review Results ……………………………………………………….6 Category 1: Safety and Security …..………………………………6 Category 2: Inmate Programming .....……………………………10 Category 3: Business Operations .….…………………………12 Category 4: Employee-Management Relations ..………………14 Overall Summary ……………………………………………………17 Appendix – Employee Survey Responses ………………………………19 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response …21 Results in Brief Warden Ken Clark SATF FACTS Executive managers with the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Location: Corcoran, CA employees of the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) Opened: August 1997 all rate Warden Clark’s overall job performance favorably. An employee of the Acreage: 280 department for over 20 years, Clark became Inmate Population: 7,000 (approx.) SATF’s warden by gubernatorial appointment in August 2007. Designed Capacity: 3,424 inmates In order to evaluate Warden Clark’s Employees: 2,000 (approx.) performance, the Office of the Inspector Annual Budget: $243 million General (OIG) surveyed SATF employees, key stakeholders, and department executives; analyzed operational data compiled and maintained by the department; conducted interviews with SATF employees, including the warden; and toured the institution. We compiled our findings regarding the warden’s performance and categorized them into four areas: safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee- management relations. Overall, the warden’s managers and employees rated him between very good and outstanding. Most comments received were positive about Warden Clark’s overall performance and many of the individuals we contacted were confident in his abilities and complimentary of the way he does his job. However, some employees voiced criticism of Warden Clark’s administration of the employee disciplinary process, stating that discipline is unevenly applied, while others were concerned about what they perceived as his lack of visibility in the prison’s yards. Warden Ken Clark Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 1111 One-Year Evaluation of Warden Ken Clark California Penal Code section 6126(a)(2) requires the OIG to audit each warden of an institution one year after his or her appointment. To satisfy this requirement, we evaluated Warden Clark’s performance at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran (SATF) since his appointment in August 2007. Background of Warden Clark SATF’s current warden, Ken Clark, began his career with CDCR in 1983 as a correctional officer at the California Correctional Institution in Tehachapi, California. He left the department in 1985 to complete an undergraduate degree and reinstated with the department in July 1989 as a teacher. He eventually became a supervisor of correctional education programs at the California Correctional Institution. In July 2001, he transferred to the North Kern State Prison as a facility captain. He was promoted to an associate warden position at SATF in October 2002. During March 2004, he received a promotion to SATF’s chief deputy warden position and in January 2006, Clark was made acting warden. Governor Schwarzenegger appointed him warden of SATF on August 20, 2007. Institution Overview SATF opened on August 4, 1997, making it one of CDCR’s newest adult institutions. SATF is also one of the largest prisons in the western world with approximately 7,000 male inmates, 2,000 employees, and a fiscal year 2008-09 operating budget of approximately $243 million (including medical, dental, and mental health services). SATF’s population exceeds Substance Abuse Treatment Facility that of any of the department’s other 32 adult institutions. Although SATF was designed to house 3,424 innmates, as of March 11, 2009, it housed 6,951 inmates or 203 percent of its design capacity. In addition to its mission of providing custody for inmates remanded to the department, SATF includes an 1,878-bed substance abuse treatment program – one of the largest custody-based substance abuse treatment programs in the United States. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 2222 Inmate Housing and Health Services SATF consists of seven facilities (or “yards”) designated A through G, with the elongated grounds extending over a mile from east to west. The institution covers 280 acres inside a 2.7 mile perimeter. From east to west, the layout of the seven-facility institution is as follows: • Facility A. This facility houses approximately 1,000 Level II (low to medium security) “sensitive needs” inmates. Sensitive needs inmates must be separated from the general population for safety reasons because of the nature of their crimes, their status as gang dropouts, or other factors. A stand-alone administrative segregation unit is adjacent to Facility A.1 The unit has a 175- inmate capacity encompassing security levels II to IV. As of March 11, 2009, the unit held 150 inmates. • Facility B is a Level II general population yard for approximately 1,000 inmates. • Facility C houses up to 973 Level IV (maximum security) general population inmates. As of March 11, 2009, 953 inmates populated the facility which included 33 inmates assigned to the Behavior Management Unit. • Facility D is a Level IV sensitive needs yard for approximately 1,080 inmates. As of March 11, 2009, it held 1,079 inmates. • Facility E houses approximately 1,050 Level III (medium to high security) sensitive needs inmates. Facility E also includes a 100-cell administrative segregation unit which housed 133 inmates as of March 11, 2009. • Facilities F and G. Each of these facilities houses up to 939 Level II inmates enrolled in the substance abuse treatment program administered by Walden House, Inc., a private contractor. As of March 11, 2009, Facilities F and G housed 824 and 845 inmates, respectively. As one of the department’s newer prisons, SATF meets the access requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and is designated as a Disability Placement Program facility. Accordingly, the prison houses inmates who meet the department’s ADA criteria in order to ensure eligible inmates with designated disabilities will not be denied or excluded from participation in services or programs, or otherwise discriminated against. SATF houses the largest ADA inmate population of the department’s 33 institutions. In addition, a 43-bed correctional treatment center is centrally located on the institution grounds to provide medical care. 1 SATF temporarily places inmates who threaten the institution’s safety and security in administrative segregation units. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 3333 Rehabilitation Programs SATF offers various work, education, and self-help programs designed to increase inmates’ social awareness and personal responsibility. For example, the prison’s vocational opportunities include office services, janitorial services, graphic arts, dry cleaning, masonry, landscape and gardening, welding, electrical, auto body repair, and air conditioning and refrigeration repair. Inmates also work in the Prison Industry Authority’s (PIA) food and beverage packaging enterprise. SATF’s academic PIA Peanut Butter Mixing Vat offerings include adult basic education, General Educational Development, English as a second language, Re-Entry, Computer Assisted Instruction, high school/college programs, and distance learning. Finally self-help programs include religious services, Arts in Corrections, drug treatment/diversion, anger management and parenting classes, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous. Budget and Staffing For fiscal year 2008–09, SATF’s budget for institution and education operations is $180,033,501 plus $62,871,713 for medical, dental, and mental health services. SATF has 2,086 budgeted positions, including 1,300 custody staff positions (or 62 percent of the budgeted positions). Table 1 compares SATF’s budgeted and filled positions as of December 31, 2008. Overall, the institution filled 93 percent of its total budgeted positions. Table 1: Staffing Levels at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran Position Filled Positions Budgeted Positions Percent Filled Custody 1,228 1,300 94.5% Education 103 106 97.2% Medical 175 203 86.2% Support 229 254 90.2% Trades 193 203 95.1% Management 16 20 80% Total 1,944 2, 086 93.2% Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology To fulfill our objective of assessing the warden’s performance, we employed a three-part approach. First, we used surveys to solicit opinions and comments from employees, department management team members, and other stakeholders. Next, we analyzed operational data maintained by the department and reviewed relevant reports. Finally, we visited the institution and interviewed various employees and inmates 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 SATF managers, Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 4444 SATF employees, and key stakeholders outside the department. We randomly selected 269 of the institution’s employees and sent them a survey. The survey provides us with information about employees’ perception 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 Communication. To simplify our analysis of the survey results, we grouped the respondents 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 the responses to our questions as either positive or negative. For example, if the respondent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with our question, we classified it as positive; and if the respondent ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with our question, as negative. Our inspectors also analyzed operational data maintained by the department (called COMPSTAT – comparable statistics) and analyzed the responses from our surveys. We also reviewed relevant reports related to the institution’s operations prepared by the department or external agencies. From these efforts we identified strong trends or patterns – either negative or positive – or other issues to help us identify topics for further review and evaluation during our on-site visit to SATF. During our visit to SATF we gained insight into the environment where the warden must perform. We interviewed certain key employees and other randomly-selected employees, utilizing information gathered from our analysis of statistical information and from employee surveys to identify key topics. Our interviews involved employees in various operational areas throughout the prison, including: (cid:1) Business services (cid:1) Investigative services (cid:1) Educational programs (cid:1) Litigation (cid:1) Employee/labor relations (cid:1) Medical transportation (cid:1) Food services (cid:1) Personnel assignment (cid:1) Health care (cid:1) Plant operations (cid:1) Housing units (cid:1) Prison industry authority (cid:1) Human resources (cid:1) Substance abuse treatment (cid:1) Information technology (cid:1) Vocational programs (cid:1) Inmate case records (cid:1) Warehouse management (cid:1) In-service training During our site visit, we interviewed 44 individuals throughout the prison and had them describe and rate the warden’s performance. These individuals included custody employees, executive management team members, and education and health care professionals. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 5555 Review Results We found that, since Clark’s appointment, most responding stakeholders including CDCR management, institutional managers, and employees believe he is doing a very good to outstanding job. In the four categories of safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee-management relations, we received mostly positive responses. Category 1: Safety and Security The department’s mission is to Table 2: Safety and Security – Employee Survey Results enhance public safety through safe and Respondents Positive Negative Custody 73% 27% secure incarceration of offenders. The Health Care 77% 23% importance of safety and security is Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 81% 19% Weighted Average 76% 24% embodied in the department’s Source: OIG Employee Survey of SATF employees. See Appendix requirement that custodial security and for details. 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, seventy-six percent of the prison employees had positive opinions about the safety and security of the institution. During our review of the safety and security category, we heard mostly favorable opinions from the employees we interviewed during our field visit. However, 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 identified five areas for additional discussion: Equipment and Training, the Employee Disciplinary Process, the Warden’s Role in Security, Administrative Segregation, and Use of Force. Equipment and Training Our analysis of the survey responses (shown in Table 2 above) revealed that SATF’s safety and security operations received favorable opinions from employees at the institution. For example, of 104 responses to the statement, “You have been issued or have access to all of the safety equipment you need,” 94 responses (90 percent) were positive (“strongly agree” or “agree”) while only ten were negative (“strongly disagree” or “disagree”). Furthermore, responses to the statement, “You receive all mandatory training” yielded similarly strong positive results, with 97 positive responses (91 percent) and only 10 negative responses in the total 107 responses received. In total, as reflected in the table, 76 percent of the employees provided favorable opinions regarding SATF’s safety and security operations. Employee Disciplinary Process While Warden Clark received high marks in the area of safety and security, we found that some employees criticized the employee disciplinary process. Responses to the Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 6666 statement, “The employee investigation/disciplinary process works as intended (is appropriate and timely)” received mixed results, with custody employees taking a markedly different view from that held by non-custody employees. Overall, of the 62 responses we received, 31 responses were positive (50 percent) while 31 were negative (50 percent). Thirty-one of the 62 responses came from custody employees, of which 13 were positive (42 percent) and 18 were negative (58 percent). Non-custody employees held a generally more positive opinion, with 18 of 31 (58 percent) providing positive responses while the remaining 13 (42 percent) gave negative responses. In addition to our survey results, when we visited the prison, ten of the 44 employees we interviewed provided comments that expressed concerns that discipline is sometimes applied inconsistently. These employees told us either that they themselves had received an adverse action or knew of someone that received such an action during Warden Clark’s tenure. According to these employees, their misconduct (or that of their peers) did not warrant the discipline they received. These employees also believed that similarly-situated employees received disparate punishments for the same or similar offenses. In a meeting with Warden Clark, we discussed employees’ concerns that disciplinary sanctions were sometimes too harsh in comparison with the misconduct, or that discipline was sometimes meted out disparately. He said that while the matrix, a prescribed list of sanctions for administering discipline to employees, may still need some work, “we stick to the matrix tight and hard.” Employees expressing concerns about its administration, he said, are often not privy to complete information about mitigating or aggravating factors in particular cases, and draw conclusions based on incomplete knowledge. Warden Clark said that his administration is “painfully fair” in determining each employee’s discipline, and that he involves his executive staff in roundtable discussions prior to determining any course of disciplinary action against an employee. Warden Clark also mentioned that in early 2008, he initiated a series of quarterly meetings in each yard to discuss the disciplinary matrix with all supervisors (sergeant-level and above). He has had three such meetings in each yard and hopes to include line staff in future meetings. Notwithstanding the survey results and interview comments, we are not aware of any systemic issues regarding the application of the disciplinary process at SATF. Further, according to the department’s operations manual, “The Hiring Authority or designee is not required to impose an identical penalty in each case because there are a variety of factors which may influence the Hiring Authority to take stronger action in one case than it does in another . . . .” Thus, department policy clearly provides the warden with latitude in applying penalties on a case-by-case basis sometimes resulting in different penalties for the same type of misconduct. However, it appears that there may be an issue regarding some employees’ perception of the fairness of the disciplinary process. In order to maintain staff morale, Warden Clark should attempt to address this issue. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 7777 Warden’s Role in Security During our interviews 12 of 44 employees provided spontaneous comments praising the warden’s security practices. For example, several employees mentioned that Warden Clark was more security-conscious than the previous warden and provided specific examples of improvements Warden Clark implemented since his appointment, including reinforcing tool control policies, eliminating the cross coverage2 requirement, and ensuring that everyone who enters the institution has the appropriate identification cards and prior authorization. Other employees mentioned that Warden Clark conducts internal security audits regularly to improve security procedures. Finally, 21 of the 44 employees we interviewed provided spontaneous comments regarding Warden Clark’s proactive nature. For example, when we asked, “What would you say is the biggest problem that the warden has not addressed yet?,” most employees mentioned that they could not think of anything the warden had not yet addressed. One employee told us, “If something comes up that is not covered by a policy, then he implements something to cover it.” Other employees mentioned that Warden Clark has a knack for identifying and applying corrective action to areas that, if left unattended, could become a problem in the future. We discussed these observations with Warden Clark, who agreed that he likes to “catch things early” and work on solutions. Administrative Segregation SATF temporarily places inmates who threaten the institution’s safety and security in administrative segregation units. Inmates remain in administrative segregation until staff members assess the level of threat the inmates pose to the institution, conduct the required due process hearings, and determine where to relocate the inmates upon completion of their segregated housing term. While placing problem inmates in segregation units plays an important role in prison population management, it does so at increased costs per inmate. By conducting timely due process hearings and investigations, and by avoiding other delays in releasing inmates from segregated housing units, institutions can minimize an inmate’s length of stay and effectively save the department money while protecting the inmate’s due process rights and maintaining institutional safety. The department’s data for Average Length of Stay in Administrative Segregated Housing for the period December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008 (refer to Chart 1 below) shows that SATF’s average length of stay rates for that period were in line with the departmental average but in the most recent five months were below the averages for the department and for those institutions within the department’s “mission group” of prisons that house general population inmates classified as levels III and IV. Other institutions in this group are Calipatria State Prison, Centinela State Prison, California Men’s Colony, California Medical Facility, Mule Creek State Prison, and Pleasant Valley State Prison. 2 According to a SATF official, the previous cross-coverage policy required a supervisor from an adjacent yard to cover a supervisory absence in lieu of filling the absence. For example, if a G-Yard lieutenant called in sick, the cross-coverage policy required the F-Yard lieutenant to cover both the G and F-Yards for that day. Under the current policy, replacement supervisors fill such absences. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 8888 Chart 1: Average Length of Stay in Segregated Housing 120 100 80 60 40 20 - De c- 0 7 J a n- 0 8 F e b- 0 8 M ar- 0 8 A pr- 0 8 M ay- 0 8 J u n- 0 8 J ul- 0 8 A u g- 0 8 S e p- 0 8 Oct- 0 8 No v- 0 8 De c- 0 8 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 9999 syaD SATF Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. Use of Force The need to employ varying levels of force to control either individual inmates or multiple inmates involved in larger disturbances disrupts normal operations and affects an institution’s immediate safety and security. The frequency with which an institution must use force is an indicator of the inmate population’s willingness to comply with protocols designed to ensure the institution operates safely and securely over the long term. The department’s data for the period December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008 (refer to Chart 2) revealed that SATF’s documented use of force incidents fall well below the departmental average. In addition, SATF’s documented use of force incidents fall below that of other institutions with similar missions. Chart 2: Documented Use of Force 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 D e c- 0 7 J a n- 0 8 F e b- 0 8 M ar- 0 8 A pr- 0 8 M a y- 0 8 J u n- 0 8 J ul- 0 8 A u g- 0 8 S e p- 0 8 O ct- 0 8 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11110000 setamnI 000,1 reP rebmuN SATF Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. Category 2: Inmate Programming Research shows that inmate programs, Table 3: Inmate Programming – Employee Survey Results including academic and vocational, Respondents Positive Negative Custody 69% 31% can reduce the likelihood that Health Care 73% 27% offenders will commit new crimes and Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 70% 30% Weighted Average 70% 30% thus return to prison. In fact, a 2006 Source: OIG Employee Survey. See Appendix for details. Washington State Institute 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 provides academic and vocational training and a number of self-help and self improvement services—all intended to improve the likelihood that inmates will lead a productive life after release. Rehabilitation programming opportunities require inmates to have a more structured day and less idle time while in prison. As a general rule, inmates with a structured day tend to be easier to manage, while inmates with excessive idle time may get into trouble more often. As a result, the institution’s safety and security is ultimately affected by the amount of available inmate programming. Our analysis of the employee survey results (shown in Table 3 above) revealed that SATF employees did not report or identify unusual or 3 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not,” January 2006. noteworthy items in this area. As illustrated, 70% of the employees provided positive feedback regarding the warden in this area. In addition, the employees we interviewed did not raise this area as a spontaneous topic during our interviews. We also reviewed data for this area, as shown in Chart 3, which revealed no unusual or noteworthy trends. After analyzing departmental statistics, employee survey results, and employee interviews we found that the area of programming opportunities and inmate program attendance warranted further comment. Programming Opportunities SATF currently offers a variety of programs to its inmates. They include: • Vocational: office services, janitorial services, graphic arts, dry cleaning, masonry, landscape and gardening, welding, electrical, auto body repair, and air conditioning and refrigeration repair. • Academic: adult basic education, General Educational Development, English as a second language, Reentry, computer assisted instruction, high school/college programs, and distance learning. • Other: Substance Abuse Program, religious services, Arts in Corrections, anger management and parenting classes, Alcoholics Anonymous, and Narcotics Anonymous. Based on our survey results, we found many positive comments related to inmate programming. As noted above, 70 percent of all respondents gave favorable ratings to questions related to inmate programming. More specifically, 89 percent of the non- custody respondents indicated that the institution is meeting its mission under the current warden’s leadership. Additionally, 63 percent indicated that the process under which inmates are assigned to vocational, academic, or other placements works as intended. Finally, 67 percent responded that inmate programming is adequate with a sufficient number of education and work placement opportunities. According to the February 2009 departmental data, 5,362 inmates were in work assignments and another 866 inmates were on lists waiting for assignment to an inmate program. Inmate Program Attendance The department establishes the amount of time that assigned inmates must attend academic and vocational training classes per 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 tracks absences caused by circumstances beyond the inmate’s control, which are referred to 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 those caused by teacher vacancies or training days also contribute to S-time. Institutions with high or increasing patterns of either of these indicate that prison management may be ineffectively utilizing their Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11111111 rehabilitative programs, or even wasting the resources that inmates need to succeed upon parole. Using department data, we calculated the average total S-time hours per enrolled inmate at SATF, statewide, and at institutions with similar missions for the period December 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008. As shown in Chart 3, SATF’s S-time generally follows the S-time pattern evident in the average of all institutions statewide and comparable mission-based institutions. Chart 3: Total S-Time Hours Per Inmate (Average per Month) 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 D e c- 0 7 J a n- 0 8 F e b- 0 8 M ar- 0 8 A pr- 0 8 M a y- 0 8 J u n- 0 8 J ul- 0 8 A u g- 0 8 S e p- 0 8 O ct- 0 8 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11112222 etamnI reP sruoH egarevA SATF Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. Category 3: Business Operations An institution’s business Table 4: Business Operations – Employee Survey Results operations include budget Respondents Positive Negative Custody 67% 33% planning and control; personnel Health Care 51% 49% administration; accounting and Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 68% 32% Weighted Average 65% 35% procurement services; employee Source: OIG Employee Survey. See Appendix for details. training and development; and, facility maintenance and operations. It is important for the warden to be knowledgeable in these areas to effectively perform his duties. Our analysis of the employee survey responses indicated that employees had positive views about SATF’s business operations (refer to Table 4 above). For example, having adequate staffing to conduct necessary tasks is an area that most employees at SATF appear to find satisfactory. Approximately 69 percent of employees who responded to the question, “Your assigned work area has enough staff to get all the required work done,” responded positively. In fact, as noted in the Budget and Staffing section of this report and displayed in Table 1, approximately 93% of SATF’s budgeted positions were filled as of December 31, 2008. Employees working in health care positions were evenly split on the question, giving an equal number of positive and negative responses; however, the budget and staffing of health care operations is not within the warden’s authority. SATF employees also concurred that the institution’s physical plant is in good working condition. About 61 percent of the employees’ responses to the question, “Plant Operations is able to meet maintenance/repair needs in your assigned work area,” were positive. Furthermore, during our interviews, a SATF employee commented that Warden Clark “is a very pro plant operations warden” and “keeps plant operations positions 100 percent filled.” Validating these statements, we noted no obvious maintenance problems or areas of disrepair during our tour of the facility. Overtime The control of overtime is one indicator of a warden’s ability to manage his or her institution’s overall business operations. It requires the warden to ensure that good budgeting, planning, and personnel administration practices are in place. Using the department data for the period December 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008, we calculated the average overtime charge per employee at SATF, statewide, and at institutions with similar missions. As revealed in the following chart, SATF’s average overtime per employee was slightly higher than statewide figures in January and February 2008 but decreased in the following months. However, overtime usage spiked again in June and July 2008, coinciding with increases in both statewide and mission based figures. When we inquired about this increase, a SATF official informed us that there was a double four- week pay period4 in June and SATF experienced an increase in medical guarding overtime costs in July. It must be noted, however, that costs of medical escorts are beyond the warden’s control and fall under the authority of the medical administration. 4 The institution calculates payroll using 13 equal pay periods of four weeks each, but issues paychecks only once per calendar month. Thus, in one calendar month each year(in this case, June) paychecks must cover two four-week pay periods. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11113333 Chart 4: Overtime 30 25 20 15 10 5 - D e c- 0 7 J a n- 0 8 F e b- 0 8 M ar- 0 8 A pr- 0 8 M ay- 0 8 J u n- 0 8 J ul- 0 8 A u g- 0 8 S e p- 0 8 Oct- 0 8 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11114444 ffatS reP sruoH egarevA SATF Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. Category 4: Employee-Management Relations Successful leaders invite Table 5: Employee-Management Relations – Employee Survey Results Respondents Positive Negative communication, listen well, and Custody 58% 42% prove themselves trustworthy Health Care 74% 26% Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 68% 32% by exhibiting rational, caring, Weighted Average 64% 36% and predictable behavior in Source: OIG Employee Survey. See Appendix for details. their interpersonal relationships.5 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. The opinions of employees and other stakeholders provide a measure of the warden’s employee-management relations and communication skills. Another measure of employee-management relations can be found in the number of grievances that the institution’s employees file. Our analysis of employees’ responses to our surveys, interviews with the warden’s management team and other employees, and statistics on employee grievances derived from department data formulated the collective basis of our 5 Adapted from Correctional Leadership Competencies for the 21st Century: Manager and Supervisor Levels, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (December 2006). conclusions in the areas of Employee Relations, Employee Grievances, and Warden’s Visibility. Employee Relations Warden Clark received mostly positive feedback in employee-management relations from employee surveys and interviews. Table 5 shows that 64 percent of the randomly selected employees responding to our survey provided favorable comments regarding Warden Clark’s employee-management skills. Furthermore, most of the 44 staff members we interviewed consistently mentioned improved staff morale, citing improved teamwork throughout the institution, especially with the warden’s management team. For example, ten of the 44 employees ranked sergeant and above commended the warden’s mentoring skills. In discussing his management team, Warden Clark stated his goal was to ensure that all of his supervisors understand their leadership role, the fundamentals of employee management, and the importance of getting employees to understand why particular procedures are performed. The warden believes that much resistance can be avoided when people understand why processes are conducted. Employees’ statements validated the warden’s employee-management relations skills during our interviews. Their comments included the following: “He opened the communication lines between administration and the yards. If he puts out a directive, he follows up to ensure it gets done. He’s real approachable with all staff.” “Executive staff is more organized. Very open with his communication, and provides more information on ‘why’ – explaining what’s going on.” “Management team works well together, feel confident going to my peers or boss, and know they would be willing to help. [Warden Clark] strives to support the staff and empowers management quite a bit to make decisions, being open to new ideas.” “[Warden Clark] is approachable and has good communication skills, constant preaching of teamwork. The management team is stronger than previously.” Employee Grievances Department data concerning employee grievances reflect overall employee morale and a sense of fair employer treatment. Those institutions with a low number of filed grievances likely have a correspondingly higher level of employee morale as well as a more diligent, cooperative and productive workforce. Our analysis of data for the period December 1, 2007 to December 31, 2008 (see Chart 5) revealed no unusual or noteworthy trends. On average, SATF employees submitted fewer grievances per 1,000 staff members than the department-wide average for the same period. In addition, Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11115555 SATF’s grievance rate generally paralleled the grievance rate for institutions with similar missions over the same period. Chart 5: Employee Grievances 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 D e c- 0 7 J a n- 0 8 F e b- 0 8 M ar- 0 8 A pr- 0 8 M a y- 0 8 J u n- 0 8 J ul- 0 8 A u g- 0 8 S e p- 0 8 O ct- 0 8 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11116666 seeyolpmE 000,1 reP rebmuN SATF Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, COMPSTAT for December 31, 2008, California Substance Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran. Unaudited data. As discussed previously in the Safety and Security section, a small number of custody employees criticized the warden’s application of the employee disciplinary matrix. These employees also criticized the employee grievance process. Twelve of these employees did not believe that the grievance process worked as intended, while 12 employees believed it did. Another 18 custody employees answered the question neutrally, while 14 did not answer the question at all. Despite these employees’ concerns that the disciplinary matrix and grievance process are not working as intended, their concerns did not appear to impact Chart 5. SATF’s level of grievances per 1,000 staff did not exceed the department-wide level and was consistent with prisons with similar missions. Warden’s Visibility Although Warden Clark received mostly positive feedback in employee-management relations, the survey respondents identified one area of concern: the warden’s perceived lack of visibility at the institution. Our analysis of the survey responses revealed that 70 out of 89 employees responded negatively to the statement, “The warden regularly visits your workplace.” Random survey comments regarding this statement included the following: “Never seen the man except a picture in a bulletin.” “…the Warden should visit the yards and discuss daily issues that may arise. Talk to Correctional Officers and Supervisors to show that he does care more about what happens on the facility yards.” “I’ve never had the opportunity to meet with the warden. I believe the warden should visit with the officers more often because we run the housing units not the supervisors.” Employees whom we interviewed agreed with the observation regarding the warden’s visibility around the institution. Fifteen of 18 employees who commented to us on this issue mentioned that Warden Clark should tour the yards more often and talk to the line staff. The other three employees told us that Warden Clark does tour the yards and talks to line staff. In discussing this matter with Warden Clark, he agreed that regular communication with line staff is very important. He pointed out that, in addition to touring the yards, he utilizes quarterly supervisory meetings, weekly block training, and monthly joint labor-management meetings as an opportunity to meet with staff and engage in open discussion on current issues facing the institution and CDCR. In addition, he promised to tour the yards more often. Survey Results from Department Officials and SATF Managers. Department officials and SATF managers we surveyed rated Warden Clark favorably for Table 6: Rating of Warden’s Management Skills and Qualities his management skills and Category Average Rating qualities. In our survey, we asked Personal Characteristics/Traits Outstanding Relationships with Others Outstanding the officials and managers to Leadership Outstanding consider the warden’s Communication Very Good performance in six management Decision Making Very Good Organization/Planning Very Good skills and qualities – and rate the Source: CDCR and SATF Management Survey Results performance as either unacceptable, improvement needed, satisfactory, very good, or outstanding. As shown in Table 6, the survey results indicate that Warden Clark is performing at a level of “very good” to “outstanding” in various management related categories. Overall Summary In addition to our review of the four areas, our assessment of the warden’s performance included an overall performance rating derived from survey responses and employee interviews. In response to the question, “Overall, how would you rate this warden?” we received responses from CDCR executive management, SATF management, and institutional employees. Respondents from all three groups collectively agreed that Warden Clark’s performance rates between “very good” and “outstanding” as shown in Chart 6. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11117777 Chart 6: Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11118888 elbatpeccanU yrotcafsitaS dooG yreV gnidnatstuO WARDEN'S OVERALL PERFORMANCE RATING Respondents 1 3 4 5 CDCR Executive 4.5 2 Responses Management Survey Institutional Management 4.6 18 Responses Survey Staff Interviews 4.2 44 Responses tnemevorpmI dedeeN 2 Source: CDCR and SATF Management Survey Results and SATF Employee Interviews. SATF employees and department executive-level managers rate Warden Clark’s overall job performance favorably. For example, 69 of the 86 employees we surveyed who responded to the statement, “Considering all institutional challenges, the current warden is an effective leader,” responded positively. Regarding SATF operations, 23 of 44 employees we interviewed told us that SATF’s operations were better since Warden Clark’s appointment. In addition, ten of the remaining 21 employees told us SATF operations had not changed and 11 of the employees responded “not applicable” because they were not assigned to SATF during the prior administration. While some employees expressed displeasure with the warden’s application of the disciplinary matrix or his lack of visibility around the institution, these criticisms run counter to the more pervasive opinion that Warden Clark is performing at a level approaching “outstanding” based on survey results, interview responses, and as supported by operational data. Appendix Results from our survey of institution employees To prepare for our site visit, we randomly selected 269 of the institution’s employees, as of January 2009, and sent them a survey. The survey provides us with information about employees’ perception 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. One-hundred and sixteen SATF employees responded to our survey―a 43 percent response rate. To simplify our analysis of the survey results, we grouped survey respondents by category and identified response trends. Specifically, we grouped the respondents into three employment categories: Custody; Health Care; and Other, which includes employees in education, plant operations, administration, clerical, and other non-custody/non-health care positions. Then, to identify strong trends or patterns, we classified the responses to our questions as either positive or negative. For example, if the respondent ‘agreed’ or ‘strongly agreed’ with our question, we classified it as positive; and if the respondent ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with our question, as negative. We did not include passive responses. For example, if employees responded that they were ‘neutral’ or responded ‘unknown’ to our question, we excluded their response. We reported those results in a table on the following page. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11119999 Appendix: Compilation of Institutional Employee Survey Responses - California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison at Corcoran Respondents' Employment Category Total Responses Custody Health Care Other Operational Area/Question Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos Neg Pos (%) Neg (%) Safety and Security •You are able to complete required (mission critical) assignments in your work 43 5 12 6 32 5 87 84% 16 16% •You have been issued or have access to all of the safety equipment you need. 46 6 17 1 31 3 94 90% 10 10% •You receive all required (mandatory) training. 48 6 17 2 32 2 97 91% 10 9% •The employee investigation/disciplinary process works as intended (is 13 18 6 4 12 9 31 50% 31 50% appropriate and timely). •The CDC-115, inmate disciplinary process works as intended (is appropriate and 34 11 12 2 19 8 65 76% 21 24% timely). •The CDC-602, inmate appeal process works as intended (is appropriate and 24 14 7 5 14 7 45 63% 26 37% timely). •The use and duration of inmate lockdown time or modified program time is 18 26 8 4 21 5 47 57% 35 43% appropriate. •The institution is meeting its mission(s) under the current warden's leadership.¹ 25 5 25 83% 5 17% Totals 251 91 79 24 161 39 491 154 Percent of Respondents by Category 73% 27% 77% 23% 81% 19% 76% 24% Inmate Programming •The inmate assignment process works as intended (appropriate placement). 21 11 5 1 11 10 37 63% 22 37% •Inmate programming is adequate (sufficient number of education and work 22 8 5 6 20 9 47 67% 23 33% placements). •The institution is meeting its mission(s) under the current warden's leadership.¹ 14 2 17 2 31 89% 4 11% Totals 43 19 24 9 48 21 115 49 Percent of Respondents by Category 69% 31% 73% 27% 70% 30% 70% 30% Business Operations •Your assigned work area has enough staff to get all of the required work done. 33 13 9 9 27 9 69 69% 31 31% •Plant Operations is able to meet maintenance / repair needs in your assigned 20 14 8 5 19 11 47 61% 30 39% work area. •Plant Operations is able to meet maintenance / repair needs in inmate areas. 22 10 2 4 14 8 38 63% 22 37% Totals 75 37 19 18 60 28 154 83 Percent of Respondents by Category 67% 33% 51% 49% 68% 32% 65% 35% Employee-Management Relations •The warden is knowledgeable about the day to day operations in your work area. 16 13 11 4 15 7 42 64% 24 36% •The employee grievance process works as intended (is appropriate and timely). 12 12 7 3 12 7 31 58% 22 42% •The warden works effectively with the local bargaining unit representatives. 17 9 6 0 16 4 39 75% 13 25% •The warden regularly speaks or meets with inmates. 13 6 1 1 4 2 18 67% 9 33% •You are kept up to date on issues that affect CDCR as a whole. 24 21 12 5 20 13 56 59% 39 41% •The warden regularly visits your workplace. 12 33 1 15 6 22 19 21% 70 79% •The warden welcomes feedback, including criticism from institution staff. 17 17 5 2 8 10 30 51% 29 49% •The warden is knowledgeable about the day to day operations. 20 11 7 1 19 4 46 74% 16 26% •The warden is accessible to you to discuss issues. 14 16 8 3 14 9 36 56% 28 44% •The warden does not abuse his/her power or authority. 19 10 10 0 17 6 46 74% 16 26% •The warden emphasizes an institutional culture calling for staff to have integrity 29 8 16 0 29 4 74 86% 12 14% and be highly ethical, professional, honest, motivated, and respectful. •The warden emphasizes an institutional culture calling for cultural sensitivity and 32 6 17 1 27 2 76 89% 9 11% discrimination prevention, including sexual harassment prevention. Totals 225 162 101 35 187 90 513 287 Percent of Respondents by Category 58% 42% 74% 26% 68% 32% 64% 36% Overall Warden Rating Considering all institutional challenges, the current warden is an effective leader. 25 13 14 0 30 4 69 80% 17 20% Percent of Respondents by Category 66% 34% 100% 0% 88% 12% 80% 20% Source: OIG, Institutional Employee Survey Results for SATF ¹ This question applies to more than one Operational Area. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22220000 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22221111