Warden Tina Hornbeak One-Year Audit Valley State Prison for Women

VALLEY STATE PRISON FOR WOMEN WARDEN TINA HORNBEAK ONE-YEAR AUDIT OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL DAVID R. SHAW INSPECTOR GENERAL STATE OF CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER 2010 Contents Results in Brief.............................................................................................1 One-Year Evaluation of Warden Tina Hornbeak..........................................2 Background of Warden .....................................................................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.................................................13 Category 4 – Employee-Management Relations............................16 Overall Summary...............................................................................23 Appendix – Employee Survey Results.........................................................25 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response .........27 Results in Brief Warden Tina Hornbeak The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found VALLEY STATE that Warden Tina Hornbeak has successfully PRISON FOR WOMEN performed her job as warden at the Valley State FACTS AT A GLANCE Prison for Women (VSPW). Safety and security, inmate programming, and business operations at Location: Chowchilla, CA VSPW function effectively under the warden’s control. However, Warden Hornbeak could Opened: 1995 improve her effectiveness in the area of Missions: Reception Center, employee-management relations. Some Low Security (Level I) through employees at VSPW expressed concerns about Maximum Security (Level IV) the warden’s lack of communication, her low visibility on the facilities, and their perception of Inmate Population: 3561 the warden's favoritism. On the other hand, many Designed Capacity: 1,980 inmates employees spoke highly of the warden’s leadership skills, the cohesiveness of her Employees: 1222 executive management team and, in particular, the ingenuity of her chief deputy warden. We began our audit of the warden's performance by surveying a broad range of VSPW employees, key stakeholders, and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) executives. We analyzed the data we collected, and we categorized employee responses into four areas: safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee-management relations. Initial survey results from all respondents presented mixed opinions. Closer analysis revealed that custody employees generally expressed negative opinions about the warden’s overall performance but that VSPW management staff, key stakeholders, and CDCR executives expressed mostly positive opinions. We followed our initial survey by visiting VSPW in March 2010 to interview management team members, employees who manage key prison functions, and other employees. Many VSPW employees told us that the prison’s overall operations have improved since the warden’s appointment in 2007. For example, one employee who saw improvements at the prison asserted that management’s emphasis is to fine-tune operations and not to “re- invent the wheel.” Other employees explained that they could not give an opinion on improvements based on their time at VSPW or said that they found prison operations to be neither better nor Valley State Prison for Women worse overall. A smaller number of employees felt that the Warden Tina Hornbeak. Photo: CDCR overall operations were worse since the warden’s appointment. The critical comments we received focused more on the warden’s employee-management relations. For example, custody employees criticized her for not facilitating effective Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 1111 communication between management and custody employees, for displaying actions perceived as favoritism, and for failing to satisfy employee expectations that the warden tour the prison regularly and talk personally with employees. Our interviews found that employees, on average, rated the warden’s performance as “very good.” However, VSPW employees’ individual opinions of the warden’s performance ranged from “improvement needed” to “outstanding.” For example, individual employee responses suggest that the warden can improve in the area of employee morale. On the other hand, employees told us that she excels in the areas of leadership and security awareness, and that she is dedicated to her work. One-Year Evaluation of Warden Tina Hornbeak 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 Tina Hornbeak’s performance at Valley State Prison for Women since her appointment in October 2007. Background of Warden Warden Hornbeak began her career with CDCR in 1986 as a correctional officer at the California Correctional Institution at Tehachapi. She was a facility captain at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and at California State Prison, Corcoran from 1997 through 2000. Between 2000 and 2005, Hornbeak held several positions at VSPW, including chief deputy warden and correctional administrator. In July 2006, Hornbeak became the acting warden at VSPW. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed Hornbeak as warden on October 31, 2007. Hornbeak assumed the position of acting associate director for female offender programs at CDCR headquarters in Sacramento beginning in September 2008; however, she returned to VSPW as warden in April 2009. Institution Overview VSPW is one of the 33 adult prisons operated by CDCR. The prison opened in 1995 and encompasses 640 acres in Madera County. It is one of three prisons that house female inmates, and it functions as both a general population prison and as a reception center. As a general population institution, VSPW houses over 2,800 low- to maximum-security female inmates within three facilities. Each facility houses all levels of Figure 1 – Valley State Prison for Women Main Entrance inmates, ranging from level I Photo: OIG, March 2010 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 2222 (minimum security) through level IV (maximum security). In a fourth facility, VSPW operates a reception center, which houses over 600 new inmates as they undergo classification assessments to determine their initial security level as well as their medical and mental health needs. After VSPW employees complete these assessments, newly classified inmates are then either assigned to one of the prison’s general population facilities or sent to one of CDCR's other two prisons for women. VSPW also operates an Administrative Segregation Unit (ASU), a segregated housing area for the temporary holding of disruptive or victimized inmates, as well as operates the state’s only female Security Housing Unit (SHU), a dedicated section specially designed with added security features and generally housing inmates who committ a serious rules violation while incarcerated. The ASU and Figure 2 – Valley State Prison for Women. SHU also serve inmates who are at the Photo: CDCR Enhanced Outpatient Program level of care. These inmates have mental disorders that generally require ongoing treatment. In addition, VSPW is the hub facility for female inmates with mobility impairments and is one of two California prisons for women that house pregnant inmates. Rehabilitation Programs The prison offers academic and vocational programs, substance abuse programs (SAP), and work opportunities through the Prison Industry Authority (PIA). Recent budget cuts have drastically reduced the number of available academic, vocational, and SAP assignments; however, the prison continues to offer several self-help programs such as Narcotics Anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous. Budget and Staffing For fiscal year 2009-2010, VSPW’s budget was $129.3 million. This included $76.7 million for prison and education operations plus $52.6 million for medical-related services. VSPW had 1,222 budgeted positions, of which 616 (or about 50 percent) represent custody employees. Table 1 compares VSPW’s budgeted and filled positions as of November 30, 2009. Overall, the prison had filled 93.5 percent of its total budgeted positions. Table 1: Staffing Levels at Valley State Prison for Women Position Filled Positions Budgeted Positions Percent Filled Custody 596 616 96.8% Education 64 67 95.5% Medical 180 203 88.7% Support 187 206 90.8% Trades 105 118 89.0% Management 11 12 91.7% Total 1,143 1,222 93.5% Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November 30, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Unaudited data. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 3333 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, CDCR management team members, and other stakeholders. Next, we analyzed operational data maintained by CDCR and compared it with the averages of the other two prisons for women, California Institution for Women and the Central California Women's Facility, and to the averages of all prisons statewide. In addition, we reviewed relevant reports prepared by CDCR or other external agencies. Finally, we visited the prison to interview various employees, inmates, and a representative of the inmate family council, an external organization that supports the inmates’ families and the community. We also followed up on noteworthy concerns identified from surveys, operational data, or reports. To understand how prison employees and other stakeholders view the warden’s performance, we sent surveys to three distinct groups: CDCR and VSPW managers, VSPW employees, and key stakeholders outside CDCR. For our employee survey, we randomly selected 236 of the prison’s employees and sent them a survey. The survey provides us with information about employees’ perceptions of the warden’s overall performance as well as her performance in specific operational areas at the prison: Safety and Security, Inmate Programming, Business Operations, and Employee-Management Relations. To simplify our analysis of the survey results, we grouped survey 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 the response as positive; if the respondent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with our question, we classified it as negative. We excluded passive responses such as “neutral” or “unknown.” Our inspectors also analyzed operational data maintained by CDCR (comparative statistics called “CompStat”) and evaluated the responses to our surveys. We reviewed relevant reports prepared by CDCR or by external agencies about the prison’s operations. From these efforts we identified strong trends or patterns – either negative or positive – as well as other issues that we noted as topics for further review and evaluation during our on-site visit to VSPW. During our visit to VSPW, we gained insight into the environment in which the warden works. We interviewed certain key employees but also interviewed randomly selected employees, using information gathered from our analysis of statistical information and from employee surveys. Our interviews involved employees in various operational areas throughout the prison, including the following: Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 4444 (cid:1) Business services (cid:1) Inmate case records (cid:1) Educational programs (cid:1) In-service training (cid:1) Employee/labor relations (cid:1) Investigative services (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) Receiving and release (cid:1) Information technology (cid:1) Use-of-force review (cid:1) Inmate appeals (cid:1) Vocational programs (cid:1) Inmate assignments (cid:1) Warehouse management We performed our site visit during the week of March 22, 2010. During our visit, we interviewed 56 individuals on various topics such as safety concerns, prison operations, and the warden’s performance. These individuals included custody employees, executive management team members, education employees, plant operation and administration staff, health care professionals, inmate advisory committee members and an inmate family counsel representative. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 5555 Review Results Our management survey results indicate that the prison’s management and CDCR’s management believe that the warden is doing a “very good” and “outstanding” job overall, respectively. Employee surveys show mixed responses in the four categories of safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee- management relations. For example, employees responded positively for safety and security and business operations, yet were evenly divided in their opinions regarding inmate programming. Employees gave mostly negative responses in the area of employee-management relations. In interviews, VSPW employees rated the warden’s overall performance as “very good,” with individual ratings varying from “unacceptable” to “outstanding.” The Inmate Family Council representative rated Warden Hornbeak as “outstanding” and asserted that the warden is at the “top of her group.” Category 1: Safety and Security CDCR’s primary mission is to Table 2: Safety and Security – Employee Survey Results enhance public safety through safe Respondents Positive Negative Custody 70% 30% and secure incarceration of Health care 81% 19% offenders. The department Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 79% 21% Weighted Average 76% 24% establishes the importance of Source: OIG survey of VSPW employees. See Appendix for details. safety and security by requiring that custodial security and the safety of staff, inmates, and the public take precedence over all other considerations in the operation of its programs and activities. As shown in Table 2, 76 percent of the prison employees we surveyed had positive opinions about the safety and security of VSPW. After taking into consideration our interviews, comments from the warden, and the results from our employee survey, we noted three areas for further discussion: Survey and Interview Results, Contraband, and Use of Force. Survey and Interview Results The survey questions related to safety and security resulted in a higher proportion of positive responses than survey questions regarding any other operational area. For example, 96 percent of the survey responses indicated that employees effectively respond to emergencies, and 93 percent indicated that they have been issued all of the safety equipment they need. Additionally, 90 percent of the employees responded that they have received all required safety training (see Appendix for complete survey results). Figure 3 – Tower 1 Sally Port Entrance. Photo: OIG, March 2010 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 6666 However, 41 percent of employees who responded to our survey felt that safety and security has improved since the warden’s appointment. Because this figure was low in comparison to the relatively high overall rating, we interviewed the prison’s management team and employees to obtain possible explanations. In total, we conducted 56 interviews with management and employees, asking them to identify their biggest concerns related to safety and security. Although many respondents indicated that they felt very safe or had no concerns about the prison’s physical infrastructure, others identified isolated security concerns that the respondents attributed to a lax approach to safety. For example, we were told by a handful of employees that the working mentality of being in a prison for women leads some custody and management employees to operate with a false sense of security. Some employees expressed concern that the prison gives female inmates too much freedom, and that freedom, coupled with what the respondents perceived as the prison's overwhelming emphasis on running inmate programs, has weakened controls. In particular, some employees asserted that prison-wide searches can be unfocused and hurried in efforts to reduce inmate programming delays. One management employee even commented, “It takes an act of God to modify or to shut programming down.” During our review, we learned that while Warden Hornbeak was in headquarters serving as the acting associate director of female offender programs, the prison underwent an operational peer review conducted by CDCR’s Office of Audits and Compliance (OAC). The preliminary report found the prison to have few security weaknesses, or a 95 percent compliance rating. We reviewed the corrective action plans submitted by the prison and discovered that the institution had promptly responded to the security issues through actions taken or proposed. Another noteworthy accomplishment relates to OAC’s review of the prison’s armory operations—the results found the prison was in 100 percent compliance. With respect to the warden’s contribution to safety and security, we concluded that although the majority of employees surveyed did not note significant improvements since the warden’s appointment, the safety and security of the prison remains effective. However, it is essential that the warden ensures that communication between custody and management employees remains open so that management can hear and respond to employees' security concerns. Contraband According to CDCR’s Operations Manual, Article 20, Section 52051.4, contraband is any unauthorized property, materials, supplies, items, commodities, and substances received or obtained by inmate(s) from any source. Contraband can be introduced into the secured perimeter of a prison by visitors, staff or volunteers. It can be thrown over the perimeter fence or mailed into the facility. At VSPW, we found that a major challenge in eliminating contraband is the prevention of narcotics and tobacco trafficking by inmates. The presence of these items can lead to a dangerous environment for officers and inmates alike. Inmates have been known to participate in assaults or riots over drug debts. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 7777 According to the warden, the prison’s Investigative Services Unit (ISU) has been successful in mitigating drug and tobacco presence within VSPW. This was confirmed by VSPW’s ISU lieutenant. The lieutenant noted that the ISU has recently heightened its focus on inmates known to engage in illicit activities. While facilitating an open line of communication with key inmates within the prison population, the ISU is able to obtain specific information pertaining to ongoing illegal activities. Consequently, the ISU has made multiple discoveries of tobacco and narcotics throughout the prison grounds. A common opportunity for inmates to acquire contraband at VSPW is in the farmland where inmates work outside the secured perimeter. VSPW provides inmate labor to PIA for 441 acres of orchards just outside prison grounds. Although tobacco is the most common form of contraband, drugs and cell phones are also buried or hung from trees by outside sources for inmates to locate. In their efforts to avoid discovery during a physical search, inmates attempt to smuggle contraband by inserting the items into their body cavities. Our review found that the warden and the ISU are responsive to these matters, and that the ISU, under the warden’s direction, has broadened its focus to include searches of the orchards. In fact, the ISU recently purchased an off-road vehicle which has assisted in the detection and confiscation of these items. The warden also indicated that the prison is considering adding an enclosed structure to the vehicle sallyport to conduct unclothed body searches of inmates before they re-enter the secured perimeter. Currently, although the prison conducts inmate searches, inmates first walk inside the perimeter, where they can drop contraband before the search takes place. The inmates can retrieve the contraband later. Use of Force The number of incidents in which 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 prison’s ability to safely incarcerate inmates. To assess VSPW’s use-of- force statistics, we reviewed CDCR’s CompStat data for the 13-month period from November 2008 through November 2009. As shown in Chart 1, on page 9, the prison’s rate of use-of-force incidents was above the statewide average and/or the average for prisons for women for 11 months in the review period. However, we noted that use-of- force incidents began a downward trend after September 2009. Some of VSPW’s high use-of-force rate may be explained by its unique mission. Not only does VSPW function as a general population prison and as a reception center, but it also operates an ASU and a SHU for inmates requiring a higher level of security. For inmates serving a SHU term for disciplinary reasons, VSPW operates as the hub for other prisons for women. According to the warden, inmates who finish their SHU terms will on occasion stay at VSPW for security reasons rather than go back to their original prison. Consequently, this leaves VSPW with a higher number of inmates with an established history of misbehavior. Additionally, we heard from employees that female inmates are more inquisitive than their male counterparts. Their tendency to ask questions rather than promptly obey a direct order from custody employees can lead to more provoking Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 8888 circumstances. This poses a challenge for some custody officers who typically expect immediate response to direct orders and are inclined to apply force to achieve compliance. When we spoke to the warden about VSPW’s high use of force, she suggested that the prison's use-of-force rate was elevated by staff members who applied force in those instances where management believed that communication through verbal persuasion would have been a more effective means to de-escalate the situation. According to the warden, ineffective communication between staff members and inmates is the primary factor in most use-of-force incidents. Chart 1: Documented Use of Force 8.0 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 J a n- 0 9 F e b- 0 9 M ar- 0 9 A pr- 0 9 M ay- 0 9 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 Oct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 9999 setamnI 000,1 reP rebmuN VSPW Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November 30, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Unaudited data. Warden Hornbeak told us that although she responded to the increased number of use-of- force incidents before leaving VSPW in September 2008 to assume her role as CDCR’s acting associate director, she could not fully address the problem until her return in April 2009. A number of management employees commented that reducing the backlog of use- of-force reviews as well as the number of reported incidents was a big priority for the warden when she returned to the prison from her assignment. The warden cited CDCR’s implementation of 32 hours of gender-responsive training for employees working with females as a factor in reducing the high number of use-of-force incidents. According to the warden, one objective of this training is to close the communication gap between custody employees and inmates and to emphasize the skills needed to de-escalate rather than escalate aggravating situations. Although at the time of our visit, the eight-hour communication portion of the training had yet to be provided due to budgetary reasons, management has continued to emphasize officer communication with inmates. Management promotes communication and verbal persuasion as key to reducing the number of use-of-force incidents. Additionally, the warden noted that her team conducts regular debriefings after each incident. The goal of debriefings is to review the incident with the involved parties to determine whether the use of force could have been avoided. Warden Hornbeak believes that the debriefings have also contributed to lowering the number of use-of-force incidents. During our visit, we requested additional data on the number of reported incidents involving the use of force for the period from July 2009 through March 20, 2010. Our review found that the average number of incidents documented from July through September 2009 (22 per month) declined by 45 percent from October 2009 through March 2010 (approximately 12 per month). Our conversation with the prison’s use-of-force coordinator also revealed that by October 2008, a large backlog, approximately 100 incident packages, exceeded CDCR's use-of- force policy time frames. According to the use-of-force coordinator, in an effort to reduce the backlog of use-of-force packages, the warden encouraged the use-of-force committee to meet more often than once each week. Warden Hornbeak also established clear expectations for her managers. Specifically, in September 2009, after the prison had made some progress toward compliance with CDCR’s use-of-force policy, the warden issued a memo establishing timeframes that the incident commander, facility captains, associate wardens, use-of-force coordinator, and the ISU shall meet in completing their use-of-force reviews. As part of expediting the use-of-force review process, the warden outlined procedures and introduced a newly created use-of-force incident route slip to be incorporated into VSPW’s Department Operations Manual (DOM) supplement 51030.3. According to the prison’s use-of-force coordinator, associate wardens and facility captains have made significant efforts to ensure adherence to the timeframes; as of November 2009, records show that the prison had eliminated its overdue incident backlog. With the backlog eliminated, the use-of-force coordinator has more time to review all pertinent use-of-force reports, to request additional information from officers, and to focus efforts on the accuracy and completeness of incident packages. Category 2: Inmate Programming Research shows that inmate programs Table 3: Inmate Programming – Employee Survey Results can reduce the likelihood that Respondents Positive Negative Custody 53% 47% offenders will commit new crimes and Health care 52% 48% return to prison. For example, a study Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 44% 56% Weighted Average 50% 50% of adult basic and vocational education Source: OIG Survey of VSPW Employees. See Appendix for details. programs published in 2006 by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy found that such programs reduce inmate recidivism by an average of 5.1 percent and 12.6 percent, respectively.1 CDCR recognizes these benefits and provides inmates with academic and vocational training as well as a number of self-help and self-improvement services, including substance abuse programs. An added benefit is that programming requires inmates to have a more structured day, with less idle time. As a general rule, inmates with a structured day tend to be easier to manage. As a result, the prison’s safety and security can be affected by the amount of available inmate programming. 1 Washington State Institute for Public Policy, “Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and What Does Not,” January 2006. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11110000 Overall, as shown in Table 3, on page 10, 50 percent of all survey responses related to inmate programming indicated favorable ratings. Although 74 percent of employee responses affirmed that the prison is meeting its inmate programming mission, only 32 percent responded positively to the question of whether inmate programming has improved since the warden’s appointment (see Appendix). Additionally, when asked whether inmate programming is adequate for the number of inmates at the prison who would benefit from the education or work experience, only 43 percent of employees responded favorably. These results may be explained by the state budget cuts, which reduced the number of program opportunities available to inmates, as discussed below. After considering the interviews as well as additional information gathered from CDCR statistics and the warden, we identified two key areas for further discussion: Inmate Program Attendance and Programming Opportunities. Inmate Program Attendance CDCR establishes the amount of time that assigned inmates must attend academic and vocational training classes each day and requires administrators to track inmates' absences from classes. This tracking allows us to evaluate each prison’s effectiveness in complying with school-day attendance requirements. CDCR refers to absences caused by circumstances beyond the inmate’s control as “S-time.” Such absences are, in part, caused by security-related matters such as lockdowns, modified programming, investigations, and inmate medical appointments. Education-related absences, such as teachers calling in sick, also contribute to S-time. High or increasing patterns of S-time at a prison indicates that prison management may be ineffectively using their academic and vocational programs or even wasting these resources, which provide inmates with a better opportunity to succeed upon parole. VSPW did not experience any prison-wide lockdowns during the 13-month period from November 2008 through November 2009, but the prison did modify several programs, which interrupted class attendance. A prison can modify programming for various reasons, including responding to medical quarantines or security issues. Our review of VSPW’s data showed that the prison generally followed the trend of other prisons with similar missions in the amount of S-time; however, our review also revealed a considerable increase in S-time at VSPW in December 2008 when compared to the mission trend and statewide average (see Chart 2, page 12). An academic vice-principal explained that December’s spike in S-time was due to a modified program in effect from December 3 through December 8, 2008. The modified program was initiated after medical staff members discovered tools missing from the infirmary. The vice-principal also noted that a spike in S-time in April 2009, which followed the mission trend, was due to several factors, including the implementation of furlough days for staff and modified programming due to inmate tuberculosis testing and electrical repairs. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11111111 Chart 2: Total S-Time Hours Per Inmate 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 J a n- 0 9 F e b- 0 9 M ar- 0 9 A pr- 0 9 M ay- 0 9 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 Oct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11112222 sruoH ylhtnoM egarevA VSPW Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Unaudited data. Programming Opportunities VSPW houses approximately 3,600 inmates, but as of April 22, 2010, the prison only had work or education assignments for approximately 1,700 inmates, or 48 percent of its population. This includes 356 academic slots and 168 vocational program slots. In addition, there are 176 slots available for its substance abuse program. Other work programs offered at VSPW include support services and PIA assignments. We identified two key factors outside of the warden’s control that adversely affected inmate programming opportunities at VSPW. First, mandated budget cuts have significantly reduced the number of academic and vocational programs offered to inmates. The school principal explained that before the budget cuts, VSPW offered 14 vocational programs. There are now six vocational programs, which include cosmetology, fiber optics, heating and air conditioning, welding, office services, and auto mechanics. According to the principal, vocational programs are valuable to inmates because students completing these programs will receive certification in the respective trade that will increase their employability upon release from prison. VSPW employees explained that beginning in May 2010, VSPW will implement a new education model serving 630 inmates. Second, VSPW’s mission as the reception center for female inmates reduces the number of its inmates who are eligible for program placement. CDCR restricts prisons from assigning reception center inmates to work until the prison establishes their security levels. Some of the restrictions include prohibiting reception center inmates from leaving the reception center area or interacting with non-reception-center inmates. As a result, there are few programming opportunities available to these inmates, who make up approximately 17 percent of the population. Further, inmates housed in VSPW’s ASU and SHU are not suitable for most types of programming assignments because these inmates present risks to the safety and security of the prison. During our review, we were told that although the budget has reduced program opportunities, Warden Hornbeak has encouraged inmates to participate in the programs still available. As an example, the Woman’s Advisory Council (WAC)2 told us that only a few inmates initially applied for 25 available substance abuse counselor positions made available as part of a substance abuse mentor program. According to the WAC, inmates were hesitant to apply because the mentors would be transferred to another prison once they completed the initial phase of the program. Warden Hornbeak was instrumental in explaining to inmates the positive aspects of the program; as a result, several more inmates applied. The substance abuse mentoring program now has 25 inmates enrolled, along with two alternates. Our review also found that Warden Hornbeak encourages voluntary participation in various inmate self-help groups. Programs available to inmates include Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and Freedom to Choose workshops, which teach skills to heal relationships. In addition, employees and inmates told us about special events, such as the Get on the Bus program3, as well as community and faith-based programs, that are conducted throughout the year and are geared to positively influence the inmate population. Although these types of programs are not deemed official programming assignments, they could positively influence inmates’ rehabilitation. Category 3: Business Operations A prison’s business operations Table 4: Business Operations – Employee Survey Results Respondents Positive Negative include budget planning and Custody 60% 40% control, personnel Health care 61% 39% Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 57% 43% administration, accounting and Weighted Average 59% 41% procurement services, employee Source: OIG survey of VSPW employees. See Appendix for details. training and development, and facility maintenance and operations. The warden must be knowledgeable in these areas to effectively perform his or her duties. As shown in Table 4, 59 percent of employees had positive responses about the prison’s business operations and 41 percent had negative responses. Our analysis of CDCR’s data as well as our own survey responses and interviews uncovered three specific areas that we discussed further with the warden and with other management team members. The areas under discussion were Facility Maintenance, Overtime Usage, and Administrative Segregation Housing. 2 The Women’s Advisory Council is an inmate committee formed to advise and communicate with the warden and other prison employees those matters of common interest and concern to the general inmate population. 3 The Get on the Bus program affords inmates’ children the opportunity to be transported to the prison and participate in a Mother’s Day visit and luncheon. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11113333 Facility Maintenance We found that 78 percent of the employees who responded to our survey believed that plant operations employees are able to meet maintenance and repair needs in their assigned areas. As a matter of fact, survey responses mirrored those of almost all employees who gave an opinion on plant operations during our site visit. During interviews we consistently heard that the plant operations staff members were very efficient at maintaining the facility. One employee said, “Just look, we have one Figure 4 – Valley State Prison for Women Main of the most beautiful prisons in the state.” As Yard. Photo: OIG, March 2010 we toured the prison, we found the grounds and housing units to be clean and in good condition. Overtime Usage The control of overtime is one indicator of a warden’s ability to manage his or her institution’s overall operations since it requires the warden to ensure that good budgeting, planning, and personnel administration practices are in place. To assess VSPW’s overtime usage, we compared its overtime statistics to both the statewide average for all prisons and to the average for the other two prisons for women. As shown in Chart 3, we found that for the 13-month period under review, VSPW has consistently incurred fewer average overtime hours per employee than the other prisons. Accordingly, the warden appears to be doing a very good job at controlling overtime. Chart 3: Overtime 44 40 36 32 28 24 20 16 12 8 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 J a n- 0 9 F e b- 0 9 M ar- 0 9 A pr- 0 9 M ay- 0 9 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 Oct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11114444 eeyolpmE reP sruoH egarevA VSPW Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Unaudited data. The use of sick leave is one of the reasons that prisons may incur overtime, since full- time employees fill in for employees who take sick leave. We were told by VSPW managers that the prison’s overtime is low because Warden Hornbeak is proactive in monitoring sick leave usage. Additionally, as part of the sick leave management program, VSPW recently started issuing Letters of Instruction for employees who abuse sick leave. Medical access and hospital coverage for inmates also contributes to VSPW’s overtime, since staff members accompany inmates who are transported to outside medical facilities. The transportation time may extend various staff members' duty time. The associate warden of business services explained that the prison is looking for ways to mitigate overtime usage caused by medical transports. Furthermore, the prison has been able to save in overtime costs through a recent statewide plan to achieve a 3 percent budget reduction through salary savings. Although the prison has not decreased the number of its personnel, it is using those employees whose posts were deemed “non-critical” to cover shifts that would normally be covered through overtime. One employee told us that the prison has been redirecting affected employees to cover vacant shifts while at the same time trying to accommodate the employees’ normal shift schedule. Administrative Segregation Housing Prisons use Administrative Segregation Units (ASU) to temporarily house inmates who are either disruptive or victimized by other inmates until prison employees investigate the level of threat to the prison or inmate. ASU housing is more expensive to operate than general population housing because it has increased security requirements. Effectively managing the time it takes the prison to investigate the threat level to the prison or inmate 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 an indicator of how well a prison is managing its resources and protecting inmates’ due process rights. We reviewed the prison’s data for the average length of stay in ASU for the period from November 2008 through November 2009; as shown in Chart 4, on page 16, VSPW’s average for most months is significantly lower than the statewide average, but higher for all months than the average for the two other women’s prisons. When we asked managers about the time periods in which VSPW’s average was either above or near the statewide average, we were told that several factors may contribute to the elevated length of stay. Specifically, managers noted that four inmates involved in an alleged rape pushed the average higher. In these types of cases, the prison’s investigators must work with outside agencies to prosecute crimes that occur within the prison walls. The outside agencies include the district attorney’s office, the Department of Justice, and the court system. Due to the coordination that must occur in criminal cases, these agencies' involvement can add to the time it takes to investigate and prosecute the cases, thereby increasing the inmates' time in ASU. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11115555 Chart 4: Average Length of Stay in Administative Segregation Housing 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 J a n- 0 9 F e b- 0 9 M ar- 0 9 A pr- 0 9 M ay- 0 9 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 Oct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11116666 syaD VSPW Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Unaudited data. Category 4: Employee-Management Relations According to the correctional Table 5: Employee-Management Relations – Employee Survey Results Respondents Positive Negative standards for effective leaders, Custody 37% 63% “Successful leaders invite Health care 66% 34% Admin, Plant Operations, and Other 47% 53% communication, listen well, Weighted Average 45% 55% and prove themselves Source: OIG survey of VSPW employees. See Appendix for details. trustworthy by exhibiting rational, caring, and 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 CDCR’s vision and mission at the prison level. Not only must the warden interact with employees throughout the prison and communicate instructions and directions clearly and effectively, but he or she must also communicate effectively with CDCR’s headquarters and with the surrounding community. As shown in Table 5, only 45 percent of the survey respondents had positive opinions about various areas related to employee-management relations. The survey questions in the employee-management relations category dealt with such topics as the warden’s knowledge, use of authority, professionalism, skill in communication, effectiveness in employee discipline, and overall employee-management relations. These areas all contribute to the formation of the work environment. When we analyzed only the 4 Correctional Leadership Competencies for the 21st Century, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (December 2006). responses of custody officers, the largest classification of survey respondents, we found that only 37 percent of the survey responses were positive. The low employee-management relations scores were concentrated in specific areas. Our analysis of employees’ responses to our surveys, statistics on employee grievances, and the results of our interviews with the warden’s management team and with other employees resulted in five topics for further consideration: Personnel and Hiring, Warden’s Management Team, Employee Morale, Employee Grievances, and Interview and Survey Comments. Personnel and Hiring Both custody and management employees expressed concerns in interviews and surveys about the warden’s hiring practices. For example, several employees told us that the warden exhibits favoritism by promoting individuals based on personal relationships. As one employee noted, “Honesty, integrity, intelligence, work ethic, and knowledge are superseded by her personal agenda, and not the state’s.” During our interview with the prison’s Institutional Personnel Officer (IPO), we found that prior to September 2009, VSPW lacked a formal process for hiring and scoring candidates. Moreover, an operational peer review conducted by CDCR’s Office of Audits and Compliance from January 5 through January 16, 2009, identified deficiencies in hiring interview packages and stated that “these conditions result in difficulty justifying the selection in the event a complaint is filed and a hearing is scheduled with the State Personnel Board.” In response to OAC’s peer review, the warden has made considerable efforts to improve the hiring procedures, and with the guidance of personnel staff members, has developed hiring procedures and standards for VSPW to ensure the integrity of the selection process. In fact, a review of VSPW’s corrective action plan showed that the warden committed to establish a Local Operating Procedure to ensure complete, proper, and consistent hiring practices. VSPW’s personnel office provided us with a copy of the addendum revising the DOM supplement 31060.3, Powers of Appointment, which was effective September 29, 2009. We reviewed records for nine people that the warden hired or promoted over the period from April 6, 2009 through September 28, 2009. Our summary review of each panel member’s interview score sheet suggested that in each case, the person hired was the most competitive candidate. To further analyze hiring practices, we reviewed relevant documents in four of the five corresponding recruitment packages. These documents confirmed that the people hired had the highest overall average interview score. Of particular note, we observed that the hiring panel progressively applied more consistent procedures and documentation with each hire. This progression was expected, since the warden was concurrently developing hiring procedures during this period. When we spoke with the IPO, she said that although the warden is not required to always select the highest-scored candidate, it is critical that the warden consider the appropriate factors and that the proper documentation is included in the package in order to ensure the integrity of the process and justify the hiring decision. According to the IPO, the warden chooses Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11117777 to keep all hiring decisions confidential; neither the IPO nor the warden share information about selections until the prison makes an official hiring announcement. When we spoke to the warden about personnel selections, she said that as the hiring authority, she is solely responsible for hiring. Because she values the confidentiality of the process, she explained, she and the IPO work exclusively on the hiring. Without the control of confidentiality, she felt that her decisions would be exposed to scrutiny or to perceptions of influence. Warden Hornbeak noted that she seldom hires against the hiring panel’s recommendation; however, she acknowledged that she could select a candidate against the panel's recommendations and that such a selection would usually result from information obtained on the candidate through a completed investigation clearance. This clearance consists of a check for ongoing investigations or prior adverse actions. Investigative findings are not disclosed to panel members. According to the IPO, in cases when the warden has not agreed with the hiring panel’s recommendation, the selection has been fair and justified in writing. Warden’s Management Team The warden’s management team, which consists of the chief deputy warden, five associate wardens, four facility captains, and other department heads, plays an important role in implementing the warden’s vision for the prison and running the institution’s daily activities. When we conducted our entrance interview with the warden, she said that she has successfully developed a team that believes in her leadership to effectively manage the operations of VSPW. She also asserted confidently that her management team “takes care of business.” After speaking with a number of employees during our visit, we determined the warden’s statements to be accurate. We interviewed key employees and nearly every member of the management team; most described the team as very effective. For example, we heard a number of comments describing the team members as having good relationships and good interactions, being open to ideas, and being committed to solving problems. One team member commented, “This is the tightest team known; they have their day-to-day problems, but are able to work through them like a well-oiled machine.” According to the warden and some management employees, this team's motivation is the result of the warden’s success at attracting good people who know their jobs. Fittingly, the warden appears confident in the management team’s ability to function as a group, listen to new ideas, and remain open to alternative ways to do things. Just the same, we were told that while the warden expects feedback and input from her managers and considers all matters, she ultimately retains overall decision-making authority. Although most interview comments from management and other employees about the management team were positive, no team is without opportunities for improvement. While it is normal to rely on one’s management to communicate with custody employees, the warden expects that her managers regularly notify custody employees of new information or directions coming from the prison or from CDCR. Yet according to custody employees that we interviewed, the prison management does not communicate in Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11118888 a timely way and in general does not share information with custody officers. Moreover, employees we spoke with generally feel that management filters information or fails to prioritize concerns raised by custody employees. This contributes to low morale among custody officers. A few management team members commented that the warden’s own actions often give an appearance of preferential treatment to some managers. For example, one management employee said that the warden tends to have close relationships with some employees, with whom she interacts frequently, yet she almost never interacts with other employees. Employees said that these close relationships have allowed some managers to have more access to the warden, resulting in the ability of some to have more leverage than others in decision-making or in exercising freedom to run facilities. Although we were provided with no concrete evidence of preferential treatment, we note that it should be the goal of every organizational head to lead by example and to create both the reality and the perception that all staff members are treated uniformly. Employee Morale We received many responses and comments from the surveys and interviews indicating that VSPW has low employee morale. One factor contributing to low morale is the effect on employee finances caused by the state’s employee furlough program, which has cut salaries by approximately 14 percent. In addition, CDCR’s intent to cut its own spending by three percent through identifying “non-critical” posts to run vacant has caused a redirection in assignments for correctional officers, sergeants, and lieutenants. We were told by management staff members that the warden is addressing the budget constraints the best she can with employee interests in mind; however, state budget objectives are generally outside the control of the warden. With this perspective, we identified at least four factors affecting morale over which the warden does have control. The first factor is the warden’s lack of visibility to custody employees. Most employees agree that the warden should tour the prison more to talk, listen, and show a genuine interest in the concerns of custody officers. Employees indicated that if the warden simply acknowledged officers more and provided them with an opportunity to get to know her, employee morale would be higher. Second, custody employees perceive that their voices are not heard because communication is typically “one-way, from the top down.” Further, they believe that information is slow to trickle down the chain of command and contend that management fails to foster officer input, particularly in how policies and procedures work or do not work in the prison's day-to-day operations. A third factor is that several custody employees indicated a correlation between low morale and the number of freedoms and opportunities afforded inmates. Officers said that the prison’s emphasis on inmate programs can take precedence over operations. For example, one officer said that opening the main yard to all inmates on the weekends with insufficient staffing compromises officer safety. Other officers indicated that since the prison has enforced the use of verbal persuasion with inmates as a means to communicate and achieve compliance, failures to hold inmates accountable to direct orders has also contributed to a perception of lower officer security. Still others said that in relation to Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 11119999 inmate programs, more emphasis should be on training for officers. The perception of “inmates first” contributes to low morale and a widening gap between officers and management employees. In contrast to the factors contributing to low morale, a fourth factor over which the warden has some control is the effort to raise morale. The prison has formed a morale group called the “Visionaries.” Spearheaded by the warden and her chief deputy, the Visionaries group is responsible for showcasing staff appreciation through employee social events such as a family night and a military observance day for veterans, chili cook-offs, and other community activities. When we spoke to the warden about employee morale, she judged it to be high or low depending on the employee. She noted that in difficult fiscal times, families are affected, and that it is common for employee morale Figure 6 – VSPW Visionaries, Event to be affected as well. Consequently, she has made it a Participation Flyer. priority to focus on increasing morale in spite of budget Photo: OIG, March 2010 reductions and overtime limitations. She and the chief deputy warden have sponsored a number of staff events and have encouraged employee participation in community events. She understands that employees are not always happy with the choices she makes, but she genuinely believes people like working at VSPW. When we informed the warden that custody employees would like to see her out on the yards and housing units more often, Warden Hornbeak asserted that she spends long days at the prison, typically staying well into the evening hours. She also indicated that she does go out to the yards. She described a recent visit to the ASU. During that visit, she explained, officers aired concerns about personnel issues and facility maintenance; she believes that she addressed their needs in response. Warden Hornbeak also noted that although she has to share her time, she will try to get out to the yards more. This will provide employees with the opportunity for more direct communication with the warden. Employee Grievances All employees have the right to express their grievances through an established CDCR procedure. The employee grievance process is one way employees have to file complaints against the employee investigation and discipline process. Employees may also use the grievance process to file complaints regarding general workplace conditions and disputes. As shown in Chart 5, on page 21, for most months during the period from November 2008 through November 2009, VSPW was somewhat comparable with both the statewide average and the mission average for number of employees who filed a grievance. This did not include the month of October 2009, when grievances escalated to 118 per 1,000 employees. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22220000 We asked the warden to explain why grievances were high for this period. She commented that the Legislature revoked a paid state holiday and that employees filed grievances in response. During our visit, we also followed up with the prison’s Labor Relations Officer, and she confirmed that the high number of grievances were related to the elimination of Columbus Day. Our own research showed that the amendment to the provisions in Government Code section 19853 eliminating two paid holidays, February 12 (Lincoln’s Birthday) and the second Monday in October (Columbus Day), became effective March 2009 for all state employees. Chart 5: Employee Grievances 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 N o v- 0 8 D e c- 0 8 J a n- 0 9 F e b- 0 9 M ar- 0 9 A pr- 0 9 M ay- 0 9 J u n- 0 9 J ul- 0 9 A u g- 0 9 S e p- 0 9 Oct- 0 9 N o v- 0 9 Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22221111 seeyolpmE 000,1 rep rebmuN VSPW Mission Statewide Source: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CompStat ending November 30, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women, VSPW. Unaudited data. Interview and Survey Comments During our interviews, we asked employees to identify accomplishments that the warden has made since her appointment. Although many custody employees we interviewed did not identify any notable accomplishments, some management employees credited the warden with efforts to pull people together by forming the employee morale group, “Visionaries.” Other employees recognized the warden for her ability to manage despite budget reductions and to respond with concern for employees stressed by furloughs. Still others credited the warden for the overall smooth function and operation of the prison. In addition, CDCR officials Table 6: Rating of Warden’s Management Skills and Qualities and VSPW managers who Category Average Rating responded to our survey rated Personal Characteristics/Traits Very Good Relationships with Others Very Good Warden Hornbeak favorably Leadership Very Good for her management abilities. Communication Very Good Our survey asked the officials Decision Making Very Good Organization/Planning Very Good and managers to consider the Source: OIG survey of CDCR and VSPW management. warden’s performance in six management skills and qualities and to rate the performance as either “unacceptable,” “improvement needed,” “satisfactory,” “very good,” or “outstanding.” As shown in Table 6, on page 21, the survey results indicate that Warden Hornbeak is performing at the “very good” level in various management-related categories. Written comments from the surveys and from our interviews support the warden’s overall performance rating. Management team members commented that the warden is in control and sets the tone for others, has a good handle on issues and is responsive, demonstrates a high standard of professional conduct, views problems as opportunities, has very good security awareness, and is highly committed to achieving organizational success. Although the remarks from her management team were frequently positive, we received or heard mixed comments from both custody and other management employees during our site visit. For example, during our interviews, employees suggested that the warden needs to correct the negative perception resulting from the show of favoritism in relationships, improve lines of communication between management and custody employees, tour the prison and be more accessible, and allow supervisors to conduct more effective training. Despite these suggestions, employees also complimented the warden by indicating that she addresses issues promptly, holds employees accountable and expects professionalism and quality work, gets along well with her management team, and is knowledgeable and “hands-on” in her role as warden. Finally, we interviewed representatives from both the women’s advisory committee and the inmate family council. Both groups supported Warden Hornbeak’s overall performance as warden. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22222222 Overall Summary In our random survey, we asked employees to consider the warden’s performance, given all of the institutional challenges she faces, and to rate her performance from “unacceptable” to “outstanding.” Of the employees that responded, 42 percent rated the warden as either “very good” or “outstanding.” The remaining 58 percent rated the warden as either “improvement needed” or “unacceptable.” Then we visited VSPW in March 2010 to determine the specific factors that VSPW employees considered when rating the warden’s performance. To assess the warden’s performance, we reviewed four key areas discussed in this report: safety and security, inmate programming, business operations, and employee- management relations. Our assessment also included ratings based on survey responses from CDCR officials, VSPW managers, and from interviews that we conducted with VSPW employees during our site visit. As shown in Chart 6, the respondents rated Warden Hornbeak’s overall performance between “very good” and “outstanding.” Chart 6: WARDEN OVERALL JOB PERFORMANCE Respondents 2 Responses Staff Interviews 56 Responses Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22223333 tnemevorpmI dedeeN 1 CDCR Executive Management Survey Institutional Management Survey elbatpeccanU dooG yreV gnidnatstuO 2 3.64 yrotcafsitaS 3 4 5 3.93 15 Responses Source: OIG, Bureau of Audits and Investigations, Surveys and Staff Interviews, 2009, Valley State Prison for Women. Two members of CDCR's executive management team responded to our survey regarding the warden’s performance. Both gave the warden high scores, indicating that they believe she is doing an outstanding job overall. In addition, the 15 surveyed prison managers who rated the warden’s overall performance gave an average score of “very good.” Similarly, the average response of the 56 interviews we conducted with prison employees rated the warden's performance as “very good.” The employees' positive average response is supported by the approximately 80 percent of interviewees who feel that Warden Hornbeak is performing at a satisfactory level or above. In summary, according to VSPW employees and CDCR management, Warden Hornbeak is doing a very good job at managing the prison’s operations. Based on our consideration of all factors in the key areas we reviewed and their overall impact on operations, we believe that the warden is functioning effectively. After assessing the comments from our on-site interviews, we concluded that the surveyed employees' low opinions of the warden’s performance stem mainly from factors impacting low employee morale. No less important, however, is the consideration that opinions may be misguided, given that the motivation behind management decisions is not always visible to non-management employees. While we note that the warden has made strides in improving employees' perceptions of her hiring practices, Warden Hornbeak can further improve employee- management relations in general by becoming more visible within the prison and by enhancing communication between employees and management. Post Fieldwork Update On April 7, 2010, CDCR assigned Warden Hornbeak as the acting associate director for CDCR’s Division of Adult Institutions, general population levels II and III. On May 26, 2010, Warden Hornbeak became the chief deputy warden of VSPW. On June 15, 2010, she became the associate warden of Healthcare Services at Mule Creek State Prison. In response to Hornbeak’s departure from VSPW, CDCR assigned Walter Miller, effective September 7, 2010, as the acting warden of VSPW. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22224444 APPENDIX Employee Survey Results To prepare for the site visit, we randomly selected 236 of the prison’s employees and sent them a survey. The survey requests information about the employees’ perceptions of the warden’s overall performance as well as her performance in the following specific operational areas at the prison: Safety and Security, Inmate Programming, Business Operations, and Employee-Management Communication. One hundred and seventeen VSPW employees responded to the survey―an almost 50 percent response rate. To simplify the analysis of the survey results, we grouped survey 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 the questions as either positive or negative. For example, if the respondent “agreed” or “strongly agreed” with the question, we classified the response as positive; and if the respondent “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” with the question, we classified it as negative. We excluded passive responses such as “neutral” or “unknown.” We report the results of the employee survey in a table on the following page. Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22225555 Appendix: Compilation of Institutional Employee Survey Responses - Valley State Prison for Women 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. 30 13 21 4 28 3 79 80% 20 20% 2 Employees effectively respond to emergencies. 41 2 25 0 27 2 93 96% 4 4% 3 You are issued or have access to all safety equipment you need. 42 1 23 2 29 4 94 93% 7 7% 4 You receive all required safety training. 37 5 22 2 30 3 89 90% 10 10% 5 The CDC-115 inmate disciplinary process modifies inmate misbehavior. 11 32 7 14 14 11 32 36% 57 64% 6 The CDC-602 inmate appeal process provides inmates an effective method for 31 9 20 3 21 7 72 79% 19 21% airing their grievances. 7 Safety and Security has improved since the warden's appointment. 13 25 6 4 9 11 28 41% 40 59% Totals 205 87 124 29 158 41 487 157 Percent of Responses by Category 70% 30% 81% 19% 79% 21% 76% 24% Inmate Programming 8 The institution is meeting its inmate programming mission. 29 8 11 4 14 7 54 74% 19 26% 9 The inmate assignment process places the right inmate into the right rehabilitative 18 20 9 6 9 12 36 49% 38 51% program. 10 Inmate programming is adequate for the number of inmates at the institution who 17 20 5 9 9 12 31 43% 41 57% would benefit from the education or work experience. 11 Inmate programming has improved since the warden's appointment. 13 20 2 6 4 14 19 32% 40 68% Totals 77 68 27 25 36 45 140 138 Percent of Responses by Category 53% 47% 52% 48% 44% 56% 50% 50% Business Operations 12Plant operations employees are able to meet maintenance and repair needs in your 34 8 18 6 25 8 77 78% 22 22% assigned area. 13Your assigned area has enough employees to get all of the required work done. 25 18 10 15 14 19 49 49% 52 51% 14Your work area operates without waste of resources. 22 16 16 9 20 12 58 61% 37 39% 15Business operations have improved since the warden's appointment. 13 20 6 2 8 12 27 44% 34 56% Totals 94 62 50 32 67 51 211 145 Percent of Responses by Category 60% 40% 61% 39% 57% 43% 59% 41% Employee-Management Relations 16The warden is knowledgeable about the day to day operations in your work area. 15 23 4 7 8 16 27 37% 46 63% 17The warden welcomes feedback, including criticism from employees. 11 28 8 1 8 15 27 38% 44 62% 18The warden does not abuse his or her power or authority. 13 24 12 1 10 17 35 45% 42 55% 19The warden works effectively with the local bargaining unit representatives. 12 23 5 1 9 8 26 45% 32 55% 20The warden is ethical, professional, and motivated. 15 23 8 2 13 11 36 50% 36 50% 21The warden is in control of the institution. 21 17 11 3 15 9 47 62% 29 38% 22The management team keeps employees informed about relevant issues. 18 24 11 11 17 14 46 48% 49 52% 23The employee investigation/disciplinary process is fair, effective, and timely. 12 27 10 3 12 14 34 44% 44 56% 24The employee grievance process is responsive to employee complaints, is fair in its 11 24 10 7 13 12 34 44% 43 56% application, and does not result in retaliation. 25Employee-management relations have improved since the warden's appointment. 11 23 3 6 9 14 23 35% 43 65% Totals 139 236 82 42 114 130 335 408 Percent of Responses by Category 37% 63% 66% 34% 47% 53% 45% 55% Overall Warden Rating 26Considering all institutional challenges, how would you rate the warden's 13 26 10 3 10 16 33 42% 45 58% performance? Percent of Responses by Category 33% 67% 77% 23% 38% 62% 42% 58% Source: OIG, institutional employee survey results for Valley State Prison for Women Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22226666 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s Response Bureau of Audits and Investigations Office of the Inspector General Page 22227777