Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety, Monday, April 20, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 6 on Public Safety California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
Amarik Singh, inspector general, office of the inspector general. Caitlin O'Neil, LAO's office. April, political director, sister warriors freedom coalition. Sandra Deanda, member, California Coalition of Women Prisoners. Amica Moita, executive director, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, and Department of Finance.
Alyssa Cervantes. And we will start with Kathleen Ratliff. Right?
Speaker 7
That's correct. Good afternoon. I'm Kathleen Ratliff. I'm an associate director with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. I oversee Region 2, which is seven different institutions to include both of our women's facilities.
I also see the statewide inmate family council, the implementation of SB one thirty two, otherwise known as the Transgender Agency Respect and Dignity Act, as well as the Prison Rape Delimination Act and visiting statewide. Would you like me to go into the presentation?
Speaker 7
So thank you for the opportunity to be able to be present before you today. Before I begin, I wanna acknowledge how serious this issue that we're addressing is. Sexual assault impacts people everywhere, and no one should feel unsafe, especially those in our care. We have a responsibility to protect those individuals in our care, and I take that responsibility seriously. This issue is also personal for me.
I have a close family member who was incarcerated within CDCR. She was housed at both of our female institutions, And so I was able to see firsthand what the impact of incarceration has on individuals, not just the individual themselves, but also their families and the folks that they leave behind. My family member came into the system very young. She was in her early twenties, and she left behind behind a young child. Excuse me.
And so having to navigate incarceration while also worrying about things back at home, I understand how that's challenging, coupled with that for that person to feel unsafe, and we just can't accept that at any level. I also wanted to mention that I've worked with in our female institutions for about fourteen years. That's at both CIW and CCWF. I've worked at the ground level as a correctional officer all the way up through administrative levels. And in that time, I was able to build strong relationships with both the staff and the population at both of our female institutions.
That being said, I understand the responsibility that we have, and I take that responsibility seriously. No one should leave our institutions in a worse position than the position that they came in. Our approach to sexual safety is rooted in the Prison Rape Elimination Act, PREA, that establishes national standards for prevention, detection, response, investigation. These standards guide our operations, including investigations, evidence collection, separation of individuals, and referrals for criminal prosecution. We've strengthened our training to ensure that those processes are clearly understood and are consistently followed.
Our actions align with the commitments outlined in our March 2024 report to the legislators, including improving reporting systems, expanding trauma informed care, strengthening training, and addressing the culture within our female institutions. What we recognize, however, is that compliance alone is not enough. The incidents involving former staff member Gregory Rodriguez, along with other allegations, has made it clear that individuals did not always feel safe in reporting, particularly due to concerns of retaliation. That understanding has shaped our work. Since our last appearance, we've focused on strengthening both our systems and our culture.
We've reinforced accountability and oversight, reviewing cases early to identify risk, and again at the conclusion to ensure corrective action is taken. This allows us to address issues in real time and apply lessons learned systematically. We've increased independent oversight through engagement with the ombudsman's office and at the headquarters leadership level. Additionally, our PREA compliance has been independently verified by federal DOJ and the auditors, Specifically, in our most recent audit at Central California Women's Facility conducted in January 2026, CCWF was found to be in full compliance with all federal PREA standards. In addition to that, the most recent audit conducted at California Institution for Women in September 2024, they were also found to be full compliance with the federal PREA standards.
We've also strengthened our PREA appliance excuse me, PREA compliance infrastructure and that at both CIW and CCWF, we now have dedicated and established PREA compliance lieutenant, and their primary focuses are ensuring compliance with PREA while also identifying opportunities to strengthen our operations and practice. We've strengthened our retaliation prevention and that we require structured follow ups for at least ninety days, after any PREA allegation, and we require face to face check ins. This ensures that we hear directly from the individuals and not just rely on data alone. We've also made significant investments in training and culture change. This includes gender responsive training, trauma informed practices, and active bystander expectations.
Speaker 12
We've partnered with external organizations, including the National Institute of Corrections, otherwise known as the NIC, The Moss Group, Just Detention International, and Valor US. And this was done to support leadership development, operational improvements, advocacy services, and culture change. As part of our culture change initiative, we've also partnered with former secretary Kathleen Allison to improve operations as well as provide staff with the opportunity to observe best practices at other institutions and strengthen leadership engagement. We've also increased the increased our leadership presence, and that's with regular walk throughs, town hall meetings, and direct engagement with both the population and staff. We've extended engagement with the population to build trust, and this includes partnerships with advocacy groups such as the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition to introduce the peer ambassador program at both CIW and CCWF, as well as ongoing peer ambassador efforts and regularly held sexually assault sexual assault prevention and response work groups.
Speaker 7
We continue to expand trauma informed support and work with external partnerships to ensure access to advocacy services through reporting processing. Operationally, we've improved and implemented additional safety measures. This includes expanded body worn cameras and evaluating further technology to strengthen oversight. We enforce staff accountability wherein all allegations are reviewed, and any substantiated findings result in disciplinary action up to and including termination. We continue to analyze data to identify trends, inform prevention strategies, and we've also seen an increase in reporting, which reflects the improved awareness and willingness to come forward.
While we've made progress, we recognize that challenges remain, particularly in building trust, ensuring consistency, and reinforcing a culture where individuals feel safe in reporting. This work is ongoing as it's not just about policy, but it's also about enforcing policy, procedures, and ensuring that they're trusted, used, and effective in practice. We remain committed to strengthening accountability, improving trust, and ensuring safety and dignity. I thank you again, and we look forward to your questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much for your testimony. Next, we see David deputy director.
Speaker 8
Yes. Good afternoon, chairman Ramos and members of the committee. Just to tell you a little bit about myself, my name is David Chris. I'm the deputy director of the office of internal affairs for CDCR. I have over forty years of experience in law enforcement investigations and agency oversight.
My law enforcement career started in 1981 as a police officer working for two local agencies and supervising investigations. I've managed and conducted serious investigations including homicide, death investigations, sex assault investigations, and use of
Speaker 8
investigations. Worked for more I've worked for multiple agencies including, but not limited to, the medical board of California, the department of consumer affairs, and the office of inspector general who's with us today. Most recently, in April 2021, I was appointed, by the governor from outside of CDCR to be the new deputy director of department's office of internal affairs. I have several degrees, numerous certifications, and extensive investigative training, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 10
Good afternoon. Is it on? Which button? Oh, there you go. Good afternoon, chair Ramos and members.
I'm Amarik Singh, the California inspector general. I am here to talk about our office and give you a brief update today. With me also is my, chief deputy inspector general, Sean Spillane, who will also be available to answer questions. The OIG is an independent state agency separate and apart from CDCR. We are charged with providing oversight and transparency to several aspects of CDCR's operation.
As it pertains to the issues on today's agenda, the OIG has long monitored the department's internal affairs investigations into allegations that CDCR staff committed acts of sexual abuse against incarcerated people. Since the OIG began providing oversight of CDCR's investigative and disciplinary processes in 2005 in response to federal litigation, the Madrid litigation, the OIG has strived to monitor every investigation CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs conducted into these types of allegations. However, during that time period, the office of internal affairs only opened investigations into allegations for which it determined there was a reasonable belief that misconduct occurred. The remainder were investigated, but by each prison's locally designated PREA investigators. This was the primary manner in which we provided oversight and transparency of this process until 2020 when CDCR overhauled its grievance process, the process by which incarcerated people raised allegations of staff misconduct and other concerns.
With this change, CDCR began sending every allegation of staff misconduct incarcerated people raised to the Office of Internal Affairs for a formal investigation. This meant that all allegations of sexual misconduct would now be investigated by CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs. This has led to an exponential increase in the number of sexual misconduct investigations CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs conducts. In 2025, senate bill ten sixty nine took effect providing the OIG with an increased focus of monitoring CDCR's sexual staff misconduct investigations and granting the OIG limited investigative authority into sexual misconduct allegations that c d c CDCR either declined to investigate or was not investigating adequately in our opinion. We immediately began increasing our focus on these types of cases and sought funding to increase our monitoring capacity so we could provide oversight of a greater number of sexual misconduct allegations.
Speaker 35
In last year's budget, we began receiving additional funding and have established a new sexual misconduct monitoring and investigation team whose sole focus will be monitoring into monitoring investigations CDCR's Office of Internal Affairs performs into incarcerated people's allegations of staff sexual misconduct and perform performing investigative measures in appropriate circumstances. Although funding continues to trickle in, the team is mostly formed, trained, and has already begun monitoring cases. To date, we are actively monitoring 161 investigations and have closed 10 cases which are currently being reviewed and prepared for publication. We have not yet performed any investigative work as we have not yet identified any sexual mistown misconduct complaints CDCR has not opened or invest investigations that we believe CDCR is not performing adequately. Although investigation monitoring is our primary method of monitoring CDCR's handling of staff sexual misconduct allegations, we also monitor the way in which CDCR screens the complaints it receives.
Speaker 10
When CDCR overhauled its grievance process in 2020, it created a centralized screening team to review every grievance, identify allegations of staff misconduct, and refer them to the appropriate internal entity for handling. We have the capacity to monitor approximately 10% of the current volume of screening decisions. This is a critical point in the allegation review process to ensure allegations of sexual misconduct are identified and routed to the correct investigative body within CDCR. Our review of this process reflects that the department has predominantly routed grievances involving sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and retaliation appropriately at the two women's prisons. Since the start of 2025, our office has reviewed 182 grievances out of CIW and CCWF that contained allegations of staff misconduct.
39 contained allegations of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, and retaliation. We found that the department appropriately routed all but four of those grievances to the appropriate entity for investigation. After we notified the department of our disagreements of those four decisions, it routed three of those four grievances for investigation. The third way in which the OIG is involved in this area is through reviewing allegations of sexual misconduct via the complaints we receive from the incarcerated population and people who send complaints on their behalf. We serve as the the SADIA Ombudsperson and are required under federal regulation to refer every allegation of sexual abuse to CDCR for investigation.
This process provides the incarcerated people a third party avenue to report these complaints with an option for the reporting party to remain anonymous. Looking at the complaints we have received over the last three years, complaints of sexual abuse have increased yearly at CCWF from 16 in 2023 up to 22 in 2024 and twenty six in 2025. And already, we have received tens for the first quarter of this year. CIW, on the other hand, has decreased over the same time frame from 15 in 2023 to 10 in 2025. Once again, thank you for this opportunity to provide this information, and we are happy to answer any questions that you have.
Speaker 11
Thank you. Caitlin O'Neil with the legislative analyst office. We've reviewed the administration's, population projections as we always do. And, even after we make various, conservative assumptions, we find that the state could close a prison within the next few years and still retain significant flexibility with which to manage any, unexpected population increases. Doing so would save the state over a 100,000,000 general fund once fully implemented.
And so in in this context, we, would note that these savings could, of course, be used to address deficits that the state is likely to face, but it could also be redirected into other general fund priorities. For example, if the legislature wanted to put additional resources into, prevention or response, of these types of concerns that we're hearing about today, it could this would be an option, that it could pursue for finding the resources in this budget climate. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you, so much for that. And now we'll go to April Grayson, political director of Sisters Warriors Freedom Coalition.
Speaker 12
Thank you, chair and committee. My name is April Grayson, the political director of the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. As part of the sexual abuse response and prevention working group, we are not just advisers. We are on the ground inside women's prisons confronting staff misconduct, sexual violence, and the overall crisis overdose crisis in real time while running consistent leadership program at CCWF and CIW through the sister warrior ambassador program. We showed up in good faith.
Believing CDCR would meet this moment, it has not. There has been no meaningful systemic or cultural change. What we are seeing is not a glitch, it's a pattern. A pattern of obstruction, hostility, and disregard for both incarcerated residents and the organization is trying to support them. Proven state approved programs are being shut down or blocked, like the sudden cancellation of of DEFI at CCWF and the barriers facing right grant partners who cannot even gain access to facilities.
Meaning ineffective or harmful program is being pushed to residents, sometimes even coercing people into treatment they do not need. Specifically, residents are being forced to take Suboxone under the explicit threat of retaliation for noncompliance, creating new harm instead of healing. Despite clear legislative mandates to streamline access for community partners, CDCR continues to ignore the law. Organizations bringing life saving services are forced through inconsistent, opaque processes designed to keep them out. Since 2023, we have repeatedly met with CDCR lead leadership, yet not a single recommendation has been implemented.
We are done repeating ourselves while nothing changes. At women's prisons, where the state has caused deep documented harm, CCR should be leading with urgency and accountability instead of it standing in the way. We're asking this committee to act. Why are state funded programs being blocked? Why is legislative intent being ignored?
It is time to stop funding a system that actively obstructs rehabilitation. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you, so much for your testimony. As now, we'll go to Sandra Dianda, member of California Coalition for Women's Prisoners.
Speaker 13
Good afternoon. I'm Sandra Deanda. I was released from Central California Women's Facility in August after serving nineteen years. I'm currently a plaintiff in the CDCR lawsuit. I'm native American from the tribes, and raised in California.
I'm here to talk about my experiences with staff abuse and retaliation and what currently and formerly incarcerated people need for prevention and healing. I was at CCWF on 08/02/2024 when the guards unleashed brutal excessive force on over a 150 vulnerable people. As the video footage shows, staff locked people in the dining hall while conducting a large scale search of ourselves for hours. It was over a 100 degrees, and people were asking for water, food, and medication. While the prison staff say that incarcerated people became disruptive, the truth is people were experiencing medical emergencies and not receiving any care.
Officers used physical force, batons, chemical agents while people were sitting down and wearing flexi cuffs. People were pepper sprayed and tear gassed at close range while packs of officer beat officers beat them. Many people were wearing bright yellow mob mobility vests signaling their disabilities and injuries were severe. Injuries were severe, including a stroke, spinal injury, and a traumatic brain injury. The incident was not random.
The sergeant who ordered the attack had threatened retaliation. The residents didn't stop reporting PREA violations of sexual misconduct and filing lawsuits. We are all deeply traumatized by this incident, even though those who witnessed it were terrified because it reminded us of how we were beat or abused in the past. I still remember hearing everybody screaming and crying. While this incident was extreme, officers used weapons and force routinely to silence people who were trying to get medical attention, mental health care, or report abuse.
Here are a few examples that I experienced. Once I was in a clunk conflict with a peer, and officer Reynolds held a pepper spray gun inches from my face. Instinctively, turned away, and my ponytail hit his face. He threw me on the ground even though I was in cuffs, and I was charged with a battery on staff and spent a year in solitary confinement. In 2016, I asked an officer to be sent to mental health.
He told me to get into the room because we had to we had count coming up. I told him I urgently needed mental health. I was put in my cell anyways, and I slit my wrist. I received twenty four stitches to my left arm. We always got denied mental health even if we knew it, but they didn't help.
I've seen staff physically and sexually abuse peers during my entire sentence. Back in 2010, an officer demanded me and another incarcerator to put on a show for him. He offered us phones and cartons of cigarettes. One day, he told me he needed me to get a box of toilet paper, and he followed behind me into the room but didn't turn on the light. I grabbed the box, trying to hold it between us while he was getting while trying to get out of the room.
I tried to pass him, but he stepped in my same direction, blocking me repeatedly as I tried to get around him. He kept me in that room and wouldn't let me go until I grabbed his penis and rubbed on it. I told him somebody was coming and ran out. This officer would demand sexual things and threatened to send us to administrative segregation if we didn't do it. He was able to retire with no blemish or accountability.
I stayed in constant fear of retaliation. I didn't say anything or report it until I got out. For the people still incarcerated at Central central California women's prisons, we need stronger accountability measures, safe reporting, and access to kit to the care and support provided by community based organizations. And when we come home, we need resources for reentry. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much for your your testimony. Now we'll go to Amika Bhota, executive director, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition.
Speaker 14
Good afternoon, chair, members of the committee, and the legislative women's caucus. I'm Amika Mota with sister warriors. Sexual violence in our prisons is not historical. It's happening now. And how California responds is a choice being made in this room today.
Since we met last year, retaliation against survivors of staff sexual abuse has escalated. Survivors are losing jobs and peer roles, denied privacy when reporting, and facing ongoing harassment. There is no meaningful confidentiality. Reporting puts a target on your back. At CIW, officers are telling incarcerated people the basic necessities are being cut to pay for lawsuit settlements.
That is not budget management. It is collective punishment. Survivors paying again for harm done to them by state employees. We must not balance budgets on the backs of survivors. That is complicity.
Following our last hearing, Sol, who spoke about retaliation involving a lieutenant at CCWF, was interviewed by internal affairs. She later learned that the officer was forced into retirement without consequences. Former CDCR staff, some of who are in this room today, described the same culture. Reporting misconduct leads to harassment, denied promotions, and fear of losing your job. Speaking up is more dangerous than staying silent.
That must change. Accountability is optional. Justice is not delivered. California cannot keep following this path. So what do we need to do now?
Release the 50 to 70 survivors who are imprisoned with their abusers. Their abuse has been substantiated by the state. The secretary must use his authority to recommend resentencing. Close additional prisons in alignment with LAO guidance and reinvest in survivor centered survivor centered funding through CPEDV, Cal OES, and VOCA, a community based healing and reentry fund administered through the sister warriors ambassador program, Expand the right grants to include survivor centered programs, including unapologetically hers, whose red flag red flag guide teaches people how to prevent and interrupt staff abuse. PREA peer programming through Just Detention International, parole readiness, and healing after harm programming like Uncommon Laws.
Survivors need two things, release from harm and real pathways to heal outside of it. That is within your power. Thank you.
Speaker 15
Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. No additional comments at this time, but here to answer questions.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much. I'm bringing it back to the dais. Any questions from the dais? Questions or comments from members?
Speaker 7
I I'd like to address Deanda for a second. I just want to acknowledge ness of what you expressed here today and the courage that it takes to share that in this environment. I work with both you and your sister at CCWF, we built a a really good relationship. Yes. Again, I apologize for what you shared today.
No one should have to go through that, you or anybody else, and we take that seriously. When you talk about things such as retaliation, that's a part of my responsibility. And as you know, from when we were at CCWF together, when those things came up to the level, where I was made aware of you and my team, we addressed it. So I just wanna make sure that I didn't miss an opportunity to let you know that. It takes a lot of
Speaker 4
Definitely. Thank you again for your testimony and being here. It it does pretty weigh pretty heavy on this committee. Assembly member Schultz.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much, mister chair. Thank you to our panel. I'm gonna say right out the gate that I have a lot of questions directed at representatives of CDCR and the office of inspector general. But to our three panelists right here, I am gonna ask you a question at the end of my line of questioning, and that's really what more do you think the committee should know and be taking into account. Obviously, if there's anything that's discussed with me and other panelists, I would welcome that input.
I also want to acknowledge before I go down the rabbit hole, mister chair, piggybacking off of a comment from one of our other panelists, how challenging and tough it is and how courageous you must be to talk about the experiences that seen and been through and obviously working with a lot of folks that are in CCWF and our other institutions. It it it takes incredible amount of bravery to come in a very public way and talk about that before this committee. I bring that up to say that whether it's in this hearing today or in any of our institutions on any given day, we cannot tolerate any acts or threats of retaliation against a person who speaks out or is seeking help. And so I wanna be this is not directed at any of you individually, but I wanna be incredibly clear. If I catch wind that there is any form of retaliation in any way, shape, or form based on what we hear in this room today, I will use every available tool at my disposal to have the most robust public oversight hearings.
I wanna be extraordinarily clear. You're doing the right thing in coming forward and talking about the all of this in front of our committee. I expect no retaliation from any state agency or any state employee. With that understanding, I would like to start with talking about the August 2024 incident. I had a chance to see what I would categorize as an appalling and disturbing video of the incident.
I do have a couple questions about the incident. The first is there was a guard in the video from what I saw that was carrying what I would describe as a a super soaker type weapon. Not asking for name his name, but I'd like to know the rank of that officer, if anyone knows.
Speaker 16
Okay. It appears, at least from my review of the video, that after he deployed his weapon, other officers began began to deploy the mace grenades and pepper spray despite no imminent threat. That's at least my take on it. I I watched the video and saw in which I saw many inmates wearing those bright yellow cover colored vests. Many, appeared to be restrained, and I saw no provocation and certainly no imminent threat.
There was complete void of leadership or professionalism in everything that I witnessed, and I'm again appalled by what I saw in that video. With that statement in mind, I would like to ask a couple questions. Is it your assessment that the act of spraying without an imminent threat went against your use of force policy?
Speaker 7
Absolutely. So in order for any individual to use force, they have to be able to not only identify but articulate an imminent threat. I agree with you. In many cases, we found that there were some staff who used force, and they're forced to not comply with our use of force policy.
Speaker 16
Thank you very much. And I I I agree with your statement, and I appreciate the answer. Are you requiring that every officer who remains working for the department in that incident be retrained on use of force and deescalation? And, again, the question is every officer involved.
Speaker 7
Absolutely. What I'll share is in the eighteen plus months since that incident has occurred, we've partnered with the Office of Correctional Safety, our internal security oversight or I wouldn't say oversight, but our internal security to provide not only use of force training, report writing, and communication de escalation to all staff involved in the incident in addition to staff who were not involved in the incident, as a preventative measure. We took that a step further. We provided that training to staff at California Institution for Women as well. The thought is that many of our population transfer between the two institutions, and then we could to drive home how serious it was into, you know, our efforts to prevent it from happening again, we did provide that training.
Speaker 41
Thank you very much. And I know that you're relatively new to the role, a lot to walk into and to, take over management of this incident. Before I go to my next topic, I will just say I mean, really, of all the officers that I saw in the video, but certainly of the gentleman that I have described, I have seen no greater exercise of a lack of professionalism than this incident, and quite frankly, this person should not be the in the employee of the state of California. What I saw was a disgrace. With that said, I'd like to change topics.
Speaker 16
In the agenda, it says that the department's own regulations specify that the legal concept of consent does not exist between CDCR staff and incarcerated individuals. And it goes on to say that any sexual behavior between them constitutes sexual misconduct and will subject the employee to disciplinary action and or prosecution. Can you confirm that this is in fact the department's policy?
Speaker 16
Alright. That being so, I would assume that any inquiries after a complaint is filed, do not ask the complainant whether there was consent, and the assumption is that, it is legally impossible for the complainant to consent. Can you confirm that is the case?
Speaker 16
Thank you. Would you say this is similar concept of consent between minors and adults because in this case, the incarcerated person is under the custody and control of the state, whereas the employee is a sworn peace officer or otherwise employed by the state?
Speaker 16
Many cases of staff sexual misconduct are annually referred to a district attorney's office?
Speaker 7
I don't have that information directly. I can look to get that information for you.
Speaker 16
Thank you. I I would certainly appreciate that. One more question on the topic of sexual misconduct. If a staff member has a sexual misconduct claimed and if it is sustained, does that determination remain permanently on the employee's record?
Speaker 7
Absolutely. We when we look at our disciplinary matrix, it's what we use, the statutory guidelines to impose the penalty. So what you'll find is in many cases, when it comes to sexual misconduct or others, it'll guide the discipline. But, yes, if it's substantiated for Prison Rape Elimination Act, it stays there, whether they retire or not.
Speaker 16
Okay. And thank you. And what about other sustained acts of misconduct?
Speaker 16
Okay. Thank you very much. I think my next question is for miss Singh, office of inspector general. The inspector general's role seems very limited based on your statutory authority and resources. At least that's how I would personally describe it.
So your office has some ability to monitor monitor staff complaints generally, and you only recently received some resources and authority to monitor and investigate sexual misconduct in all of the state's prisons. But the resources limit your ability to monitor, if I'm understanding correctly, about twenty five percent of cases. Is that right?
Speaker 16
Okay. When you finish an investigation, are you able to recommend the specific consequence that follows such as termination?
Speaker 10
Following the completion of an investigation, the OIG monitor can make a recommendation as to what we believe is the appropriate penalty, which does include recommending dismissal.
Speaker 16
Thank you. In that case, how often are your recommendations concurred with by the hiring authority, the wardens?
Speaker 10
I would have to get that information for you. I don't have specifics as to all of the cases we monitor or any specific prison at this time.
Speaker 16
Completely understand. That is information I would find very helpful. And I have to say, I understand that the wardens that were before this committee this time last year are no longer the same wardens in place, but I found that testimony completely useless and void of any helpful facts in helping me to assess what's going on in our institution. So your follow through and follow-up on that point would be greatly appreciated by this member. Thank you.
Alright. I wanna talk next about excessive use of force. How do you differentiate between excessive use of force with an actual battery?
Speaker 16
How do you differentiate between an excessive use of force investigation or assessment as compared to the commission of the crime of an actual battery?
Speaker 7
Right. So excessive force is defined as any force in excess of what's needed to perform their to overcome resistance, affect custody, subdue an attacker, so it's more force.
Speaker 16
Okay. Thank you. And and I and I'll try to do a better job of maybe asking a more clear and specific question. If, for example, hypothetically, a correctional officer were to use a baton resulting in serious injury on a person who has their hands zip tied, sitting, and for sake of this hypothetical, not posing any threat, would such an incident be referred to a local prosecutor?
Speaker 7
It could. It would it there's a couple of things that have to be considered. So the reviewer would have to review the individual's report to identify what they articulate as their imminent threat. And so in cases where we look at use of force, it's reviewed at multiple levels. It's reviewed at the sergeant's level, the lieutenant, a captain, an associate board, and it also goes through a committee.
But at any time during that review process, if there's a belief that the force was unnecessary or excessive, then, yes, it'll be referred for investigation to the office of internal affairs. And then once that investing comes back, if it's found that that force was excessive or unnecessary, then we'll go through the disciplinary process and that person will be disciplined. But it's it's hard to say because we'd have to look at both whatever evidence exists. So if that's body worn camera footage, if if that's the audio video surveillance footage, if it's that not only that individual's report, but other reports. If there's an allegation of excessive or unnecessary force, then they're gonna review they're gonna interview the incarcerated person and any witnesses.
So there's a lot to be taken into consideration before making the determination if that force was either excessive or unnecessary.
Speaker 16
I I appreciate that. Speaking about the August 2024 incident, have there been any criminal referrals today?
Speaker 16
Okay. In the past twenty four months or if you could just give me more of, like, an annual average, how many criminal case referrals are there from such excessive use of force cases?
Speaker 7
Unfortunately, I don't have that information handy. I'd have to get back to you.
Speaker 16
I appreciate that. I know I know I'm throwing a lot of tough questions at you, but that information would be helpful to me, and I will move off this topic. But the reason that I'm asking these questions is I'm trying to understand whether the department's internal processes are sufficiently delivering adequate consequences and routing appropriate cases to DAs. Again, based purely on what I saw from that video as a former practitioner myself, absolutely a case I would charge. My final topic is, really about the culture at CCWF.
It seems to me that there's a deeper culture that, a cultural problem at the facility that may not be fully addressed through individual disciplinary proceedings alone. So what is the department considering to address this larger cultural and systemic issue?
Speaker 7
I agree with you. We we have also found that there's cultural issues not only at CCWF, but also at CIW. When I mentioned in the beginning that we are working with external partnerships such as our previous secretary, Kathleen Ellison, and the Moss Group. So a lot of those efforts are to address the cultural issues that we have at our female institution. I'll say that one thing that we've we've been championing is the see something, say something.
It's our active bystander training where staff are not just complicit and stand around when they see wrongdoing. So we do we've identified that there is a cultural issue. A part of that is the trust. We we realize that that trust has been broken amongst the population, And so it takes a long time to rebuild trust. And so we are boots on the ground when I say that from an administrative level, from the administrative team, myself and my team, we are in the institutions communicating with the staff and the populations.
But it's a part of that that larger cultural issue that you described.
Speaker 16
I really appreciate your answers today. In a moment, I'm gonna ask these other panelists if they have anything they'd like the committee to consider. The only thing I would offer in speaking only for myself is that I would say it's not just with the inmate population. I, speaking for myself, my trust in the department is fractured based on everything that I have seen. I would love nothing more for that trust to be repaired and restored, but as I sit here right now, results matter.
And so I will be watching very closely to see what is done, what is the outcome of criminal referrals in this case, and I very much look forward to getting more information from you, ma'am, as well as our representative from OIG. Before I close out, three of you, I know you've been waiting patiently. There have been a lot of topics that we've addressed. If there's anything else that you think the committee should know, I'd I'd very or anything you'd like to respond to, I'd love to hear your input today.
Speaker 16
Yeah. You don't have to if you don't want. I just I wanted to extend the opportunity. Something.
Speaker 29
So we are a part of this working group with CDCR, and the initial phase of it was us to work on a collaborative report, yet the report wasn't collaborative. We released our report with our recommendations based off of the testimony of the folks inside and the the town halls that and the surveys that we had held said what they would need to be free from violence, and then they released their separate report. And so we're still in this working group, and so I would appreciate if we could collaboratively come together to produce the recommendations. That way, it's not just us saying what we think they need. They also are in collaboration with us.
Speaker 12
I think that that's how we will see change because it usually, we'll talk about something and we're met with per the recommendations in the department and all the stuff that's above my pay grade. And so if we collaboratively came to suggestions, I think that's how we'll see the changes versus us and them. And it's not a us versus them. We should all be working together for the solution for the folks on the inside.
Speaker 14
Thank you. I would just like to add that, we appreciate the attention that this committee is paying to the issue. I feel like we have the ability to be inside talking to survivors, and I just want to relay the level of fear that people are carrying every day. It is terrifying for folks. Not only have people understood that we cannot rely on CDCR.
For years and years and years, we've seen the same things, but now the retaliation is increasing. And you've seen that as well with the August 2 incident. So it's compounding, and we just thank you for taking such great care.
Speaker 16
Thank you all very much for your testimony and for answering my questions. I'm gonna hand it over to many of my other very capable colleagues to continue the line of questioning, but I just wanna emphasize if there's any point of common ground, I think it's this. When you are in the custody of the state, you do not waive your eighth amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. And I have to say I'm very disappointed in what I've seen of the department of late. My challenge to the department is to do better.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you, assembly member Schultz, and women, to the women's caucus, the members that are here, assembly member Bonta, some member, Quirk Silva. Do you have any questions, comments? Assemblymember Quirk Silva?
Speaker 6
Thank you for being here. I appreciate it, and thank you to the chair for including me. This is really triggering. I don't think it's necessarily because I'm a woman, but it certainly brings up that there's several of the women caucus members who have been working in this space and trying to understand more about what is happening, not just under sexual abuse and violence, but on women and who are incarcerated and how can, we look to best practices. I myself have a bill, b seven eight eight, which is a two year bill, that was held.
It is coming back, and it was basically a master plan for women who are incarcerated, which is actually already the law. And CDCR did not oppose it in committee, and then as we move through the process, has opposed it saying that they can't comply in essence. We're bringing that back, but on the the very basics, for me, I think the big and I did also see the video. And I think the most shocking part to me is that there were so many correctional officers. So whether they were the one with the, as you said, the spray spray gun or how did you say that?
Super soaker. There were so many more that stood by and watched. And this this is fundamentally the problem. I come from the city of Fullerton, and in 2011, six police officers beat and killed a homeless man, schizophrenic homeless man on the streets of Fullerton from the Fullerton Police Department. And it was initiated by, really, the first police officer on-site and then the second, but there were six that joined.
And I saw the videos of that as well, and it brings me all the way back to that moment where you see a video and you see other public safety officers coming upon. Now they didn't know what the extent was, but there was one man who was being beaten and then ended up dying. And when I saw this video, it took me right back to that where you see somebody leading and then so many others following. But even if they didn't follow to the extent that that first officer did, there were so many that just stood by. And that tells me that it's not just about training.
It's about what are the consequences? What are the consequences? So one of the questions that was just stated, which is, there is abuse and violence, but what is the, percentage of officers that are actually losing their positions? Because if you do something and you get written up, okay, it might happen again. You do it another time, it might happen again.
If fifty percent of the officers maybe lose their positions, but if we know that seventy five percent of them lose their positions, that might be a deterrent. So my question is, what is the percentage of officers that are losing their positions for sexual abuse and violence?
Speaker 7
Unfortunately, again, I I'm not equipped with that information. We'd have to go back and look at the data to be able to provide that, request.
Speaker 6
But even backing up to the question, what are the percentage that are being investigated?
Speaker 7
Right. So any all allegations of of staff sexual misconduct, sexual misconduct for incarcerated person or an incarcerated person, any allegation of excess or unnecessary force, every single allegation is referred for investigation.
Speaker 8
It so that's the office of internal affairs for CCR. And they're separate and independent from the institutions in in location and in staff and in oversight.
Speaker 6
Alright. So I'll just kinda wind up here because I know there's there's a lot of questions. But when I look at the notes, and I'm not even talking about the August 2 day, I'm talking about over a period of years, How how is institution, in essence, creating an environment where there can be so many sexual assaults? Where are these happening? There's a lot of people around.
So what are what is the basic scenario where these happen?
Speaker 7
So each allegation of sexual misconduct is they're different in nature. So when it's staff on incarcerated person or when it's incarcerated person on incarcerated person, When we're looking at those so a part of the review that I mentioned, in the opening is that we review the any allegation on the front end within sixty days, and that's what we're looking at. We're looking at infrastructure. We're looking to see if there's blind spots. We're looking to see if it's the same individual who are who's committing these acts against the population.
So we're looking at, like, the housing. We're looking at a lot of those things. I can't, pinpoint one specific thing. A lot of it comes down to the individual when we look at some of the
Speaker 6
Can I ask the women? Where where would most likely these assaults be taking place?
Speaker 14
Out of the view of cameras. It's a pretty common shared information where people can be to assault incarcerated people. This tends
Speaker 6
But to be there's there's other people in proximity. Are they watching? They know about it? They're turning a blind eye?
Speaker 13
Sometimes it's in plain sight or, like, when they do kitchen release works at five in the morning, sometimes some will be held back. Just depends. Most of the time, it's in plain sight where they just don't look. So there's other people around.
Speaker 7
Well, it just I'll just end my remarks. This just goes back to a culture that maybe they're not the perpetrator, but they're close by or they know about it. We just saw an entire candidate for governor go stop his campaign. And now what do we hear is a lot of people knew about this. So when you say, if you see something, say something, that that is important, of course, but it's absolutely unacceptable that public safety officers have to have watch guards.
Speaker 7
If I could add to that, when there's other staff members around who identify staff misconduct and they are not reporting it, that's also a staff misconduct in and of itself. So when we're having those interviews that we're doing with the population and we're conducting that investigation, if we find that there's other individuals around who failed to act, those individuals are held accountable as well. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. And I wanna, again, extend my appreciation for including us, in this conversation. And I also just wanted to just, share with miss Mota, miss Grayson, and miss Deanda that I was able to hear your testimony, although I was not in this room. And I wanna thank you again for always coming to be able to do what is very, very impossible and uncomfortable, which is have to be, situated in a room to have to share again and again, over and over again, the trauma that you experience at the hands of the state. And and that is not lost on me that, every single time that we ask you to do that, it takes a little piece of you away.
And I wanna honor that and also recognize, that when when people are testifying with truth and with experience that is undeniable, it is a shame that we in the state and we in our state prison system are not able to come forward with information detailed information and preparedness that matches the level of information and detail that people who are inside our carceral system experience. So my first question around that is, did you all, those who are representatives of the state, have an opportunity to read this agenda and the background before you came into this room?
Speaker 1
Okay. So in this agenda, it very clearly articulates some basic concerns and questions around reporting, whether or not information is reported to to prosecutors, whether, what time frame it takes to be able to report, the number of instances and questions around whether or not, instances are prosecuted. That I read in this backgrounder. If I were coming into a room knowing that a hearing was being had around those issues and where I needed to be accountable not only to this legislature but to the individuals who give pieces of themselves to hold us accountable, I would be prepared with those responses. Why have you not been prepared with the responses that my colleague, assembly member, chair of the public safety committee, asked?
Speaker 7
Understood. A part of the reason is because it it takes we have to be able to provide accurate information. And so in order to provide you with that accurate information, we have to go into our different databases to pull it. And so and instead of providing inaccurate information, I'd like to make sure that we're getting you what you're asking for. So I wanna make sure we get those cases that were actually referred for prosecution and how many individuals are held accountable rather than quickly putting together something that's inaccurate.
Speaker 1
Yeah. You knew these questions were coming, and assembly member Schultz and certainly pulled those questions from, just a review of this a review of this report. And so I would ask you again, because this is a common theme, in public safety and with CDCR, especially, to be seemingly ill prepared to answer some basic questions. And at this point, I'm really fed up with it. And we have state money and dollars going to your inability to be direct with the public, and that for me is unacceptable.
Barring that, I will try to ask some questions to be able to see if you might be able to answer those. I wanted to specifically go into the area of concern around the instances of review, the internal review process and how that comes about. You indicated that there is a time frame, a designated time frame by which internal investigations need to be completed. What is that what is that time frame?
Speaker 8
Yes. Statutorily. Yes. The desire is to get it done sooner than that, but yes.
Speaker 1
Are there have there been any instances when you have not actually provided that information in a timely manner within the one year, which seems quite frankly outrageous, within the one year time frame that you have been allocated statutorily?
Speaker 7
I've been in this role just under a year, appointed, or I was confirmed last week.
Speaker 1
Okay. So, again, how how have there been instances where it's taken more than a year to be able to provide?
Speaker 8
No. In a criminal if it's a criminal matter, you can actually toll the case as well until the criminal case is done and then put the person off on administrative time off, you know, separate them, you know, from the place that they were working and make sure that the timelines are met.
Speaker 1
Right. I my understanding is that there have been several instances where investigations have not been handled in a timely manner, and they have gone on longer than they should have, which by then actually creates a secondary issue of the office of inspector general not having the information that they need in order to be able to address, address these instances.
Speaker 8
So we we work very, very closely, with the inspector general. They, actually used to work for that office, and, they're co located co located in our building. We meet on a very regular basis, and they also attend all the interviews on these cases. The the the case conferences, we we are we, you know, collaborate extensively with them, and they make suggestions and advice. And it it is an imperative that that we take that advice.
Speaker 10
I I am committed to, and I think the inspector general may comment on this as well, is, you know, they are a partner, and we also have department attorneys. Our our EAPT team also attends all of the the interviews. They're involved in all of the case conferences. And they're actually after we complete the case and it's turned over to the hiring authorities to to make a decision about discipline, The officer inspector general is involved in those meetings along with the department attorney. So they have this collaborative team that makes decisions about discipline.
Speaker 8
And and what happens, the the investigation collects the facts and the proof of the matter of what happened in the videos, in the testimony, in the documents, and and all of that information. And so then that that information gets transferred and given to the hiring authorities to make decisions about discipline. But there it's a collaborative effort.
Speaker 1
Can I ask the inspector general to speak to whether or not you are aware of whether there have been instances where the investigation has gone on longer than a year?
Speaker 10
Yes. Amerique Singh, inspector general. Yes. We have monitored cases where the statute of limitations has expired, and that has precluded the wardens or the hiring authorities from actually taking disciplinary action. We did bring some data with us in anticipation of today's hearing.
For cases from 01/01/2025, We looked solely at CIW and CCWF cases. Thus far, one of our units has monitored 97 cases. Out of those cases, I can let this committee know that at least two of those had lapsed, because the statute of limitations had run, and so discipline was not being able to be taken. 22 of those cases I'm sorry. I apologize.
Two of those cases were criminal, and the I apologize. I can I can read? Nine of those cases were criminal cases, and, some were referred to the DA, some were not. And the balance were, in fact, all administrative investigations.
Speaker 1
Do you have a response to that? I because that was while you were there where you just said there were none to your knowledge that had exceeded the statutory timeline?
Speaker 8
Yeah. I I am seeing that information. So I I trust their facts. But I I I do think that we work collaboratively. I I'm not sure of the exact, you know, data of those cases, but I will will certainly check and find out the information about at what point they were criminal and and administrative and and what were the the facts of of the particular cases.
But I I do I do wanna, you know, reemphasize that it is a collaborative effort and that we take very seriously the investigative work that we do and the suggestions of the inspector general.
Speaker 4
it? Yeah. Even staying there, do you have something to add? Can you state your position and and where where you're representing? Chambers.
Speaker 30
I am the director of the division of professional policy research and internal oversight for the department. Part of my area of responsibility is office of internal affairs. I can confirm that the information from OIG is correct. There are several cases that have lapsed statute of limitations. Those are primarily administrative cases.
Speaker 18
The reasoning behind the lapse of cases is the number of investigators that we have available to, handle the the volume of allegations that are coming in overall. We have over 13,500 active cases right now, and I have a total of 109 investigators in the allegation investigation unit. It is not our intent to continue to lose cases. We are working on a number of items to try to rectify that, including standing up a separate PREA team within our office of internal affairs that is consisting of, special agents instead of our our custody investigators. We are also working on improving our triage to ensure that the video that is captured is used more appropriately and timely.
And we have also brought in a use of force consultant as part of the Armstrong case that we have to come in and provide comprehensive recommendations and review of our entire use of force policy, including training, use of force review, our policy and regulations, as well as our investigations. So I did wanna clarify the comment that was made earlier. There was nothing that was lost in statute related to the CCWF case. But overall, yes, ma'am. There are cases being lost to statute.
Speaker 18
I'm director, sir, of division of correctional policy research internal oversight, also known as CPRIO.
Speaker 1
Another question, if it's okay, chair. I wanted to get to the nature of the internal investigation for sexual misconduct, especially, conducted by CDCR. So CDCR, just so that we are clear, has full authority to review, investigate, and substantiate or dismiss claims. The office of internal affairs, which is within CDCR, conducts in investigations that we were just talking about, 13,500 claims that require, some investigatory analysis around. They turn over the findings of the investigations over to the hiring authority.
That hiring authority is the warden. Correct? Correct. And the hiring authority then decides whether the findings indicate the misconduct happened or not, and then decisions, and then makes decisions about whether to refer those cases to the DA are also made at this stage. Is that a fair representation of the process as you understand it?
Speaker 1
Okay. So let me get this straight. You go through your own internal review for 13,500 cases, eventually, when you get them, whenever you might get them, whether or not they're before or after the statute. You have the authority to review, investigate, and substantiate, or dismiss the claims. And then you turn those investigation investigatory findings over to the warden who is a part of the system and potentially a part of the system of abuse that is being perpetrated with people in under their care.
Speaker 7
Close. I just wanted to clarify that internal process, the investigation is not conducted within CDCR at the institutional level. The investigation is conducted outside with the office of internal affairs. Once they complete their investigation, it then it comes back to the institution for the wardens to be able to make that decision based on the evidence con that's inside of the investigative file.
Speaker 1
So the invest the Office of Internal Affairs, however, who's who's the boss of the people who are sitting inside the Office of Internal Affairs?
Speaker 1
Okay. So the office of internal affairs is under the purview of people within CDCR?
Speaker 8
Correct. But we're, just to back up just a little bit, we're, we're not making the findings of the case. What we're doing is collecting the facts, getting all the evidence, and with the inspector general and our department attorneys is together assembling all that information together, the facts of the matter, and then that is turned over to the department's hiring authorities along with the department's attorneys and OIG, and they get together to make a decision about the discipline.
Speaker 1
The hiring authority has independent discretion about whether or not to turn that case over to a prosecutor.
Speaker 8
No. That, that happens at the the office of the inspector general sorry. The, office of internal affairs. Turn over the charge in here. We routinely, give a case, over to a a DA, for prosecution.
Speaker 1
Well, I don't know if it's routine or not because you weren't actually able to report on how many cases actually go to the DA. So routinely is a a word that I'm going to, you know, hold in quotes at this point. My point, though, however, is that you have an office of internal affairs that develops findings and then is brought to the warden of of that particular facility, and then that warden makes a decision about whether or not to refer that case for prosecution?
Speaker 8
No. The the case is, the office of internal affairs completes the the case, the actual written report that is given to the district attorney's office for prosecution. A the the the matter at hand, those reports, you know, what actually happened is given to the hiring authority, and then they make a decision about discipline.
Speaker 1
I'm gonna ask for additional insight from the office of inspector general, if it's okay, chair.
Speaker 10
Yes. Amarik Singh, inspector general. An investigation, when there's an allegation of misconduct, if it's criminal, there's a criminal investigation that's conducted by the office of internal affairs. That criminal investigation, hypothetically, will say it's, an act of sexual misconduct. They conduct that investigation.
They do a criminal investigation. And if there's probable cause to believe a crime was committed, they will refer that matter to the local prosecuting agency for prosecution and consideration of prosecution. That misconduct can also be administrative, and then a separate team at internal affairs conducts the administrative investigation, and that investigation is then packaged up and sent to the warden, the hiring authority, to make a determination on whether or not discipline should be imposed. So one act of misconduct can be both criminal and can be administrative, and it goes down two separate paths.
Speaker 1
Okay. Thank you for that clarification and for your responses. So in the administrative arena, however, we do have a situation where the warden is then making decisions about whether or not to continue with administrative, with any, findings that are kind of on the administrative route around whether or not a person should be held accountable.
Speaker 10
Yes. That is correct. They make the determination on whether or not allegations of misconduct should be sustained or not sustained, and if they are sustained, what penalty should be imposed.
Speaker 1
And and then what is the role of the office of inspector general, the independent office of inspector general in both the administrative and the criminal?
Speaker 10
In regards to a criminal case, we can make a recommendation on whether or not the case should be referred to the district attorney's office. There are some cases where the office of internal affairs in a criminal case determines there is not sufficient evidence to forward the matter to the district attorney's office. Sometimes we concur and sometimes we do not. If we do not, we try and raise that to the level, so that it can get referred. In an administrative investigation, similarly, we only make recommendations on whether or not allegations should be sustained or not sustained, and then we make a recommendation on what we believe is the appropriate penalty.
Speaker 1
And do you believe that you have enough, capacity in the office of inspector general to be able to adequately weigh in on both the administrative and the criminal investigations?
Speaker 10
When you say capacity, I will have to ask if you mean do we have enough staff or do we have enough Authority.
Speaker 10
Well, as we heard, there are over 13,000 investigations that are occurring, and the office of the inspector general does not have the staffing to monitor all of those cases. We can only monitor our our goal is up to 25% of the cases. That is the capacity that we have by way of staffing. In regards to recommendations, we do make the recommendations, and there are, opportunities built in. If the hiring authority disagrees and we feel strongly about the case, we will elevate it, and we will go through an elevation process, and we will take it up to the secretary for that determination.
But, ultimately, we only have the ability to make a recommendation. We do not control what decision the department will make. Because, to be
Speaker 1
clear, you don't have any authority to be able to do that. You can only recommend.
Speaker 22
I I think that, is at the crux of what I am most concerned well, one of the things that I'm concerned with, that it seems like, there is a supposedly, independent process through the office of internal affairs run by CDCR, where we've just learned only a small portion are able to be, reviewed in a timely manner and that there are capacity issues with the number of investigators on those 13,500 cases, instances, which is and that once that happens, there is this kind of, I don't know, bad metaphor right now, but kind of, I don't know, fox guarding the henhouse kind of situation, and that is deeply concerning. And then once you get past all of that, the only actual authority that we have that sits outside of that system, the office of inspector general, does not actually have authority. It can make recommendations, but you can also be overruled, around both administrative claims and, and criminal claims. So that is deeply concerning to me, because there are 13,500 instances. I don't know how many people that represents who deserve justice whether or not they are inside the system or whether they are outside of the system, and that seems to me like an absolute failure of of justice.
Speaker 5
I really wanna start by thanking you all for sharing not only your experiences as Sandra did, and both of you having also been through this system, but also just being willing to continue fighting, for everyone who's inside for, especially the women who continue to face this just unacceptable culture that has been discontinued, without the necessary supports to actually change systemically, which you all talked about. Unfortunately, I can't stay long because I have to go present in another committee, but I did wanna ask two questions, and then I'll try my best to follow-up, if I can outside of this space. And I just wanna apologize because it's just crazy. I think the first one is, to the stakeholders specifically in terms of solutions that we know we want to see. Like, what is missing?
April, you talked about that folks haven't necessarily come to the table to actually want to be real partners and that you all started in good faith but recognize that there's just a a willingness to accept the system as it is. Like, what are the things that are still missing that we really need to be fighting for? And then, just because I might have to step out during part of that, which I apologize, just wanted to ask for Sandra as well. You talked about the coming home piece and the supports that are needed for the reentry. I know you've recently been home, and so if you could share a little bit about what that looks like, what that needs to look like so that we can continue to invest in folks who have been impacted in this way, especially by sexual violence.
Speaker 12
You wanna talk about the industry? Uh-huh. You wanna talk about what you needed when you came home and what folks need?
Speaker 13
When I came home let me see. It was you know, after nineteen years, it was, like, a little bit of, a culture shock. I was expecting to go to a program. Like, I wanted one because I thought I would need it to, like, transition successfully. But they didn't put me in one until at least, like, four months later, but I had asked for one before I left, but, like, an involuntary one in case it didn't work for me.
I have family members who've been to prison and also transitioned already. My sister's my co defendant. She's been out for five years. She's already doing really good. She's a supervisor at the NBC c NBC Suites.
She she's doing, like, really good, you know? But so I had a lot of support, but they didn't put me in one until recently, matter of fact. And I only lasted, like, four days, but they weren't, like, they didn't know like, my men my my my mental health, they weren't, like, okay with it because I'm autistic. So I lasted four days and then I had to go to a mental institution for a little bit and get re diagnosed because I was misdiagnosed in the prison as bipolar. I had my psychosis, but that's been documented since VSPW.
So if anything, they need to do more with, like, mental health because there was a point in time where about two years ago, I started hearing voices outside of my head and it was staff members. And I had wrote at least, like, thirty six zero twos and I had told them, like, I'm hearing voices. It's staff members. I relapsed. I started doing drugs again.
I cutting on myself and I turned them in and nothing came about with them. Nobody, like even if they would've sent me to crisis or, like, EO I would've been okay with something, but they never did it. I said I was too paranoid to come out of my room. I need to, you know? Like, I was in there for, like, thirty days because I couldn't tell the difference if it was, like, somebody talking or, like, my voices, you know?
But I don't know. That that's what happened, but I know mental health probably before we get out and then that's about it, really. Just really with mental health.
Speaker 12
Can I ask that? So as a person who paroled after doing seventeen years to this to the county of Sacramento, our resources for women are limited because we are the smallest margin. And so when you think about, let's say, a 100 people, and if it's only two of them are women, the resources automatically are not directed to us. They're directed to the men. And so I asked for a program too.
I didn't have a program. I paroled homeless. There was no clothing, no transportation, there's no vouchers. Like, there's nothing that's given to us to help us reacclimate or to successfully come into the community. And so it was up to my support system and my own self to ensure that I did what I needed to do.
Same as Sandra. It's up Sandra is using her will to make sure that she does the things that she needs to do to get to the chapter meetings and to to be a part of CCWP and to get to this hearing because the state has not set her up to succeed. And it doesn't set up anybody as far as the population of women to succeed unless you're a lifer where you're mandated to a program. But if you're not a lifer, you're not mandated. And even with them, I'm sure they they face their own burdens and their own hurdles, but we do not have resources readily available to us so that we can have the things that we need.
Speaker 25
I would just add to that as far as the question of what else is more layers of accountability that are not reliant on CDCR and the systems within CDCR. And so, you know, as sister warriors, ambassador program, CCWP, having layers of formerly incarcerated people going inside that have lived inside, that know the officers, that know the people on side, it's huge because that has allowed us to actually really be in relationship with folks that are experiencing and have experienced assault and try to get them what they actually need, you know, trauma informed care, support, things like that. Just really, again, you know, Sandra touching on the mental health stuff, that's also one of the things on the inside. When people seek mental health care, it often can be weaponized and used against them, logged in their border for all hearing files, and so people are afraid to do that. You know, so often we hear from survivors not so much about wanting to always report because they fear retaliation, but wanting to be able to talk about it with other folks and receive support outside of the system.
Speaker 12
Can I say one more thing too? And then I know this isn't a policy committee. It's a budget committee. But oftentimes, like, our policies are not we don't make it out of appropriations. To quirk Silva's point, like, her her bill became a two year bill.
We worked on s b ten sixty nine, which was the OIG bill, and we were met with budget issues. We also are coauthors of three three seven authored by assembly member Quirk Silva, which is a to produce some more preventative measures inside the institution, met and became a two year bill. Also, four six four. Sorry. Three three seven was Menjivar, four six four.
And so the issue, I think, always boils down to budget, and CDCR has, like, I think, a 13,000,000,000 don't quote me. I'm not the budget person, but, a 13,000,000,000 budget. And yet whenever we bring a policy forward, it's always met with a budget concern instead of taking the budget that's given and then using that for everybody and making sure that our policies can come through committees so that we can put the make it mandated in law so that people can have the protections that they need as well.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that. Do you have any other questions? Okay. We'll take those questions as follow-up. Go ahead, assembly member Quirk Silva.
Speaker 6
Last year, we, as Women's Caucus, started a working group focused on women incarcerated, and then we were tracking how many pieces of legislation that were put forward by women related to this topic. And don't quote me on the exact number, but I it was 12 or 13. And out of those 12 or 13 bills, one was signed. So and this is just a very short one year analysis. Like you said, some of them were held.
Some of them, there was no opposition made them made it all the way to appropriations, and then behind the scenes were being worked against. So that's just something to know. I mean, this is my last year as a state assembly member. I know that assembly member Mia Bonta and others will continue to work in this space. But I do think for us as legislators knowing, you know, this is how many bills that are put in this space.
And if you look at I think it was 12 bills. One out of 12 is a very poor record. So we we have to do better.
Speaker 1
On behalf of senator, assembly member Ahuari, she wanted to ask the question around considering the threat of retaliation. Have you considered alternative, safer ways for the women to report on staff misconduct? That's for you your consideration.
Speaker 7
We have. So in working in our, work groups with sister warriors, it was said that many individuals who report are afraid of retaliation. There were some comments regarding, once they report how our investigative services unit will go over to, escort the individuals to investigative services unit for to do the, interviews. And so how that can, like, unnecessarily out those individuals to others, and then they face retaliation from the population at times. And so we have we've met with our, leadership at the institutions, both CIW and CCWF, as well as our investigative services unit, to just do it a bit differently.
So they they are required to interview those individuals in a private setting, so that we can make necessary arrangements to house them safely or to remove the perpetrator. But we are doing that a little bit safer. We're doing it in different areas, not necessarily removing folks from their work site, having it done where we can duck at them to other areas. We do understand our responsibility to take immediate action, but we're trying to do it in safer ways so that that person is not unnecessarily outed to the population. Population.
Mhmm.
Speaker 14
I would just say that we have been in I myself have been in three times in the last month, and we are hearing that that is not the case. People are being outed, shamed, retaliated made fun of in front of others, staff, peers. It is just not hapting happening in practice. So, unfortunately, every time we go in, the the next horror story we hear, it's they continue on.
Speaker 14
I would also just say that as far as tracking forms of retaliation, if there is if it's reported and there's a mechanism, but we find that many ways of retaliation are very insidious, and people understand that, that, you know, that their room will be tossed or a partner that used to work with the officer will that guards I mean, so it's just it it works like that. It's it's really hard, to track that retaliation because I think it happens in ways that we are unseen.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Appreciate that. I did have one other question about the cost of inaction. When, there's a criminal case or an an when when we move into the courts with action, and charges of sexual misconduct, we know that there's been one instance where there was a $1,500,000, settlement, that came from one instance, and the others. Who pays for those that that misconduct?
Who pays the settlement?
Speaker 7
Unfortunately, it's, it's outside of my scope. I'd have to get that information to you. I'm not sure exactly who pays.
Speaker 8
It comes out of CDCR's budget, but it ultimately is all of us, the taxpayers.
Speaker 1
I appreciate that. And that is true. So now we have knowledge of many claims that are not being addressed at all of sexual misconduct and inappropriate behavior by an individual nested inside a closed loop, highly protected system of investigation without much ability for an independent actor in the office of inspector general to have the author authority or the capacity to be able to take action to move those into prosecution, into the realm of prosecution. And we have bad actors who are continuing to get moved around from one place to the other. And the state's CDCR's budgets, which is the state's budget, the state general fund is paying for that inaction and wrongful conduct to the tune of tens of millions, perhaps even hundreds of millions of dollars.
That's the costs to the budget. We are in a budget hearing after all. The cost to our humanity as a state and the cost to those who are held in our system is priceless and has no has no has no denomination that can really take take hold of that. I wanted to just ask one question because I wanted this re brought on the table. Amika, in the last time you were here, you offered, one proposed solution to how we might be able to address the, state of safety for people who, are victimized and who are caused to be survivors, when they are under the care of the state and CDCR?
What do you think an appropriate action is for us to be able to take when when people are assaulted inside our prison system?
Speaker 14
Every time we understand the political climate may not not exist for release, but I cannot land anywhere else, can you imagine staying inside a place where you have been raped and abused with that same set of officers and actors everywhere. I mean, it's just it doesn't matter how many times I testify. Like, I still cannot get myself together around that, around the people that are left inside. And we don't have all of the solutions, but we know that it is just an it's insane to to leave these survivors on the inside to endure more harm and to keep coming back and reporting this. So release, and then access to more people on the outside that understand how to work with survivors, and trauma informed care.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much to the Women's Caucus and the members that were here asking the questions. And certainly, to our witnesses, certainly hearing your testimony does weigh heavy with this committee. Some of the different statements that were said, I think, April Grayson, forced treatment. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that, on the forced treatment? And then we're gonna have follow-up from CDCR on that also.
Speaker 12
I don't know the name of the program, but there is a program that is offering, I think, six weeks off of a person's sentence if they take this this substance called Suboxone. Mhmm. And so people started to
Speaker 12
So when people are trying to come off of this substance, they're not letting them off. So you take a person, let's say me, and they introduce Suboxone to me, a person who does not have any drug history ever, and now I'm addicted to this substance. And then when I try for six weeks to get six weeks off my sentence, and then when I try to come off the substance, I'm met with, no, I can't come off, or I can't go to my transfer, or I can't go to my outside facility, and I have to stay on this substance, and it's Suboxone. And Suboxone is the synthetic a synthetic form of heroin is what I believe. And so people are are being forced, or it's used as a carrot stick.
Hey. Here's six months. Get on Suboxone. And so people who wanna come home might get on Suboxone, and then they cannot get off.
Speaker 7
I'd have to defer to our health care partners. So when we deal with medication administration, it all falls under CCHCS, so I'd have to defer that one to health care.
Speaker 4
Is that an optional, program, or is it a forced program? Have you heard the term forced treatment before?
Speaker 7
This is the first that I've heard forced treatment, but again, I'd have to defer to our California health correctional health care. State
Speaker 19
Good afternoon. I'm Duane Reader. I'm deputy director for the California Correctional Healthcare Services in the fiscal management section. I am not aware of any forced treatments, around Suboxone.
Speaker 19
To my understanding, it's optional. Most of the care within the the facilities is option optional to our patients. Like, they're not forced to go to mental health treatment. They're not forced to go to appointments if they choose to refuse.
Speaker 19
Yes. Yes. It's provided to them, but patients have the right to refuse any treatment within the system.
Speaker 4
So we're hearing a statement of forced treatment and a program that's given to those that are gonna be released within six months, I believe. And you're aware of that program?
Speaker 19
I am not aware of that program. So I'll have to go back to my colleagues and get some more information for this committee.
Speaker 4
so if you could follow-up with this committee and especially around the topic of forced treatment on We'd be waiting for that information to come our way. We Thank you so much for also to Ms. Dianda, the medical treatment that you received inside, but also the medical treatment, mental health resources once you're outside. How how is that how is that working for you now?
Speaker 40
Well, the mental health treatment that I received in there there was one point in time I didn't go to mental health for, like, I think, like, two, three years because an officer who my ponytail accidentally hit and they gave me, like, eighteen months doubled in court and then they gave me a year shoot term. He worked there and I wanted to go to mental health but I didn't wanna run into him. You know, I feared retaliation. I only went in there with ten years. I got I caught an extra 11 And at one it was for the ponytail, and then, officer Collins, he escorted me and then stopped suddenly at a ball, he threw me on the ground.
Speaker 13
And next thing you know, he said he had lower back pain and a burning sensation in his neck. Like, I was So I didn't report anything until I got out. Like, I only went with ten years. I ended up doing 19. My total was, like, twenty one, eight months.
I wasn't supposed to do all that time. But the mental health treatment that I received out here, mean, it worked for me, you know, it was my re diagnosis. They misdiagnosed me the whole time I was in there. So the meds I was on really didn't work for me. It wasn't working for me.
And, you know, it could be in part why I ended up with so much time too, but the officers in there weren't sensitive to people with mental health disorders and psychosises. Like, I'm autistic, but I have a psychosis too.
Speaker 13
Yes. In 2016. I didn't I didn't go in the room with no, like, intention of doing anything, but when it was a recall, I came inside the unit last and I was waiting to speak to the officer. And so I told him, I said, you know what? I don't feel right, like, going into the room.
Like, something changed in my mind. I need to go to mental health. He's like, well, it's about to be count time. Wait till after count. And when I had gotten in the room, I don't it it was, like, it's in and out.
Like, it was in and out for me, but I had slipped my wrist and I ended up with twenty four stitches, 14 on the inside and 10 on the outside. And I had punched through a window and I think I had a fight too. But, yeah, it was I don't know. That wasn't my intention when I was going in the room, But it happens. I've been denied a lot of times.
Most of the time, they just say, unless you're suicidal, you can't go to mental health. So you have to say you're suicidal in order to go there. But they had changed that probably, like, maybe, like, a year before I got out to where if you request it, you can go. Like, just tell them you need to speak to them, but it should have changed long ago. There's times where I wasn't suicidal, but, like, I know I didn't feel right and I needed some form of help.
But you have to say, I'm suicidal, then go through the whole process, spend a night in crisis and, you know, sometimes you don't wanna go through all that. Just need to talk to somebody.
Speaker 7
I'm not. In fact, what, DeAnda is describing is outside of our policy. So we do have our staff are trained on the referral process for mental health. So we have emergent times where mental health services are needed immediately, and then we have a referral process where we identify if it can be routine or not. In fact, our staff are trained if they're gonna activate an alarm for emergency services or to pick up the phone and contact mental health.
So that is concerning because it is outside of our our policies with regards to referrals for mental health services.
Speaker 4
But those that are there, within the prison, when there's a severe mental health request, the is there staff there that that look at that request if it's, needed right then at that time?
Speaker 7
Yes. We have mental health staff on-site at all times. Our staff are trained on how to make those requests to mental health services and on who to contact for mental health to determine if that's something that they're gonna review right away.
Speaker 4
Is anybody in the room that could answer to that? I see different people stepping up, addressing different questions. So
Speaker 19
Peter again, deputy director. I don't have an answer for you right now, but we will certainly follow-up on that one request as well.
Speaker 4
Thank you. And it and it really is the request of mental health resources and how many times they're being denied and how they're they're they're being addressed during that time. We'll be looking for that information coming forward.
Speaker 4
Thank so much for that. And we did hear about a working group that has been working. Can you elaborate a little bit more on that working group?
Speaker 14
Yes. I can take that. You know, it was convened with a a group of community partners. So it's Sister Warriors, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, other stakeholders with CDCR, and we've been meeting weekly since monthly since 2023 on this working group. That was where we first came up with our set of legislative recommendations.
That report, was in 2024. We April is really engaged in these, work groups, and it feels like it's been a standstill. Like, there's just not a lot happening in these spaces. CDCR often, you know, says that they can't speak on a particular issue, but we're trying to solve problems together in this space. And, you know, as, April's testimony alluded to, we have not been able to move forward, not one of those recommendations in the three years, that we've been working with CDCR.
Speaker 34
So in that working group, the those that are in there, CDCR is is part of that working group. And, you know, if we're if we're trying to solve a problem, then those that have lived through it would be the greatest advocates and the greatest voice to make recommendations to make change. So what are those recommendations coming out of that working group? And if CDCR is involved, then the budget wise component is involved in it. So we would like to see some some of the different requests or or different recommendations that come out of this working group with the voices of those that are actually bringing forward things to change.
Speaker 4
Can you walk me through a little bit more about how that working group works and if there's recommendations for change? I mean, we've heard about it's it's known that certain areas where where cameras go dark, I guess, where there's no cameras at, that there's a lot of violation taking place there. I mean, have we worked on that component? Is that one of the recommendations that have comes out in this working group? I just wanna, enlighten me a little bit more on how that process works.
Speaker 7
Right. So we do have that working group, and we meet with sister warriors once a month. And so in that working group, initial we've recently changed the agenda. So prior to recently, sister warriors will put together the agenda for CDCR, and we go through issues and try to solve those in real time. Some of those recommendations, are things that are outside of the control of CDCR with regards to the to PREA.
So we fall under the federal PREA guidelines. So some of the recommendations, such as, not necessarily putting the victim or the, excuse me, the perpetrator into RHU restricted housing because, you know, that individual is not necessarily found guilty yet, that it interrupts their program, it interrupts while we understand that, we're still held by some of the guidelines under the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Others, we run into issues. There's individuals who will speak directly to Sister Warriors and they however, they don't wanna be identified. So when sister warriors bring these to our attention, of course, we wanna address them in real time to prevent more victims, but it's kinda difficult when we don't have the names or the CDCR numbers for those individuals, which I understand why they don't always wanna come forward.
So I think, essentially, yes. The work group is working. We just, as April said, a lot of it is collaborating a little bit better, being able to share information. And then when it comes to a lot of the information with regards to active litigation so some of the information that myself or my team weren't able to share had to do with the August 2 incident that was being litigated or certain, Priyas that were actively being litigated. So we are limited in some of the information, but when we're able to share, we do, and we take the recommendations very seriously.
It's just some of them, we don't have the ability to address right away without going through the proper channels. And a lot of that is within the federal PREA standards. Those ones, we don't have the ability to make changes to without going through the proper process. And so that's where we end up running into issues where we can't address those right away or as quickly as we would like to.
Speaker 4
And you understand and I understand, those that are bringing, these issues forward. And as far as feeling uncomfortable with their their names being addressed because of the culture of retaliation within CDCR. But we we have to start looking at what the working group is bringing forward, especially the voices of those that have went through it so it doesn't keep happening. If we're not gonna start to address those issues, then we're gonna where where are we gonna be? I mean, we certainly heard from testimony from the dais as far as the budget constraints and how long this issue has been going on in the cultural aspect of it.
I I also wanna get to a point with internal affairs. So here, if law enforcement conducts things that are not to those standards, they could lose their post certification and not be able to be hired anywhere else. Can you walk me through, with CDCR and those that are in corrections, is there also, some type of certificate, something that they're holding that, potentially, statutorily could be removed from them, if they're part of these types of activities. So the
Speaker 8
c CDCR peace officers are are not part of the the commission on post. They they have a a different certification. It's under c post. And so
Speaker 8
C post. And and so it's a little bit different. My understanding is is that the state, you know, did move in that in in the direction of, decertification, process for someone who's, committed certain types of wrongdoing. But that's, regulated by the commission on post was was my understanding. And that's the California Commission of Peace Officer Standards and Training.
Speaker 4
So c post is what correctional officers have inside the correctional facilities Yes. That is administered by the by post itself?
Speaker 4
To the best of your knowledge, has anyone ever lost their c post certification over allegations?
Speaker 8
Yeah. I've and I'm not sure if the inspector general has has this information either, but I I am not aware of that happening. But I am aware of of, you know, someone, you know, losing employment or, you know, by a criminal matter being, you know, convicted for an offense and, you know, serving serving a prison sentence. So those things occur, but I'm I am we'll have to provide more information to you about c post and how that's regulated.
Speaker 11
I'm not sure if this is helpful to but maybe some context oh, if you wanted to go ahead.
Speaker 18
Hi, chair. Chris Chambers, director of division of correctional policy research and internal oversight. To answer your question, yes. When a peace officer is convicted, they would also lose their c post.
Speaker 18
with local law enforcement? But one is for one is for peace officers under one statute. The other is for correctional peace officers.
Speaker 4
So CPOS is administered by who? Who do you go to get the CPOS qualification?
Speaker 18
There there is actually a commission Okay. Called c post. The the exact person, I couldn't tell
Speaker 4
We thank you for getting that information back to us. Elio, anything to add?
Speaker 23
I was I was just gonna add that I think part of the in terms of context, part of the reason for decertifying peace officers was to prevent them from gaining employment in another agency. In this case, CDCR would know not to rehire that person. I guess if the concern was that they would go to a local facility, then I don't that would be something I don't know. And, you know, we'd be happy to work with your office if you wanted us to, you know, look into that a little bit more, but the extent to which
Speaker 4
Certainly, want to look into it at at at under the premise that those aren't losing the CPOS certification, and they're moving around within the the CDCR system and allowed to continue to perpetrate these types of acts against prisoners. In that premise, we would like the information coming back. And and more information on the on the investigation, internal investigation, investigations in general. There was time frames shooting around with some of the earlier good questionings from the women's caucus. The year investigation.
Now the way I heard the the dialogue going on, that you have a year to investigate, what happens if that year comes and stops? Does the investigation stop because of statute requirements, time frames, or or or what?
Speaker 8
No. So it there's there's criminal investigations and, there's the administrative investigation. So the government code allows the you know, it it provides for the investigation to be completed in one year. If if you're working a criminal case that's part of that that same matter at hand, it can allow that administrative case to toll. And so it actually allow you to complete both within the time frame to take action on both.
A straight a straight administrative case without a criminal component would take one year. That's the maximum
Speaker 4
And the individual that's being investigated, are they moved outside of the area where the accuser's at so that it protects both, I guess?
Speaker 8
Yeah. Typically, yes. And I I think Kathleen could probably answer that.
Speaker 7
They can be. So what happens is anytime there's an allegation made, our investigative services unit along with our locally trained designated investigators for Priya will look at the evidence. So they'll review the audio video surveillance system. They'll review the body worn camera footage. Mhmm.
And if there's anything in there when they're reviewing that initial information that leads them to believe that or the evidence leads them to believe that it could have happened, then, yes, we will take those necessary steps to remove that individual from the line, whether it be redirected to the mailroom. Depending on the severity of it, there's times when they're put on put on administrative time off while we go through the investigative process, but a lot of it depends on the the evidence that the staff are able to collect at the time when the investigate when the allegation is made.
Speaker 4
Now is that, is the person moved out from any contact with the person that that's has the accusation?
Speaker 7
Correct. So when we're removing individuals, from their post, they're put in a position where they don't have access to any incarcerated individuals. So when I say something like the mail room, it would be off grounds where they're not dealing directly with the population, either the individual who filed the claim or others.
Speaker 4
And that happens with everyone that's being investigated, not typically happens, but happens
Speaker 7
in everyone. So the the evidence is gonna determine if that individual will be will be removed from their post and put either in the mailroom or in an administrative time off.
Speaker 4
And when we start to look at now the the criminal aspect of it, that's the more of a civil type deal, but the criminal investigations, that could last longer than a year?
Speaker 4
How many of those, criminal investigations, result in convictions? And I guess it would be you handing over the information to the district attorney or to another board that reviews it.
Speaker 8
Yeah. The the district attorney handles the prosecution of a criminal case.
Speaker 4
And are they part of the process in the beginning when the evidence is being collected?
Speaker 8
They they can be. Typically, what happens is our investigators, you know, gather information and evidence and then meet with the district attorney and show them what they have. It's not when they the case is completed. It's it's typically, try to involve them as as soon as possible.
Speaker 4
And and so with the the the the prosecution of those and those that that have been investigated within the one year, those types of things, do you see reoccurring individuals that are constantly being accused of things that continue to be investigated? Is that normal or or not normal?
Speaker 8
No. I think it goes back to if we're investigating some type of criminal incident or criminal matter.
Speaker 4
Or the other, the accusation internal, civil. Yeah. If you see the the the question is basically geared around if you see the same name appearing with accusations, is that taken more of a severity look into the instance? Or do we look at it in the same lens as as the first case?
Speaker 8
No. And that's, that's actually part of our our disciplinary matrix is a repeated offense is makes things, more of a a serious matter. But that's
Speaker 7
It is. I would agree with that. But I would also add to that when I mentioned that we look at the evidence to determine if that person's gonna be removed from having access to the population. That's another thing that we take into consideration. So even if we're looking at the body worn camera footage, the audio video surveillance footage, but if we have many complaints from different incarcerated persons on that same staff member, we consider that when we're looking at removing that person from having access to the population while we do the investigation or while OIA does the investigation.
Speaker 4
In a cultural question within, CDCR, an inmate makes an accusation or or makes some, you know, case forward. What is the mentality of the culture within CDCR? Do they take the the victim's word, or does it stand more on the side of CDCR personnel?
Speaker 7
So the training that we provide is that we take every allegation seriously. So it irregardless of the individual's belief on whether it happened or not, the expectation is that every allegation is taken seriously. Every allegation is referred for investigation. And then we let the evidence that's conducted to through the investigation determine the outcome or if that staff member or even if it's an incarcerated person, an incarcerated person, the evidence will dictate what happens, but every allegation is taken seriously.
Speaker 4
So we did hear also a testimony on those that witness assaults, I'll call them assaults, on inmates and other staff members are are standing there or they're in the those areas. Now you you mentioned that they they have the the the duty to report that moving forward. And so is there also a culture of staff on staff retaliation for reporting misconduct?
Speaker 7
I'm not aware of any specific staff on staff allegations for reporting misconduct. But when I mentioned that anytime there's an allegation of misconduct that's reported, how we monitor for ninety days, that also applies for staff. So we're also reviewing and monitoring those staff members for anything that can be retaliatory in nature. It's not just the incarcerated persons. Because we do have staff that'll come forward and mention some things that they've seen that don't look right, smell right, feel right, and or, you know, they'd witness or they talk to an individual and the staff member is doing that third party reporting.
And so we do. We we have protections for those individuals as well to include the whistleblowers.
Speaker 4
It so an internal internal investigations there, we've been focusing on the victims, which which by rights we are. We're we're concerned with what's happening there in the culture that's that's continuing to grow and and fester. But we now wanna look at the staff on staff retaliation. If a staff member comes forward, how deeply is that investigated, and does that go through the same year long process, or is that more
Speaker 8
immediate? So it it would be looked at through the same lens. It's it's it's the seriousness of the matter, and it doesn't matter who reports it. So we we we treat them the same. The staff, you know, it it's a very serious incident retaliation, you know, by whomever.
The department also has something. It's called you were talking about the same allegations or or, you you know, a staff person doing the same things. We also have a early warning system.
Speaker 4
That's correct, sir. So staff on staff. Staff makes a report, right, because they don't like or what's going on, what they see. How is that investigated?
Speaker 18
So it's it's investigated by common. Go ahead. It's investigated by a a completely separate entity with an OIA. So that would go through our nine eight nine process and be investigated by our special agents, versus our AIU team. And something I would like to point out, we have up to one year to deliver a determination.
That does not mean in all instances that we meet that one year. Many cases are are done particularly on the special agent side under that time frame. It's specifically the AIU or allegation investigation unit that's receiving the, inmate reported allegations that's taking longer because of volume.
Speaker 4
So two separate, investigation components are are are bodies. One from from, the assault on inmates goes to a certain body. If a staff member reports misconduct from another staff member, correctional officer, that goes to a separate body.
Speaker 18
That is correct, sir. Still within office of internal affairs, two different offices or two different units within that team.
Speaker 4
So if the individual in the one case, accusations against a a CDCR, officer, they're removed from from being in contact with that one person. What about on the other side, the staff reporting on another staff member? Are they also removed
Speaker 18
from interaction? Determined. It would be based upon the totality of the circumstances, but in many instances, that answer is yes.
Speaker 4
Okay. And and for assembly member Schultz, we did narrow down that here, local law enforcement under post certification can be decertified for future employment. We narrowed it down to a c post certification, but we're still
Speaker 4
with another member. And so a c post is another certificate, and but we couldn't narrow down who administers that to, CDCR and looking at future pieces of statute through a policy committee.
Speaker 18
My apologies, chair, for for interrupting. Go ahead. I would like to make a correction on that statement. I was able to determine that the decertification actually comes from the peace officer standards and selections unit, within CDCR. CPOST is who sets the regulations in the framework.
Okay. And then opposed would work with with any other agency related to background to ensure that that officer is unable to to become a peace officer again.
Speaker 4
I believe we'll definitely, unravel that chain. The inspector general, we were talking about and you heard the conversation, going on. First, I wanna, give you an opportunity to address anything that the questions that we've asked that you think that you could, add to.
Speaker 10
There was a lot. MRH, the inspector general. First, in regards to the, retaliation that you addressed for a staff member reporting misconduct on another staff member, the officer, the inspector general, has a a unit that will also review those. So CDCR staff are, able to contact my agency for us to do a whistleblower retaliation on staff members who feel that that they are being wronged because they reported misconduct or they are being wronged for some other purpose. So we actually do have our legal unit review those allegations.
Whether or not they're immediately moved, I I can't say in all circumstances we have seen that, in just the limited number of cases we've seen. And, also, CDCR staff have a few other, avenues available to them if they feel that they're being retaliated against, by their own, administration that they can utilize through the equalopportunitycom the EEO type complaint system. And I also do know in the cases that we monitor regarding whether an accused staff member is moved from their position, their post, we we do see that in some cases. It is not in all cases that a staff member who is accused of some type of misconduct that is that they are moved from their from their assignment. CDCR will do an evaluation based on the severity of the allegations and make that determination, but not all staff who are being investigated are moved from their, positions.
And then I think, finally, regarding this decertification, it is my understanding that CDCR is specifically excluded from that statute of being decertified. But I don't know if that has changed recently. The last time I looked at the statute, CDCR is specifically excluded from the decertification process.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that. And and we were here last last year with a hearing on these issues. Do you think that there's been some progress on the challenges that face the inmates and and the stories that they're telling so bravely here today?
Speaker 10
I do believe there has been progress. CDCR has made some positive moves in trying to make some progress in protecting the incarcerated population at the women's prisons. I do believe they have a lot more that they can do that they are working on. As the associate director Ratliff described to this committee, they have put additional resources in place to try and protect the incarcerated population. They brought in some outside stakeholders.
They are trying to engage in more positive programming. My agency has also done taken some steps to go out and meet with the incarcerated population. We try and get out there at least twice a year to meet with the incarcerated person advisory council, the the the women there who are who are basically in in pseudo leadership the incarcerated women in pseudo leadership roles to meet with them, to also be a voice for them so that we can try and facilitate and make recommendations to both the wardens and to CDC administration to make any positive changes that could help out the population.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much for that. And I know changing a a culture that has existed for some time continues to be challenging. But I think we have to look at what we're being presented here today. I mean, is some concern where you're saying that those that are being investigated are moved away from a population of of those that are accusing them, and we're hearing now that not all are actually separated from that. So there has to be there's concern that is it truly happening or is it not?
And and and certainly, voices of of of those that that come forward within this working group are things that we wanna see as far as the recommendations coming out of there. And that was another question to the inspector general. Do you think that the voices those within this working group have been beneficial? And have they moved CDCR in a direction that's adequately addressing the concerns of those voices?
Speaker 4
Wow. Okay. Okay. So a neutral body that comes into the deal is not part of the working group. So who assembled the working group?
Is it all under CDCR?
Speaker 4
Okay. So there's there's options for people to be included into it in it?
Speaker 4
Okay. Because we we are concerned, and certainly, accusations without names coming forward, but, yeah, we all understand why those names aren't coming forward because of the culture of retaliation within CDCR, within the women's prisons that we've been in looking at and having hearings on. And I if it's a culture there, then you have to the question comes, is it a culture throughout the whole organization? And so these are questions that that we we we would like to to see addressed. Certainly, we'll look into the the c post, find out the exemptions, those things.
But but the change has to come from within. I mean, certainly, I think you made the statement that that staff, that see these things, should be reporting them. And that brought up the question, staff on staff retaliation. Right? And so people know, right, what's going on, areas within the prison where cameras aren't able to view.
Right? So we know there's concerns, red spots, red hot spots that are there. But today, we heard the voices of these the individuals coming forward, victims, that are bringing that forward. They wanna work despite of what they went through, they still wanna work to make a change in the system so others don't have to go through it. And that's what this this this committee is concerned about.
Their voices are coming forward. Right? And now it's time for the organization to start to make that change. And and not just say we're gonna make the change, but to hold some accountability to it. That's why we keep bringing up that c post.
And we'll we'll dive into it. This is a budget committee that would take a statute and policy to even start the dialogue moving forward. But I think there has to be that that strike, a balance there for those that are in staff that would report these things to make it a better system for everyone, going through. And, certainly, those that are incarcerated are there for a reason. But that doesn't mean that their rights go away.
And that's the concern of this committee, that the budget that we spend on CDCR and the amount of culture that needs to change within CDCR so that these types of situations don't keep happening. And we're here with with those that that have brought this forward to us. But I'd imagine it's a generational culture. It's time that we start to take that and make that change here in the state of California. With that, we're gonna move on to the next panel.
Speaker 4
next panel will be mental health receiver action plan overview and related budget proposals. Colette Peters, receiver, Coleman receiver's office. Darcy Delgado, senior adviser, Coleman receiver's office. Dwayne Reeder, deputy director, fiscal management section, California Correctional Healthcare Services, CDCR. Orlando Sanchez, LAO.
Ryan Weinberg, Department of Finance, and Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. And I believe we're gonna start with Colette Peters. Is that right?
Speaker 19
Good evening, chair, members. My name is Duane Reader. I'm the deputy director over fiscal services for health care. I'm gonna introduce the proposals, and then we have Colette Peters here to help answer questions as well as someone from the telemental health program. There's two BCPs in this item.
Speaker 16
One is for the receiver's office to establish her office and continue bonus payments that were started over the summer. So the request is for 33,900,000 in 2627, and the funds will be coming from the special deposit fund. 8,200,000 of that request is tied to the receiver's office, and then about 25,300,000 of the request is tied to the bonuses that we'd like to continue. The second item is a telemental health staffing augmentation BCP, which is requesting 69 positions and 8,900,000 in 2627, and growing to a 119 positions and 12,800,000 ongoing in 2829. With me today is Colette Peters, the mental health receiver, as well as her senior adviser, Delcy doctor Delcy Dar Darcy Delgado.
Speaker 19
Excuse me. And then for the telehealth mental health proposal, we also have doctor Tony Martello here to help address questions. Thank you.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair. And members, thank you very much. My name is Colette Peters. I am the court appointed receiver in Coleman v Newsome. For those of you who do not know my background, I have been in public safety and law enforcement for over thirty five years.
I recently led the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and before that was the director of the Oregon Department of Corrections, the Oregon inspector general, and the director of the Oregon Youth Authority. So I have been an agency head for over sixteen years. In this role and all of the other roles that I've served, I believe that corrections should be grounded in safety. We heard lots of concerns about that already today, but also in wellness and humanity. And so I really want to take a moment of privilege and acknowledge the brave panelists that spent the afternoon with us who, were very brave in their presentation.
I I I want you then them to know that I come to this work with a passionate focus on safety and security, humanity in prisons, employee wellness, and I've spent my entire career trying to create spaces that really foster rehabilitation of both those in our care and custody and our employees. Now a little bit of background on this case. This is a thirty five year old civil suit involving eighth amendment violations with respect to the delivery of mental health care to individuals in CDCR custody. As far as we can tell, this is the oldest, most litigated civil rights case in the history of US prisons. The Coleman class is over thirty six thousand California patients with serious mental health conditions.
In 1995, as you all know, the court identified several constitutional deficiencies against the Coleman class. These included a lack of a systematic program for screening and evaluating patients, significant and chronic understaffing and mental health services, inadequate implementation of CDCR suicide prevention program, and no quality assurance program. So to address these deficiencies in 1995, the court appointed a special master to provide expert advice and to advise the court regarding assessment of CDR's compliance with the court orders. As you can imagine, this is a lengthy and complex history and case. So between 1995 and 2025, there have been ongoing efforts and improvements have been made to the mental health delivery system.
Yet in 2025, there were findings, and the court order the court concluded that the remedy was not yet implemented, and the court made the decision to appoint a receiver at that time. So on 08/27/2025, I was appointed as receiver, and the federal court adopted our action plan. Now we worked diligently with CDCR and with both parties to develop that action plan. I want to thank all both parties on the record for their help in assisting us getting up to speed with that thirty five year history and thank CDCR for helping us do that as well. The the action plan has six very clear goals.
We want to improve mental health care delivery through culture change and effective management. Culture change was brought up earlier this afternoon. We want to achieve and retain a qualified mental health workforce. We want to provide an adequate care at every level of our mental health services delivery system. We want to fully implement a suicide prevention program and complete the development and implementation of a quality insurance program assurance program.
We also want to create mechanisms to demonstrate the remedies. So under each goal, you will find objectives, you will find measurable actions, and while I won't review all 31 actions, I'll I'll give you an example. We've talked a lot about filling mental health clinical vacancies as a crucial part of compliance. If we don't have people available who are qualified and there to provide that mental health, we we, will have a huge barrier to compliance. So the objective is really broken down into five actions, and our team is going to maintain a matrix of progress on all of these actions to ensure that we continue our forward movement.
We want to make sure that as we do these audits, as that we as we push change forward, that we're holding ourselves accountable to completing what we said we'd complete, to being transparent, to sharing with you and the citizens of California. We have pretty ambitious time frames on many of these things ranging from three months to eighteen months, but we have a real sense of urgency to act swiftly. We see that the new field auditing system is up and running. The implementation of the action plan, we believe, will ensure full and durable compliance. So as the receiver, I am responsible for, implementing that action plan.
We really wrote it in a way where we hoped that, CDCR and both parties would see a clear road map to completing this case and to ensuring that the patients in our care and custody were receiving a constitutional level of mental health care. So we we wrote the action plan and we'll continue to do it through the lens of transparency and a shared commitment to really have lasting reform. I think it's important for the committee to understand the difference between special master and a receiver. The special master has been overseeing this case for quite some time with limited authority. The special master had the authority to monitor and report back to the court and provide recommendations.
The receiver has more powers and authority given to me and my team. I cannot do this work alone. And in that, we are responsible to implement the the changes that we are recommending, and we have to be part of that solution. So I want to, thank the committee for allowing me to introduce myself and talk a little bit about the action plan, and we are here and very happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you, mister chair.
Speaker 23
Darcy Delgado, senior adviser for mental health. Not at this time, but happy to answer any questions that may come up about the LEO's report and recommendations on staffing or other aspects of the receiver's action plan. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. And thank you both for being here in person. Appreciate it. Galio?
Speaker 20
Thank you, mister chair and members. I have two sets of comments. The first is on a report we published this past February, titled addressing chronic vacancies in the prison mental health system. And this is to highlight to the legislature the vacancy rates amongst mental health providers in the prison system. This is an area that the state has struggled with for many years and is under court order to fill those positions.
So prior to the establishment of the receivership, the state was fined, and the court collected a $150,000,000 from the state's general fund related to these vacancies. In our report, we identified five strategies, and I'll walk through, four of those and leaving the final one, for one of the the proposals here. A common strategy is for employers when there's recruitment and retention challenges to increase compensation. This is an authority the legislature has to increase compensation even further, but we recommend not considering at this time significant across the board pay increases. At the moment, there's various efforts ongoing to address whether compensation and as mentioned, there's already a proposal before, included in the receiver's action plan that would address that amongst other activities that the department has been has been taking on.
And it's also a relatively costly strategy compared to some of the others I'll discuss. Another strategy we've looked at is extending licensing exemptions to people working from out of state. Currently, the department allows exemptions for certain classifications for a temporary basis so people can work and then work towards earning their California license. We recommend expanding these exemptions so that all state mental health providers already licensed in their respective states, especially if they're coming from out of state, no no no longer need to acquire a California license. We also recommend the department the department to recruit more from out of state.
There's a that would expand the pool of providers that it can recruit from, and the fiscal cost of these to the state are likely minimal and absorbable. A third kind of option is clustering or what's known as concentrating the prison mental health population. We recommend requiring the department to report on the feasibility of doing so. Clustering can bring several benefits. One of those is make it easier to have people placed where prisons are easier to staff.
It reduces the amount of locations that are people that people are spread out across and especially at prisons where there's already existing large vacancies. And it also reduces some of the competition between facilities that are competing for the same pool providers and mental health providers. And then we acknowledge that there's difficulties with doing this at at a large scale. For example, there might be prison infrastructure that could be a limiting factor of concentrating, at this scale. So we think a report makes sense so that the legislature can weigh those trade offs in the state and as a and whether that's a feasible strategy to pursue.
And the next I'll discuss is aligning the number of inpatient beds. So there's there's a study that shows that gets produced twice a year that through the budget process, one in the fall and one in the spring, and that shows the projected number of needs. It's done through the under the court order. And as and looking at the projection those projections, it shows that the department is operating hundreds of excess inpatient beds, and those beds need to be filled, with staff, and that exasperates the vacancy problem. So we recommend, reducing those bay those beds in order to to better align the department with its true need.
And taken together, these steps will improve recruitment, help retain mental health staff, and this could help state avoid one strategy that's been used, in addressing vacancies is contracted or known as registry staff, and reducing its use, would allow the state to rely or some of these other options would allow the state to reduce its reliance on on that strategy. Then my second set of comments revolve under the receivership. This is a new thing for the state that has just recently come down in since the fall. And, this is a tool that that is available to the courts that's typically used as a last resort. As mentioned prior to this, there were other corrective measures that the corps pursued.
So what this means is the state has lost significant autonomy and control over the delivery of prison mental health care. However, the legislature still maintains a role in this and can exercise oversight and can continue to have the ability to either approve, reject, and set a budget in in this process. We have a second receivership in the Plata case on the medical side. And for that one, they've worked collaboratively with the with the legislature and the state and and through incorporated the state in that decision making process. And second, we recommend for the legislature to continue tracking the efforts towards exiting this receivership.
Speaker 13
The legislature could do so through annual updates, budget hearings such as these or reports, and exiting this is important be because part of part of this is it shows that the state is not able to regain control yet as long as the receiver is in place. It shows that the state has not reached a constitutional level of minimum care that's provided to incarcerated people. And and it also, one of the other risks is that as the receivership stays longer, it could increase, cost to the state, especially as it tries as it the longer it stays, the more it could issues it could find. And, for example, we know that under the receiver's action plan, there's efforts to assess the state's infrastructure on mental health facilities. So to the extent that leads to new construction projects, that could increase the state's cost, especially as the state is facing multiyear budget deficits in the near future.
Speaker 20
We also wanna highlight that currently the plan is estimated to take about five to seven years, but that could extend longer. This is a case that has spent several decades already, so it seems likely that the remaining issues are complex and difficult to to tackle. And the other benchmark we have is on the medical side, and that one's reaching that receivership is reaching about twenty years now. And whether this case will be on a similar trajectory depends on how effective, this receivership's actions are, our collaboration with the department, as well as a a few other kind of pieces as well. The other thing, I also wanna highlight is that the legislature, as mentioned, can direct the department to take additional steps such as those to address mental health vacancies that I highlighted already.
And, we also recommend the legislature monitor the impact of the salary increases proposed here. For example, this could be done by having the administration track how effective, the department was in recruiting and retaining right before these, salary increases took effect and right after. That would help assess, whether these are working and whether a different amount makes sense or different options. And, finally, we recommend approving funding for this proposal to establish the receivership. We find that this is a reasonable start to move the state towards compliance.
And thank you and happy to take additional questions.
Speaker 15
Good afternoon. Alyssa Cervantes, Department of Finance. So allowing licensed out of state providers to work, whether that be remotely or in person, in the California state prison system without a California license would establish a new precedent and would require significant trailer bill language. It may also create legal liability for the department or pose other operational issues regarding different standards of licensure. With that, we're happy to answer any further questions from the committee.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Just clarifying. Having remote access would increase, budget or take take a statute to change it? Or what was it? Your state
Speaker 4
Okay. Okay. The out of state license component from okay. Correct. Got it.
Would you like to respond?
Speaker 22
I would. Thank you, mister chair, and thanks to both of you for your thoughtful comments. Thanks especially for the LAO report and the recommendations. I'll start with the collaboration. So I have been a public servant my whole life.
I know that we can't do this if we're not collaborating with CDCR, with both parties, and with the legislature. And so I really appreciate those sentiments and believe really strongly that that's what we need to do. You also talked about the length the length of the case. That's why I said the five to seven year timeline is really aggressive given the thirty five year history, and yet I'm here optimistic about that. We, myself, and the two deputies that I brought on are lifelong corrections professionals and senior executives.
And when we began thinking about this job and thinking about the action plan, we thought about it in terms of, reentry into a correctional system. We say in corrections that reentry begins on when day one of incarceration. We said our reentry needs to begin on day one of being appointed as the receiver. What does the end game look like? How do we finish this?
How do we successfully get to a place where we have implemented all of the legal remedies? So we were thinking about that as we wrote the action plan. We did note in the action plan that three things would have to happen in order for us to maintain that timeline. One, litigation would have to cease or near cease. This has been such a litigated, complex, contentious case.
We have seen much progress in the last year in terms of collaboration with both parties and acceptance of the receiver, a welcoming of the receiver, and a positive working relationship. The other the second piece was that CDCR would need to implement the actions that we were recommending. CDCR has been more than welcoming of the receiver both as we develop the action plan as, and as we've begun implementing it. So I am incredibly optimistic. The leadership at CDCR, has been open and transparent and willing to work with us.
And then the last piece is that we do find funding to, to complete this case. We recognize that the state has a very difficult budget situation right now. I as a public servant, I don't sit before you naive to that. I also know that there a lot of money has been spent over the last thirty five years, and so we hope that money will be well spent on the receivership in order to end this case and ensure that our patients are receiving a constitutional level of mental health care. LAO's incredibly thorough analysis and you covered a lot, so I'll try to touch base on everything that you mentioned today.
Really, many of your multiple strategies are in line with what was already in the action plan. Some of those you mentioned operating the empty beds. We have to do
Speaker 22
analysis on the population. There's been an expansion of our EOP beds, which is very concerning to CDCR. I can't meet with the secretary without him mentioning it in every meeting. It's really near and dear to his heart as well. But we can't study the EOP population without understanding all levels of care and what's happening at those levels as well.
So that's something that our senior adviser from mental health sitting next to me here is tackling where she's on day ten, fourteen maybe. And so that's something that's really important to us. You also both of you talked about the elimination of the requirements for out of state licensed excuse me, requirement for individuals who are licensed out of state to be able to work for us. And that is something we're considering. We know that there will likely there may need to be a law change.
We will be working with the Department of Consumer Affairs to review this possibility. But as you both either said or insinuated, we have to be able to staff these positions one way or another in order to provide that care. So with that, thank you for letting me respond, and thank you for your thoughtfulness.
Speaker 23
Darcy Delgado, senior adviser mental, for mental health. Nothing specific to add but to echo the receiver's statements on, cooperation and collaboration. Huge thanks to your staff who prepared us well to ensure we're able to answer all the questions that you and the members have for us today.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much. Bringing it back to the dais. Any questions, comments from the dais? Assembly member Banta?
Speaker 1
Well, thank you, chair. I'm just giddy because I happen to get this freebie of a very important panel discussion. I wanna first thank you, chair, for really highlighting this as an area of focus for for your budget committee. It's been, an area of of deep concern to me, for a long time, and very thankful that you your leadership has resulted in this being able to be aired out. I did wanna just, hit on some of the, the pieces in the master plan that were raised, and quite thankful also to see the movement in appointing a receiver and the work that you've been able to do so that we can move out of receivership for around these two, incredibly challenging cases.
One of the recommendations that you have is around telehealth, and then second recommendation around basically, creating a state compact, for out of state providers to be able to, operate in in, in the state of California in our in CD within CDCR. Can you speak to any of the due diligence or work that you've done in in that area for those two aspects of the program model? Thank you.
Speaker 23
Sure. Thank you. That's a fabulous question. Sorry. Darcy Delgado, senior adviser, mental health.
A fabulous question and I think also represents and represents what many behavioral health employers are experiencing across the state, which is the dearth of clinicians. And one of the tools in the toolboxes the LAO report hits on is the importance of of telemedicine and the importance of using telehealth, to its strengths. And, through the court order, there is an order that fifty percent of clinicians can be, providing telemental health. We have Duane has a BCP, that he can provide more details on specific to that. But I also want to note that that 50% is a cap.
We're we're trying to have a lot of flexibility in understanding the geographic maldistribution of clinicians across the state. There are some prisons where the vacancy rates are nil. You have psychiatrists. So if you take San Quentin, for example, San Quentin, because of its location, is not a difficult prison to staff in terms of clinic clinicians. Talk about Pelican Bay up in the North, western part of the state.
Speaker 37
That is going to rely more heavily on telemedicine and teleproviders. And so I I would say that the LAO's recommendation and, the efforts through the telemedicine program, within CDCR are really seeing telemedicine as one of the tools in the toolbox to be able to provide adequate and sufficient care, while also understanding that there are some things that can't be done via telemedicine. If you are seeing a patient who is incredibly paranoid, who might, not want to be talking to someone on a screen, and so really trying to find that balance of in person, clinical care provision as well as the telemedicine. I'm not sure. I started rambling.
Speaker 23
I'm not sure if I answered your question, assembly member member Vanta. Just as
Speaker 1
a follow-up, could you imagine or have you explored, doing essentially a a hybrid model where we would, have a baseline of required, California residents, employees, who are certified practitioners, at a particular facility, as a as a baseline resetting essentially, and then any additional kind of, service opportunities that are telehealth or, people who are non California based to be able to provide that telehealth.
Speaker 23
Exactly. That is exactly the model that is operating at this time, which is a ratio, trying to understand what the ratio is of in person provision with clinicians who are there on the ground with a mixture of telemedicine. You bring up the point of out of state, and I do think as the receiver mentioned, that's something that we that the receiver's team is exploring is how to better bring in licensed staff member licensed clinicians from other states onto the staff. Right now, if you were a psychologist in Iowa, you could come to CDCR and serve as a clinician for one year without updating your license. You could ask for extensions for another four.
But are there more flexibilities that we can offer? Are there other things that we could be doing to help improve the vacancy rates? That is something that the receivers team is exploring.
Speaker 1
And I also just wanna be sensitive to the fact that, we did have significant conversations in prior hearings years ago when I was a chair that focused on the kind of inadequate working conditions and schedules impacting, our
Speaker 22
clinical practitioners, our psychiatrists that cause them to not wanna be able to be on the job. So is there also an aspect of the master plan that addresses better a stronger retention for those employees? Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for your question and observation. Yes.
Absolutely. No doubt. The physical structure of our institutions, the working conditions of our institutions are really difficult. It's hard to be a clinician inside a prison, especially post COVID where so many now can do their work from the comfort of their own home because so much of mental health in the community is happening via teleconference via telehealth. Excuse me.
Speaker 27
CDCR, like every corrections agency across the country, has a substantial backlog in facility repairs. They also built these prisons like every state corrections agency back in the nineties, not understanding that we were going to become the de facto mental health hospitals in the state of California and across this country. And so these prisons were built without the appropriate mental health space, clinical space, office space for clinicians. CDCR has done their best to turn spaces that weren't intended to be group therapy or clinician space into therapy space and clinician space, but there's a lot of work left to be done. So we're actually working with CDCR to do an assessment right now of a structural assessment on what changes need to happen from everything from I think we observed at CTF, there were clinical sessions being held in an office where the egress wasn't safe for the clinicians in case something happened to institutions that simply don't have the space they need to do the group therapy or the clinical work to institutions that have the space, but it's dilapidated and worn.
Speaker 22
And so there's there's lots of work to do there. And to the core of your question, it is about that healthy culture and that healthy work environment to retain the people once we hire them.
Speaker 1
Just as a point of information, are you also including the clinicians in developing out those recommendations Yes. Directly?
Speaker 22
Yes. Yes. And when we are in those institutions, we are meeting with the clinicians directly. Every time I visit an institution, I sit down and meet with clinicians and hear their thoughts and concerns. It's also part of our audit structure where we meet with staff to hear what's working, what's not working, what can the receiver do, what can we do to be more in compliance with the audits that we're conducting.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
I have a couple of questions. Definitely appreciate the information. I get to see you again, Armando, and, really happy to have you here. I actually was just in the penal code revision commission where we talked about the receiver, and now I get to meet the receiver. Like, how incredible is that?
Speaker 18
I, also really glad to see the goals you mentioned and and the objectives, like the breakdown of the action steps. I have a question that kind of concerns the previous panel too about the, the overdose crisis and how that connects to the mental health piece. And I think oftentimes folks use substances as a way to cope with their mental health and especially in a place like a prison where you don't really have a lot of other options. I feel like it's a crisis as was mentioned, and I was wondering if that's at all a part of your plan or, like, kind of maybe because the Coleman case isn't specific to substances. I know you have the suicide piece, but I'm wondering if that is a part of it at all.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair, and thank you, for the different levels of your question, including the fact that as the receiver, I need to stay in my mental health lane. And so I think there'll be a lot of collaboration as it relates to contraband, substance abuse, safety, and security in the institution because you're absolutely right. People self medicate when they're not wanting to come forward and have the mental health treatment or they don't feel like they have access, whatever that barrier is. And one of the things that you will find in the action plan as it relates to the safety and security of the institutions is one of our observations was a really profound fear from our mental health clinicians. And I found it again and again as I walked the halls of the institutions and talked to staff.
And there was there was a difference between the fear with our mental health clinicians versus our medical clinicians, seeing the same patients. And so it's something that we're definitely focused on. It's something that's very real to our mental health clinicians as they work with these individuals who are very severely mentally ill and violent. And so, the the the the security issues will bleed into Coleman, but it will be with a collaboration with CDCR.
Speaker 5
I have a quick follow-up to that question, then I have my, last question. But just so I'm clear, when you say the difference in fear and, I guess, how to deal with that, is there a level of training or supports that are being offered to kind of or, like, I know we're struggling with vacancies, and so, like, are we just hiring people who are afraid of the folks that they're working with, like, even before they even come into the building?
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair. Thank you for the question. I think it's a combination. I think we hire people who think they're not going to be afraid, and then they're in an environment that's new to them and with clinicians that are near them who feel afraid and who have have valid reasons for being afraid because they've been assaulted or they've had a colleague assaulted. And so I think it is about training.
It is about hiring the right people for that very difficult job. And so we're just in the very beginning stages of understanding what what that really entails, but it was a very strong observation for us as we, walked our institutions, talked to staff, and developed that plan.
Speaker 5
Okay. That's super helpful. So my last question actually will connect to to this piece. So you first, I really appreciated how you broke down kind of your passion and and overall kinda how you come into this space around staff well, employee wellness, but also really thinking about the humanity of folks. And there was one more word that I don't remember, but it was amazing.
Like, I was like, that's great. This is a good way to kinda have someone come in and have that perspective, and that lens. I think one of the things I recently visited a women's prison, CIW, and the folks who work in the programs, and even some of the clinicians. I felt like the fear came partially from just the culture of also the the staff, the correctional staff, like, just kind of not feeling like everyone was on the same page. Then there's this kind of weird feeling of, like, I wanna be helpful, but I also recognize that there's like, they're being treated differently by the staff.
And I I I was wondering, just as the last question, I'm not sure if that's here specifically, but just the mental health of the employees themselves and how that then impacts the mental health of the folks who are incarcerated.
Speaker 22
Yes. So thank you. I too have visited CIW, and I think what you're describing I've seen in institutions in Oregon and across the country, it's that us versus them dynamic rather than we're we're here to keep our institutions safe and to make you successful. And I think that is where the clinician fear was worrisome to me in terms of creating that that safe environment. But I also think that the as we look at it through the lens of humanization and normalization was the other word, It's it's something that's really important not just to provide better mental health care and better programming, but it actually makes safer prisons when you work through those principles of normalcy and humanity.
One of the things you'll see in our action plan, is the implementation of resource teams, in our PIPs, in order to have people dedicated to kind of changing the culture on those on those units, but then the hopes that that culture ripples out to the rest of the institution. Those resource teams would be fully trained in the principles of normalization and humanization, And their goal would be to ensure that those individuals were engaging in programming to the degree that they should and working appropriately through their programmatic needs. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much for those questions, and thank you for your testimony. The receivership is court ordered, so I just wanna be clear. That is court ordered. And until the till CDCR is able to administer those programs on their own, it is still under a court order for those receiverships and through the case that's there. But it's specifically to the mental health component receivership based on lawsuits that came against the state and the CDCR.
So looking in in that lens, when can we look at, having updates on the plan itself and if they're actually meeting progress so that we know that we're we're we're getting to a point to where we need to be.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair. Well, of course, I'm willing to come and present before this committee or others to provide updates, whenever you are interested in doing that. Formally, we will be providing quarterly updates to the court and reports to the court that will be docketed. Those reports will include an update based on the action plan timeline that we established. It will provide summaries of the audits that we've conducted during that quarterly period and any implementation success that we've had or challenges and barriers that we've had to that implementation.
Those reports will not only be docketed, but we will also publish them to our web page.
Speaker 4
And the the action plan that you're referring to, did the court approve that action plan moving forward?
Speaker 4
And so that's the reporting mechanism of accountability back to the courts to get the state to where it needs to be in the future. Okay? Just wanna make sure that that's that's understood. With regards to the vacancy that was brought up with clinicians and those within the system itself, do you have an idea why that's happening? Is it labor pool?
Is it what are the components that are straining that?
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair. We're we're working to look at the data and really understand it in more detail. But anecdotally, I can tell you what we believe is happening, and it's similar to what's happening in other correction systems. First, it's difficult to get high level professionals to work in a prison environment. But I often say, until they come and then they kind of fall in love with us.
So it really is about getting them in the door. But it's also where we built these facilities. And it's not just in California. It's in other states. It's across the country.
When you build them in urban settings, you have access to high level clinicians who can gate pay get paid more at places like Kaiser. When you build them in rural settings, you don't have access to the numbers of clinical professionals that you need. And so it's it's complicated depending on where the facility is. You highlighted the difference very well between San Quentin and Pelican Bay as an example. And then it really is making sure that people have the right training and support.
So one of the things that we've heard from our clinicians is that we have vacancies at the clinical supervisory level. And so that then they feel like even when they come and they're working for us, they don't have the support because that supervisor just isn't there. And so one of the things that we're focusing on, I point to you, but I really need to mean to point to our senior adviser, for, recruitment and retention who has recently been hired as well, is really looking at that data and figuring out, how we can get people in the front door, but how we can get them trained, supported, and keep them.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that. And to the question that was raised as far as the the California license, those that are coming and seeking California license to perform the the the the job. Do you think that that's a hindrance, and do you think that's costly? Or should we be looking at the labor pool here in the state of California?
Speaker 22
Great question. And I paused because I'm wishing I remembered this data point that I heard from one of the wardens because one of the wardens essentially received an assessment of how many clinicians were in the county, and there weren't enough in the whole county to fill his vacancies. And so I to your point, our first pool would be Californians. Right? Hiring people who are here, who are licensed in the state of California, who are willing to come to prison, who are willing to work in that environment.
And once we've exhausted that pool, I think it is a necessary obligation to look at candidates who don't live in the state.
Speaker 4
Thank you. And the cost to get those up to the standards of the state of California, do we see that as a barrier?
Speaker 22
Mister chair, I don't know what the cost of getting a license is, and I'm embarrassed to tell you I don't even know if we pay for that license when once we bring them on board. Do you know?
Speaker 23
So, normally, if you're coming from another state, I'm speaking of psychologists. That's the profession I know the best. You usually have to do thirty six hours of continuing education, which would probably run an individual clinician 3 to $400. The cost of licensure for the state of California, unless we can phone a friend and have someone shout out the number, I think it's around $300 300 to $400 to become licensed. So altogether,
Speaker 23
psychiatrists, and likely hire for the CEU, so for psychiatry. So we would we can get back to, the chair and staff on with exact numbers, but you're probably running, for psychologists, under $1,000. For psychiatrists, probably more, on an individual basis.
Speaker 4
And that, based on the the vacancies that we're trying to fill, so you could get back those numbers to us.
Speaker 4
Factual numbers on those. And looking at the the the the labor pool, right, certainly, we would be more in favor of of make sure that the labor pool in the state of California is utilized. But can you elaborate a little bit more on the fear component? And that fear component is on the side of those that were trying to fill those vacancies or fill those positions.
Speaker 22
Mister chair, what we found when we talked to our mental health clinicians in the institutions is that that they were afraid to provide the mental health care to their to their patients. And so they are there are processes in place where there are therapeutic treatment modules, the patient is inside a protected area, where they're able to then the clinician is outside that area to provide that treatment. But it's one of the things that we've talked about directly in the institutions with our clinicians, wrote about it in the action plan, and something that we certainly want to work with CDCR to address.
Speaker 4
Thank you for that. Certainly, safety is important for all, those that are providing the services. And is that where the remote component, come comes into play, as far as safeguarding, that fear in providing the services themselves?
Speaker 22
Mister chair, I don't think that that was a component that went into the the telehealth. It was more expanding the ability to hire people who were were wanting to do telehealth rather than in person clinical work. But I suspect that there is a difference between their fear as they work in a telehealth environment versus those clinicians that are coming into our prisons.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you so much. And and really, putting it there that this is court, ordered, action plan and and the progress quarterly reports back to the court. Certainly, and that'll be public, so we could actually see some of those documents too just to make sure that we're all on the same page. But we'd like to see some updates updates back to this to this body, to this committee as as time moves forward. And and and just putting that together.
Right? Certainly, the fear that's there, but also looking at hazards. Right? Hazards that that have come up, different positions, different places where CDCR has a where the treatment has to take place. So definitely have work cut out, but it's something that moves forward.
I think that when the statements that you made was that coming in day one, mental health has to be a component moving forward.
Speaker 4
right. And certainly, thirty five year old case to where we're at today and what we heard in the earlier panel, hopefully, we can get our hands around those areas so that we could actually see the state administering adequate mental health to those that are there with the safety of those that are providing other services. So thank you so much for your presentation. Any other follow-up?
Speaker 20
Mister chair, I also have some specific Orlando Sanchez with the LAO. I also have some specific comments related to the proposal before this committee. This is about $9,000,000 in the budget year related to expanding telemental health. That's in the governor's proposal. Happy to provide those at this time.
So we recommend approving portions of this proposal, not
Speaker 20
proposals, particularly the equipment, the supervisory staff in this proposal. But we recommend reducing, the request, including CDCR's existing baseline for this. In in looking at the proposal, currently to operate mental health, there's a clinician that that provides the direct service to the incarcerated patient, and then there's a telepresenter on-site or a medical assistant that sets up the equipment, gets a person to their appointment. So it's not clear to us at at the time whether this ratio of one to one makes sense and it's the most efficient way to provide this service. Especially, we know that clinicians spend some of their they're not always in appointments.
They spend some of their time taking clinician notes and doing and in that work, the medical assistants or tele presenters are not directly providing those services. And also, under this proposal, we estimate that remote workers would increase to about 30% below the cap that the court has established. So we recommend expanding this even further to reach, that 50% cap. We've heard from the department that teleclinicians are easier to staff, and they're easier to hire, and and likely will be able to stay longer, given that. There's also we also recommend that the department expand this in a strategic manner by identifying the prisons with the greatest needs.
Also, one way to implement this is starting with the people that are most receptive to this type of treatment. Not everyone's gonna be receptive to this modality. Mhmm. And starting at the lowest level before moving on and ramping up to other levels, that there's steps the state state can also take. One of those options is allowing currently people that are remote.
They can't work from out of state, and a further exemption building off our rapport is allowing that to be a possibility for people to also work remote. This would address the issues related to the amount of provider pool that's in the state. We know, from a 2022 Department of Health Care Access and Information Report that, 16 of the counties have an identified severe shortage of mental health providers. 11 of those county or 11 prisons are in counties, and that together that have a high shortage. So together, that's about 27 prisons out of about roughly 30 prisons that are in areas that have been identified as severe or high shortage areas.
The other thing is also removing the requirement to have out of state licenses for telemental health providers as well. Given the urgency that the state is in to fill these positions, pairing these with out of state recruitment would help move move the needle in that direction at rectifying the these deficiencies. The fiscal cost of these, some of these changes could be could be minimal, especially for the licensure. And, finally, we we recommend that the state monitor telemental health expansion. There are some risks that are accompanied that we wanna make the subcommittee aware of.
For example, those that choose to move to a remote environment or remote work, that likely results in the remaining staff having the most challenging patients or the patients with the greatest needs, and that could make it affect job satisfaction for those that remain at the prison site. So continuing to monitor this, one option to address that could be a pay differential for those that choose to remain at the prisons. And thank you. I'm happy to take questions.
Speaker 22
Thank you, mister chair. No. That was very thorough. So thank you very much. I don't have anything to add, but thank you for your consideration and any support you might get to this proposal.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Well, thank you. And and and thank you, LAO and Department of Finance and and testimony here. And I just wanna make sure that, again, this is, court ordered action plan approved by the courts and and and moving forward. So seeing that action plan, start to work and and getting updates on it. When's your first, quarterly update to the courts?
Speaker 22
We submitted our first quarterly update on January 31. We are in the final stages of the final draft stages of our second quarterly report right now.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you for that. And thank you for your testimony. As now, we'll move to public comment.
Speaker 17
Good evening, mister chair members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. Really appreciate the work of this committee, and the panelists, who joined today. As a union, representing mental health professionals within CDCR, we strongly oppose the use of out of state telemental health staff. This proposal undermines the quality of care for inmate patients and the stability of California's public workforce.
California taxpayer money should support California workers and local economies. We believe that allowing, out of state, providers would only increase the concerns and issues with relying on out of state contractors. Out of state providers lack understanding of the specific stressors, gains, and institutional dynamics unique to California prisons. And although we believe that telemental health, it would be great for our current civil servants, remote staff can't provide the hands on crisis intervention or long term therapeutic relationships essential for these complex patient populations? Furthermore, would the agency have the capacity to monitor the clinical competency and ethical standards of these out of state providers?
Speaker 11
We urge the committee to reconsider this recommendation and mandate that telemental health staff be limited to, in state providers only. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good evening. Alma Robinson, executive director, California Lawyers for the Arts. Access to meaningful paid employment is critical to successful reentry. We are requesting 3,500,000 in order to continue designing creative futures and place an additional 75 formerly incarcerated persons per year in paid arts internships over the next three years. This request, which has been championed by assembly member Matt Haney and senator Scott Wiener, signed by 10 additional legislatures, including assembly member Harari.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much. We appreciate legislative support of $3,000,000 for three years starting in twenty twenty twenty two to place a 150 persons in sixteen week paid arts internships with legislative support. We extended the contract for a fourth year and placed 234 persons with an 83% completion weight. I just wanna mention that my colleague, Donald Diggs, needed to leave. He would have said, I spent forty three years incarcerated, and today I stand before you not just as someone who served time, but as someone who's actively rebuilding his life with purpose.
Thank you very much for your kind consideration of this request.
Speaker 25
Hi. My name is Richard Broadhurst. I'm sort of an odd duck here. I'm a professional I've been a professional screen playwright and screenwriter for fifty five years. That's not why I'm here.
For the last thirty years of my life, I've probably done the most important work in my life, which is teaching creative writing in the prison system. I've taught at six different institutions, NAPA and CMF in the mental health department. And I'm I'm I'm happy to be following the mental health people because I really believe, really passionately, that nothing is more helpful to the metals the mental quality of life of these individuals than the arts. It's an incredibly healing experience for these guys. I've seen guys you know, you all know the political prison rules.
Guys on the yard who wouldn't speak to one another, they walk into the classroom and suddenly they're talking. They take that out into the yard. Suddenly, the violence within the prison is lowered. And, also, it's I'm I believe that the by funding the arts and corrections, you're saving lives on the inside and the outside.
Speaker 31
I'm I'm gonna do that. I only have one last personal request. In two months, I'll be turning 80 years old, and my request for my birthday is that you guys fund the arts and corrections.
Speaker 9
Good afternoon. For the record, my name is Alondra Alvarez, and I'm a community educator at Universidad Popular, is from North County, San Diego. CDCR has been under federal court orders since the nineteen nineties for its failure to provide constitutionally required mental and physical health care to incarcerated individuals. Not only have these ongoing litigations cost the state millions in legal fees, but they also make it clear that CDCR is ineffective at advancing the rehabilitative aims they claim as priority. The most effective care, programming, and rehabilitation work happens outside of CDCR's walls and institutional culture.
Speaker 27
We urge this committee to deeply consider ways we can reduce our reliance on a system that inherently compounds trauma and redirect resources to community based and preventative services. Specifically, we support the LAO's recommendation that the state close one additional prison this budget year and call for the closure of at least five additional prisons made possible by CDCR's current 14,000 bed capacity.
Speaker 1
Good evening, chair. My name is Dustin Baldwin. I'm a formerly incarcerated person myself. I've done a little over ten years in in California State Prison. I currently am the program manager with Enneagram Prison Project.
Speaker 28
We, operate inside San Quentin, CCWF, and RJD. As a formerly incarcerated person, I've seen firsthand much of what's discussed here today by the committee. And I can say from my personal experience, I felt safest in these community based organizations, many of which are peer led by formerly incarcerated people like my own, Enneagram Prison Project, and some of the people that are here today. So for me, that was the safest purse place in prison, in a
Speaker 28
not only I was able to address my own mental health issues, but work with why why I continue to do what I do, and I felt freedom inside prison before I ever got out through this community based organization. I humbly ask that you continue to fund, the Grant.
Speaker 26
I'm Ken Hartman. I'm the executive director of Transformative Programming Works. Just have three things to say quickly. Thank you for your continued support of the Wright Grant. It really is important to keep programs going.
Number two, I just want to say thank you, Ms. Bonta, for your continued support of the Wright Grant. We deeply appreciate it. And number three, California prison system has a program called the Integrated Substance Use Disorder Treatment. As miss Grayson was stating, it is in fact a forced program.
I've seen it with my own eyes and people who don't who don't agree to participate in it are in disciplinary reports and they end up serving more time in prison.
Speaker 17
Hello. My name is Chris Jagerson, and I'm here to state my support of the Wright Grants. I was released seventy six days ago after serving thirty three years in CDCR. I understand much of what was talked about today and did most of my time without hope. The right grant builds hope within people, and that's what's needed to get people to change.
Speaker 29
I spent my first twenty five years without it. Seventeen of that was in the hole. That is a travesty. And it took programs like Pathway to Kinship and Gogee to come in and change my life. Now I stand before you, a college graduate, a certified counselor.
I'm gonna come out and change the world, but it took that hope that those programs brought, that the right grant will keep there, to change me. Please support that grant.
Speaker 30
Good evening. My name is Janik Ortega. I am the advocacy and organizing coordinator for Assisted Warriors. Before I start, I would like to say I do support the l LAO's request for closing one institution and using that money to make create community based services. To for time, I wanted to address some of the things that you guys you all asked about.
Before I do that, I do wanna say that the August 2024 incident is incident. It is the only incident that has been released by video. This has been a consistent activity within the institution. I served twenty years as a lifer in CCWF and was witness to and a part of the same type of activities inside of that institution. Sexual abuse and physical abuse is consistent.
You have approximately six grown men jumping on one woman to put her in handcuffs, which is unnecessary. So this this is something that, yes, is being addressed to you, and they're making it look good on paper, but it is not being dealt with appropriately. And a lot of a lot of the women or the residents inside are not speaking up because they have to make a choice of either going home or staying in the institution. If you wanna know about blind spots, blind spots are in the warehouses. They are in the kitchens.
They are in the closets. They are in the sap trailers. They are on the yard. They're all over the institutions. And if you need more blind spots, I can give you a list if you contact sister warriors.
Speaker 14
One last thing I wanna say. As it pertains to the MAP program, the part the residents there are being offered the MAT program as soon as they come into the institution, being offered it with time off of their time. Once they realize that they are addicted to the medication, they are denied. They may get decreased medication, but they are denied to be taken off. Regardless of whatever is being said here today, that is a fact.
Speaker 6
Kasia Hunt here with Political Solutions. I'm here on behalf of California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. We would just encourage the CDCR and the receiver to exhaust the in state workforce before looking to the outs out of state solutions. And then, also, we've been really grateful with our conversations with CDCR and the receiver. We've scheduled calls with both of them and look forward to working with them because we believe we have a huge pool of qualified licensed in state therapists that can meet the vacancies.
Speaker 32
Good evening, chair and committee members. My name is Flower Alvarez Lopez. I serve as the co director of Universidad Popular, a community based organization out of North County, San Diego. I am formerly incarcerated and a sexual assault survivor and thankful for today's courageous testimony from the panelists. I will be reading a testimony quickly on behalf of a survivor inside of one of the women's prisons.
Speaker 31
I received and I quote, I received retaliation for filing six zero twos for staff misconduct in the forms of room searches, unnecessary unnecessary and uncalled for aggressive behavior with threats of violence. There is excessive force that is used by male staff against female IPs that's caused major injuries such as broken noses and busted heads. When IPs request footage from the audio video surveillance system, they claim there's no video because they destroyed the evidence. Others have been sexually assaulted and even passed to other staff to perform sexual acts. There is also intimidation, so IPs won't exercise their rights out of fear of what will happen to them.
There's constant aggressive behavior from staff, which keeps most IPs in fear, and some don't even know their rights, end quote.
Speaker 21
Good evening, community members. My name is Julie Mello. I'm here on behalf of Felony Murder Elimination Project today, to urge the legislature to act now on the staff sexual abuse crisis in California's women's prisons because it is both a human rights failure and a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. Hundreds of women have come forward with abuse claims, triggering a federal civil rights investigation. Settlements are already costing millions, including a $3,700,000 payout, and total liability could reach into the hundreds of millions.
But that's just the tip of the litigation iceberg. Decades of litigation have already cost the state billions with a b, 1,500,000,000 under Playa, nearly 1,000,000,000 in compliance spending, over 100,000,000 annually under Armstrong, and more than 120,000,000 in fines under Coleman just last year. The message is clear. Ignoring abuse and systemic failure is extraordinarily expensive. Accountability and prevention are not just moral imperatives.
Speaker 24
They are the fiscally responsible choice. The state must reduce imprisonment of women, expand release pathways for survivors, and permanently close women's designated prisons. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Good evening. Dax Proctor on behalf of California's United for Responsible Budget. Our coalition is in full support of the LAO's recommendation to close an additional state prison and fund community based support for survivors. I'll be quickly reading, the rest of my public comment on behalf of Jennifer Doe, currently incarcerated at CCWF. My name is Jennifer Doe.
Speaker 32
I'm a serving victim, one of excuse me. I am a surviving victim of one of several violent sexual assaults by officer Gregory Rodriguez at CCWF prison. After being ordered to report to the Wardens Conference Room by Rodriguez in 2022, he violently held me against my will, telling me not to resist as he forcibly groped me while I fought to keep my from being raped. I was only saved by another inmate who heard the commotion and yelled through the door. Today, I am being stalked in the same manner that Rodriguez did by a correctional officer who was named in current lawsuit against CDCR for violent rape, sodomy, and oral copulation of another inmate at CCWF.
Many political figures are aware of this lawsuit as this guard's actions have been documented, but nothing has been done. I live in fear every day that what Rodriguez did to me will happen again. Please enact Jennifer's Law, sexual assault resentencing, so other women who have been violently sexually abused by CDCR employees can have a chance of being released back to their families away from the horrors of living in constant fear of rape.
Speaker 5
Good evening. Glenn Beckett for Ella Baker Center for Human Rights regarding the ongoing crisis of sexual assault in the women's prisons and men's prisons as well. Elevator Center supports the LAO recommendations to close another men's designated prison to free up resources that could be redirected towards prevention and response. We're also proud cosponsors of a b four six four by assembly majority leader Agiar Curry, and senate bill three three seven by senator Menjivar, which would help prevent and address sexual abuse and violence. The committee's in receipt of a letter from us, California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and Scissor Warrior, Freedom Coalition filled with the voices of women who are inside today and being terrorized.
Speaker 36
Hello, committee. First off, I just wanna say that I stand with these survivors that suffer from this, and and it's appalling to hear that, you know, a peace officer is doing this. But, anyway, my name is Steve Martinez. I'm formerly incarcerated. I just got done doing thirty years in prison for first degree murder.
Speaker 33
I'm here with the TPW. You guys know how transforming programming works in the right grant. And I want you guys to know that because of that programming, I stand here today. I stand here today because of that, and I encourage you to please push that through and continue your good work. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Hi. Courtney Hanson with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. Thank you for this incredibly important hearing. We really were reaching for the root, in the systemic issues. For thirty years, we've been going to the women's prisons and conducting legal visits.
Speaker 34
And I just wanna name we're really hitting the tip of the iceberg when we look at the volume of complaints because, as was discussed, so many people choose not to report. Sometimes it's when we go in as legal advocates and sit with them in confidentiality, and that's the only space where they feel safe talking about what has happened. And they say, I'm gonna wait until I'm out of here to actually seek justice and try to address this. For now, I just wanna survive my time. And litigation, expensive litigation, should not be the only way to resolve this.
We have used lawsuits for three decades. We have a lawsuit right now because of the abusive former OBGYN at CIW who abused literally hundreds of people. But it's not about one bad actor. It goes all the way up and down the chain. We were also the organizational plaintiff in the suit against the federal prison system and the BOP and the now closed FCI Dublin.
And the budget solution that you all have control over today is really to close prisons, redirect those funds, and fund the community based orgs that continue to provide that direct contact and support. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Good evening. My name is Leonard Rubio. I'm a former life hood that's been over twenty three years incarcerated. During my incarceration, I was fortunate to be in the second cohort of Insight Prism Projects, a victim offender education group known as Vogue. I was asked to cofacilitate the third cohort, continued cofacilitating until I came home in 2010, then asked to be on the board, and then in 2018 was asked to become the executive director, which I have served as for the last eight years.
The Wright Grant has been a key point in keeping our program going at multiple institutions. Insight Prison Project is one of four founding organizations of TPW, and we are grateful for the support that has been given to allow all of us to work together rather than try to compete against each other. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Norhan Havelel with Transformative Programming Works also strongly urging your support of the Wright Grant. Incarcerated women have experienced disproportionate amounts of trauma and violence and abuse throughout their lives That should not be continuing while they're in prison, but, unfortunately, incarceration is inherently traumatic. And so we need to be funding community based organizations that are able to support people with healing their trauma. Thank you.
Speaker 2
I thank you for having me here. My name's Adrian Torres. I served twenty six years in prison. I just got out about three and a half months ago. I'm here as a credible messenger for transform program work.
Speaker 36
I can tell you that my life, eighteen years into the system, I was just lost. And it wasn't until I started taking the the the groups that were coming in and actually showed me what it was that was wrong with me, you know, to me in order for me to come out and actually be a productive member of society. So I just wanna urge you to, to please, pass and grant and, continue to to support the right grant, so that we continue to have these organizations go in. And I also wanna say that I stand with the survivors that were here because I myself have seen it even in the men's, and I can't even imagine how worse it was in the women's prisons because there was positions that I had in prison where I would see things, and the officer said, you don't see what's going on right now because if not, it's gonna be worse for you. So I understand it was probably worse for what they were going through.
So thank you for having
Speaker 4
Thank you for your comments. Please adjust the mic.
My name is Carrie Cicerigo. I'm a concerned citizen from the Arden Arcade area of Sacramento. I also support the Wright Grant, and I'm really grateful to everybody who testified today. Survivors of staff sexual abuse in prison are retraumatized through invasive searches, lack of confidentiality leading to retaliation, we heard a lot about that today, and barriers to support. As sexual abuse response and prevention working group recommends, the state must expand incarcerated survivors' confidential access to rape crisis centers and reporting pathways, ensure timely and trauma informed medical and mental health care, and eliminate practices that punish survivors.
Speaker 37
Most importantly, the state must expand expedited release pathways for survivors and work towards permanently closing women's designated prisons, which are sites of systemic, intentional, and constant abuse. Healing cannot happen in a system that recreates harm. Thank you very much.
Speaker 8
Good evening. My name is Ira Lewis. I'm with Group Training Institute. First of all, wanna go on record, appreciating the survivors that for their bravery and their willingness to speak. I also wanna thank this committee for their support of the Grant, and I wanna urge you to continue to support the Wright Grant.
Speaker 38
It is essential to ensuring equitable access to rehabilitative program in women's prisons, and it also is essential to ensuring that we have that we open the door for more, rehabilitative programs and trauma informed programs in light of the ongoing harm in women's prisons. Thank you.
Speaker 3
Hello. My name is Raven McCullough. I'm with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. And one thing that was talked about today, and I really wanna say I appreciate the committee's feedback and also those questions. I really think that they have hit a lot of the heart of the problem.
Speaker 39
One thing that was uplifted was that prisoners are really a place for the powerful and the powerless, but they does that doesn't mean that they don't get to have a voice. So today, I'm going to read a testimony from one of our members on the inside. I have been incarcerated for eighteen years. I'm afraid to report any violence, harassment, bullying, and intimidation tactics by CDCR male staff. Their behavior is beyond professionalism.
They are their own gang. They need to be held responsible and accountable for their actions. Violence or excessive force should not be tolerated within the institution who is supposed to ensure my safety and security. We need to end this violent cycle for the sake of future generations and society as a whole, end quote. We support the recommendations that have been given today by the LAO to close one prison and five additional prisons.
We also support expedited release pathways of survivors to go home to community based support reentry services and full and permanent closure of prisons. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Hi. My name is Colby Lens, and I'm also reading a comment from somebody at CCWF. Although I was not a direct victim of the August 2 attack, I was deeply affected by the violence and abuse of authority perpetrated by the custody staff employed by CCWF. As I left my job assignment that day, I could hear canisters exploding while officers screamed in very aggressive tones. I could hear the residents screaming for help.
Speaker 33
As I passed an area of the fence where I could see through, I saw dozens of incarcerated people on the ground choking from pepper spray and smoke, the majority of them handcuffed behind their backs. The officers continued to throw smoke bombs into the crowd. Several of the most aggressive officers that day were transferred, yet the majority of them have been reinstated to their positions at CCWF. This shows me that as an incarcerated person, there are no repercussions for those in authority who abuse their powers. I no longer believe that there is any semblance of safety in the institution.
Speaker 9
The very people who are responsible for ensuring our safety and security are the ones that we must fear the most. For me, I've been doing the work for twenty two years as a volunteer in the women's prisons, and I just wanna quickly say that what I've seen consistently is not, is no priority for the safety of incarcerated people in terms of protecting them from sexual violence, medical violence, and preventing suicide.
Speaker 9
this is because it's a dehumanizing and often, cruel culture and system, so I hope the legislature demands and enforces change. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Hi. My name is Kelly Savage Rodriguez. I work with California Coalition for Women Prisoners and Survived and Punished. I served twenty three years inside that system. And, first, I wanna thank you for for the comments and the pushback that we we needed to hear, us survivors needed to hear some of that pushback with CDCR.
Speaker 40
So really wanna appreciate you for for taking those steps and Vonta yeah. Just yeah. Yeah. Just gonna leave that right there. Thank you.
Because I needed that for myself as well. I'm also gonna read a statement from somebody inside at CIW, Kinsey. Whether it's through bullying behavior, verbal abuse, threats, or simply denying us our femininity, people in the women's prisoners are facing daily abuse and dehumanizing behavior from the staff. Prisons are supposed to be a place where we can heal and become productive, citizens for society. While there are many programs and opportunities which promote this transformation, such efforts are undermined by the abusive behavior of the staff.
It is hard to heal and feel like you're a part of the community when you're consistently being treated like you're not even human, and that is absolutely the truth. So thank you for your time today.
Speaker 19
Good evening. David Bullock representing SFB Alliance, women to and my sisters at Women to Women and Cause. We feel that the sexual abuse, retaliation, and violence in CDC or women's prisons would be greatly reduced if the men who stay allowed to self identify as women. And as a result of February SB one thirty two was appealed or amended to have these men who the state recognized as women to be returned to men's prison or put in their own wing at the women's prison so they don't further abuse women sexually, mentally, and physically. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Any other public comment? Lio? No. I'm just kidding. This meeting is adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.